I see today, that the DOW industrial average celebrated Obama's victory, by losing 314 points!

The "Obama Effect" is already in full swing! Pardon me while I dance on my ceiling. ;)

BTW German projections for their economy is a very tepid 0.8% growth for 2013 -- but Socialism is what Obama is directing us toward -- whoopee!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...isers-say.html

Will it go up again?

Good day to buy stock.

I hear they are expecting snow in the northeast. Must be the Obama effect.

How to win friends and influence people...

Adek's (and his ilk) reveal their true nature in remarks like this.

If the friends I win, want to drive me into a car accident, I would be wise to win other friends, safer driving, friends.


So the Senators and Representatives should all fall in step with Obama, even though he's now brought us up to a stunning 16 Trillion dollars of debt, and lead us into an incredibly slow recovery ?

The idea that they should do what's right for the country, shouldn't be an issue?

When you confess to your dishonesty of putting words in the President's mouth by saying that he "used that as a defense in the debate", then you'll grasp what *he* was saying about Romney's statement about the number of ships in the navy. Or not.

It was a lie when you said it the first time, it's still a lie now. Changing the subject didn't work before, and won't work now. You've shown your devotion to that position despite how wrong it is. Every time you bring it up, I'll knock it down.

Misquoting, putting words in people's mouths, lying, these are the actions of the ignorant, the malicious, of people who have no interest much less respect for the truth. I think you are a bit of all three. Our dialog will improve dramatically when you clean up your act in this regard.

Not unlike those planes that land on those ships, eh?

Heck, I wouldn't mind an opponent who just knew where he'd been and which way he was going. You and many others on the far right want to over simplify the problem and avoid admitting to any Republican responsibility for the current fiscal mess. It's so much more satisfying to just turn the president into the boogie man (he IS black, after all).

Say, remember that dufus we had for a president at the time of 9/11? Remember how we had a budget surplus when he came into office? Do you recall how he pushed a bunch of tax cuts through Congress while at the same time embroiling this country in an extremely expensive war without a single qualm about how much the bill would be and how it would be paid when it came due?

Ah, just put it on the credit card. The financial world is partying so hard, they'll probably not even pay any attention to it and when the day of reckoning finally does arrive, the responsible parties will have slithered away under some rock just like the reptiles they really are.

I guess since it was a Republican administration that pulled off this nasty little trick, they were doing "what was right for the country" even if it didn't look that way either then or now.

Jeez, give it a break already.

Ok.
You're wrong again. These were presented at the Democratic National Convention. Perhaps you didn't pay attention. They're all over his website too.

So, you're saying that Obama's responsible for what happens on the DOW Jones Industrial Average? Ok.

And another 1,500 points on top of that since the publication of this article.

I got your "Obama effect" hangin' right here, punk.

I don't blame Obama for the fiscal mess we were in when he was sworn in -- not at all.

What I do blame him for, is his fiscal actions and policies, since he became President.

I'm well aware of Bush's policies - he was a social conservative, but a fiscal big spender. :mad: More importantly, had he recognized the impending crisis earlier, he could have helped us avoid more of it.
Let's not forget our mistakes, let's learn from them. Bush was a big spender, and it was a mistake. Obama is a bigger spender, and it's a mistake.

Let's stop the big spending, already - there are a number of fiscal calamities that await us, if we don't use common sense, and STOP the massive over-spending!

I'm saying Obama's re-election was widely seen by investors, as a probable return to poor fiscal and business policies.

We had a business genius running for President, but we elected a guy who never ran a lemonade stand.

Maybe Obama has learned from his earlier mistakes - maybe Congress will force him into better compromises in his second term.

We'll see.

Aliens did it.

Those aren't policies or plans. Those are just campaign promises.

1) To outsource fewer jobs, you need to change our tax codes. Has Obama said anything about changing our tax codes for corporations?

NO.

