S&P 500 up 61% since Obama took office

haymarket · Jun 24, 2012

TurtleDude said:
why are Obama fans braying about this when so many of them are hostile towards investment income?

I know of nobody who is hostile towards investment income. That is a silly charge.

If there were, we would see evidence of it in wanting to tax investment income AT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER rates than we tax income from wages or work. All I see is people saying lets tax it all according to the same schedule. That is not evidence of hostility. It is evidence of equality in treating all forms of income according to the same rules.

Of course, playing by the same rules seems to be something you greatly loathe. You want favoritism. You want preferences. You want discriminatory rates.

Born Free · Jun 24, 2012

AdamT said:
That would be job INCREASES and huge stock market gains. I'll accept that. :thumbs:

No, even today Omama has a net loss on jobs from the time he took office. The market is up, not because of Obama, but in spite of him. In bad economic times, businesses cut cost to the bone and stop spending on expansion and or any investments. They hunker down, sit tight, keep their profit margin high and horde cash, thus keeping a strong balance sheet and a reasonable stock price.

Change the political environment to a pro-growth environment and these companies will invest in growth.

AdamT · Jun 24, 2012

Born Free said:
No, even today Omama has a net loss on jobs from the time he took office. The market is up, not because of Obama, but in spite of him. In bad economic times, businesses cut cost to the bone and stop spending on expansion and or any investments. They hunker down, sit tight, keep their profit margin high and horde cash, thus keeping a strong balance sheet and a reasonable stock price.

Change the political environment to a pro-growth environment and these companies will invest in growth.

If you follow the thread, I was talking about the state of affairs from three months into Obama's term. From that point, jobs are up and unemployment is down.

Obama is pressing pro-growth policies while republicans are pushing anti-growth, austerity policies. You're on the wrong side.

Fletch · Jun 24, 2012

AdamT said:
If you follow the thread, I was talking about the state of affairs from three months into Obama's term. From that point, jobs are up and unemployment is down.

Obama is pressing pro-growth policies while republicans are pushing anti-growth, austerity policies. You're on the wrong side.

Actually, republicans are not calling for any spending cuts whatsoever, they are calling for reductions in planned increases. The debt, even under the most "austere" republican budget, grows by several trillion over the next ten years. Austerity, in my mind, is the government spending less each coming year. That is not happening.

teamosil · Jun 24, 2012

Harshaw said:
Ah, "kiddo." Nice. Especially when you're demonstrating that no, you really don't know what you're talking about.

If this were all true, it still wouldn't be a measure of the economy.

Well, obviously you're wrong, but if you think you have an argument, feel free to present it.

Harshaw said:
No, I don't "understand" this, because it isn't correct. The monthly average since job growth began has been less than 140K.

Graph: Total nonfarm payroll employment (seasonally adjusted)

Kiddo, those numbers that are less than 140k you're seeing there are the total number of people who are working, excluding farms, not change in employment. And it is actually 140 MILLION, not thousand.

Harshaw said:
So what? I didn't say they did. I said that the "recovery" hasn't kept up with the pace of population growth (which is a standard measure of economic health), and I showed it. Stay with the actual conversation.

So when you did your ridiculous calculation you forgot that not everybody works. Remember, you said "But in reality, the US population increases about 2 million per year, which averages out to 167K per month, even higher than the 150K the NYT says. Again, thus, it's not keeping up."? You understand now why that doesn't make sense, right? If only say 2/3 of those folks are planning on working at any given time, then you would only need 110k jobs/month to keep up.

teamosil · Jun 24, 2012

Mr. Invisible said:
How did Obama restore "regulatory integrity" when the banks that caused the crisis grew bigger after the crisis supposedly ended? (Study Shows Too-Big-To-Fail U.S. Banks Grew After Crisis: Video - Bloomberg)

How did Obama restore "regulatory integrity" when his entire economic team had links to the very same banks that caused the economic crisis? (Obama's Bailout Bunch Brings Us More of the Same: Jonathan Weil - Bloomberg)

Well, for example, Bush intentionally undermined the missions of the EPA and the department of interior by putting the opposite people in charge of them- the CEO of an oil company was in charge of the EPA and a logging company CEO was the head of the department of the interior. You can't get any more corrupt than that, right? The same sort of pattern plays out across the board. He had the FTC filled with right wing anti-consumer, pro-corporate hacks, he undermined wall street regulation across the board, etc. Under Obama those departments have resumed playing their proper role. And we created all those regulatory agencies for a reason. Without them the whole economy falls apart pretty quickly.

Mr. Invisible said:
Also, I must ask, what is the source of that image and where does it get is info from?

The source of the data is BLS. You see that same, or very similar, graph posted all over the place.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 24, 2012

haymarket said:
I know of nobody who is hostile towards investment income. That is a silly charge.

If there were, we would see evidence of it in wanting to tax investment income AT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER rates than we tax income from wages or work. All I see is people saying lets tax it all according to the same schedule. That is not evidence of hostility. It is evidence of equality in treating all forms of income according to the same rules.

Of course, playing by the same rules seems to be something you greatly loathe. You want favoritism. You want preferences. You want discriminatory rates.

