If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
charle...@excite.com
Jean Smith
<18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
charle...@excite.com wrote:
> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
That is getting harder and harder to do.
Wouldn't Warren Buffett be bailing out on him?
See Charlie Rose Show last week.
--
C-SPAN3? http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html
http://www.sciencefriday.com/ http://www.backyardnature.net/rabbits.htm
Oops: http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/193352/735/868/609334
green lantern
> In article
> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>
> > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
McCain: Well, thank you, Tom. And I think what I don't know is what all
of us don't know, and that's what's going to happen both here at home
and abroad.
The challenges that we face are unprecedented. Americans are hurting
tonight in a way they have not in our generation.
There are challenges around the world that are new and different and
there will be different -- we will be talking about countries sometime
in the future that we hardly know where they are on the map, some Americans.
So what I don't know is what the unexpected will be. But I have spent my
whole life serving this country. I grew up in a family where my father
was gone most of the time because he was at sea and doing our country's
business. My mother basically raised our family.
I know what it's like in dark times. I know what it's like to have to
fight to keep one's hope going through difficult times. I know what it's
like to rely on others for support and courage and love in tough times.
I know what it's like to have your comrades reach out to you and your
neighbors and your fellow citizens and pick you up and put you back in
the fight.
That's what America's all about. I believe in this country. I believe in
its future. I believe in its greatness. It's been my great honor to
serve it for many, many years.
And I'm asking the American people to give me another opportunity and
I'll rest on my record, but I'll also tell you, when times are tough, we
need a steady hand at the tiller and the great honor of my life was to
always put my country first.
--
not too random uselessnet weirdness:
Bill Shatzer wrote:
"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,"
Baxter blurts out a plaintive call for Viagra:
"At my age, I don't need balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
WhorresD gets politically bipolar:
"I like McCain's plain speaking way, to the point,
no punches pulled.
I would trust McCain to do the right thing,
I think that he's a truthful person, with his heart in
the right place."
Dog shit McAfee expresses his Marxism:
"Capitalism has never worked."
John A. Weeks III
> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
will take a major dive? By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
subsequent 3000 point recovery.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Scott
<jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>In article
><18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>
>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>
>Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>will take a major dive?
Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
Bush and his deregulation cronies.
>By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
>the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
>subsequent 3000 point recovery.
Exactly...kind of the same way Reagan got credit for the Berlin
Wall coming down and the fall of the Russian economy...right place,
right time.
.
.
- Scott Smith: scott...@iphouse.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
WDS
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
>
> >In article
> ><18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>
> >> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>
> >Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> >will take a major dive?
>
> Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
> Bush and his deregulation cronies.
>
> >By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
> >the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
> >subsequent 3000 point recovery.
>
> Exactly...kind of the same way Reagan got credit for the Berlin
> Wall coming down and the fall of the Russian economy...right place,
> right time.
The economy, and heck the world, just lurches along at its own pace.
Specific government actions can trim off the peaks and thus fill in
the valleys a bit, or the reverse, but overall nothing they do will
stop the cyclical nature of these things. Whoever is in power at the
time good things happen takes credit and blames the bad things on the
previous guys. The guys out of power do the reverse. Only partisans,
and idiots, actually believe them. This is the 3rd or 4th stock
market "crash" I've been through (let's see, 73, 87, 00, now) and
nothing has changed.
The current administration definitely pushed to get the peak higher
and thus the resulting valley vastly lower.
WDS
> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
Scott
No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the
next one elected to start fixing things.
green lantern
The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...
green lantern
> In article
> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>
>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>
> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> will take a major dive?
I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
Try again when you've reviewed reality.
green lantern
And they must be responsible for all the GLOBAL markets that have
faltered too...right?
green lantern
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
> <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>>
>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>> will take a major dive?
>
> Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
> Bush and his deregulation cronies.