2) He vetoed our biggest energy project in the last 5 years, the Keystone Pipeline project.

He's restricted oil and gas drilling on all Federal lands (thankfully he can't stop it on private land, which is booming). He even has cut back on the drilling in the Alaskan oil reserve area.

So this is another campaign promise that's a lie.

3) More skills to compete sounds great - but HOW is he going to do that? More campaign promises - ie. "lies".

4) Without sticking it to the middle class? What a laugh!
You watch your taxes go up, and then you'll know just how big a lie this is. He's massively overspent, do you think he can get the money he needs from just some rich folks?

Another lie.

He may get his money from things like payroll taxes, etc., rather than directly from an increase in the income tax rates, but he WILL have to either increase taxes to the middle class, or run up more of our national debt.

5) Strong national defense and smart foreign policy?

He just abandoned Ambassador Stevens and a few other American agents, to die in Benghazi, despite repeated pleas for help over a six hour period. All while the attack was monitored in real time, by a recon drone.

The terrorists who did it, Obama calls "folks"!

He's a blatant liar, and a coward to the men serving our country, overseas.

Or perhaps you can explain why he abandoned our Ambassador in Benghazi?

Come on! I'm VERY anxious to hear why!

I'm not putting words into Obama's mouth. I'm telling you what those words MEAN, in a tactical sense. I'm telling you that a ship in the Pacific, can't help us with an immediate problem in the Mediterranean Sea. It doesn't matter if it's an aircraft carrier or not.

And it MEANS, Obama has no tactical sense, at all. Or it's just another campaigning politician who lies. I wish he wouldn't do that about something as important as our Naval strength, however.

Sounds like most politicians, actually.

Dude, YOU have no tactical sense. How many oceans are there? How many ships do we have? How many ships per ocean?

I assure you, we don't have just one ship.

Don't make me find that chart that's been floating all over the web of our navy's size compared to the navies of all the countries of the rest of the world.

And how would we do that? Bringing down the deficit isn't a intuitive task. Right now we spend more on the three things that both parties refuse to cut (Social Security, Medicare, and Defense) than the revenue we bring in each year.

Why don't you take a boat and travel on out to Adak Island? I assure you, by the time you return, you'll have an ENTIRELY new perspective of how large the oceans of the world, actually are.

Actually, storms are bad around Adak Island, so go to Hawaii instead. But do it by boat/ship, not by plane.

I assure you, ships don't travel by one's - they travel in a fleet or battle group, so they have air cover, anti-sub and anti missile cruisers, and subs and destroyers, as well.

Currently, for the first time ever, US Navy is providing escort service to 99% of the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf - after threats from Iran. That has left us with NO ships in the Mediterranean Sea, at all, at times.

Putting on your tactical hat for a moment, do you see where we could need a fleet around oh, maybe Libya, maybe Egypt, maybe near Israel, etc.? You know, places where our consulates have been attacked, or places where we have a threatened ally from Iranian naval ships WHICH ARE in the Mediterranean for the first time?

You can't always wait while our fleet makes the three days journey from the Persian Gulf, around Yemen, and up through the Suez Canal, to get them into position. By then, it's too late. The attack in Benghazi was over in 6 to 7 hours, for instance.

And, even if there was a timely fleet arrival to something longer lasting, then we still have a problem - who's escorting the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? You can see the problem.

I'm not saying we need to increase the number of our ships, but I AM saying FOR SURE!, that we do not want to continue decreasing the number of ships in our Navy.

You increase revenue by removing the "gov't will now pick winners and losers in the IRS game of taxes", loopholes.

Read this NYTimes article on how the GE corporation makes millions, and pays NOTHING, because of loopholes. Keep the pepto bismol handy, and breakable objects out of reach. Because you WILL be boiling mad. :mad2:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...omy/25tax.html

Then you get our economy moving, so income to the gov't, is naturally increased. Well, that's a hope out the window now, but anyway... If you cut the size of gov't, you can cut a huge amount of gov't expense. Obama has increased federal employee's by the thousands, since taking office. We have to carry every one of them on our backs, as we labor - naturally.

