At what point do the Democrats take ownership of the economy? When do they begin acknowledging that the decisions they are making, the signals they are projecting, and the statements they are making are making this bad situation worse?

Can you really shift all blame to the President Bush when the economy tanks and the stock market crashes every the Obama or the Democrat leadership speak or release a bill?

And, for clarity, my opinion on the matter is pretty clear. I think we're dealing with an economic problem that was decades in the making. And right now, I'm confident that the Obama administration with the Democrat congress are making decisions and passing laws that will make this bad situation profoundly worse in the long run.

I've seen a historical trend were "progressives" tend to blame the administration before them for economic problems,regardless how heavily their finger prints are on it. 10 years after the stock market crash, fowpaws still seems to argue that the Great Depression was Hoover's and FDR was still just managing it during his second term, after two phases of the New Deal, after his abuse of the executive office and civil liberty, and a SECOND depression cycle starting during that period.

So, I ask, how long before Obama and the Democrats take ownership of the economy?

So, I ask, how long before Obama and the Democrats take ownership of the economy?Never! They will always have an excuse. When has a liberal, much less a socialist, ever taken responsibility?

Never! They will always have an excuse. When has a liberal, much less a socialist, ever taken responsibility?

I should rephrase that.
The question isn't when will THEY take ownership,
when will "YOU" grant them ownership? At what point will the public associate them with the events of the day?

I should rephrase that.
The question isn't when will THEY take ownership,
when will "YOU" grant them ownership? At what point will the public associate them with the events of the day?

So, Cal, this question is markedly different than the one stated as the initial post

At what point do the Democrats take ownership of the economy? When do they begin acknowledging that the decisions they are making, the signals they are projecting, and the statements they are making are making this bad situation worse?

Which one should I be concerned with?

You should be concerned with the fact that the Dow has lost 3,000 points since Inauguration Day.

So, Cal, this question is markedly different than the one stated as the initial post

Which one should I be concerned with?

Be a dear, answer both.

You should be concerned with the fact that the Dow has lost 3,000 points since Inauguration Day.

I'm a conservative Republican and these things didn't just start as BUSH's foot stepped over the threshold of the WHITE HOUSE. I would have loved to be a FLY ON THE WALL when BUSH showed ZeroBama THE SECRET BOOK on why he did this and that,,AS ZEROBAMA "GULPED" he said to himself OH :q:q:q:q.
These problems started when THE CLINTON ADM. passed a law putting pressure on the BANKS to finance homes to people with $2.00 in their pockets and NO CREDIT. We saved for 22 yrs. to buy our home in Fla. and used the money from the sale of a mobilehome & lot we owned also. WE HAD A DOWN PAYMENT "A REAL DOWN PAYMENT." We didn't DO IT UNTIL WE KNEW WE COULD DO IT. KEEPING UP WITH "THE JONESES NEVER ENTERED OUR MINDS". "now we will suffer for doing it the right way". OUR HOME'S VALUE HAS LOST 1/3 rd it's value.

Never! They will always have an excuse. When has a liberal, much less a socialist, ever taken responsibility?

It's easy to be a LIBERAL.

You should be concerned with the fact that the Dow has lost 3,000 points since Inauguration Day.

Foss - on 1/20/09 (Inaugural day) the dow closed at 7949 - today it was at 6726...

My calculator shows that to be down 1223 - a bit different than your 3000.

So, do you think that the president and the dow go hand in hand? You keep avoiding this question Foss.....

You really make money playing poker? Even in my head I could see it was around 1200....

Down 1200 sucks - but, it would be below 5000 if you were right...

Cal, well, I'll take the first post's questions 'first'...

At what point do the Democrats take ownership of the economy? When do they begin acknowledging that the decisions they are making, the signals they are projecting, and the statements they are making are making this bad situation worse?

Obama - February 2, 2008...
"I will be held accountable. I have got four years," the president said. "I think a year from now people are going to see that we are starting to make some progress, but there is still going to be some pain out there. If I do not have this [economic recovery] done in three years, then there is going to be a one-term proposition ."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-02-02-voa38.cfm

I think Obama has taken ownership of the economy. He has taken decisive action. There will be one person/party to blame if this goes wrong. The Republicans have seen to that. However the Dems and the president are NOT acknowledging that the decisions they are making, the signals they are projecting, and the statements they are making are making this bad situation worse. Because the solutions that are now in place will take time to work.