Sorry, you missed the real causes:
Publication:IBD; Date:Sep 29, 2008; Section:Front Page; Page Number:A1
UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE
Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It
Political full-court press by Dems kept reforms of errant banks at bay
What Caused The Loan Crisis? FIFTH IN A SERIES
BY TERRY JONES INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Could the crisis at Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac and the subprime meltdown
have been avoided?
The answer is yes.
As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie
and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention
at any point could have staved off today’s crisis. But Democrats in
Congress stood in the way.
As the president recently said, Democrats have been “resisting any
efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some
standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
No, it wasn’t President Bush who said that; it was President
Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.
Interesting, because it was his administration’s relentless focus
on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory
pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.
Freddie and Fannie, backed by an “implicit” taxpayer guarantee,
bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.
The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with
former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall
Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.
As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan
portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15
years in the making.
Democrats Blocked Reform
Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other
early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton
era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie
and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep.
Barney Frank, who now run Congress’ key banking panels.
History is utterly clear on this.
After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999
of the “systemic risk” posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held
hearings the next year.
But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions
to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes
would take place.
“We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we
manage our credit and interest rate risks,” Fannie CEO Franklin Raines,
a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to
investors in 1999.
In November 2000, Clinton’s HUD hailed “new regulations to provide
$2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million
families.” It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal
expansion of housing aid ever.
Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton
recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times
called “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance
industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that
could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.
Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and
Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost
bonuses, Democrats killed reform.
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial
crisis,” said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial
Services Committee.
North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of
“weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to
get affordable housing.”
In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: “We are
placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk.”
McCain Urged Changes
That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a
Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: “If Congress does not act, American
taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial
system and the economy as a whole.”
Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying
to “cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their
mission of expanding homeownership.”
The bill went nowhere.
This year, the media have repeated Democrats’ talking points about
this being a “Republican” disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called
for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned
Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.
Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created
by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and
protected by Democrats.
That’s why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.
>> By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
>> the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
>> subsequent 3000 point recovery.
>
> Exactly...kind of the same way Reagan got credit for the Berlin
> Wall coming down and the fall of the Russian economy...right place,
> right time.
Was his SDI program "right place right time" also?
Because that's what broke the Russian Bear's back.
green lantern
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>
>
> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the
> next one elected to start fixing things.
Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned
thing, you moron.
If you like economic pain Nobama and the Dems will give you four years
of masochism.
Scott
wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>
>>
>> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the
>> next one elected to start fixing things.
>
>Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned
>thing, you moron.
If taxes are raised for the right people/companies, and left alone or
lowered for the average American, it certainly won't hurt.
>If you like economic pain Nobama and the Dems will give you four years
>of masochism.
It's not going to hurt me, I'm not in the top 10% of the income
bracket in this country.
In fact, I may actually see a reduction in my taxes if Obama gets
elected. That I can live with.
Scott
wrote:
>WDS wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>
>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>
>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>
>The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...
Only because it is looking more likely every day now.
junk bonds
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:32:29 -0600, green lantern <n...@evil.escapes>
> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>>
>>> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the
>>> next one elected to start fixing things.
>> Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned
>> thing, you moron.
>
> If taxes are raised for the right people/companies, and left alone or
> lowered for the average American, it certainly won't hurt.
You're so breathtakingly idiotic it just defies comprehension.
ANY tax hikes during a deep recession are economy killers, period.
Further:
MAY 20, 2008 You Can't Soak the Rich
Kurt Hauser is a San Francisco investment economist who, 15 years ago,
published fresh and eye-opening data about the federal tax system. His
findings imply that there are draconian constraints on the ability of
tax-rate increases to generate fresh revenues. I think his discovery
deserves to be called Hauser's Law, because it is as central to the
economics of taxation as Boyle's Law is to the physics of gases. Yet
economists and policy makers are barely aware of it.
Like science, economics advances as verifiable patterns are recognized
and codified. But economics is in a far earlier stage of evolution than
physics. Unfortunately, it is often poisoned by political wishful
thinking, just as medieval science was poisoned by religious doctrine.
