I wanted to second that Sam Stone makes a number of good points.
I hope we all remember, if the GOP takes control of one or both houses of Congress, that [ul][li]the majority party can’t be expected to do anything[/li][li]the minority party is to blame[/li][li]the filibuster is always wrong[/li][li]the country’s problems are way too big to be fixed in a few years, and[/li][li]deficits are a good thing when we are in the economic situation we are in.[/ul][/li]
Right?
Regards,
Shodan
This just in from Drudge: The US Government now pegs the cost of one “stimulus” job at $2,000,000.00!
Guess that economic plan is workin’ just fine!
Why yes, you’re absolutely right. The entire universe is composed entirely of absolutes and there are never, ever any situations where other factors of any kind can play into any situation. This is especially true when the absolutes in question are centered around inherently variably-defined terms like “minority party”, which not only can change whom they refer to, but can possibly even apply to multiple groups at the same time.
(The Green Party did it. In the Observatory. With the candlestick.)
To be fair, Bush had to deal with the effects of the Dotcom bust, the Accounting scandals a la Enron, and 9/11. The problem is that he dealt with it by creating a housing bubble instead of doing the hard (and as we can see, unpopular) work of rebuilding a sound economy. He did all this in the midst of running an unecessary war that he paid for by cutting taxes. Bush didn’t want to run the economy into the ground, it was just a side effect of how he responded to the economic effects of the dotcom crash, enron et al, and 9/11. Obama may not be doing enough to reverse the effects of laissez faire economics but as one friend put it, there is a reason we have methadone clinics because cold turkey can sometimes kill you.
First of all, Matt Drudge is the National Enquirer of politics. He was right once and he’s been riding that ever since.
Second of all, if one were to actually read the article he links instead of just his sensationalistic headline, the fact that the City of Los Angeles is the reason that the stimulus money in that city was spent so poorly would have come out. In other words, it’s not $2 million per job over the entire stimulus, and it’s not $2 million per job because of the US government. It’s $2 million per job for the City of Los Angeles, and it’s $2 million per job because of City of Los Angeles rules, red tape and local inefficiency.
I’m thinking we aren’t out of double dip recession worries yet. That we aren’t out of the woods on credit card debt, that corporate capital spending seems to be shrinking, and that the recovery to date has been “just better than jobless.” That if the GOP wins, people expect instant results, and if they don’t get them (and they won’t - politicians of either party can’t get instant results in an economy), that you’ll see a corresponding dip in the Spring.
I’m balanced in my portfolio with a lot overseas and a lot in bonds.
As I said above, you read one stupid blog and then take it as fact.
So come on ralph, tell us, what percentage change, from November, 2010 until November 2012 will you consider to be a “Stock Market Boom”? What will be base it on, DJIA, S&P500, or something else?
Or, since this thread is active NOW, we can do November 2010 until 9/18/2012. For comparison, since the Democratic “landslide” it’s had a net increase of 13.82%(from 9,319.83 to 10,607.85).
So, rather than throwing out vague bullshit from righty blogs (hint: No matter what Obama does, Erick Ericson is going to predict doom, even if it’s a policy that GOPers supported last week), how about you pull out some numbers? What percentage change makes a “boom” and what kind of a victory will be considered a “landslide”?
-Joe
Thirding (fourthing?) this: please elaborate on Obama’s crazier ideas, why they are hurting the stock market/economy as a whole, and how they could be improved by having a Republican majority in the senate and/or house to temper the craziness, in your own words.
Actually, I’m not sure Bush DIDN’T want to crash the economy. His base (the uber rich) would not suffer at all, and the resulting unemployment would sent more young people to the military for a guaranteed paycheck, satisfying the need for “cannon fodder” in the two wars he started.
Wars that made his buddies even richer.
I don’t buy the Bush conspiracy theories. His presidency was not our nation’s most shining moment, to be sure, but I think it’s more realistic to say that incompetence was more to blame than maliciousness.
I don’t know the statistics of it, but it’s plausible to assume military enrollment saw an increase due to the plummeting economy. Still, correlation=/=causation.
It greased the skids for union busting and lowering wages. When the factory jobs and low level jobs were outsourced, it insured a large pool for military enlistments.
Cite?
The 2009 Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans found that
And while I think that Bush may have been the worst president in history, to suggest that he may have deliberately crashed the economy is bizarre at best.
Too f’ing true.
-BB
Well Enron was a fine example of what the powerful will do without regulation. They robbed the people of California with phony electrical shutdowns. That is the Republican policies government and business, in concert fleecing the people.
911 was a nasty incident. Starting 2 fucking wars without funding them was a horrible blow to the economy and a wrong reaction.
Bush’s economic policies were driven in one direction, cutting taxes and increasing spending. Where does that end? Well we sure know now. it was a horrible disaster for the people. it was very good for the rich. Do you think it was all a coincidence?
If the GOP follows through on their promises, it’ll be a sucker’s rally. The stock market will rally initially as a result of celebrating their having gotten their wishes. But then they’re doomed after that.
If the Republican party follows through on their plans to cut unemployment extensions to all those “lazy” unemployed people, there will be no money for these people to afford housing or even food. Homelessness will skyrocket and the 40 million people on food stamps now will only increase. Many, many more businesses will close. A great deal of tax revenue will be lost as a result. If the Republicans follow through on their quest to cut welfare and food stamps there’ll be food riots. If the GOP follows through on their promise to privatize Social Security and de-fund health care reform there’ll be even BIGGER riots. The AARP will turn against them. Bye bye stock market rally.
But I don’t expect the GOP to follow through on this. So… who knows?
Yes, the GOP are going to take control of congress so investors are going to think hey, they’re the guys who wiped out half the value of my stock portfolio last time they were in power, better call my broker and start buying stocks!
Historically the stock market does better under Democratic Presidents than Republicans.