1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou can assess Obama all you want, but the bottom line is that people vote on their bottom line. Look at the examples of how Reagan and Clinton appealed to the masses by saying, "Its the economy stupid". Reagan, like Obama, like Clinton, came into office upon economic down turns. Both Reagan and Clinton ended up on the winning side by being elected twice, but the verdict is still out on Obama. Even if Obama had kept 100% of his promises and at the end of four years was in charge of a sputtering economy with continued high unemploymet, he will be history. In fact, that is what kicked McCain in the arse. He was in the lead, even with the unpopular war, but it all changed once the economy tanked. Of course, he was not President during the economy tanking, but he might as well have been because he was linked to "W" so closely by the left.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/14/rating-obamas-promises-1-year-mark/
President Barack Obama, the candidate who promised change, has made substantial progress in his first year in office, but some of his proposals have stalled as he struggled with the cold reality of Washington.
Of 502 campaign promises, a PolitiFact rnment, so there's a gulf between what he's accomplished and how it's viewed."
So I guess the next question is to what degree, if any, should the President be blamed for the economy? Unfortunatly for the Democrats, it is the price that is payed whether or not it is the Presidents fault. After all, they have conditioned the masses to look for Big Brother for all their needs and turn to him when those needs are not being met, whatever they may be. It is the price they have payed for making the masses increasingly dependent upon them.
Originally posted by whodeyI fully agree that the state of the country in 2012 will be the single most important factor.
You can assess Obama all you want, but the bottom line is that people vote on their bottom line. Look at the examples of how Reagan and Clinton appealed to the masses by saying, "Its the economy stupid". Reagan, like Obama, like Clinton, came into office upon economic down turns. Both Reagan and Clinton ended up on the winning side by being elected twice, ...[text shortened]... be. It is the price they have payed for making the masses increasingly dependent upon them.
I think in 2012 it will be completely fair to tag Obama if the economy was still in the dumps.
As far as McCain goes, he might have taken the lead once or twice by a hair but it didn't last long. Even before the crisis Obama was ahead of McCain almost the entire time.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe crisis began at the turn of the year. It did not happen all at once. Therefore, I disagree. As people slowly watched their 401k's disappear, they began to become angry. Of course, at years end when it was accelerated, they became scared and it sure did not help matters that McCain was quoted as saying that there is nothing wrong with the economy half way through it all.
[
As far as McCain goes, he might have taken the lead once or twice by a hair but it didn't last long. Even before the crisis Obama was ahead of McCain almost the entire time.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyIf you want to argue the entire time the economy was in a slump and that hurt McCain, that's fine. But you said, "he was in the lead" before the crash. McCain only got a sliver of lead once or twice during the entire campaign.
The crisis began at the turn of the year. It did not happen all at once. Therefore, I disagree. As people slowly watched their 401k's disappear, they began to become angry. Of course, at years end when it was accelerated, they became scared and it sure did not help matters that McCain was quoted as saying that there is nothing wrong with the economy half way through it all.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAll I can say is that most people I talked to had already lost a majority of the value of their portfolios before the crash, but you are right, I did say "the crash".
If you want to argue the entire time the economy was in a slump and that hurt McCain, that's fine. But you said, "he was in the lead" before the crash. McCain only got a sliver of lead once or twice during the entire campaign.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperMaking 502 campaign promises was perhaps a few too many?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/14/rating-obamas-promises-1-year-mark/
President Barack Obama, the candidate who promised change, has made substantial progress in his first year in office, but some of his proposals have stalled as he struggled with the cold reality of Washington.
Of 502 campaign promises, a PolitiFact ...[text shortened]... rnment, so there's a gulf between what he's accomplished and how it's viewed."
My thinking is the order he placed them in priority.
But thoughts can be skewed by long waits in the bread lines. ( JK ) :-)
But if the stimulus packages work, he will have a chance for anothert term. So far, it looks almost like nothing has happened to get un employement back below 10%
Originally posted by Hugh GlassUnemployment is always the last economic indicator to turn, and there are very positive signs in that department as of late. Wall Street has been responding.