Taxation is an important example.
The interactions among the myriad participants in a tax system are as
impossible to unravel as are those of the molecules in a gas, and the
effects of tax policies are speculative and highly contentious. Will
increasing tax rates on the rich increase revenues, as Barack Obama
hopes, or hold back the economy, as John McCain fears? Or both?
Mr. Hauser uncovered the means to answer these questions definitively.
On this page in 1993, he stated that "No matter what the tax rates have
been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of
GDP." What a pity that his discovery has not been more widely disseminated.
The chart nearby, updating the evidence to 2007, confirms Hauser's
Law. The federal tax "yield" (revenues divided by GDP) has remained
close to 19.5%, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91% to
the present 35%. This is what scientists call an "independence theorem,"
and it cuts the Gordian Knot of tax policy debate.
The data show that the tax yield has been independent of marginal tax
rates over this period, but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP.
So if we want to increase tax revenue, we need to increase GDP.
What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all
persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case
Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly
inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the
face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be
unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax
rates on the rich – if they knew about it.
Although Hauser's Law sounds like a restatement of the Laffer Curve (and
Mr. Hauser did cite Arthur Laffer in his original article), it has
independent validity. Because Mr. Laffer's curve is a theoretical
insight, theoreticians find it easy to quibble with. Test cases, where
the economy responds to a tax change, always lend themselves to many
alternative explanations. Conventional economists, despite immense
publicity, have yet to swallow the Laffer Curve. When it is mentioned at
all by critics, it is often as an object of scorn.
Because Mr. Hauser's horizontal straight line is a simple fact, it is
ultimately far more compelling. It also presents a major opportunity. It
seems likely that the tax system could maintain a 19.5% yield with a top
bracket even lower than 35%.
What makes Hauser's Law work? For supply-siders there is no mystery. As
Mr. Hauser said: "Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and
underreport income. . . . Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work,
produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity
and job creation."
Putting it a different way, capital migrates away from regimes in which
it is treated harshly, and toward regimes in which it is free to be
invested profitably and safely. In this regard, the capital controlled
by our richest citizens is especially tax-intolerant.
The economics of taxation will be moribund until economists accept and
explain Hauser's Law. For progress to be made, they will have to face up
to it, reconcile it with other facts, and incorporate it within the body
of accepted knowledge. And if this requires overturning existing
doctrine, then so be it.
>> If you like economic pain Nobama and the Dems will give you four years
>> of masochism.
>
> It's not going to hurt me, I'm not in the top 10% of the income
> bracket in this country.
It is going to hurt EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN IN EVERY TAX BRACKET !
> In fact, I may actually see a reduction in my taxes if Obama gets
> elected. That I can live with.
Any tax reduction you may receive will pale by comparison to the almost
certain income penalty and retirement account drop you will suffer as a
result of upending the entire economy in a deep recession.
You are very, very stupid.
junk bonds
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:31:18 -0600, green lantern <n...@evil.escapes>
> wrote:
>
>> WDS wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>> The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...
>
>
> Only because it is looking more likely
No, only because THEY elevated him into contention, learn something, fool:
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp
Obama’s Margin of Victory: The Media
How Barack Obama Could Not Have Won the Democratic Nomination Without
ABC, CBS and NBC
By Rich Noyes
MRC Research Director
On August 28, when the junior Senator from Illinois accepts his party’s
nomination to be the next President of the United States, Barack Obama
may wish to spend a few moments thanking network news reporters for
making the whole night possible. Since the launch of Obama’s national
political career at the Democratic convention four years ago, the Big
Three broadcast networks have showered Obama with positive — even
glowing — news coverage, protected the candidate from the attacks of his
rivals, and shown little interest in investigating Obama’s past
associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened
his campaign.