Third, we quit this whole "nation building" idea for awhile. We spent a decade in Iraq, and another decade in Afghanistan, and we just can't afford to do that again. If we're attacked by a country with their terrorists, we go to fight them, and then WE LEAVE - AND LET THEM REBUILD THEIR COUNTRY for 10 to 30 years. It's not ideal, but it's realistically, what we should be doing, if attacked at this time.

Ryan's budget was a great guideline for moving us into fiscal responsibility. Someone is going to have to look into the federal budget very carefully, and start removing the non-essentials.

I'll pick paying farmers NOT to grow crops, as one of my favorite non-essentials. :p: There are thousands more, however. This is comical in a recession:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-30k-on-gaydar

Clinton had a pretty good grasp on what you needed to do to keep things running in the black. Wasn't always right, but compared to Bush or Obama, he was a real Conservative.

We once raised taxes and cut spending. Therefore jobs were created in massive numbers. Then, in 2000, wacko extremists took control. Massive spending. Welfare to the rich. Seven years later, we almost had 40% unemployment. We almost lost the entire economy.

Adak is an extremist. So he ignores lessons of history. We almost solved the budget deficit. Then wacko extremists spent money we did not have. Borrowed heavily from the Chinese and others. Even invents mythical enemies (Axis of Evil) and useless wars (Mission Accomplished) "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is a slogan only from wacko right wing extremists. Adak must forget all that to post his tirades and insults.

A decade is required to undo disasters created by wacko extremist right wing Republicans. One could simply read Facts from The Economist to learn what is obvious - including numbers. Only an extremist would advoctate more of what created this mess - in 2000 through 2008. Only an extremists would ignore numbers from The Economist.

First of all, you don't have to yell at me. I'm right in front of my computer screen and I can hear you just fine.

You can't have it both ways. You can't post that everything is Obama's fault and then flip flop when soneone calls you out on your rhetoric. Your reasoning could stand some improvement, as well.

"Overspending! Massive overspending!" You admit that Bush started it and then continue to mindlessly bash Obama and blame the entire deficit on Obama's spending problem without addressing the fact that Obama also has an income problem since the wealthy seem to think that they'd have to go live in a park and be homeless if they had to pay taxes at the rate they did before W. rescued them from their tax induced lives of poverty. :right:

Get honest. You'd buy the navy a thousand aircraft carriers it didn't need before you'd hand a hungry child a dollar to buy a loaf of bread. In fact, you'd probably tell the that kid he needed to give the dollar to the Navy to help build carrier number one thousand one.

The issue that needs to be addressed here is why it is now to the nation's benefit for one ever more elite group is to continue to shirk all reponsibility while enriching themselves at the expense of the rest? Like the CEO of a large financial corporation who gave free rein to the morgage party gang that worked in his department. The Corporation would have gone tits up, but thank god for Uncle Sugar. And thank god for the tireless ants who make an honest if simple living and actually contribute to the greater good rather than stealing from it. Because Uncle Sugar grabs some cash from the ants and goes bail for the Corporation.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Corporation, fresh from the bail bonds office, orders the sleaze bag CEO into the office. But, far from firing him or better yet - filing charges against him - the Corporation gives him a $121 MILLION$$$$$$ annual bonus for carrying his job out at "a difficult time." Should someone mention to our hero that maybe he should pay the same amount of taxes that he paid back in 1999 and the mouth of hell opens up and a million tea party members boil out to take a stand on his behalf.

So greed is no longer a sin. These days it has become a patriotic duty to accept offerings from the masses because this will create more jobs that you can then outsource to Katmandu. Oh, and don't forget the "illegal alien" who gets hired on as the third gardener on your million acre estate. So, let's all whistle the "Star Spangled Banner," as we walk into our offshore bank.

nicked from fred's myface feed:
Attachment 41609

lol

That's brilliant.

