In the comments section on the Angry Bear homepage, Spencer writes about of his reason for blogging:
“I’m a data person and the primary reason I blog is the fundamental dishonesty of many of the anti-government or extreme right wing economic analysis I see in other blogs and in the press.”
Ha! Awesome! With gem posts like the Bush vs. Obama stock maket, it’s good to see Spencer is really fighting the “fundamental dishonesty” that’s out there.
Certain commenters here were confidently predicting that the stock market would tank under Obama back in winter/spring 2009. Some were even willing to call out targets, and you can bet if those targets had been hit would have been crowing about them.
Didn’t happen. And a bunch of commenters who were openly claiming that the OMB numbers were totally BS because the CBO numbers projected them much worse are a little quiet today, because the Obama numbers in fact proved to be pretty conservative, for example budget deficits are coming in significantly below projections.
Spencer is posting data points in graphic form. Are those data points correct? Does the market generally move upwards when traders are confident? Yes and yes. So how does that make the ironic comment ‘Capitalists sure seem to prefer Obama to Bush’ somehow dishonest? A little snarky, but since when was that a sin on the Internet.
Not everything goes down the Memory Hole. Opponents of Obama made claims a year ago that are not panning out. And now are whining about it.
Shorter Jimi: “Don’t confuse me with data, I am so much smarter just pulling shit out of my ass”
Tell that to the Bushies. There were any number of prolific commenters here that jumped to Bush’s defense every time Cactus or Spencer put up data.
No totally blind support is not good for this country,which is why a lot of front page posters have been critical of Obama, in particular his relying too heavily on Rubinistas for advice. But note that none of the comments below actually deploy any arguments that themselves deploy countervailing analysis or data.
Once you start using snark as a veiled tool for insulting someone, you generally loose credibility with reasoned people.
You raise a valid point of refuting those who said the economy would plunge if Obama took office, but there are better ways to defend that than with the above chart.
Jimi, How is a graphic display of basic data a “game?” Are the perofrmance points on Spencer’s graph inaccurate? Or, are you only referring to his choice of colors to demark the two administrations? His analysis seems pretty close to the data. He only refers to what one might describe as comfort level performance, if not outright cause and effect. I’d suggest that the market seems to recognize that Obama represents the interests of corporate America (if there is still such a thing?).
Spencer, what was your point? At least normalize the graphs to the same economic cycles, otherwise your comparison is apples to any fruit.
Bruce, your attitude is getting really tiresome. You are worse than those you mock because your attacks are so personal. Go ahead and ban me for disagreeing with you.
For you new guys the main posters at AB rarely post incorrect data and almost always correct it once its pointed out. Your argument is usually with the presentation or interpretation of the data – I always use the posters data since its almost always correct.
You should direct you angst against the implied assumption that Bush or Obama (or any Pres) have that much control over the stock market. I think that idea is hilarious, and it was roundly critised at AB when the economy was puring along in 2004-2007 and Bush looked good. (While the righties agreed with it BTW)
As for spencer’s graph, the interpretation is quite clear. Bush, hit by the twin economic hammers of the bursting of Democratic President Clinton’s dot-com bubble economy and 9/11, worked magic to finally restore confidence and get things going and stave off another depression. Once the magical Presidential fairy dust kicked in in 2002 there was no going back. Unfortuanately the Dems took control of congress and Bush was unable to head off the ‘progressive’ barbarians for very long and the Dem congress led us into the current recession with Senator ‘Countrywide’ Dodd leading the way. Obama then got elected as unemployment climbed and has now thrown trillians at Wall Street in an orgasm of debt induced government spending that has gotten so out-of-controll that now the Dems are planning on ‘fixing’ social security!!! These Trillians poured on Wall Street has resulted in another asset inflation bubble. Combine this with massive anti-business democratic legislation like the HCR and Cap-in-trade and the inevitable double-dip recession is unavoidable. Hope you like Ramon.
Of course that once again all assumes the President has that kind of influence….
Coberly – did I get all the buttons? In one shot? I should get a neo-con Bushie prize for the above at least!!!
More than likely we will just muddle through, but I do worry that the 10-11% unemployment may become the new norm…
CoRev when you get banned it will be for ad homs and dishonesty. You have not exactly been the poster boy for politeness over the last few years.