These are the key findings of an exhaustive analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC
evening news coverage of Barack Obama — every story, every soundbite,
every mention — through the end of the Democratic primaries in June.
Media Research Center analysts examined every reference to Obama on the
three evening broadcasts, and found a near-absence of the journalistic
scrutiny and skepticism normally associated with coverage of national
politicians. Indeed, much of the coverage — particularly prior to the
formal start of Obama’s presidential campaign in early 2007 — bordered
on giddy celebration of a rising political "rock star" rather than
objective newsgathering.
That the national media have unfairly tipped the scales in Obama’s
direction is a fact not lost on the public. The Pew Research Center
surveyed about 1,000 adults in late May, and reported that "far more
Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than
think it has favored Hillary Clinton," with even 35 percent of Democrats
seeing "a pro-Obama bias." A Rasmussen survey of 1,000 likely voters
released July 21 discovered "49 percent of voters believe that in the
general election, most reporters will try to help Obama with their
coverage" while "just one voter in four (24%) believes that most
reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage."
And a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of 900 registered voters released
July 24 discovered six times as many think "most members of the media"
want Obama to win rather than McCain. According to an article posted on
FoxNews.com, "Only about 1 in 10 (11 percent) volunteers the belief that
the media is neutral on the race to become the 44th President of the
United States....When asked to rate the objectivity of media coverage of
the campaigns, Americans feel Obama gets more of a positive spin by a
better than 7-to-1 margin (46 percent more positive toward Obama; 6
percent more positive toward McCain)."
The public believes the media are tilted towards Obama because of the
biased performance they witnessed during this year’s primaries. NBC News
correspondent Lee Cowan, the reporter assigned to cover the Obama
campaign full time during the primaries, admitted in an interview in
early January that he felt pulled in Obama’s direction: "From a
reporter’s point of view, it’s almost hard to remain objective because
it’s infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core
to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger,
his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that."
Weeks later, Cowan told the New York Times’ Jacques Steinberg that it
was "hard not to drink the Kool-Aid" surrounding Obama: "Even in the
conversations we have as colleagues, there is a sense of trying
especially hard not to drink the Kool-Aid. It’s so rapturous, everything
around him. All these huge rallies."
On CNN’s Reliable Sources on January 13, Washington Post media writer
Howard Kurtz asked a former Washington Post editor, The Politico’s John
Harris, whether he thought "journalists are rooting for the Obama
story." Harris referred back to his time at the Post: "A couple years
ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they
needed to go through detox when they came back — ‘Oh, he’s so
impressive, he’s so charismatic,’ and we’re kind of like, ‘Down, boy.’"
Anchoring news coverage of Democratic primaries on February 12, MSNBC’s
Chris Matthews famously confessed after listening to an Obama victory
speech, "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that
too often."
To assess the degree to which journalists’ infatuation with Obama
contaminated daily news coverage, MRC analysts used our own News
Tracking System (NTS) software and Nexis to locate every story
mentioning Obama on ABC’s World News, the CBS Evening News and NBC
Nightly News from the time Obama emerged on the national stage (the
first evening news story mentioning Obama aired on May 17, 2000) through
June 6, 2008, the last broadcast before Hillary Clinton formally exited
the Democratic race, cementing Obama’s nomination.
The three evening news broadcasts may not be able to tout the high
ratings of a generation ago, but together averaged more than 23 million
combined viewers from January through early June of this year, far more
than their cable news competitors. And unlike the news junkies who flock
to the 24/7 cable outlets, the typical broadcast evening news viewer
spends less of their day devouring campaign news, which makes them
consequently more likely to be influenced by the information and images
they receive from these programs.
