I’m confused. Is it now unpatriotic for Democrats, in an election year, to point out how the Republican administration has screwed up the economy almost beyond repair? Does this mean that, if the Democrats win the White House, the Republicans will do their Patriotic Duty and shut the hell up no matter what happens?
not for anything, for a majority of time during this administration, the market has been strong, unemployment has been low, wall street has seen record breaking days one after the other… yet this one slump and all of a sudden the republicans are responsible for ruining the economy? It just doesn’t make sense to me. It’s as though people had blinders on when everything was good… they had no clue as to how strong the economy, as though they were in some kind of deep funk of denial where they were incapable of acknowledging the reality of the market because it would only contradict what they wanted to believe - which was everything negative to do with the Bush Administration.
And now I know what I looked like during the 8 years of the Clinton administration.
Do you understand, that will be different? It’ll be “America Held Hostage”*, so dissent will be patriotic.
To paraphrase Ron Susskind’s claimed quote of an administration official, they make their own definitions of patriotism. I’d provide a cite, but the OP has loosened up things in this thread.
*As Rush Limbaugh used to count the days thereof on his show.
Ya want fries with that?
I have a suggestion. Before posting nonsense, try to search in old threads, because nearly everything you say (here and in the Iraq thread) has already been refuted.
The reason people think the economy is bad - even before the current meltdown - is because 90% of Americans have stagnant wages. They’ve been consuming on money taken from equity in their homes, and the chickens have finally come home to roost. If you are in the top 10% I fully understand why you’d think the economy was great. If you aren’t, the wool has been pulled over your eyes. Time to wake up and see the real situation.
BTW I know what I looked like during the Clinton years - a lot richer than I am now. And that economy was good for everyone, not just the rich.
Shooting heroin makes you feel really good for a while, but it is not a sustainable method of personal betterment.
The OP is scary and depressing.
By this logic, every one has a duty to always say that things are great, because otherwise their words will actually cause the downturn they mention? Do I have to point out the many ways in which this just doesn’t hold muster?
I suppose it’s the same philosophy behind the idea that if I don’t support George Bush in his war and advocate for the end of the war that I’m actually putting troops in danger.
Ronald Reagan disparaged Carter’s record when the country was in a de facto state of war with Iran. He should be posthumously tried for treason.
Remarkably so. In the market, people’s perceptions of how things are going do reflect the reality of where they go. If lots of investors think that stocks are about to tank, they stop buying, and the stocks do tank.
Of course lots of things, such as progress in a war, or whether or not Saddam has WMD’s are not amenable to this sort of ‘reality by concensus’. That fact doesn’t prevent market oriented people from applying what they know to be true in business to situations where it’s not; which causes all sorts of headaches for the rest of us.
I’ve been covering the market for the last year-plus, and I’ve been surprised to learn that almost everything that happens is based on somebody’s expectations. However: I have never seen anybody suggest that an individual stock is moving because of something said in a political debate, or even a specific comment by any candidate or official. Much less the entire market.
I have seen stocks move on the prospect of legislation that is more or less favorable to an individual industry, or on votes or changes to bills. But not on a candidate saying “we’re in a recession.” The candidates aren’t saying anything that people in the market haven’t been worrying about for some time. On any given day, the market might tank on bad housing or job data, but nobody’s going to care what happens in a debate almost noboody watches. 
The markets did yawn quite loudly at Bush’s stimulus package the other day, however.
True, taking debates that seriously would require projecting the market’s consensus-built behavior to a ridiculous extreme.
Of course that doesn’t prevent some from doing it anyway.
I wonder why they’re not all rich beyond the dreams of avarice?