Replacement_level and Pax both opened the ball by insulting the poster ‘ridiculous’ ‘shred of objectivity’ ‘whee tiny bit of objectivity’, they made no argument as to why simple reproduction of a Dow graph was either ridiculous or non-objective, instead they simply attacked Spencer as being uncritically in the tank for Obama. I responded, without naming names that there were plenty of commenters here at AB that were blatantly and blindly in the tank for Bush for years. I find it interesting that you took an attack on such in the tank ‘Bushies’ personally, apparently on the ‘if the shoe fits wear it’ principle.
In my second comment I singled out ‘several commenters’ which again you apparently took as a ‘personal’ attack, though this one didn’t really have you in mind.
But to call out me for negativity when the only push back on Spencer is ‘utterly stupid’ and ‘more nonsense’ is clearly projection. This comment thread started out on a negative note and stayed there, I am just going with the flow.
Bruce, when we can figure out what Spencer is comparing, (apples to breadfruit, apples to bananas, or pick your own fruit) then read Buffy carefully. He’s got it down to a TEE or maybe a TEE HEE.
Any similar chart claiming the market applauding Bush, as though any pres has the ability, would have also been “utterly stupid,” as would anyone who would have defended such a stupid post. The stupid behavior of stupid Bush supporters doesn’t make this post any less … stupid. I came here because you were recently listed as one of the best business blogs out there. I hope this is not typical.
Well I would say that it makes the opposite point from what you thought it meant when it first came out. Not that anyone could figure out when or where that was since you give no link and there is no source in the graphic itself. Though interestingly it shows up in a very recent piece at Heritage http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Though again interestingly they had to update the post and admit that the graph was a year old, something they knew since they had posted the updated one in their own post here six weeks earlier. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/
From memory your (outdated) graph came out in the wake of the stimulus package and shows contrasting estimates of FY 09 deficits by CBO of $1.85 trillion vs OMB (i.e. team Obama) $1.75 trillion. The actual number came in at $1.4 trillion, making the implied claim that Team Obama was low-balling estimates kind of foolish in retrospect.
The updated graphic actually reverses the picture in the one you cite, instead of being more pessimistic than OMB, CBO sees dramatically lower deficits by 2012 with the debt/GDP ratio stabilizing at a high but steady level of 66% through the remainder of the projection period. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter1.shtml
So what lesson are we supposed to draw from a more than a year old graph showing that CBO overestimated the actual 2009 deficit by 25% given that the updated version of that same graph from the same source shows them dramatically downgrading their deficit projections for upcoming years? I have to say on the surface it is not much of a ‘gotcha’. Basically Heritage stepped on their dick
Oops a little sloppy on my part. My last sentence is unfair, unfortunately my edits are for some reason not holding. I’ll try to get rid of it, if so it read “Basically Heritage stepped on their dick”. Actually their post is from 2009 and they did update it with LATER information, i had the time sequence reversed.
Bush’s magic was more like hocus-pocus, aided and abetted by his new henchman Greenspan he insisted that what now seem to have been artificially high productivity during the tech boom would even with the recession that was triggered after he entered office would continue at a rate that would allow both huge tax cuts and continued paydown on the long term debt, in fact he and his predicted that debt would go to zero in large part because tax cuts would spur enough new investment to sustain those rates of growth. Instead the economy more or less staggered on after the 2003 tax cuts with unemployment marginally improving during what we now know was a housing led period of artificial growth enabled only because Bush regulators were a combination of asleep at the wheel and facilitating.
The current recession was not triggered by the takeover of Congress in 2006, the House then as now had no chance to act given the power of a Republican minority of 49 to tie up business, particularly when backed by Bush’s veto pen, even if Pelosi had the votes to override a threatened veto (she didn’t), she was helpless given the Senate’s inability to overcome Republican opposition.
Given the massive failure of Bush era regulation and the fact that it was Bush and Paulson that made the decision to throw trillions at the banks it does take magic to make this a Pelosi/Obama recession.
Methinks your predictions of a double-dip recession, while such a thing is possible, is in light of your failed attempt to deploy your crystal ball last year, are not going to keep me up at night.
My crystal ball? I have been almost perfectly correct in my predictions of what was coming. Some of which I said would happen in the future – I still predict that under Obama U3 (if calculated the same) will be double the highest level under Bush. I.e. roughly 15%. Still have plenty of time for that and the anti-business climate Obama is creating shows plenty of indications I’ll be right. But then again I never though that Obama would double the US deficit so fast either.
I’ll make another prediction – Obama’s U3 will never get withen 1% of Bush Jrs’ lowest level. Even if he’s in there 8 years.