Carter's recession, which started in Jan, 1980 and sort of cycled up to July 1980 and then cycled back down in July 1981 and then back to November 1982 was 31 months long (sort of a little break in the middle - but most economist's label the entire time period as the 'Carter' recession)- about 13 months under the Carter administration, and 18 under Reagan.

Reagan took 18 months. I think Obama can do it in less time -

But not 42 days - that is how long he has been president.

And I don't expect Obama to say now, or in the near future, that his policies and his plans are not going to work. That is ridiculous, I wouldn't expect him to say that the actions that he has taken are wrong for at least 18 months. It takes time to improve economies, but apparently the conservatives on this site have forgotten this little fact.

The question isn't when will THEY take ownership,
when will "YOU" grant them ownership? At what point will the public associate them with the events of the day?

Right now 84% of the people say this problem is inherited from Bush. I would imagine that this will change within about 12 months.

And see how easy it is to be nice.. 'dear' goes a lot further than 'Then avoid the cuteness and just answer it straight.'

Foss - on 1/20/09 (Inaugural day) the dow closed at 7949 - today it was at 6726...

My calculator shows that to be down 1223 - a bit different than your 3000.

The two months between the election and inauguration involved a great deal of Obama coverage. Remember him standing at the podium with his very official looking "Office of the President elect" on the front? Would you agree that the markets have been responding to the incoming administrations policies and statements since at least that point?

It may or may not have been coincidence that many saw a trend demonstrating an inverse relationship with the value of the stock market with the likelihood Obama would win the election.

Immediately after he won the election, we saw the largest post election sell off in history, and then what was the biggest two day drop in twenty years, losing nearly 1000 points.

On inauguration day, it fell another 332 pts.

Basically, anytime Obama or his administration say anything about the economy or what their goals are, the market nose dives.

On election day, the dow was at 9625.
On inauguration day, the dow fell to 7949.
And today it's at 6726.

So, to clarify and correct the above post, the dow has fallen nearly 3000 pts since he won the Presidency.

So, do you think that the president and the dow go hand in hand? You keep avoiding this question Foss.....
The Presidency and the policies they announce and implement absolutely CAN have an influence on the market, but they don't control it.

Reagan took 18 months. I think Obama can do it in less time -
But not 42 days - that is how long he has been president.
No one expects the problem to be solved now, but there's a growing consensus that they are not only doing everything wrong, they are aggressively pursuing policy that will make the situation worse, the recession or depression more severe and longer lasting.

Right now 84% of the people say this problem is inherited from Bush. I would imagine that this will change within about 12 months.
Of course they say that, however that doesn't mean they are growing increasingly aware of how poorly his administration is handling the situation and how much worse they are making an already horrendous situation.

And see how easy it is to be nice.. 'dear' goes a lot further than 'Then avoid the cuteness and just answer it straight.'
Well, it fills me with joy to note your pleased.
But on that note, you never told me when you would identify the Obama administration and the Pelosi Congress' fingerprints and ownership of the problems.

Polling information is wonderful small talk, but it's of little value in March, 2009. However, as someone who's a committed, partisan, ideological, Democrat, when will you candidly privately acknowledge the Obama ownership. I recognize that the private recognition would likely be different from when you'd reluctantly admit it in public.

On election day, the dow was at 9625.
On inauguration day, the dow fell to 7949.
And today it's at 6726.

So, to clarify and correct the above post, the dow has fallen nearly 3000 pts since he won the Presidency.

Well, covering for Foss are you?

It would be more than foolish to put 'blame' on Obama before his inauguration. Heck, in that time frame Bush and Paulson did a huge amount of harm. You cannot put their actions or the results of their actions (or inactions or stupidity) onto Obama. The whole handling of TARP during the almost 3 months between the election and Obama taking office was a joke, that is on Bush. The automobile bail out was just stupid. That was on Bush. How many banks were failing during that point - I know Wells Fargo, but I know there were others. Was the handling by Paulson of those failures Obama's fault?

It is just downright wrong to put blame on Obama regarding the downfall in the market before he took office.

I can't believe you would do that - not only should he be held accountable for the economy from the moment he took office, but now, before he took the oath, he was responsible for the economy - come on. You wouldn't put that onto any other president. No one has.

