I’d make the same argument re the war but certainly won’t get many sympathisers here.
Don’t you think they are going a little overboard as to how bad it is?
Do you think they care whether their comments influence the markets?
“By any means necessary” perchance?
Cite?
No cites… just my impression.
Do you disagree or just want to avoid the subject?
Nah, ‘overboard’ would describe the Fed, which unexpectedly dropped the prime by 0.75% this morning. OTOH, that bit of precipitous intervention didn’t stop the Dow from dropping 3.5%+ this morning, so maybe it isn’t overboard.
This is Great Debates. There are protocols to follow - including providing a cited topic for debate so we know WTF you are ranting about.
Put up or shut up.
I’m trying not to laugh, but you posted this one minute before the market opened today.
The comments don’t matter, trust me. I haven’t heard every single thing that the politicians have said about the markets, but I expect they are saying nothing that analysts and investors haven’t already been saying for months.
When Bush came into office in 2001, he did a damn good job of talking down the economy. But I think it worked because people were already afraid of a downturn.
Same thing now. While tighty righties may talk about how great the economy has been over the past six years, I don’t think that’s a popular opinion for anyone who isn’t ideologically tied to big tax cuts. The fact is that whatever gains in the economy there have been have not been shared equally across all wage earners, working folks have a lot to lose because of instability in the housing market, and having Democratic candidates talk about those facts is resonating because it’s what the average American is thinking right now.
I think the real message about how Democrats are talking about the economy now is that Republicans – especially those on the campaign trail – seem really out of touch with the pocketbook issues that drive how most Americans vote.
Comments by the President himself have very little effect on the stock market. The idea that they would somehow be affected by a little-watched, little-covered presidential primary debate is pretty hard to defend.
:dubious: What the … !!!, are you seriously suggesting political candidates should edit their speeches with a view to how their comments might affect the stock market?!
No, no, of course you’re not. What was I thinking? That would be way, way too retarded to come out of the mind of anyone capable of operating a computer.
Just try to rephrase and tell us what you are suggesting.
“Markets” was a poor choice of words… I was referring to the economy in general.
“lose money” was also too vague in that it reinforced the idea that I was talking about the stock market… let’s add to that “don’t care if you lose your job” or other impact they have by doing thier best to put forth the idea that our economy is worse than it really might be.
I say “might be” because you can debate how bad it is… my point is they don’t much care if it helps them get elected.
So, by this logic, the rhetoric of Democratic candidates about the weakness of the economy is so powerful that it has convinced the Fed – that ivory tower of economic wisdom – that an emergency rate cut of three-quarters of a percent was urgently needed?
You’re seemingly trying to make the point that the economy would be in decent shape except for the speeches made by Clinton, Obama, et al. The idea that the stump speeches of these candidates can send shockwaves through the international financial system absent real underlying problems is about as ridiculous as claiming that Ronald Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union because he made a speech telling Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” But I guess some people actually believe the silly notion that some strongly worded speeches caused the commies to crumble…
The Republicans are perceived as the “national security” party. Do you think the Republican candidates want a major terrorist attack to happen just because it would increase their chances of being elected?
Same thing with the Democrats and economic problems. They’re perceived as the party you elect when economic problems get severe.
But I really don’t believe that any candidate from either party is hoping for a crisis just so he or she can get elected. They’re just saying a problem already exists and they can fix it.
The reasons people are worried about the economy is that housing is in a crisis, the banks have lost billions of dollars, job creation is down, unemployment is up, and the markets, which tend to predict the future of the economy, are tanking. Bush is facing facts by working with Congress on an incentive package. Is he in on this little conspiracy also?
Any person who says the economy is in good shape has seriously lost touch with reality. Are you claiming that the economy is in good shape, or are you admitting it is a mess and saying that the Democrats should lie about it?
Ohwhatta straight line!
My response when I read the OP was “What the…?”
How appropriate.
:rolleyes: OK, then, my “impression” is that your Strawman is poorly constructed, You used a cheap grade of straw, and not enough of it. The costume isn’t even well done.
It is only slightly less retarded to suggest political candidates should edit their speeches with a view to how their comments might affect the economy as a whole – assuming campaign rhetoric could have any significant effect at all, which is very doubtful (except WRT the stock market, which jumps at every little thing). I hope you will not dispute that political speech is the most fundamental zone of freedom of speech. And candidates of the opposition party always try to portray the incumbent party as having done a bad job – plausibly or not plausibly, but they always do it, and there’s no obvious reason why they should not. I have never before known anyone to raise any objection to that practice on principle.
I can get behind the OP to the extent that many politicians often want what’s bad for the other guy, for obvious reasons. But I think “Dem candidates want you to lose money” has about the same truth value as “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”
Beat me to it. I was going to say, “According to the OP’s logic, because George Bush wants to keep his party in power, and needs more popular support for his Mideast adventures, he really wants a major American city to be nuked, and millions of people to be killed.” I mean, obviously.
Methinks that the OP has been watching too much Fox Business Channel, which makes him about as rare a species as the dodo.