I was 100% on my predictions of the Dem policies in the war. Haven’t missed one yet. DOubt I will, especially with Obama getting plenty of cover for all the Bush policies he has continued. How’s that Gitmo closing going BTW?
Lastly, the fact that you didn’t get the massive tongue in cheek with that little paragraph I wrote means you need a drink. And don’t forget Greenspan is the real bubble blower here.
But I’ll keep watching you guys drink the Kool-aid and tell me Obama will bring us to GDP Nirvana! It all the Dem’s show now. You guys have it all and get all the reward or the blame! Just like cactus has said – many times over!
Okey-doke. But be prepared to explain why the original was important enough that you could just present it as if its message was obvious. I plan to do this right now but may to say ‘to hell with it’ and do it tomorrow.
Not to me it isn’t. Not given the way CBO has dramatically revised the numbers since last year. But either way you are cleared for take-off, I got the old, the new and the CBO Table up as a new post.
Based upon this type of Graph then FDR was the best president for business, at least in his first term. (GDP up 40% and the stock market recovered nicely in that term) Of course the business types hated FDR with a purple passion, as he destroyed their economic fetishes such as gold. Now if you plotted Clinton Versus Bush you would see Clinton as a run away success. But all this assumes powers not granted to the president, For example unless you believe Al Gore invented the internet, its not obvious that Clinton created the fundamental tech of the 1990s boom.
“There were any number of prolific commenters here that jumped to Bush’s defense every time Cactus or Spencer put up data.”
Some defended Bush based on the unreasonable attacks, the lies, and the plain partisianship for partisianship sake.
All the data posted here at AB was not posted as a learning tool, it was always twisted in way to use it as a Political Sledge Hammer against Bush.
You did a post relating the Bush family’s Banking Background during the Nazi years for christ sake, so what are you talking about?
There has been no real objectivity toward any Democrats or Obama at this site, and this administration is a disaster when related to the same topics that were dicussed during the Bush years.
Have it anyway you want Bruce, but in the end, it is a reflection of you and AB and I can live with that…Can you?
I LOVE a BULL market and if it takes an Obama over a Bush to do this then let’s go for it! BEAR markets are so negative and depressing….and there is enough of that in other places!
The Journal of Finance released a study a while back that showed the stock market has done better when a Democrat was in the White House all the way back to the 1920s. For some odd reason, people continue to believe that “Republicans are better for business”, when it just ain’t so!
He means Corporatists prefer 0bama or Fascists or perhaps a better term might be Plutocratic Socialists and hes is absolutely correct they do……..
Whoooops there goes another pallet load of money straight from the Feds discount window that will be willy nillilly thrown into the market by Goldman JPM Morgan Stanley and the like…the 60% skim job for the bonus pool from the phantom profits is awesome.
watch the cnbc mark haines “marks bottom” call of 3/10/09 when he said obama just called the market bottom so do I false political beliefs and opinions do not count just facts at least since then just look at your investment values today vs. then 5/5/11
obama and haines called the bottom 3/10/09 sorry you think it could not happen. the dems by any measure lead in stock market results.. looks like 2.60 gas next yr ,15000 dow and a democratic sweep ,taxes will rise ,they are loww right now ,want to go back to rates when reagan was in. but things willget fixed
Ridiculous post… anyone with a shred of objectivity would at least acknowledge all of the flaws in this “analysis.”
shouldn’t the colors be swapped?
Please… Just a whee tiny bit of objectivity… Totally blind support is not good for the president or the country…
In the comments section on the Angry Bear homepage, Spencer writes about of his reason for blogging:
“I’m a data person and the primary reason I blog is the fundamental dishonesty of many of the anti-government or extreme right wing economic analysis I see in other blogs and in the press.”
Ha! Awesome! With gem posts like the Bush vs. Obama stock maket, it’s good to see Spencer is really fighting the “fundamental dishonesty” that’s out there.
What an untterly stupid post.
Meant to write “utterly”
Udderly ridiculus.
More nonsense and graph games from spencer…Thanks for making me dumber, I appreciate it!
On the top of his head maybe.
Certain commenters here were confidently predicting that the stock market would tank under Obama back in winter/spring 2009. Some were even willing to call out targets, and you can bet if those targets had been hit would have been crowing about them.
Didn’t happen. And a bunch of commenters who were openly claiming that the OMB numbers were totally BS because the CBO numbers projected them much worse are a little quiet today, because the Obama numbers in fact proved to be pretty conservative, for example budget deficits are coming in significantly below projections.
