Yeah you’re right. The dropping market isn’t due to any of an ever-growing list of economic problems but rather it’s because Obama will soon be seen as being in his third year of presidency before being inaugurated.
Yeah you’re right. The dropping market isn’t due to any of an ever-growing list of economic problems but rather it’s because Obama will soon be seen as being in his third year of presidency before being inaugurated.
The market is certainly showing tremendous confidence in Obama’s ability to turn it around, huh? It started tanking as soon as he was elected and it hasn’t even slowed down.
Too funny. Of course, it’s perfectly irrelevant that his “passenger” admitted he used hard drugs in the past.
The stats don’t lie-the market reaction to O’bama’s election is unlike their reaction to any other Presidential election in living memory. Do some research and you’ll find that to be fact.
The driver and passenger both tried drugs in their youth, Obama didn’t pound his brain into submission until forced to quit in his middle age. He didn’t make it a regular habit, he became the top law student in the nation, not a “Gentleman’s C’s” Daddy’s boy / screwup.
The markets are being forced to “pay their tab” after a long party. Some might be arguing for a “business welfare” state, where “capitalists” are rewarded for their bad decisions, but the irony would be too much.
Some are so divorced from reality that they can attempt to argue that one President-elect can take down the markets in the greatest nation on Earth, merely by existing. Obama’s election is an indication that such BS isn’t carrying any weight anymore except the “challenged”.
1. There is absolutely no evidence that Bush ever tried drugs. None.
2. If the markets thought Obama’s policies were going to stabilize the economy they would be stable, not dropping like a rock.
Investors are fleeing the markets, believing they are going to get much worse in the near term. That’s the only reason to get out now after taking such a beating.
There is no need for you to prove how ignorant democrat voters are. We’ve seen statistical proof already.
Curmudg: The market is going down for the same reason housing prices are going down.
Its cyclical and to blame Obamas’ election is BS. The market will bottom out at 6000-6500 and it will take four years for it to get back to the 10-11,000 range. Unemployment will go to 10-11% and then go back down to 6-7% in four years. New jobs infrastructure- green energy will be the primary drivers. McCain will work with Obama on green energy policy. Deficits will remain high with health care costs pushing it up. On foreign policy, Iraq costs will decrease significantly. Three new Supreme Court justices will be appointed and Roe will survive. There will be progress on Israel Arab peace and a deal will be struck will Iran. Last post Curmudg. Going dark for 4 years -relative being vetted. Check with you in 2012
Fantasy. Will.not.happen.
If unemployment hits double digits Obama is a one term president. He pushed expectations too high and his voters will be the hardest hit.
A respected financial analyst said today on MSNBC that the market will hit 500.
500. He thinks unemployment may hit 80%.
We have never seen anything like this and we have elected a clueless twit to deal with it.
If presidents controlled the market why doesn’t Bush wave his hand and make it rise? Why didn’t he do it a year ago?
This thread is preposterous.
Arch says”
Marko. You are preposterous! The perception of the Obammy presidency is scaring the free markets &hitless. If Bush had another 2 -4 years ahead of him, then none of this would have happened. Note: it is not just a national paranoia. It is a world paranoia. Everyone knows what an Obama presidency with a libtard congress means for the world. Better get used to it. It could be worse than Jimmy Carter but I doubt it. He was the absolute worst ever.
lgire:
New jobs infrastructure- green energy will be the primary drivers. McCain will work with Obama on green energy policy.
This is what drives me crazy, Obumbler is going to create “Green Jobs”. He claims he will spend $150 billion over ten years and create five million green jobs. That’s $15 billion per year or $3000.00 per job. Clue to the clueless you can’t create a job for $3000.00 per year.
The press never questioned this lying sack of sheet on this lie. The economic reporters that looked into this point out that the higher energy prices resulting from this green hype will cost two jobs for everyone they create.
This is Obumbler’s plan, to destroy two jobs for everyone created to the tune of $15 billion per year. This is why the market is crashing.
The most important question is when will the U.S. Treasury Bond lose its triple A rating. With the combination of higher taxes-less revenue- and massive spending it will only be a matter of time. Then the bond market will collapse causing 30 mortgage rates to increase to 10, 15 maybe even 20% that will be the final death nail to this economy. If someone can tell me how fast Barney, Nancy and Harry will ram through their socialist utopia I could answer that question.
NoChops: “ ... he (Obama) became the top law student in the nation ... ”
OH?
Well then let’s also raise a toast to that exceptional “student” and former “Constitutional Law Professor” who STILL believes that the President has line-item veto power.
Yessir. He be one smart mofo.
I guess your “messiah” will be a one-man Supreme Court too!
LMAO
Now ...
Besides going down the list of Clinton thugs and rejects, where will Obambi go next? I got it!
Rocketman, I see you’re not uncomfortable about letting your racist side out.
This forum is run by three attorneys. Maybe they can inform you about what being the President of the Harvard Law Review means in Law School circles. As well as what being a lecturer on Constitutional Law for twelve years represents.
It apparently means he doesn’t know how many states there are.
Rocketman, I see you’re not uncomfortable about letting your racist side out.
This forum is run by three attorneys. Maybe they can inform you about what being the President of the Harvard Law Review means in Law School circles. As well as what being a lecturer on Constitutional Law for twelve years represents.
Once again proving ignorance is bliss.
Well since everything is called racist now I guess we have to cross that line don’t we.
Law Review president usually means at least submitting articles for the review..seem the ONE voted present.
The ‘token afirmative action LRP syndrome’.
You call that near blank slate excuse for a lecture set something of worth...boy you sure set the bar low don’t ya.
Like most racists, you’re a fountain of ignorance. The world has passed you by and an African-American is soon to be President.
Sucks to be stuck in the last century, isn’t it? That racist crap isn’t getting Republicans or conservatives elected, now is it?
He wrote that article after declaring for president.
He published nothing before, during or after his time as editor of the Review. He published nothing while a “constitutional law professor.” He was actually a “Senior lecturer,” not a professor.
Regardless, he published nothing.
Like most racists, you’re a fountain of ignorance. The world has passed you by and an African-American is soon to be President.
Sucks to be stuck in the last century, isn’t it? That racist crap isn’t getting Republicans or conservatives elected, now is it?
He wrote that article after declaring for president.
He published nothing before, during or after his time as editor of the Review. He published nothing while a “constitutional law professor.” He was actually a “Senior lecturer,” not a professor.
Regardless, he published nothing.
Obama taught Constitutional Law for twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School. I’ve provided two citations in two different law journals which effectively contradict Rocketman’s assertions and yours.
You’re not one of those guys who thinks that saying “No, he didn’t” means anything even when facts demonstrate you’re wrong, are you? That’s not effective debate.
The article you cite in the law review was an unsigned piece in support of abortion.
The only article he wrote for the Harvard Law Review while he was a law school student talked about how fervently believed in legalized abortion. Obama’s name wasn’t attached to any other legal scholarship during the time.
In an article unearthed by the Politico web site, Obama, as the president of the Harvard Law Review, wrote an unsigned article touting abortion.
The web site says the article comes in at six pages and is contained in the third volume of the 1990 Harvard Law Review.
In the work, Obama considered a parenthetical abortion issue—whether unborn children have a legal right to sue their mothers for damage sustained during pregnancy, from such things as alcohol or illegal drugs.
Obama says no and writes supportively of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case and another from the Illinois Supreme Court saying no such right exists.
Regardless of some article or two that finally appeared and still don’t have his name attached , compared to a normal output from a law review president that is a pitful comparison.
You keep the faith though and don’t let the ground hit you to hard when he fails.