@ Sam well put. I especially liked this bit:

He started THIS overspending spree, certainly. I've said this repeatedly. Bush was a social conservative, and a fiscal liberal who overspent big time.


NO! Obama put in 780+ Billion into a stimulus package. What do we have to show for this?

It isn't just the amount of money Obama has spent, it's where the money was spent. At least with Bush, the money went into good purposes - Prescription drug law, HUGE donation to fighting AIDS in Africa, fighting Saddam and Al Qaeda. You know what the money went for.

Try that with Obama's spending, and see what comes to mind? Nothing.

You're drinking again or just being totally silly? Stop this nonsense.

Lots of finance guys got away scot free, we know that. That is how justice is done in America, and doesn't have much to do with either political party. Obama does control the entire Justice Dept at the Federal level, however.

Oh yeah! I can see you've swallowed the "let's hate the rich" kool aid that the Democrats were selling.

Let's remember that if they take off for Singapore (or wherever), we will all be substantially poorer here. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office, as reported by The Washington Times, the wealthy pay 70% of all our federal income tax monies.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-share-taxes/

Might want to think twice before you throw em overboard.

What will the next four years be like?

Not so great, maybe:

Maybe if it appears both sides of the floor are guilty of overspending, it might be pertinent to re-assess how much it costs to run a country...

One by one. The money is being paid back with interest. What do we have to show for it? Profits. And we averted a 40% unemployment. Why do you routinely ignore facts? Limbaugh did not mention those profits?

Where is the spending? Drug prices in America (and charged to government perscription plans) are 40% higher in America. Thanks to corporate welfare laws passed by George Jr that add another $1trillion of debt in ten years. Did they forget to tell your that? Mission Accomplished: we have only just started to pay for that $3trillion fiasco. Did they forget to tell you that?

Meanwhile, where is that 40% unemployment rate that was clearly defined in that meeting in 2007. The meeting that George Jr said, "I have lost control of this meeting" and then walked out. What happened to the 40% unemployment rate that left so many Senators and Representatives leaving that meeting with 'ghost faces'? Oh. They forgot to tell you about that.

Why do you routinely forget to the lessons from history. Limbaugh is not an honest source.

At least you stopped insulting people - somewhat.

:thumb:

[quote=tw;838196]One by one. The money is being paid back with interest. What do we have to show for it? Profits. And we averted a 40% unemployment. Why do you routinely ignore facts? Limbaugh did not mention those profits?

That's what they lead you to believe, but unfortunately, the Feds own a lot of stock, also. To just break even, the price per share of GM stock would have to approximately double.

The previous pay back they gave us so quickly, was actually another loan - so they were able to make Obama look good, by paying us back -- *with interest*, with our own money.

Fact is, the Volt is a colossal failure, since it isn't a hybrid, and has such a limited range. Now it's range is up to 38 whole miles -- whoopee! That's with brand new batteries, of course.

All conservatives are aware that Bush Jr. was a big spender - and not a fiscal conservative.

No, I heard about it. But there were lots of meetings, and lots of ashen faces when the depth of the sub prime mortgage debacle became clear.

Why do you assume I listen to Limbaugh? I don't. His personal attacks against liberals is not something I'll tolerate.

There's nothing gained by insulting people. Oh, I'll do it if the others are posting insults at me or my friends, but it's your idea's, not you, that are the heart of the matter, and should be insulted, kicked down into the basement, thrown into the boiler, and chopped up like sushi! ;)

Nothing personal. :D

That depends on whether you are satisfied that your gov't is spending your money wisely.

We don't have to accept the military spending $100 per hammer they buy. We don't have to accept paying farmers NOT to grow crops.

Our gov't is wasting money hand over fist, and knows how to stop most of it - but they just won't do it. Because they're democrats, and they absolutely positively will shit bricks before they cut any spending from the federal gov't.