Spencer is posting data points in graphic form. Are those data points correct? Does the market generally move upwards when traders are confident? Yes and yes. So how does that make the ironic comment ‘Capitalists sure seem to prefer Obama to Bush’ somehow dishonest? A little snarky, but since when was that a sin on the Internet.
Not everything goes down the Memory Hole. Opponents of Obama made claims a year ago that are not panning out. And now are whining about it.
Shorter Jimi: “Don’t confuse me with data, I am so much smarter just pulling shit out of my ass”
Tell that to the Bushies. There were any number of prolific commenters here that jumped to Bush’s defense every time Cactus or Spencer put up data.
No totally blind support is not good for this country,which is why a lot of front page posters have been critical of Obama, in particular his relying too heavily on Rubinistas for advice. But note that none of the comments below actually deploy any arguments that themselves deploy countervailing analysis or data.
I think they call this ‘projection’
Bruce
Once you start using snark as a veiled tool for insulting someone, you generally loose credibility with reasoned people.
You raise a valid point of refuting those who said the economy would plunge if Obama took office, but there are better ways to defend that than with the above chart.
I shouldn’t be as loose as to misspell the word lose 🙂
Jimi,
How is a graphic display of basic data a “game?” Are the perofrmance points on Spencer’s graph inaccurate? Or, are you only referring to his choice of colors to demark the two administrations? His analysis seems pretty close to the data. He only refers to what one might describe as comfort level performance, if not outright cause and effect. I’d suggest that the market seems to recognize that Obama represents the interests of corporate America (if there is still such a thing?).
How about this graph?
Buff, no reality, please.
Spencer, what was your point? At least normalize the graphs to the same economic cycles, otherwise your comparison is apples to any fruit.
Bruce, your attitude is getting really tiresome. You are worse than those you mock because your attacks are so personal. Go ahead and ban me for disagreeing with you.
Spencer, Nice graph BTW.
For you new guys the main posters at AB rarely post incorrect data and almost always correct it once its pointed out. Your argument is usually with the presentation or interpretation of the data – I always use the posters data since its almost always correct.
You should direct you angst against the implied assumption that Bush or Obama (or any Pres) have that much control over the stock market. I think that idea is hilarious, and it was roundly critised at AB when the economy was puring along in 2004-2007 and Bush looked good. (While the righties agreed with it BTW)
As for spencer’s graph, the interpretation is quite clear. Bush, hit by the twin economic hammers of the bursting of Democratic President Clinton’s dot-com bubble economy and 9/11, worked magic to finally restore confidence and get things going and stave off another depression. Once the magical Presidential fairy dust kicked in in 2002 there was no going back. Unfortuanately the Dems took control of congress and Bush was unable to head off the ‘progressive’ barbarians for very long and the Dem congress led us into the current recession with Senator ‘Countrywide’ Dodd leading the way. Obama then got elected as unemployment climbed and has now thrown trillians at Wall Street in an orgasm of debt induced government spending that has gotten so out-of-controll that now the Dems are planning on ‘fixing’ social security!!! These Trillians poured on Wall Street has resulted in another asset inflation bubble. Combine this with massive anti-business democratic legislation like the HCR and Cap-in-trade and the inevitable double-dip recession is unavoidable. Hope you like Ramon.
Of course that once again all assumes the President has that kind of influence….
Coberly – did I get all the buttons? In one shot? I should get a neo-con Bushie prize for the above at least!!!
More than likely we will just muddle through, but I do worry that the 10-11% unemployment may become the new norm…
Islam will change
CoRev when you get banned it will be for ad homs and dishonesty. You have not exactly been the poster boy for politeness over the last few years.
Replacement_level and Pax both opened the ball by insulting the poster ‘ridiculous’ ‘shred of objectivity’ ‘whee tiny bit of objectivity’, they made no argument as to why simple reproduction of a Dow graph was either ridiculous or non-objective, instead they simply attacked Spencer as being uncritically in the tank for Obama. I responded, without naming names that there were plenty of commenters here at AB that were blatantly and blindly in the tank for Bush for years. I find it interesting that you took an attack on such in the tank ‘Bushies’ personally, apparently on the ‘if the shoe fits wear it’ principle.
In my second comment I singled out ‘several commenters’ which again you apparently took as a ‘personal’ attack, though this one didn’t really have you in mind.
But to call out me for negativity when the only push back on Spencer is ‘utterly stupid’ and ‘more nonsense’ is clearly projection. This comment thread started out on a negative note and stayed there, I am just going with the flow.
