As the Dow keeps dropping,

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Obama has said that as far as he is concerned, the market is merely a day to day barameter that he can ignore because his goal is to fix things for the long run.

Rahm Emmanual is famous for counseling Dimocrats that they should take advantage of any national crisis in order to advance their (socialist) agenda.

Don't expect any financial solutions soon. As long as the Dims believe they can benefit from the downturn and blame it on Bush to create more ** alliances, they will do so. They are way too beholden to those that brought them to the dance - labor, ethnic self-interest groups, pro-abortonists, radical enviromentalists, open border proponents and the like - to concern themselves with your kid's college fund, your job or your 401K.

That's pretty cynical.

less chance for disappointment that way.

While there's certainly a political element to each party's agenda - to believe that everything is just one big game of outdoing the other party for control of this country is pretty cynical and sad. I see it as a series of failed ideas vs. new idea or sometimes old ideas that have worked before. I don't either party wants to run this country into the ground.

If they don't want to run it into the ground, why don't they stop running it into the ground?

Because ideologues clench their fists around their failed ideas and aren't willing to try new or different ideas.

There's nothing new about what Barry's doing, so, point well taken.

Do you think Obama is an ideologue?

Re social issues, very much so. I don't think he has a clue about foreign affairs, financial and trade issues, but, instead, surrounds himself with ideologues in those areas.

How about Bush? Would you consider him an ideologue? Or Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Ann Coulter?

Bush wasn't an ideologue about much more than military affairs, and he certainly wasn't a conservative. I dunno what he was. I gave up trying to understand him.

Ideologue has negative connotations in leftist leaning circles. So many politicians and average citizens have no ideology that having one has become suspect. To embrace core values that you don't compromise and believe in right and wrong rather than social and moral relativism is enough to deem one to be an ideologue, although there is much more to it than that.

[yogib37 3]

Mr. Obama sure isn't looking like the right pick

He seems like all he can bring to the USA so far is "Bad Luck" and "Bad News"

What a mess the Voters of USA have put us in........

Oh Come on, that is horse wash. If McSame was elected and this happen to him all the people will say.. oh he is trying hard and just give time. Most of the this problems is coming from the REPS and 19 years of GOP Control of the white house.

I do not think Mccain would of done any better if he was elected and if he was, i think this country would fall into a major deprerssion and I do blame the GOPS for this mess we are in. When George W Bush took office, the country had a surplus of money, guess what that Yahoo from Texas did, pissed it away and now we are so in debt we are owned by China and cause we barrowed so much money from them.

The GOP's had control far longer then the Demos, and they screwed up a lot. Regan was not that great of a guy and a crappy pres.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bush wasn't an ideologue about much more than military affairs, and he certainly wasn't a conservative. I dunno what he was. I gave up trying to understand him.

Ideologue has negative connotations in leftist leaning circles. So many politicians and average citizens have no ideology that having one has become suspect. To embrace core values that you don't compromise and believe in right and wrong rather than social and moral relativism is enough to deem one to be an ideologue, although there is much more to it than that.

Core values are good...like believing in smaller government as an ideal. But taking that to extreme would be to say 'no' to any idea (whether it's sending troops into another country, or nationalizing healthcare) simply on the grounds that it works against that ideal. Everyone has their own sense of just what smaller government means. You ask someone from the Left and they'll say a government that stays out of their bedroom or their body, while someone from the Right would say no public education, healthcare or any other social program. So who is for smaller government - depends on who you ask ...seems that both are wrong or right no matter how you look at it.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

Obama has said that as far as he is concerned, the market is merely a day to day barameter that he can ignore because his goal is to fix things for the long run.

Rahm Emmanual is famous for counseling Dimocrats that they should take advantage of any national crisis in order to advance their (socialist) agenda.

Don't expect any financial solutions soon. As long as the Dims believe they can benefit from the downturn and blame it on Bush to create more ** alliances, they will do so. They are way too beholden to those that brought them to the dance - labor, ethnic self-interest groups, pro-abortonists, radical enviromentalists, open border proponents and the like - to concern themselves with your kid's college fund, your job or your 401K.

That's pretty cynical.

less chance for disappointment that way.

While there's certainly a political element to each party's agenda - to believe that everything is just one big game of outdoing the other party for control of this country is pretty cynical and sad. I see it as a series of failed ideas vs. new idea or sometimes old ideas that have worked before. I don't either party wants to run this country into the ground.

and either party, just like with the airline industry; instead of calling it a crash, it's a controlled flight into terrain.

[dalegg 143]

It sure doesn't help with all the news about the worthless stuff these investors have purchased, and the stock market depends on confidence in the market to survive. So how do you restore confidence? One way is to find all the bad guys and put them in jail, and to recover as much of the misplaced funds as possible. And to reestablish laws that offered protection that were taken away since the time of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. We are talking about 28 years of problem making, and expecting it to be resolved in 28 days? Not even I am that good. What about you?

*shudders at thought of a HAL 9000 being placed in control of the market indexes *

Given said known conditions... whom is ultimately responsible for playing the game?

I think it rather stupid to blame the new guy for something that's been foretold and trended for quite some time now. But then that's just plain old logical me.