...'because they're democrats...' that's rich.

8 years of Republican Bush=major deficit.

8 years of Democrat Clinton=major surplus.


Get over it, Adak. It is what it is. My guess is that your life will change very little.

When do those bills come due? Now. That is how economics works. Nixon did the same thing in 1968 and 1970. When did his bills come due. We had that resulting recession in 1975 and 1979.

Mission Accomplished may end up costing as much as $3trillion. When due those bills come due? Obama is now paying them.

Tax cuts cause recessions and increased debts. When do we start paying those debts? When we increase taxes to pay for that borrowed money with interest. Tax cuts only demonstrate there is no free lunch.

No way around it. Today's debts are from the expression, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Quoted often because that sentence long ago predicted the coming debts and resulting recession. A balanced budget created by Clinton was subverted because George Jr's conservatives did what conservative do. Spend wildly. Increase spending on military, on welfare to big Pharma, useless wars with obvious violations of military doctrine, on welfare to the rich (also called tax cuts), etc. They even wanted to put SS in the stock market. Fortunately we did not let them spend as wildly as conservatives would do.

History shows debts are only solved by tax increases and other 'taxes' on the public. This included Carter's massive interest increases and tax increases by Reagan and George Sr. Jobs are created AFTER government reduces its debts. After government stops using money games and other myths to 'fix' the economy. Those are well proven lessons from history.

The Volt is a disaster. Created when George Jr's administration said automakers need not market hybrids originally designed in the early 1990 and paid for by government money. Because the hybrid was evil - a result of an agreement between Clinton and the auto companies. Then when patriotic companies (Honda, then Toyota) introduced hybrids, GM did what any business school graduate would do. Rushed to market a kludge - the Volt while also creating another disaster - the Camaro. Volt is a disaster created almost ten years after they could have introduced their first hybrid - the Precept.

Hybrids were another of so many Clinton ideas that were evil only because it was by Clinton.

Volt's defects resulted from business school graduates (in 2000 through 2007) who did not have to market their existing hybrids. And then needed some 'magic bullet' to compete against superior and patriotic Insight and Prius products. The Volt was started somewhere around 2002 - using concepts that engineers said would not work. Volt is the kludge that resulted when it would not work on the test track. And was then patched together - kludged. Because it designed when GM top management (ie Rick Wagoner) were MBAs. Search the Cellar to find additional details of why the Volt is so anti-American.

Reagan: He Wasn't a Nut Job.

that's his legacy. He's the last non-nut job of the Republican party.

There is some disagreement among economists as to how effective the stimulus package has been, and in some ways the jury is still out, but there's a couple of charts from the Center for Budget and Policy Analysis that explain the benefits (click on the link to see them):

The CBPA states:
You post as if Obama grabbed this money from Congress and then just threw it out the window, and watched it drift away on a gentle breeze as it floated off toward the Library of Congress building.

I have no idea what all that money Bush got for the Iraq War went for really. I know a nice chunk went to Dick Cheney’s pals over at Halliburton. I know it cost quite a bit to drop bombs on 100,000 civilians or “collateral damage” as dead non-combatants are now called. As a matter of fact, the entire Iraq War was an unforgivable waste of American and Iraqi lives as well as money.

Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda were the ones responsible for 9/11. Saddam had nothing to do with it, nor did he have WPMs. He was a very unpleasant, cruel man who deserved the end he received, but unfortunately, there are many countries run by cruel dictators. The US mostly turns a blind eye to them, but W. had a grudge against Saddam, so off we went to one more costly boondoggle in the Middle East.

EXCUSE ME? “This how justice is done in America”????? Then America better start making some big changes and cracking some heads together now, if not sooner. Why should there be one set of laws for the rich, and another set of laws for the rest of us? I realize that all too often, this can be the case, but does this mean that we just simply turn our backs on malfeasance of such magnitude that the entire country was plunged into the worst recession since the 1930’s?