Bruce
Buffy, beautifully, georgeous, and poetic.
Bruce, when we can figure out what Spencer is comparing, (apples to breadfruit, apples to bananas, or pick your own fruit) then read Buffy carefully. He’s got it down to a TEE or maybe a TEE HEE.
Any similar chart claiming the market applauding Bush, as though any pres has the ability, would have also been “utterly stupid,” as would anyone who would have defended such a stupid post. The stupid behavior of stupid Bush supporters doesn’t make this post any less … stupid. I came here because you were recently listed as one of the best business blogs out there. I hope this is not typical.
“How about this graph?”
Well I would say that it makes the opposite point from what you thought it meant when it first came out. Not that anyone could figure out when or where that was since you give no link and there is no source in the graphic itself. Though interestingly it shows up in a very recent piece at Heritage
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Though again interestingly they had to update the post and admit that the graph was a year old, something they knew since they had posted the updated one in their own post here six weeks earlier. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/
From memory your (outdated) graph came out in the wake of the stimulus package and shows contrasting estimates of FY 09 deficits by CBO of $1.85 trillion vs OMB (i.e. team Obama) $1.75 trillion. The actual number came in at $1.4 trillion, making the implied claim that Team Obama was low-balling estimates kind of foolish in retrospect.
The updated graphic actually reverses the picture in the one you cite, instead of being more pessimistic than OMB, CBO sees dramatically lower deficits by 2012 with the debt/GDP ratio stabilizing at a high but steady level of 66% through the remainder of the projection period.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter1.shtml
So what lesson are we supposed to draw from a more than a year old graph showing that CBO overestimated the actual 2009 deficit by 25% given that the updated version of that same graph from the same source shows them dramatically downgrading their deficit projections for upcoming years? I have to say on the surface it is not much of a ‘gotcha’. Basically Heritage stepped on their dick
Bruce
Oops a little sloppy on my part. My last sentence is unfair, unfortunately my edits are for some reason not holding. I’ll try to get rid of it, if so it read “Basically Heritage stepped on their dick”. Actually their post is from 2009 and they did update it with LATER information, i had the time sequence reversed.
My bad.
I;m not going to beat up Spencer, but didn’t Obama take office when the market had just lost 5000 points? just saying…..
Bush’s magic was more like hocus-pocus, aided and abetted by his new henchman Greenspan he insisted that what now seem to have been artificially high productivity during the tech boom would even with the recession that was triggered after he entered office would continue at a rate that would allow both huge tax cuts and continued paydown on the long term debt, in fact he and his predicted that debt would go to zero in large part because tax cuts would spur enough new investment to sustain those rates of growth. Instead the economy more or less staggered on after the 2003 tax cuts with unemployment marginally improving during what we now know was a housing led period of artificial growth enabled only because Bush regulators were a combination of asleep at the wheel and facilitating.
The current recession was not triggered by the takeover of Congress in 2006, the House then as now had no chance to act given the power of a Republican minority of 49 to tie up business, particularly when backed by Bush’s veto pen, even if Pelosi had the votes to override a threatened veto (she didn’t), she was helpless given the Senate’s inability to overcome Republican opposition.
Given the massive failure of Bush era regulation and the fact that it was Bush and Paulson that made the decision to throw trillions at the banks it does take magic to make this a Pelosi/Obama recession.
Methinks your predictions of a double-dip recession, while such a thing is possible, is in light of your failed attempt to deploy your crystal ball last year, are not going to keep me up at night.
We hope your whining isn’t either.
I interpreted this post as a spitball not an argument. Funny snarky and uses actual data. works for me.
Bruce,
My crystal ball? I have been almost perfectly correct in my predictions of what was coming. Some of which I said would happen in the future – I still predict that under Obama U3 (if calculated the same) will be double the highest level under Bush. I.e. roughly 15%. Still have plenty of time for that and the anti-business climate Obama is creating shows plenty of indications I’ll be right. But then again I never though that Obama would double the US deficit so fast either.
I’ll make another prediction – Obama’s U3 will never get withen 1% of Bush Jrs’ lowest level. Even if he’s in there 8 years.
I was 100% on my predictions of the Dem policies in the war. Haven’t missed one yet. DOubt I will, especially with Obama getting plenty of cover for all the Bush policies he has continued. How’s that Gitmo closing going BTW?
Lastly, the fact that you didn’t get the massive tongue in cheek with that little paragraph I wrote means you need a drink. And don’t forget Greenspan is the real bubble blower here.