The Presidency and the policies they announce and implement absolutely CAN have an influence on the market, but they don't control it.

I want Foss to answer this...

No one expects the problem to be solved now, but there's a growing consensus that they are not only doing everything wrong, they are aggressively pursuing policy that will make the situation worse, the recession or depression more severe and longer lasting.

I believe the 'consensus' is on the right -

Well, it fills me with joy to note your pleased.
But on that note, you never told me when you would identify the Obama administration and the Pelosi Congress' fingerprints and ownership of the problems.

Polling information is wonderful small talk, but it's of little value in March, 2009. However, as someone who's a committed, partisan, ideological, Democrat, when will you candidly privately acknowledge the Obama ownership. I recognize that the private recognition would likely be different from when you'd reluctantly admit it in public.

January 2010, in public and in private... 12 months. I believe we will see indications that Obama's policies and programs are starting to work by that time.

It would be more than foolish to put 'blame' on Obama before his inauguration.

Two points:

It should be pointed out that liberals were effectively doing the same thing to Bush as President-elect when he pointed out that we were in a recession in November and December of 2000. Remember all the claims that Bush was, "talking down the economy" and creating a "self-fulfilling prophecy"? They saw fit to blame Bush for that mild recession due to his actions before taking office. Why the change in reasoning when Obama is the President-elect?

Also, no one is blaming Obama for the recession; they are blaming him for the degree of the recession (after a point) and the continued and extended downturn. There can be no question that Obama has been intentionally exagurating and talking down the recession to rush his agenda through. His programs can not objectively be considered to be aimed at turning the recession around; they are clearly aimed at benefiting politically from this recession. Outside of liberal hacks like Krugman, most all economists tend to agree with that, and history has shown that a political benefit for the party in power is the only net positive for the types of programs being forced on society here.

It would be more than foolish to put 'blame' on Obama before his inauguration.

http://www.geocities.com/perry_peterson_1999/obama-office.jpg

Heck, in that time frame Bush and Paulson did a huge amount of harm.
Did Obama express his disapproval of anything in particular?
I know you'd love to rewrite history, but after November, Bush really took a backseat during the lame-duck period. He only committed half of the TARP money during his term, leaving the rest for the next administration.

You said the auto bail out was "just stupid" and that it was on Bush. Care to elaborate, because I don't know what Bush did that you think was so stupid?

You also seem reluctant to note the increased activity by the Democrat congress during those final months of the Bush administration.

I don't think you can "blame" Obama for the market, but it's unreasonable to deny that his stated policies and public statements were influencing things. More important, his statements when applied to the turbulent market, were causing increased anxiety.


Was the handling by Paulson of those failures Obama's fault?
Again, where did they differ? I really don't remember Obama differing with Paulson during that period. And he then went a picked Geitner, a guy who was involved in designing TARP to be his treasury secretary.

So, sorry, but any argument you make trying to distance Obama from the policies of the period fail.

It is just downright wrong to put blame on Obama regarding the downfall in the market before he took office.
I think there's plenty of blame to share. But you're refusal to acknowledge that he was an influence, a significant one, on the market during that period indicates a stubborn denial on your part.

I can't believe you would do that - not only should he be held accountable for the economy from the moment he took office, but now, before he took the oath, he was responsible for the economy - come on. You wouldn't put that onto any other president. No one has.
you have repeatedly said that Obama is simply doing what he said he would do during the campaign. Why do you find it difficult to understand that people with a financial stake would make decision based on what he was saying he would do?

So, it was OK to blame Bush for the 3 months before he became president? And if it was wrong -why are you doing it now?

No it isn't. I didn't do that... that would be just stupid. I thought you guys blamed Clinton for the downturn in the economy well into Bush's administration. In fact I am sure you did. Dot com was on Clinton's watch, not Bush, he wasn't even in office.

Usually that is the way you place blame, you place blame on the proceeding president, or in this case, the man still in office, not on the man who has yet to take the office.

My gosh - the credit market was tanking, banks were failing, the housing market was collapsing further, unemployment was skyrocketing, retail sales were plummeting and Wall Street was just getting word that we had been in a recession for about a year all during those three months before Obama took office. That is why the market tanked.

Bush was inept, Paulson was running around without a clue, Cheney was covering his tracks, and no one was watching the white house.

