Aa
Worst. Socialist. Ever.
In 2004, a Bush cabinet official said job creation and GDP numbers matter, but "the stock market is ... the final arbiter" of economic success.
If that's true, eight years later, Republicans ought to be awfully impressed with President Obama.
Through Friday, since Mr. Obama's inauguration -- his first 1,368 days in office -- the Dow Jones industrial average has gained 67.9 percent. That's an extremely strong performance -- the fifth best for an equivalent period among all American presidents since 1900. The Bespoke Investment Group calculated those returns for The New York Times.
The best showing occurred in Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term, when the market rose by a whopping 238.1 percent. Of course, that followed a calamitous decline. When his term started, the Dow had fallen to one-fourth of its former peak. In 2008, the year before Mr. Obama took office, the Dow declined by roughly one-third.
In the last half-century, the president who's overseen the strongest performance on Wall Street was Bill Clinton. The second best? Barack Obama, easily.
As we talked about in April, this also suggests Obama is the worst socialist of all time. A soaring stock market, record high corporate profits, private sector job growth ... it's almost as if the president didn't listen to Karl Marx at all.
All joking aside, I don't consider major Wall Street indexes a reliable metric when it comes to measuring the health of the economy. Indeed, it's not even close.
But here's the kicker: Obama's detractors do consider major Wall Street indexes a reliable metric when it comes to measuring the health of the economy.
As long time readers may recall, the Wall Street Journal ran an entire editorial in early March 2009 arguing that the weak Dow Jones was a direct result of investors evaluating "Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance."
Karl Rove and Lou Dobbs made the same case. So did Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fred Barnes. For a short while, it was one of Mitt Romney's favorite talking points, too. Even John Boehner got in on the larger attack.
I don't think a strong stock market is necessarily proof of a robust economy, but I also don't think the right should have it both ways. If a bear market in 2009 is, in the minds of conservatives, clear proof that Obama's agenda is misguided and dangerous, then soaring Wall Street indexes shouldn't be dismissed by those same detractors as politically irrelevant.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/22/14620955-worst-socialist-ever?lite
If that's true, eight years later, Republicans ought to be awfully impressed with President Obama.
Through Friday, since Mr. Obama's inauguration -- his first 1,368 days in office -- the Dow Jones industrial average has gained 67.9 percent. That's an extremely strong performance -- the fifth best for an equivalent period among all American presidents since 1900. The Bespoke Investment Group calculated those returns for The New York Times.
The best showing occurred in Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term, when the market rose by a whopping 238.1 percent. Of course, that followed a calamitous decline. When his term started, the Dow had fallen to one-fourth of its former peak. In 2008, the year before Mr. Obama took office, the Dow declined by roughly one-third.
In the last half-century, the president who's overseen the strongest performance on Wall Street was Bill Clinton. The second best? Barack Obama, easily.
As we talked about in April, this also suggests Obama is the worst socialist of all time. A soaring stock market, record high corporate profits, private sector job growth ... it's almost as if the president didn't listen to Karl Marx at all.
All joking aside, I don't consider major Wall Street indexes a reliable metric when it comes to measuring the health of the economy. Indeed, it's not even close.
But here's the kicker: Obama's detractors do consider major Wall Street indexes a reliable metric when it comes to measuring the health of the economy.
As long time readers may recall, the Wall Street Journal ran an entire editorial in early March 2009 arguing that the weak Dow Jones was a direct result of investors evaluating "Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance."
Karl Rove and Lou Dobbs made the same case. So did Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fred Barnes. For a short while, it was one of Mitt Romney's favorite talking points, too. Even John Boehner got in on the larger attack.
I don't think a strong stock market is necessarily proof of a robust economy, but I also don't think the right should have it both ways. If a bear market in 2009 is, in the minds of conservatives, clear proof that Obama's agenda is misguided and dangerous, then soaring Wall Street indexes shouldn't be dismissed by those same detractors as politically irrelevant.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/22/14620955-worst-socialist-ever?lite
If I have to invest my social security, what are the chances this would happen to me and Im left penniless. That would be my luck.
Oops, this is supposed to be on another thread, sorry.
The problem as I see it is a lack of transparency and again, like with the voter machines, conflict of interest.
I googled clear channel and found this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/06/clear-channel-s-directors-give-big-to-romney-who-won-t-criticize-limbaugh.html
Clear Channel’s Directors Give Big to Romney, Who Won’t Criticize Limbaugh
The directors of Clear Channel, which hosts Rush Limbaugh’s show, have been big donors to Mitt Romney’s campaigns, which might help explain why Romney has been so reluctant to criticize Rush.
I googled clear channel and found this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/06/clear-channel-s-directors-give-big-to-romney-who-won-t-criticize-limbaugh.html
Clear Channel’s Directors Give Big to Romney, Who Won’t Criticize Limbaugh
The directors of Clear Channel, which hosts Rush Limbaugh’s show, have been big donors to Mitt Romney’s campaigns, which might help explain why Romney has been so reluctant to criticize Rush.
Well said brice. That's very true.
Investments have gone in the sh*tter.
Investments have gone in the sh*tter.
Oh I remember well losing 500 one day, then another the next! Lots of people have their retirement in the stocks and some lost pert near everything.
A guy who works for me is a stock trader during the day. He said fear alone can spur the market in an upwards trend. Everyone dumping stocks and reinvesting elsewhere shows up and it makes the market look like it's doing something.
Stability is something that isn't present... the market is not stable. A stable market with regular movements equals a stable market.
I"m broke, so it doesn't affect me.
Stability is something that isn't present... the market is not stable. A stable market with regular movements equals a stable market.
I"m broke, so it doesn't affect me.
I already read that part.
Like I said, you'd have to understand the market. Also, there's a lot more than just Wall Street to take into consideration when considering the economy. Our economy is gauged by a lot more than just that.
And again, you can't forget that people were dumping stocks in fear of a replay of the last crash....that can sometimes give a false impression of how good the market is doing.
Like I said, you'd have to understand the market. Also, there's a lot more than just Wall Street to take into consideration when considering the economy. Our economy is gauged by a lot more than just that.
And again, you can't forget that people were dumping stocks in fear of a replay of the last crash....that can sometimes give a false impression of how good the market is doing.
I don't think a strong stock market is necessarily proof of a robust economy, but I also don't think the right should have it both ways. If a bear market in 2009 is, in the minds of conservatives, clear proof that Obama's agenda is misguided and dangerous, then soaring Wall Street indexes shouldn't be dismissed by those same detractors as politically irrelevant.
I don't think a strong stock market is necessarily proof of a robust economy
It absolutely isn't, and anyone who knows their way around the stock market will tell you that. A lot of the stock market increases that were seen, were a result of people selling off their stocks as fast as they could.
What's the value of our dollar? How has our trade been affected?
Obama tried, I'll give him that, but what he did was fiscally irresponsible. He wanted to fix the economy...but the answer wasn't to just keep printing more money and giving bail outs after bail outs, without ever replacing that money.
It absolutely isn't, and anyone who knows their way around the stock market will tell you that. A lot of the stock market increases that were seen, were a result of people selling off their stocks as fast as they could.
What's the value of our dollar? How has our trade been affected?
Obama tried, I'll give him that, but what he did was fiscally irresponsible. He wanted to fix the economy...but the answer wasn't to just keep printing more money and giving bail outs after bail outs, without ever replacing that money.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