But I’ll keep watching you guys drink the Kool-aid and tell me Obama will bring us to GDP Nirvana! It all the Dem’s show now. You guys have it all and get all the reward or the blame! Just like cactus has said – many times over!
Corev – You got it. Thanks!!!
Islam will change
str – that was the market pricing in the new Dem president…
see that was easy!
JCM, I agree with Am. Soc. It’s OK if you leave without adding anything to the conversation.
Bruce,
Since you have posting priviliges why don’t you post the updated graph on the main site for all to see and we can have that discussion.
All yours. I have been asking rdan to do that for over a year now….
Islam will change
You call this a conversation?
Okey-doke. But be prepared to explain why the original was important enough that you could just present it as if its message was obvious. I plan to do this right now but may to say ‘to hell with it’ and do it tomorrow.
Maybe you should be questioning your source regarding the best business blogs out there. I come here because I learn things. Sometimes funny things.
You sir, are quite funny.
I come here because I learn things.
I suspect your bar is set low. Do you like to watch too?
Bruce – Take you time. I’ve waited over a year a few more days won’t hurt. No rush.
And my point is very obvious.
Not to me it isn’t. Not given the way CBO has dramatically revised the numbers since last year. But either way you are cleared for take-off, I got the old, the new and the CBO Table up as a new post.
Buffy, you’ve been on a terror. You are head and shoulders the best today! I am afraid those Libs/Progressive here didn’t even get it. It was funny!
Based upon this type of Graph then FDR was the best president for business, at least in his first term. (GDP up 40% and the stock market recovered nicely in that term) Of course the business types hated FDR with a purple passion, as he destroyed their economic fetishes such as gold.
Now if you plotted Clinton Versus Bush you would see Clinton as a run away success. But all this assumes powers not granted to the president, For example unless you believe Al Gore invented the internet, its not obvious that Clinton created the fundamental tech of the 1990s boom.
CoRev,
They really don’t. See Bruce’s comments on the budget deficit graph that finally got put up.
This is fun. Its like playing tag with the blind. I’m starting to beleive that you can be an economist by throwing darts on a board.
Islam will change
Bruce,
“There were any number of prolific commenters here that jumped to Bush’s defense every time Cactus or Spencer put up data.”
Some defended Bush based on the unreasonable attacks, the lies, and the plain partisianship for partisianship sake.
All the data posted here at AB was not posted as a learning tool, it was always twisted in way to use it as a Political Sledge Hammer against Bush.
You did a post relating the Bush family’s Banking Background during the Nazi years for christ sake, so what are you talking about?
There has been no real objectivity toward any Democrats or Obama at this site, and this administration is a disaster when related to the same topics that were dicussed during the Bush years.
Have it anyway you want Bruce, but in the end, it is a reflection of you and AB and I can live with that…Can you?
Still working on your introductory charms I see.
Buffy, only darts with suction cups. Wouldn’t want anyone hurt or an eye put out. Blind leading the blind using sharp darts is not the best option.
He didn’t turn bosnia into a trillion dollar war of empire either.
I LOVE a BULL market and if it takes an Obama over a Bush to do this then let’s go for it! BEAR markets are so negative and depressing….and there is enough of that in other places!
No wonder.
Bush demanded 700 billion, and blew half of it out the window, Obama started with the second half and upped to what, 7 trillion or more by now?
The Journal of Finance released a study a while back that showed the stock market has done better when a Democrat was in the White House all the way back to the 1920s. For some odd reason, people continue to believe that “Republicans are better for business”, when it just ain’t so!
He means Corporatists prefer 0bama or Fascists or perhaps a better term might be Plutocratic Socialists and hes is absolutely correct they do……..
Whoooops there goes another pallet load of money straight from the Feds discount window that will be willy nillilly thrown into the market by Goldman JPM Morgan Stanley and the like…the 60% skim job for the bonus pool from the phantom profits is awesome.
They like 0bama
watch the cnbc mark haines “marks bottom” call of 3/10/09 when he said obama just called the market bottom so do I false political beliefs and opinions do not count just facts at least since then just look at your investment values today vs. then 5/5/11
obama and haines called the bottom 3/10/09 sorry you think it could not happen. the dems by any measure lead in stock market results.. looks like 2.60 gas next yr ,15000 dow and a democratic sweep ,taxes will rise ,they are loww right now ,want to go back to rates when reagan was in. but things willget fixed