So, it was OK to blame Bush for the 3 months before he became president? And if it was wrong -why are you doing it now?
That's a difficult example to use because the transition between Clinton and Bush was very troubled due to the childish, uncooperative, and spiteful behavior of the outgoing administration and Al Gore's failed attempt to steal the election.

But use common sense to determine whether it's "O.K" to place blame. If Bush had won the election and then spent the next two or three months talking about how he intended to socialize the economy, it'd be reasonable to attribute any negative reaction to him.

To the best of my knowledge, there was very little change (within 100 points) in the market between the election on Nov 7 and the inauguration on Jan 20 through March 2, 2001.

I thought you guys blamed Clinton for the downturn in the economy well into Bush's administration. In fact I am sure you did. Dot com was on Clinton's watch, not Bush, he wasn't even in office.
There is certainly recognition that the bubble had burst before Bush took office, just as it's noted that Obama took office during a bad economic period as well.

The observation and argument that is gaining support right now is simply that Obama is making the situation worse.

Bush was inept, Paulson was running around without a clue, Cheney was covering his tracks, and no one was watching the white house.
You're not responding to the questions I'm asking, you're just making blanket, ignorant, Democrat attacks.

Despite his high profile during the period after the election, did Obama ever disagree with any of the policies being advanced by Bush, Paulson or the Democrats in congress?

What problems did you have with the auto bail out in 2008? And why are you blaming that on Bush and not the Democrats in Congress?

If he thought that the TARP idea was such a bad idea, why did Obama chose Geithner, a man who was partly responsible it to be the Treasury Secretary?

And why don't you think that people are making financial decisions based on what Obama is SAYING he will do? He has no opposition in Congress, so you'd have to be a fool to not take him seriously.

Clearly Obama has had quite a bit of influence on the market. His lack of encouragement, his attack on big oil, big money, and small business owners, and his outrageous tax and spend proposals, have convinced people that they should sell.

I'm selling, because I know Obama will drive this economy further into the ground with his stupid Keynesian policies based on his socialist principles.

Might as well repost:rolleyes:

Quit B.S.ing here Fox...

Ever since the market even sensed a possible socialist victory, the market has been going in the tank. The market has lost 50% of its value BECAUSE OF OBAMA. There is no future for capitalists' and their money here in America with a socialist as President.

It is beyond belief that you just can't accept the fact that the Obama?Reid/Pelosi triad is the worst travesty to hit this Country in 200 years.

Read the polls, over 40% already say their kids are going to have it worse off than the parents had. 1st time ever.

Cal, my response was to Shag… Sorry – I didn’t see your post

So, whatever drugs that the conservatives are on lately – could you please share with the left? Obviously I am not on the same chemically altered plane that you are.

I never blame the incoming president for the economy for the first year, or longer. I didn’t with any of them, starting with Reagan. It was Carter’s fault that unemployment ran up to over 10%. I don’t blame Reagan for the 10.8 unemployment in December 1982 (which is actually 22 months after he took office). I didn’t blame Reagan for the stock market going down 25% during his first couple years in office.

What you look for is recovery times... the thing the current president actually has control over.

Why do you blame Obama?

Do you really want to use this standard? Then I get to blame Reagan for the entire first two years in office. It was his ‘atmosphere’ that prolonged the recession, that caused unemployment to skyrocket and the market to tank. But, that isn't true... it was Carter's policies that created those problems.

That's a difficult example to use because the transition between Clinton and Bush was very troubled due to the childish, uncooperative, and spiteful behavior of the outgoing administration and Al Gore's failed attempt to steal the election.

And Bush creating TARP and then giving 350 billion dollars to Paulson to dole out to just any CEO that said ‘please’ is dealing smartly with the problem? Doing nothing or doing something stupid isn’t any different than what Bush encountered, and let’s face it, the hundreds of billions of dollars that were mishandled during the time after this election was a whole lot larger than the money we were talking about at the end of 2000. That 350 million is more than the entire amount of the long term stimulus part of Obama’s package (approx 270 billion in tax cuts, 300 billion dollars in short term, 300 in long term). When you combine the other half of TARP it is more than all the spending stimulus in Obama’s plan.

There is certainly recognition that the bubble had burst before Bush took office, just as it's noted that Obama took office during a bad economic period as well.