Your priorities are way out of whack You whine about the Obama spending $780 billion on the economic recovery, but don’t stop to think that due to the actions of a few well placed individuals on Wall Street who played fast and lose with the mortgage lending industry and those higher ups who turned a blind eye to what was going on, the cost to the tax payer almost defies belief. The $780 billion spent on the economic recovery is just a drop in the bucket.

$4.76 TRILLION was disbursed to keep the crooks who were “too big to fail” in business. $1.54 TRILLION remains outstanding, and who knows when that sum will be returned –if ever- to the tax payer. And no price can be placed on the suffering of the thousands of Americans who lost their jobs and homes as a result of the crisis.

You are indifferent as to the identity and fate of the corrupt and greedy individuals whose actions got us into this mess, but you want to draw and quarter the man upon whose shoulders it fell to get us out of it.

Too much time spent contemplating the sorry state into which our Republic has fallen might drive anyone to drink. However, as I have posted elsewhere, I prefer other types of poison.

I don’t believe I’ve even ever met someone with a $200,000 plus bank account. I presume that the rich are human like the rest of us, cut them, they’ll bleed, etc. I have no special reason to hate someone just because he’s rich, but if the wealthy think they have no obligations in regard to the nation which gave them the opportunities to reach their current level of attainment, if they think that they deserve to play by their own rules, and think “integrity” is a dirty word, then I hold them in the deepest contempt just as I would any other criminal.

I’m pleased to read that the uber wealthy are at least making a stab at paying their fair share of taxes. Maybe someday they’ll get honest and stop hiding considerable portions of their wealth in offshore accounts and pay what they REALLY owe. I get so tired of that old “Better kiss the assholes of the rich, otherwise they’ll take their toys and go home.” If it pleases you to pass their bullying threats along to the rest of us, go for it. But the truth is that if the extremely wealthy thought they’d be better off in another country, they are already there. The ones who are still here obviously benefit from US citizenship, and just enjoy throwing their weight around.

"Pay Their Fair Share" is codespeak -- obfuscation if you'd rather -- for "legalize stealing it." It's an unsustainable shame. It will come to a bad end. Like as not, it will kill your pension as it does.

:rolleyes:

Welcome back Urbane Guerrilla. Happy Thanksgiving to you!

And the wealthy are so good at protecting pensions as it is. One theme has emerged over the past few decades, and that is leveraged buy outs where companies like Bain loot companies and this guy, leaving behind underfunded pension plans. The result is that a government agency has to take up the slack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension...ty_Corporation

I count the days until you decide to grace the Cellar with one of your pithy comments again. It's always interesting to hear from one of the primodial ooze contingent.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the upper 2% in wealth have to pay taxes at the same rate as they did during the Clinton era, they will retaliate by cannibalizing the pensions of everyone else in the country.

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but corporations and businesses are doing this already. At the same time, people like the head of Goldman Sachs are trying to raise the age to 70 at which people can apply for Social Security. Given that sort of attitude, I doubt if him and his buddies are in favor of seeing anyone get any sort of retirement fund to see them through their final years.

If you're so damned worried about your retirement fund, how do you think it would fare under a Republican administration which is opposed to any kind of government regulation in regard to pension funds or anything else some CEO might get it in his head to do?

As far as corporate America is concerned, businesses should be allowed to solve the retirement thing by just taking all its employees over age 60 and dropping them out a window on the 44th floor of corporate headquarters. Helps with the bottom line, you know? :rolleyes:

that's a great line, Sam.

it's going in the book.

Kill your pension?

You mean like Hostess, who took it's employees self-funded pension fund and spent it? While the executives gave themselves insane pay increases and bonuses? Fair like that?

Pensions

Executive pay/bonuses

As much as I detest the content, it really is nice to see Urbane's post :)

Rich, very well said