Pelosi and Reid - should they be recalled?

The 109th Congress ended on December 29, 2006. Here how the markets closed that day:

Dow closed at 12,463.15
Source: Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) Historical Data - Yahoo Finance…;f=2006&g=d

Nasdaq closed at 2,415.29
source: NASDAQ Composite (^IXIC) Historical Data - Yahoo Finance…;f=2007&g=d

S&P closed at 1,418.30
Source: S&P 500 (^GSPC) Historical Data - Yahoo Finance…;f=2006&g=d

Pelosi and Reid (110th Congress) take over January 3 2007

Fast forward to Inauguration Day, 2009 and here’s how the markets are doing as Obama takes the oath of office

Dow 8,127.98 (down 34.8% since Pelosi and Reid took over Congress)
NASDAQ 1,480.58 (down 38.7% since Pelosi and Reid took over Congress)
S&P 827.61 (down 41.6% since Pelosi and Reid took over Congress)

And today we throw Obama, who seems to know as much economics as Pelosi and Reid, into the mix.

:smack:

You seem to be assuming, first, that the state of the economy is entirely determined by the leaders of the houses of Congress, and second, that only the state of the economy at the beginning and ending of a congressional term is relevant, not at any time in between. And while there may be mechanisms in place to remove Pelosi and Reid now, surely, the simplest time to do so would have been November 4, at which time the economic troubles were already beginning to manifest? If their constituents decided then that they were acceptable, why should they change their minds now?

Wait, who was president in 2006? I can’t remember the guy’s name, but we should definately look into getting rid of him.

Wow, I didn’t know they set economic policy. And I also didn’t know that the roots of the problem were only two years old. I could have sworn that Bush appointees were setting policy.
Want to try again and give your idea of why this is happening?

This is a classic case of post hoc ergo procter yougottabekiddingme.

Are we a primitive and superstitious people who let the blood of their leaders when the rains do not come?

That which caused the market tumble has roots further back than 2006. Whether Speaker Pelosi or Senator Reid should retain their respective offices depends on how they serve their constituents and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Abu Ghraib, I think was his name; one of them GOP guys.

CEO’s don’t often get fired for having their stocks tank much worse than that. By the records in the OP, Pelosi and Reid should get bonuses.

Listening to CNBC and they said on the day of the inauguration the markets historically have gone down more often than not (be they Republican or Democrat).

So he’s Muslim? :eek:

Um, yes, I do believe we are. Haven’t you noticed?

And if they did get recalled, they should get really, really big bonuses.

I have no problem with both Pelosi and Reid losing their jobs, but trying to make an economic argument for it doesn’t really hold up.

There, fixed for you.

Heck, look at the stock performance from the time they were first elected to Congress. That would be more fair right?

The first rule of politics: when things go right, take complete credit in spite of contributions by your opponents.

The second rule of politics: when things go wrong your party had nothing to do with it at all.

Somebody needs to start a political party called Boogeymen, Scapegoats and Fuckups. You could always have a go-to blame party that way.

Please note the rule posted in the ATMB Forum that prohibits screwing around using quote tags for text ascribed to a different poster.

Do not do this again.

[ /Moderating ]

Yes. With fondness. Well, mostly, along with a wry shaking of the head: Oh, Harry, you scamp.