A ‘bad economic period’? The two aren’t even in the same ballpark… no banks failed right before Bush took office, the housing market wasn’t collapsing, the credit market wasn’t frozen, heavy American industry wasn’t going bankrupt.

And guess what – in mid May, 2008 the dow was at 13,058, in just 5-1/2 months it fell to 9650, almost 3,500 points – it was in free fall long before the election.

But of course, if you are Bryan you put the blame on that little tidbit on Obama as well.

This is just ludicrous....

The observation and argument that is gaining support right now is simply that Obama is making the situation worse.

And I think his actions will make it better. This is something only time will judge – I have given you my time frames – You can’t change this at this point. The bills have been passed, the budgets proposed, the wheels are in motion.

It is now a waiting game.

Do what Foss is doing, sell. My finance guy is telling me to get in at 6300 – so keep selling Foss… It is men like you, who sell when the market is down, and buy when it is up, that make me money…

Despite his high profile during the period after the election, did Obama ever disagree with any of the policies being advanced by Bush, Paulson or the Democrats in congress?

I don’t think he was ‘privy’ on how the TARP funds were being mishandled by Paulson. I also think he was busy working on his plans for his stimulus plan. You don’t write 1,000 pages of bill overnight. There was hardly anything going on during that time frame from the white house. That was part of the problem. The little bit they were doing was being done behind closed doors as Paulson handed out billions, without any accountability.

What problems did you have with the auto bail out in 2008? And why are you blaming that on Bush and not the Democrats in Congress?

Either you do something or you don’t. Either let them go into bankruptcy and reorganize, sink or swim. Or you make a commitment to really pull them out of their financial crisis. You can either let them bleed out, or you can cure them, but a band-aid wasn’t the solution. That is what they got, both from Congress and Bush, a band-aid that will just be sinking money into them. If the government was going to help them they needed to do it with much more money then they did, so the companies could not only stop the hemorrhaging, but also start to invest for the future.

If he thought that the TARP idea was such a bad idea, why did Obama chose Geithner, a man who was partly responsible it to be the Treasury Secretary?

I think TARP is a needed idea. However Geithner had nothing to do with how the first 350 billion was allotted, or the terms under which that money was given out. I would imagine we will never know where that 350 billion went. It was Paulson/Bush that decided who would get that money, and the restrictions (or complete lack thereof) on how it should be spent.

That represented 1/3 of the entire stimulus plan that Obama has in place – 1/2 of the actual spending part of that plan. It is just appalling.

And why don't you think that people are making financial decisions based on what Obama is SAYING he will do? He has no opposition in Congress, so you'd have to be a fool to not take him seriously.

I think they are now – I said that earlier. The market is now mostly a reflection of Obama’s policies. Before he took office it was a reflection of Bush’s economic climate. When Wall Street was being bombarded with bad news daily during those 3 months, and Obama was finally being briefed on how bad it really was by the Bush exit team, you can’t place that on Obama. He had yet to come up with a plan, because he was still learning about the scope of the problem. You don’t come into a failing company, and craft explicit plans on how to change that company, until you look at the books. Obama was looking at the books during those 3 months. He was getting a team in place, and starting to draft plans. That was his job. His job was not to fix the economy, or stabilize the market before he got into office.

Do what Foss is doing, sell. My finance guy is telling me to get in at 6300 – so keep selling Foss… It is men like you, who sell when the market is down, and buy when it is up, that make me money…Good luck with that. I bet your guy told people to invest in Washington Mutual as well.

Nope, haven't had much stock exposure since Sept.

Currently in McDonalds, Apple, Google, SWHC (iffy I think)... Some Asian small caps I think...

He moved me into precious metal funds, and lately, real estate, and he is looking at Ford...maybe? But, since I am in automotive, he doesn't like me over exposed in one industry.

Sell, foss, sell....

So, whatever drugs that the conservatives are on lately – could you please share with the left? Obviously I am not on the same chemically altered plane that you are.


Fox....I think its purple kool-aid you can get some here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html). ;)

Obviously I am not on the same chemically altered plane that you are.
I disagree. It would appear that you've never returned from a chemically altered planed.

I never blame the incoming president for the economy for the first year, or longer.
No one has "blamed him for the economy." The economy would be bad regardless who won. The point being made is that his policies and statements are already having a very strong NEGATIVE influence on that economy. Making a bad situation worse. And this is being demonstrated on Wall Street.