Analysts found a total of 1,365 news stories and interviews offering at
least some discussion of Obama. About two-fifths of these (550) were
full reports that focused exclusively, or nearly so, on Obama. Another
170 items (about 12% of the total) were brief, anchor-read items that
also focused on Obama. Just under half of the total (645, or 47%) were
full reports or interviews that included either mentions of or
soundbites from Obama, but did not focus on him. Examples of stories
included in this group are: items about the congressional debate over
Iraq in early 2007 which quoted Obama along with many other senators;
stories about candidate debates where Obama was one talking head among
many; or stories about any of his Democratic (or Republican) rivals
which included some comments directed at Obama himself. These stories,
about 30 percent of which conveyed a distinctly positive or negative
spin about the candidate (more about how we determined a story’s spin
shortly), were included in the sample to ensure a complete portrait of
network news coverage of Obama.
NBC and ABC aired the most total stories (490 and 464 respectively),
with the CBS Evening News a fairly distant third with 411 stories. As
far as stories that focused mainly on Obama, ABC (194) and NBC (198)
were practically tied, with CBS again lagging (158 stories). The NBC
Nightly News aired the most stories with minor discussion of Obama
(249), followed by ABC’s World News (222) and CBS (174). The remainder
were brief items read by the news anchor; the CBS Evening News — which
had a regular "Campaign Notebook" segment of short items — aired the
most such stories (74), followed by ABC (48) and NBC (43).
Scott
>Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:32:29 -0600, green lantern <n...@evil.escapes>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>>>
>>>> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the
>>>> next one elected to start fixing things.
>>> Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned
>>> thing, you moron.
>>
>> If taxes are raised for the right people/companies, and left alone or
>> lowered for the average American, it certainly won't hurt.
>
>You're so breathtakingly idiotic it just defies comprehension.
>
>ANY tax hikes during a deep recession are economy killers, period.
No, not true.
There is no academic study in the world that suggests that tax
cuts for the wealthy and powerful lead to greater economic
prosperity. And there is no evidence in academic literature
that lowering tax rates somehow will generate greater economic
output and magically end up paying for itself without creating
greater deficits. Bush's tax cuts resulted in turning a Clinton
$250 billion annual surplus into a $500 billion-plus annual deficit.
Talk about an "economy killer"!
Scott
>Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:31:18 -0600, green lantern <n...@evil.escapes>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> WDS wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>> The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...
>>
>>
>> Only because it is looking more likely
>
>No, only because THEY elevated him into contention, learn something, fool:
>
>http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp
It's impossible to learn anything from a biased source like
the Media Research Center...a well known right wing
organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center
The Media Research Center has been discredited long ago as
being nothing more than a right wing propaganda machine.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1972
I hope YOU learned something.....fool. ;-)
junk bonds
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:25:09 -0600, junk bonds <j...@nk.moody> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:32:29 -0600, green lantern <n...@evil.escapes>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>>>> No, but at this point it's almost a done deal that he will be the
>>>>> next one elected to start fixing things.
>>>> Here's a hint - raising taxes in a global recession won't fix a damned
>>>> thing, you moron.
>>> If taxes are raised for the right people/companies, and left alone or
>>> lowered for the average American, it certainly won't hurt.
>> You're so breathtakingly idiotic it just defies comprehension.
>>
>> ANY tax hikes during a deep recession are economy killers, period.
>
> No, not true.
Yes, completely true.
Google: Hoover + Depression.
> There is no academic study in the world that suggests that tax
> cuts for the wealthy and powerful lead to greater economic
> prosperity.
Sure there is, I posted it and you deleted it, coward.
> And there is no evidence in academic literature
> that lowering tax rates somehow will generate greater economic
> output and magically end up paying for itself without creating
> greater deficits.
You're lying again.
OPINION MAY 20, 2008 You Can't Soak the Rich
By DAVID RANSONArticle
more in Opinion »Email Printer Friendly Share:
Yahoo Buzz MySpace Digg Text Size
Presidential candidates, instead of disputing how much more tax to
impose on whom, would be better advised to come up with plans for
increasing GDP while ridding the tax system of its wearying complexity.