Making 502 campaign promises was perhaps a few too many?
My thinking is the order he placed them in priority.
But thoughts can be skewed by long waits in the bread lines. ( JK ) :-)
But if the stimulus packages work, he will have a chance for anothert term. So far, it looks almost like nothing has happened to get un employement back below 10%
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWall Street is responding.
Unemployment is always the last economic indicator to turn, and there are very positive signs in that department as of late. Wall Street has been responding.
Humm?
You know why wall Street is responding? Those very people who lost alot of their 401Ks, refuse to even try to make it back in the CD, or Bond funds, so they are rolling the dice again.
Try finding something safe, to make up the 300K you lost over night. And they can't afford gold.
There are people rolling the dice... and I PRAY, yes PRAY they will win.
Originally posted by Hugh GlassAbsolutely ridiculous. If the street and, more importantly, the fund managers felt the outlook was bleak they would be staying away from equities. And what losses are they trying to make up? The market is up huge over where it was a year ago.
Wall Street is responding.
Humm?
You know why wall Street is responding? Those very people who lost alot of their 401Ks, refuse to even try to make it back in the CD, or Bond funds, so they are rolling the dice again.
Try finding something safe, to make up the 300K you lost over night. And they can't afford gold.
There are people rolling the dice... and I PRAY, yes PRAY they will win.
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBut the PEOPLE don't want Wall St to "respond". Wall St is nothing but a bunch of greedy fat cat bankers getting rich on bailouts and using the money to pay each other bonuses. The PEOPLE want these barons to PAY!!
Unemployment is always the last economic indicator to turn, and there are very positive signs in that department as of late. Wall Street has been responding.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou're kidding me right?
Absolutely ridiculous. If the street and, more importantly, the fund managers felt the outlook was bleak they would be staying away from equities. And what losses are they trying to make up? The market is up huge over where it was a year ago.
The Street is blowing up the market to suck the money back in so the big boys can take it out again. Talk to your trusted money advisors that have been in the game for awhile. This is no time to jump in the market.
There is absolutely no foundation for the surge in the market. None. Zilch. Zip. Have you already forgotton the last market surge that had no basis in reality?
It's what preceded the crash.
The money in the market was already gone before the mortgage crisis.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperSo you trust The Street & Fund Managers? Haven't you been paying attention?
Absolutely ridiculous. If the street and, more importantly, the fund managers felt the outlook was bleak they would be staying away from equities. And what losses are they trying to make up? The market is up huge over where it was a year ago.
C'Mon Man! We may disagree on some issues but I know you're way smarter than that!!!
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIt has not recovered enough, to put people back where they were before the crash. It shows some positive signs, but I think they are artificial.
Absolutely ridiculous. If the street and, more importantly, the fund managers felt the outlook was bleak they would be staying away from equities. And what losses are they trying to make up? The market is up huge over where it was a year ago.
There are baby boomers, who have seen huge losses right before retirement. ( watch the TV adds for these Funds, they all are geared to people who are worried about retirement) It is the human nature, of trying to make up for their losses as quickly as possible, that is giving us a bit of an upturn. It will not last.
This stock market reacts to a fart in saudi Arabia. Where will it go, if another war breaks out in Iran? In to the tank.
If you have the money keep buying your silver coins.... taking a line from Gordon Liddy, I have been buying for years.
You may also explore the possibility of putting your retirement money in a 72T investment source. However, you may not qualify.
Or you can hang on to your stock portfolio, as you don't lose anything but paper, until you sell.
Absolutely ridiculous you say?
I would love to have some of your money to invest. :-)
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI give him a C-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/14/rating-obamas-promises-1-year-mark/
President Barack Obama, the candidate who promised change, has made substantial progress in his first year in office, but some of his proposals have stalled as he struggled with the cold reality of Washington.
Of 502 campaign promises, a PolitiFact ...[text shortened]... rnment, so there's a gulf between what he's accomplished and how it's viewed."