I wouldn't blame Obama for the unemployment figure today or the GDP, but you should be able to acknowledge that Wall Street is dynamic and can react very quickly to things he's doing.

And Bush creating TARP and then giving 350 billion dollars to Paulson to dole out to just any CEO that said ‘please’ is dealing smartly with the problem?
And that was Bush and Bush alone?
Did Obama vote for it? Perhaps you were unaware of this, but he did.

Do what Foss is doing, sell. My finance guy is telling me to get in at 6300 –
Well, that won't be too long.
But, your finance guy... would he be the same guy who sells the stuff for a living? When did he tell you to get out of the market?

Personally, I won't even consider jumping in until 5k. And if someone doesn't pull the E-brake on Obama and Pelosi soon, I might just wait until 2000.


That is what they got, both from Congress and Bush, a band-aid that will just be sinking money into them.
You're not going to find me defending Bush or Congress on this one, I was against TARP and the autobailouts.

However, you seemed compelled to defend Obama who was a prominent member of Congress during this period and supported BOTH of those policies. You can't pretend that Obama has no association with period or the policies, or smear Bush while pretending Obama has clean hands. I can, because I think they both screwed things up.

Fox....I think its purple kool-aid you can get some here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html). ;)

Are you contributing to the conversation or just trolling?
Do you think the stock market is reflect the confidence of business in Obama's policies?

Nope, haven't had much stock exposure since Sept.

Currently in McDonalds, Apple, Google, SWHC (iffy I think)... Some Asian small caps I think...

He moved me into precious metal funds, and lately, real estate, and he is looking at Ford...maybe? But, since I am in automotive, he doesn't like me over exposed in one industry.

Sell, foss, sell....
How brilliant.

Your boy just sold stock for you and bought precious metal stock, and you're taunting me for selling? How funny.

It's almost as good as owning actual precious metals.

Which is what I'm doing.

Oh, hey, good luck using your stock certificates to buy bread on the black market when Obama trashes the value of the dollar and establishes price controls, causing bread lines.

Maybe I'll sell you some.

Heck, I've made money in the market in the last 6 months... And my guy is really, really good...

Plus, what good is gold? You are looking at a antiquated monetary symbol too... All your gold is only as good as what it can buy. If you are hungry, a cow is going to be worth ever so much more than a whole pile of gold...

Are you contributing to the conversation or just trolling?
Do you think the stock market is reflect the confidence of business in Obama's policies?


Contributing by getting Foxpaws to smile.

I though she might need one after the righties have taken turns trying to beat her down.
I like that she is here...she is good entertainment.

I doubt that lack of confidence in Obama's policies is the main reason why the market is were its at right now.

Heck, I've made money in the market in the last 6 months... And my guy is really, really good...

Plus, what good is gold? You are looking at a antiquated monetary symbol too... All your gold is only as good as what it can buy. If you are hungry, a cow is going to be worth ever so much more than a whole pile of gold...Did I say 'gold?'

Straw man.

I disagree. It would appear that you've never returned from a chemically altered planed.
Planet Chemically Altered? A nice place to visit perhaps, but, as a sustainable lifestyle, I don’t think so. I still think it isn’t nice that your side doesn’t share ;)

I wouldn't blame Obama for the unemployment figure today or the GDP, but you should be able to acknowledge that Wall Street is dynamic and can react very quickly to things he's doing.

So, don’t you think that before Obama got into office it was mostly reacting to the news of the day. Which was bad economic news, not Obama might be doing this news… Current events do more to shape the market than anything. Wall Street certainly isn’t too well known lately for looking 3 months in advance. Heck, if they look 3 days in advance any more it is a miracle.

And that was Bush and Bush alone?
Did Obama vote for it? Perhaps you were unaware of this, but he did.

Bush/Paulson created it, and created an urgency to get it passed – and yes the congress including Obama voted it in. But, how that 350 billion has been handed out up until now has been at Paulson’s discretion. Congress or Obama’s hands aren’t clean in getting TARP passed, but the only dirty hands regarding how most of it has been spent up until now are Paulson’s and Bush’s.

But, your finance guy... would he be the same guy who sells the stuff for a living? When did he tell you to get out of the market?

In September… And I don’t pay… ;) I had lost a tiny bit from May to September (but he has made it all back and then some in the last 6 months).