That would be a formula for success.
junk bonds
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:26:32 -0600, junk bonds <j...@nk.moody> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:31:18 -0600, green lantern <n...@evil.escapes>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> WDS wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>> Given the current market I guess Obama has already been elected then?
>>>> The partisan pro-Bama media would have you believe as much...
>>>
>>> Only because it is looking more likely
>> No, only because THEY elevated him into contention, learn something, fool:
>>
>> http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp
>
> It's impossible to learn anything from a biased source like
> the Media Research Center...a well known right wing
> organization.
Care to refute the numbers cited?
No?
You're done.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center
>
> The Media Research Center has been discredited
The data cited has not, you LOSE again.
Oh, btw, do you find the Washington Post to be a 'biased source" too?
LOLOL!!!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030202476.html
There was also little pickup when the Politico reported that a decade
ago Obama visited Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers, the 1960s radicals
whose Weather Underground group was involved in two dozen bombings. And
the issue of Obama's dealings with Rezko all but vanished after a brief
flurry until the run-up to his trial, which begins today.
Similarly, there was scant media mention of Louis Farrakhan's support
for Obama until Tim Russert challenged the senator to repudiate that
support at last week's MSNBC debate -- making Russert the target of some
liberal bloggers who say he went overboard on the issue.
Would Clinton have skated as easily if she were found to have visited
radicals tied to violence? Or bought land from an indicted businessman,
as in the Rezko case? Or if the pastor of her church had talked about
"this racist United States of America," as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who
heads Obama's church, has?
That is hard to imagine. Clinton's complaints about media imbalance are
buttressed by a new study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
From Dec. 16 through Feb. 19, it says, the three network newscasts
aired reports that were 84 percent positive for Obama and 53 percent
positive for Clinton. She scored higher on evaluations of policy and
public performance, but that amounted to only 10 percent of the coverage.
On Friday, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters there was a
"staggering" gap between the Rezko coverage and the volume of questions
he fielded about her indicted fundraiser, Norman Hsu.
John A. Weeks III
green lantern <n...@evil.escapes> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
> > <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> >> charle...@excite.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> >> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> >> will take a major dive?
> >
> > Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
> > Bush and his deregulation cronies.
>
> Sorry, you missed the real causes:
>
> Publication:IBD; Date:Sep 29, 2008; Section:Front Page; Page Number:A1
I'm sorry that you committed a federal crime by reproducing a
copyrighted document in its whole without written permission
from the copyright holder. So sad you go to jail.
John A. Weeks III
green lantern <n...@evil.escapes> wrote:
> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> > In article
> > <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > charle...@excite.com wrote:
> >
> >> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> >
> > Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> > will take a major dive?
>
> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004? Isn't Bush president this
very day? Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
> Try again when you've reviewed reality.
Try again when you get a ticket on the clue bus.
eponymous
> In article <6l4a3kF...@mid.individual.net>,
> green lantern <n...@evil.escapes> wrote:
>
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>>> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>>> will take a major dive?
>> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
>
> Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?
Sure did!
> Isn't Bush president this
> very day?
Dang, he surely is!
> Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
> the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions
Early 1990s recession 1990–1991 - 1 year Industrial production and
manufacturing-trade sales decreased in early 1991.
But nice try.
>> Try again when you've reviewed reality.
>
> Try again when you get a ticket on the clue bus.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/
The current Bush administration's claim that it inherited a recession
from Clinton became somewhat more credible last week, when the Commerce
Department revised its estimates of GDP, the broadest measure of
economic growth, in the first, second and third quarters of 2001,
showing that it shrank in all three quarters.
John A. Weeks III
eponymous <r...@m.or> wrote:
> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> > In article <6l4a3kF...@mid.individual.net>,
> > green lantern <n...@evil.escapes> wrote:
> >
> >> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> charle...@excite.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> >>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> >>> will take a major dive?
> >> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
> >
> > Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?
>
> Sure did!
>
> > Isn't Bush president this
> > very day?
>
> Dang, he surely is!
