Investors dumping out of the market and selling off assets. This is what we call taking money OUT of the economy...

And guess what, I don't give Obama credit for that, either.  But you want to blame him for everything, partisan hack that you are.  Even your story about year-end selling is more about fiscal cliff issues, which are at least as much the fault of Republi-Tards.
Bottom line, snowball, you are a relentless, partisan dumbass with zero credibility.  You should stay on the golf course with your fellow whiners.
(and, yes, I know you didn't mention O's name in your post but it's obvious who your finger's pointing at, as it always does.)

It was at about 13,600 in October, AFTER the rise it is still only at 12,,800. Still WAY DOWN.

Gee, what political events have happened between now and then that could cause that?

OH YEAH, I do give Obama credit for this big sell-off.

Maybe it's all those dollars moving overseas?

That doesn't mean there are people who can afford a new mortgage.

as one of the biggest fools on this board and that's quite an accomplishment.  And you clearly have no clue about how the market works yourself.  In fact, any stock market pro will tell you the market is not down because of Obama but because of weakness in the European and Chinese economies, especially Greece and Spain, and because of fears about the fiscal cliff, something we can thank Congress (mainly RepubliTards) for.
But you, the Arch Tool of this board, will blame Obama for anything and everything.  Watch, as snowball blames him for the Greek economy and Global Warming.  Ooops!  I forgot!  Tools like snowball don't think that exists! LMAO!

It was roughly, 12,600, so you want to brag about a 100 point game over 4 YEARS!!!!

MAN, YOU SUCK AT THIS DEBATE THING!!!

LMFAO!!!

everyone has one...

Yes, there are analysts who will blame the weaknesses in other economies, there are others who will blame  the pending collapse of Europe because of their debt load.

There is ONE CONSISTENT FACTOR, EVERYONE agrees that taking money out of the economy hurts it, and the article I pointed to cites just that.

You know, I am pretty sure there is a Jr. College close by where you could enroll in an ECON 101 class. You should REALLY consider it.

The DJIA closed on 1/20/2009 at 7949 nowhere near 12,600. Your problem is you don't research your thoughts any.

You just suck at critical thinking.

Posted By: Snowman39

It was roughly, 12,600, so you want to brag about a 100 point game over 4 YEARS!!!!

MAN, YOU SUCK AT THIS DEBATE THING!!!

LMFAO!!!

You are right BV people cannot afford anything because the money that is being used is not "real money",  it is made up/created  money.  This money is coming from the "quantitative easing" that Mr O has done twice while in office.  Quantitative Easing is the borrowing of money that isn't really there,  but we,  the tax payer are still paying the interest on this money (which again is not real money,  it is "made up" or created money) that has been borrowed from the Federal Reserve.

It is like when you borrow money from a bank or any lending institution,  you are creating money,  how?  you ask,  well,  its called "fractional reserve"  banking is founded on the idea of lending.  A saver will take money to his bank and make a deposit,  but the money does not stay at that bank,  the bank lends out most of what you deposit keeping only a fraction  of that money in the bank,  hence,  "fractional reserve"  The bank earns interest on what is lent out,  always more than what it pays you.  Banks lend out most all of depositors money.  So how has money been created?  Laffy puts in 1000.00 for deposit,  bank records,  it owes Laffy 1000.00,  here comes Hamster and the bank loans Hamster 900.00,  (bank reserve 10%)  at which time,  the Hamster now owes the bank 900.00 plus interest.  Then the bank will record that it lent Hamster 900.00 to spend as he wants to.  Consequently the 900.00 that Hamster got was was lent into existence,  as 2 different people use the same money.  Now Hamster can spend that money anyway he wishes,  he takes his ATF out to dinner,  pays his lady and the money,  they deposit the money into the bank and the cycle begins again,  all this money created out of thin air through "fractional reserve".  

This is what is happening to our market and country on a much larger scale and it simply will not hold up  the economy for much longer.  What your seeing right now is "created money"  and like all things created they will topple and the longer it goes on the worse the fall will be.  It is not "if"  it is "when".



-- Modified on 11/20/2012 10:09:33 AM

In fact, he IS one!  Now, listen up you 'tard: of course taking money out of the economy hurts it. And who wants to take money out of the economy?  Why, the RepubliTards with their huge spending cuts and their refusal to bend (yet) on the revenue side.  Watch them cave, between now and Jan. 1.  They know they're riding a loser.  But you have yet to figure that out.  As for Jr. College, I'm sure you'll be able to get in once you finish that GED.  Don't worry snowy, the Short Bus will be here soon to take you to class.

the sooner we let it crash, the better for us?  It is a shame we all have to suffer because people were living crazy.  But if our debt could be washed clean, and a new currency backed by gold again.  Now that sounds appealing.  

I am not afraid of my fiscal cliff, it's only 3 inches high.... I am not scared.   Madison

If you keep tax rates low so that money instead can be spent by individuals. Why do liberals think that spending money by he government is good, but by individuals is bad.

Oh yeah, then they don't get their freebies, they have to actually work to get the money.

Don't you hate it when the real world KICKS THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR LIBERAL IDEOLOGY!!!!

-- Modified on 11/20/2012 10:02:03 PM

Most defiantly,  the sooner the better,  its kinda like a drug habit,  the longer you keep feeding the habit, when it comes time to detox,  along comes the drug dealer with bigger and better drugs,  ahh,  you take your drug,  you feel better,  FOR A WHILE   (as with the economy,  pump more money into it,  we feel better)    then when the body (economy)  can't take anymore and it is time to detox,  it becomes a lot worse than had you withdrawn early in the game.  MELTDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You keep pushing ideas that have been proven not to work.  You have drunk the Kool-Ade (or, in your case the Kook-Ade) for so long you can't tell fiction from reality.  Don't you hate it when this board KICKS THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR LAME-ASSED POSTS!!!!!  Oh, well, you can't fix stupid.  
Snowball = BTONTP&RB + TSTTT.

read the wrong year from the chart.