Personally, I won't even consider jumping in until 5k. And if someone doesn't pull the E-brake on Obama and Pelosi soon, I might just wait until 2000.

So you saw the CBS thing? It is a gamble, the stock market. Why people close to retirement had their money in it I will never know. People had been lured into the idea that it was ‘safe’ I guess.

Did I say 'gold?'

Straw man.

Nope - sorry, I assumed... But I would imagine you won't tell me what 'precious' metals you are hoarding in your basement next to the ammo.;)

In September… And I don’t pay… ;) LOL...yes you do! You may not pay up front loads, but you DEFINITELY pay back end management fees.

So many 'self educated' stock investors...I want to quote P.T. Barnum right now.

Nope - sorry, I assumed... But I would imagine you won't tell me what 'precious' metals you are hoarding in your basement next to the ammo.;)Basement? Who said basement?

Straw man.

LOL...yes you do! You may not pay up front loads, but you DEFINITELY pay back end management fees.

Some, I am only in a couple of funds, otherwise I am in individual stocks. And, heck if their service is good - you don't mind paying for the back end... ;)

Contributing by getting Foxpaws to smile.
You should send her a nude picture of yourself.

I doubt that lack of confidence in Obama's policies is the main reason why the market is were its at right now.
There are a lot of reasons why the markets have fallen and been falling.
So you don't think the market is responding to things that he's doing- like public statements or policies he's supporting and passing through the Congress?


And if you'd like to help foxpaws, thoughtfully join the discussion.

You should send her a nude picture of yourself.
Nope....don't need that kind of trouble at home.
Plus she has plenty of boy toys already.


There are a lot of reasons why the markets have fallen and been falling.
So you don't think the market is responding to things that he's doing- like public statements or policies he's supporting and passing through the Congress?
Like you said....There are a lot of reasons why the markets have been falling.
Obama has little to do with it, no matter who was in office they would have a mess to deal with.


And if you'd like to help foxpaws, thoughtfully join the discussion.

She needs no "help" from me...she does fine on her own.

I never blame the incoming president for the economy for the first year, or longer.

So, what is the point of the president-elect in commenting publicly on the economy at all? Bush was clearly aimming at influencing public perception when he did it. Obama was clearly doing the same. In fact, if I remember correctly, Obama was actually holding press conferences on it.

There is no other reason to comment on the economy other then to steer, shape and change public perception on the economy.

There is no other reason to comment on the economy other then to steer, shape and change public perception on the economy.

.... you mean aside from playing the political game of trying to make himself look good because of what he wanted to do with the economy? Or attempting to restore the public's confidence in it? You can, and I expect you to, point out that he failed miserably on both counts, but were I a politician in his shoes I would have held similar press confrences for the express purpose of telling people how I was going to fix things. The markets may have reacted, sure, but the intent behind the press conferences was less to do that than they were simple political posturing.

.... you mean aside from playing the political game of trying to make himself look good because of what he wanted to do with the economy? Or attempting to restore the public's confidence in it? You can, and I expect you to, point out that he failed miserably on both counts, but were I a politician in his shoes I would have held similar press confrences for the express purpose of telling people how I was going to fix things. The markets may have reacted, sure, but the intent behind the press conferences was less to do that than they were simple political posturing.

That "political posturing" is pointless unless it is aimed at shaping and steering public perception. Weather that means bringing down pubilc perception to a realistic level, restoring confidence, whatever, it is all aimed at steering public perception. Pointing out how you are going to fix the economy in that context is only a means to that end of shaping public perception on the economy.

I typed up an answer, but I think I misunderstood you. We appear to be on the same page here. I had thought you were making a point that he was trying to shape the economy, but I see now you were simply indicating he tried to influence public perception of the economy. Good distinction.

I do think you're underestimating how much he's doing simply working the people to maintain good poll numbers - but that kind of allegation is true of any politician.

I typed up an answer, but I think I misunderstood you. We appear to be on the same page here. I had thought you were making a point that he was trying to shape the economy, but I see now you were simply indicating he tried to influence public perception of the economy. Good distinction.

I do think you're underestimating how much he's doing simply working the people to maintain good poll numbers - but that kind of allegation is true of any politician.

You can't underestimate the effect of public perception on the economy. In economics and politics, the old adage that "perception is reality" is very true on so many levels. That is how most short term economic effects take place.