>
> > Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
> > the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
>
> Nope.
Try looking up "resolution trust", and then post your apology.
Scott Smith
>In article <48ed4473$0$30700$7836...@newsrazor.net>,
> eponymous <r...@m.or> wrote:
>
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> > In article <6l4a3kF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> > green lantern <n...@evil.escapes> wrote:
>> >
>> >> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> >>> In article
>> >>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>> >>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>> >>> will take a major dive?
>> >> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
>> >
>> > Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?
>>
>> Sure did!
>>
>> > Isn't Bush president this
>> > very day?
>>
>> Dang, he surely is!
>>
>> > Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
>> > the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Try looking up "resolution trust", and then post your apology.
The fact is that the Republican economic policies starting with
Ronald Reagan and his "Reaganomics" (i.e. tax cuts for the wealthy,
reducing regulations on everything, etc.) were the beginning of the end
for our economy. Unless those Republican ways are changed, we are
doomed to keep falling deeper and deeper into debt.
And yes, Clinton was just a Republican "light" with his economic
policies. If it wasn't for the dot.com boom, we would have seen
this disaster sooner, IMO.
eponymous
> In article <48ed4473$0$30700$7836...@newsrazor.net>,
> eponymous <r...@m.or> wrote:
>
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>> In article <6l4a3kF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> green lantern <n...@evil.escapes> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>>>>> will take a major dive?
>>>> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
>>> Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?
>> Sure did!
>>
>>> Isn't Bush president this
>>> very day?
>> Dang, he surely is!
>>
>>> Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
>>> the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
>> Nope.
>
> Try looking up "resolution trust", and then post your apology.
>
> -john-
>
eponymous
Gladys
If McCain get elected ... uh... the earth will stop spinning!!
Yeah... that's the ticket.
Mars State
> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>
>
> If McCain get elected ...
We at least have a fighting chance.
Nobama will ruin this country.
Scott
>Gladys wrote:
>> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>>>
>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>
>>
>> If McCain get elected ...
>
>We at least have a fighting chance.
Not really. McCain is just offering more of the same failed policies
from the last eight years.
I agree that he does offer the chance for the U.S. to keep fighting
in Iraq, and with our NATO allies, but that's not a chance I want to
see us take anymore, since it's all futile and it gets us nowhere (but
down).
>Nobama will ruin this country.
He's too late for that, Bush Jr. has already done it.
Mars State
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:57:51 -0600, Mars State <27...@bit.udu> wrote:
>
>> Gladys wrote:
>>> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>
>>> If McCain get elected ...
>> We at least have a fighting chance.
>
> Not really. McCain is just offering more of the same
Do you morons all read from the same script?
Jean Smith
Gladys <just...@say.it.anymore> wrote:
We could reap the fruit of Iran Contra:
There is the World Anticommunist League of Super-heroes.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzQtw1kATj1xCqPcAmwgCKDtNpDQD93M2FQO0
--
C-SPAN3? http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html
http://www.sciencefriday.com/ http://www.backyardnature.net/rabbits.htm
Oops: http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/193352/735/868/609334
Mars State
> In article <48EE11AB...@say.it.anymore>,
> Gladys <just...@say.it.anymore> wrote:
>
> > charle...@excite.com wrote:
> > > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> > >
> >
> > If McCain get elected ... uh... the earth will stop spinning!!
> >
> > Yeah... that's the ticket.
>
> We could reap the fruit of Iran Contra:
You've reaped some fruit all right...
Scott Smith
No, we pay attention to the issues and the debates to get a
better understanding of where the candidates stand.
McCain is offering more of the same old Republican ways that
Bush Jr. has given us for the last eight years...and it has been a
complete disaster. No more, please.
Mars State
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:51:15 -0600, Mars State <27...@bit.udu> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:57:51 -0600, Mars State <27...@bit.udu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gladys wrote:
>>>>> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>>>>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>>>>>>
>>>>> If McCain get elected ...