However, I do have to wonder, since this is the stock market and lefties claim the stock market is where the rich make their money, why they are so joyful when it goes up. Also considering the unemployment rate is STILL hovering around 8%, being well over 10% for minorities, does it seem the Obama has actually been better for the rich than the middle class and poor?

How can you support a President who benefits the 1% so much and leaves the middle and lower class languishing in unemployment and the highest ever percentage of people having to go on welfare?

This does not seem to match the liberal ideology you post all the time!?!?!?!?

LMFAO....

BTW,when you give up trying to figure out how to respond,I WILL GIVE YOU THE ANSWER...

-- Modified on 11/22/2012 5:33:41 AM

We have had Obama for 4 years, and the unemployment rate still extremely high.

I am trying to find a country that really practices conservative principals and free markets, but can not find one.

I can find a TON of them who have tried the liberal road map. They are scattered all over Europe and are now enhancing their vocabularies with words like Austerity as their citizens riot in the streets.

You see, there are real world examples of your way, and they all end the same,everyone broke and crying for their handout that there is no more money for  

-- Modified on 11/22/2012 5:35:03 AM

they have other people who are in charge of thinking.

Do Your Research, Ezra Klein!

posted by Adam Levitin

Ezra Klein has joined the melee over the Obama Administration's housing policy failure with an apologia for the Administration.  Klein argues:

The right question on housing, then, is not whether the administration’s policies proved insufficient. They did. It’s what would have been better. And that’s not a question that either Appelbaum or Goldfarb conclusively answer. It’s not even a question that the most credible critics of the Obama administration’s housing policies conclusively answer.

In making this claim, Klein ignores a long list of the Administration's critics who pushed hard and vocally for more pro-active policy alternatives.  (I'm going to ignore the "conclusive" part of Klein's restatement of the issue. If he wants critics to prove "conclusively" that an alternative would have been better, then nothing will suffice.  We're not dealing with a pick-your-own-adventure book where you can go back and try out different decisions.)  

As far as what would have been better:  gosh, there's a list of potential interventions that very credible people were proposing.  Here are a few:

•bankruptcy cramdown (proposed by numerous people, including Elizabeth Warren, and passed by the House)
•principal reductions as part of HAMP (urged by the Congressional Oversight Panel chaired by Elizabeth Warren and only belatedly added in a milquetoast way by Treasury)
•a new HOLC or the like (proposed by numerous people, including Joe Stiglitz, Howell Jackson, Ellen Seidman, and Rep. Brad Miller).
I'm sure I could come up with a much more complete list of "credible people" with minimal research.  Which is the point--it doesn't take much digging to see that Klein's claim is plainly wrong. There's no getting around the matter--the Administration truly flubbed things on housing policy, and its critics at the time said that the timid course of action would rebound to serious long-term economic problems and loom over the President as the 2012 election approached.  It's not like the Administration wasn't warned repeatedly, directly, and credibly. The Administration instead chose to listen to a different group of "credible people," and is paying the price.

But while we're on the topic of missed opportunities, there's a huge one that's been omitted from the list:  the robosigning investigation.  There have been three times when the Administration has had enormous leverage over the banks:  the initial bailout, the first stress tests, and the robosigning investigation.  Each time the Administration had the ability to force the banks to reduce principal or do whatever else it wanted, and each time it shied away.  Bottom line here was that the Administration chose to protect the banks rather than deal with the losses in the housing market, and that's not a decision it can disown.  

Btw, while we're on the housing policy issue, can anyone tell me what the Administration's housing policy is now?  As far as I can tell, we don't have one.  ..........................................................

Why would ANYONE expect a credible housing policy from the empty suit that brought us ShovelReadyJobsNotSoShovelReady?

Sad true.  If it worked, Bush's tax cut on the top rate, low cap gains rate and dividend rate should have had the economy booming.  And you're the one whining about the economy.  Can't wait for your next lame excuse.

Is that the best you can do???

Man, you suck at this debate stuff...

Thanks for passing on the name calling...,

I can see why you would say they, but I would point out the number one asset in the world back securities, home values, caused the huge economic crash.  

Also, I blame it on BOTH Wall Street and he government.  Wall Street was moving loans and making a shit load of money. The Fed was at the same time pushing banks to make loans to people who could normally not get the, so they could be part of the American dream.  Everyone serving their own interests by either getting money or trying to garner favor for votes.

I guess this is where we differ on some basics, I expect Wall Street to maximize profits. I expect the government to practice good oversight. Wall Street did what I would expect, the government did not.  

The Dems wanted everyone to have a home, even if they couldn't afford one. the Reps gutted the SEC and other oversight agencies tasked with keeping the banks from running amok with their liars' loans, the ratings agencies were in the pockets of the banks and gave AAA ratings to junk, Clinton and Bush administrations looked the other way.  And on an on, until we had an epic collapse that started in 2008 under Bush and continued during the first few months of the Obama administration.  And, while the stimulus plan was far from perfect, statistics show the country began to recover -- albeit too slowly -- once it went into effect.  The Republicans are in denial about this, just as they have tried to foil everything Obama has tried.  My opinion is they put party politics before country, and cared more that Obama fail than that the country succeed.  Patriotism be damned.
Republicans=partisan obstructionists=rejected by the voters.

What experts, your uncle, your frat brother. what experts!!!

I can pull out TONS of "expert" quotes showing Obamacare will costs a LOT MORE than projected and the negative impact on the economy.