The eventual reduction in demand for gas toward the end of last summer and throughout the winter is a prime example of that perception of fuel shortages having an effect on the market. Demand actually went from outpacing supply to dropping far below supply levels.

There is a distinction between actually shaping the economy and influencing public perception, but there is also a huge overlap. Influencing public perception cannot reverse overall growth or shrinkage in the economy as a whole, but it can magnify a trend one way or the other.

Obama - February 2, 2008...
"I will be held accountable. I have got four years," the president said. "I think a year from now people are going to see that we are starting to make some progress, but there is still going to be some pain out there. If I do not have this [economic recovery] done in three years, then there is going to be a one-term proposition ."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-02-02-voa38.cfm

I think Obama has taken ownership of the economy. He has taken decisive action. There will be one person/party to blame if this goes wrong. The Republicans have seen to that. However the Dems and the president are NOT acknowledging that the decisions they are making, the signals they are projecting, and the statements they are making are making this bad situation worse. Because the solutions that are now in place will take time to work.

Carter's recession, which started in Jan, 1980 and sort of cycled up to July 1980 and then cycled back down in July 1981 and then back to November 1982 was 31 months long (sort of a little break in the middle - but most economist's label the entire time period as the 'Carter' recession)- about 13 months under the Carter administration, and 18 under Reagan.

Reagan took 18 months. I think Obama can do it in less time -

And I don't expect Obama to say now, or in the near future, that his policies and his plans are not going to work. That is ridiculous, I wouldn't expect him to say that the actions that he has taken are wrong for at least 18 months. It takes time to improve economies, but apparently the conservatives on this site have forgotten this little fact.



Flashback.

Flashback.http://http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Freqe_74/Funny/Pwned.jpg

DNC chair: 'We own the economy'
By: Molly Ball
June 15, 2011 11:35 AM EDT

Democrats are ready to take responsibility for the state of the economy and they deserve credit for putting it on the right track, the party’s chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said on Wednesday.

“We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery, not go back to the policies of the past under the Bush administration that put us in the ditch in the first place,” Wasserman Schultz told Mike Allen at POLITICO’s ‘Playbook Breakfast.’

The economy, she said, “has turned around” since President Obama took office, with steady job growth evident even if the pace leaves something to be desired.

Republicans have ridiculed Democrats’ claims of economic success in the wake of disappointing jobs numbers and an uptick in the unemployment rate.

Wasserman Schultz said Democrats aren’t in need of a new story to tell about the economy because they’ve put the right policies in place. “I don’t think it’s about what we say, it’s about what we do.”

She said Democrats’ actions demonstrate their commitment to the middle class while Republicans’ do not. Though she commended several individual Republicans by name — including her home state colleague, Rep. Daniel Webster — Wasserman Schultz said the party’s leadership in the house is beholden to an extreme faction.

“Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House right now seems to have been strangled by the tea party,” she said. “The tail seems to be wagging the dog right now.”

Republicans, she said, know better but lack courage. “They know how to do it the right way, they know how to compromise, they just can’t seem to break their fear of what the ramifications would be from the tea party right-wing fringe if they listened to what their inner self tells them to do.”

As the 2012 presidential race intensifies, Wasserman Schultz took shots at the Republican field, calling it a “collection of deeply flawed candidates.”

She singled out former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, whose economic plan she criticized; former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who she said will have to explain his past support for an individual health-care mandate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whom she described as inconsistent.

“Mitt Romney’s problem is that Mitt Romney has to have a debate with himself about who he is,” she said.

But Wasserman Schultz came to the defense of two potential GOP rivals, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying it is unfair for the media to portray them as pitted against each other simply because they are both women.

“Even though I don’t agree with either Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann on virtually anything,” she said, to laughter from the audience, “I do think the unique scrutiny … because of their gender” and “highlighting the potential conflict between them” is a product of the media’s desire for juicy storylines. “I think it’s inappropriate.”

Arguing strongly for increasing representation of women in elected office, she said that while progress has been made, “The good ol’ boys’ system is alive and well.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E71D0AD3-45F7-42D0-AB74-3A5D5F2DD81B

Of course, this media has forgotten this statement only a month after it was made.

A lot has taken place since this thread was originally created and I think most of us have learned an awful lot over the past two years as well.