>>>> We at least have a fighting chance.
>>> Not really. McCain is just offering more of the same
>> Do you morons all read from the same script?
>
> No,
Yes, you do.
Fuck off and die.
Jean Smith
Mars State <27...@bit.udu> wrote:
There is the World Anticommunist League of Super-heroes.
Mars State
> In article <48ee88c1$0$30625$7836...@newsrazor.net>,
> Mars State <27...@bit.udu> wrote:
>
> > Jean Smith wrote:
> > > In article <48EE11AB...@say.it.anymore>,
> > > Gladys <just...@say.it.anymore> wrote:
> > >
> > > > charle...@excite.com wrote:
> > > > > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If McCain get elected ... uh... the earth will stop spinning!!
> > > >
> > > > Yeah... that's the ticket.
> > >
> > > We could reap the fruit of Iran Contra:
> >
> >
> > You've reaped some fruit all right...
>
> There is the World
Eat my shit and like it.
D. A. Tsenuf
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-E0C314.0...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article
> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> will take a major dive?
Which goes to show how CLUELESS the Obama camp actually is
GWB is NOT running
> By the time Mr. Obama gets in office,
> the market will be so low that he will get the credit for the
> subsequent 3000 point recovery.
>
LOL
If Obama gets elected, we're facing another Carter era, but worse
The odds of ANY recovery will be NIL
If Obama gets elected, I will be shorting the market indices the next
morning
D. A. Tsenuf
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-0E5203.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <6l4a3kF...@mid.individual.net>,
> green lantern <n...@evil.escapes> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:34 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
>> > <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> <18fadf86-a474-43f0...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> charle...@excite.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
>> >> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
>> >> will take a major dive?
>> >
>> > Not just the market, but the entire damn economy crumbled under
>> > Bush and his deregulation cronies.
>>
>> Sorry, you missed the real causes:
>>
>> Publication:IBD; Date:Sep 29, 2008; Section:Front Page; Page Number:A1
>
> I'm sorry that you committed a federal crime by reproducing a
> copyrighted document in its whole without written permission
> from the copyright holder. So sad you go to jail.
>
> -john-
>
What a weasel to avoid facing the truth.
But so typical of the ignorant left.
Mars State
Jean Smith
McCain is apologizing for his hate mongering. He has a conscience and is
correcting his fellow prisoners.
Mepps#3
McCain has no hate.
You are a lying scumfucker.
Jean Smith
> In article <48ed4473$0$30700$7836c...@newsrazor.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> eponymous <r...@m.or> wrote:
> > John A. Weeks III wrote:
> > > green lantern <n...@evil.escapes> wrote:
>
> > >> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> > >>> In article
> > >>> charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>
> > >>>> If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> > >>> Don't you mean that if George W Bush gets elected, the market
> > >>> will take a major dive?
> > >> I'm sorry, but he's not running for office this time.
>
> > > Ummmmm, didn't Bush win in 2004?
>
> > Sure did!
>
> > > Isn't Bush president this
> > > very day?
>
> > Dang, he surely is!
>
> > > Didn't Bush 41 also cause an economic mess that
> > > the Clinton Administration had to clean up?
>
> > Nope.
>
> Try looking up "resolution trust", and then post your apology.
>
Free the Uighurs and let them be productive.
Let Warren Buffett figure out the tax brackets. He understands money.
dorado
Or at least how to give it away...
Willingwrkr
> In article
> <18fadf86-a474-43f0-9bd7-6cedc9a62...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> charleneco...@excite.com wrote:
>
> > If OBAMA gets elected.. the Stock Market will crash
> Wouldn't Warren Buffett be bailing out on him?
> See Charlie Rose Show last week.
>
> --
> C-SPAN3?http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp?http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.htmlhttp://www.sciencefriday.com/http://www.backyardnature.net/rabbits.htm
> Oops:http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/193352/735/868/609334
Most likely, not immediately.