Its not like investors just found out who was going to be running things on January 18th though. They definitely knew in November, and anyone reading the tea leaves would bet on it in October. Investors could already smell what was cooking back then, and ever since they haven't liked what they smell.

Without any action to sustain the markets since the last administration (and none yet in mass until who knows when)... you really can't blame a perception can you?

President Bush could have done something... but didn't.

The market is all about perception, and there wasn't anything Bush could do in October to stop the perception that Change was coming.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It sure doesn't help with all the news about the worthless stuff these investors have purchased, and the stock market depends on confidence in the market to survive. So how do you restore confidence? One way is to find all the bad guys and put them in jail, and to recover as much of the misplaced funds as possible. And to reestablish laws that offered protection that were taken away since the time of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. We are talking about 28 years of problem making, and expecting it to be resolved in 28 days? Not even I am that good. What about you?

*shudders at thought of a HAL 9000 being placed in control of the market indexes *

Given said known conditions... whom is ultimately responsible for playing the game?

I think it rather stupid to blame the new guy for something that's been foretold and trended for quite some time now. But then that's just plain old logical me.

Its not like investors just found out who was going to be running things on January 18th though. They definitely knew in November, and anyone reading the tea leaves would bet on it in October. Investors could already smell what was cooking back then, and ever since they haven't liked what they smell.

Without any action to sustain the markets since the last administration (and none yet in mass until who knows when)... you really can't blame a perception can you?

President Bush could have done something... but didn't.

The market is all about perception, and there wasn't anything Bush could do in October to stop the perception that Change was coming.

If you know how to read charts, between 4000 and 5000 points of the drop in the DJIA can be attributed directly to that "Change".

Edited March 4, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The market isn't failing, it is just correcting. It too was a house of cards, like oil at $150 a barrel. And the banking industry. All that is coming back to bite us in the a$$. It really is Bush's fault.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If it's not Obama's fault yet, please give us a date when it is plausible to say it's his fault. That day is sure to come.

[mRx 16]

The market isn't failing, it is just correcting. It too was a house of cards, like oil at $150 a barrel. And the banking industry. All that is coming back to bite us in the a$$. It really is Bush's fault.

Spot on brother.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If it's not Obama's fault yet, please give us a date when it is plausible to say it's his fault. That day is sure to come.

Patience Virtual Whiner, patience. The house is falling. It started falling many months ago. It will correct itself. Wall Street investors are a fickle bunch. You can blame it on whomever you want. It won't solve the problem.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

If it's not Obama's fault yet, please give us a date when it is plausible to say it's his fault. That day is sure to come.

it will never come in vj.

[I'm Gone 60]

If it's not Obama's fault yet, please give us a date when it is plausible to say it's his fault. That day is sure to come.

It won't Obama's fault until his policies have people going to Mexico to find work or Rachael Ray's cooking tips for Spam comes out. LOL

[HAL 9000 96]

It sure doesn't help with all the news about the worthless stuff these investors have purchased, and the stock market depends on confidence in the market to survive. So how do you restore confidence? One way is to find all the bad guys and put them in jail, and to recover as much of the misplaced funds as possible. And to reestablish laws that offered protection that were taken away since the time of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. We are talking about 28 years of problem making, and expecting it to be resolved in 28 days? Not even I am that good. What about you?

*shudders at thought of a HAL 9000 being placed in control of the market indexes *

Given said known conditions... whom is ultimately responsible for playing the game?

I think it rather stupid to blame the new guy for something that's been foretold and trended for quite some time now. But then that's just plain old logical me.

Its not like investors just found out who was going to be running things on January 18th though. They definitely knew in November, and anyone reading the tea leaves would bet on it in October. Investors could already smell what was cooking back then, and ever since they haven't liked what they smell.

Without any action to sustain the markets since the last administration (and none yet in mass until who knows when)... you really can't blame a perception can you?

President Bush could have done something... but didn't.

The market is all about perception, and there wasn't anything Bush could do in October to stop the perception that Change was coming.

And the change is apparently upon the markets. Like I speculated before, 1-2 years for this homeostatic drop to finish and stabilize after its rise. Then we can perhaps see and live an economy where greed doesn't control market forces while ensuring all can access the market and benefit from it equally in chance.

The market isn't failing, it is just correcting. It too was a house of cards, like oil at $150 a barrel. And the banking industry. All that is coming back to bite us in the a$. It really is Bush's fault.

Well you said it.

(and truthfully)

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If it's not Obama's fault yet, please give us a date when it is plausible to say it's his fault. That day is sure to come.

it will never come in vj.

Sure it will. It's just idiotic that it is the center of attention now. If some of these people here really think we are in this economic mess becasuse of the current President and not because of what has happened the past few years, they are brainless. The day may come when all these naysayers have their wish. Obama is responsible for what he owns in this. And if it fails, he will be judged accordingly.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

If it's not Obama's fault yet, please give us a date when it is plausible to say it's his fault. That day is sure to come.

it will never come in vj.

Sure it will. It's just idiotic that it is the center of attention now. If some of these people here really think we are in this economic mess becasuse of the current President and not because of what has happened the past few years, they are brainless. The day may come when all these naysayers have their wish. Obama is responsible for what he owns in this. And if it fails, he will be judged accordingly.

i'll believe that when i see someone put a date down. so far i've not seen anyone do that.