So now YOU want a FLAT FIT rate for everyone? WOW lets "git-r-done". ;-)

mike2810 · Jun 24, 2012

teamosil said:
Well, for example, Bush intentionally undermined the missions of the EPA and the department of interior by putting the opposite people in charge of them- the CEO of an oil company was in charge of the EPA and a logging company CEO was the head of the department of the interior. You can't get any more corrupt than that, right? The same sort of pattern plays out across the board. He had the FTC filled with right wing anti-consumer, pro-corporate hacks, he undermined wall street regulation across the board, etc. Under Obama those departments have resumed playing their proper role. And we created all those regulatory agencies for a reason. Without them the whole economy falls apart pretty quickly.
.

Have to disagree with you. Bush and Obama made political appointments. The head of Interior (Salezar) is a politican with a law degree. Seems someone with a better resource background would serve Interior better. Much of Interior is to manage our natural resources.

teamosil · Jun 24, 2012

mike2810 said:
Have to disagree with you. Bush and Obama made political appointments. The head of Interior (Salezar) is a politican with a law degree. Seems someone with a better resource background would serve Interior better. Much of Interior is to manage our natural resources.

A politician with a law degree seems right to me. That is fundamentally a policy making position and that's what law school is about and that's the career politicians are going after. I don't see a conflict of interest there like the CEO of a logging company had.

I mean, deregulation is one of the basic planks of the Republican platform. That's what that means- trying to destroy regulatory agencies. So it shouldn't be a huge surprise to anybody that they do in fact do it when they get elected.

TurtleDude · Jun 24, 2012

haymarket said:
I know of nobody who is hostile towards investment income. That is a silly charge.

If there were, we would see evidence of it in wanting to tax investment income AT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER rates than we tax income from wages or work. All I see is people saying lets tax it all according to the same schedule. That is not evidence of hostility. It is evidence of equality in treating all forms of income according to the same rules.

Of course, playing by the same rules seems to be something you greatly loathe. You want favoritism. You want preferences. You want discriminatory rates.

Your failings on this issue is that you assume the the current rates on earned income are the baseline starting point. You are hostile to investment income because you want to -in practice-take far more than there is taken from earned income. Dividend income is taxed twice and making the recipient pay the 40% you want them too means a Million dollar profit is first taxed down to 650K and then taxed another 40% meaning the recipient gets 390K while the government taxes away 610K an effective rate of SIXTY ONE PERCENT

TurtleDude · Jun 24, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
So now YOU want a FLAT FIT rate for everyone? WOW lets "git-r-done". ;-)

HAYMARKET thinks the rich ought to pay a higher rate on every form of tax-he wants them to see their FICA taxes quadrupled or more. He wants their dividend income taxed at 61%. He wants LTCG taxed at 40% (meaning the risk and inflation makes long term capital gains less valuable than short term capital gains-ie day trading)

his entire goal is for the government to take far far more money than those who are more prosperous than he is

teamosil · Jun 24, 2012

TurtleDude said:
Your failings on this issue is that you assume the the current rates on earned income are the baseline starting point. You are hostile to investment income because you want to -in practice-take far more than there is taken from earned income. Dividend income is taxed twice and making the recipient pay the 40% you want them too means a Million dollar profit is first taxed down to 650K and then taxed another 40% meaning the recipient gets 390K while the government taxes away 610K an effective rate of SIXTY ONE PERCENT

And that would matter if dividends made up a large percentage of investment income and if a large percentage of corporations actually paid meaningful taxes.

OnWisconsin · Jun 24, 2012

cpwill said:
not really. As you have already stated, he doesn't take responsibility for ending the recession (nor should he). He is responsible for our low-growth-rate-high-unemployment "recovery", or lack thereof.

I thought the government didn't create jobs and that the private sector is the only ones who can create jobs? Obama continued the Bush tax cuts, and since the "job creators" had low tax rates they should have been able to create millions of jobs right???

Republic Now! · Jun 24, 2012

teamosil said:
Well, for example, Bush intentionally undermined the missions of the EPA and the department of interior by putting the opposite people in charge of them- the CEO of an oil company was in charge of the EPA and a logging company CEO was the head of the department of the interior. You can't get any more corrupt than that, right? The same sort of pattern plays out across the board. He had the FTC filled with right wing anti-consumer, pro-corporate hacks, he undermined wall street regulation across the board, etc. Under Obama those departments have resumed playing their proper role. And we created all those regulatory agencies for a reason. Without them the whole economy falls apart pretty quickly.

Which head of the EPA was CEO of an oil company?

Actually, I can't find the secretary of interior who was a CEO of a logging company either.

Texmex · Jun 24, 2012

Harshaw said:
And where did I do this, exactly?

The stock market is not a measure of the overall economy, and both job numbers and GDP growth have been extremely weak -- the number of months is meaningless; it's not even keeping up with population growth. "Rapid recoveries" usually show growth in the 5-6% realm, not the paltry, hardly-moving ~2% we've been seeing. As for employment, it usually improves around 7% in a typical recovery; under Obama, that, too, has been around 2%.

You can see this charted here:

Obama's 'Extraordinary' Economic Recovery Actually 6.5 Million Jobs Below Average - Investors.com

But like I said, if you sincerely believe we've been experiencing "rapid recovery," then there's very little I can say -- one normally can't crack a tightly-held delusion.

Then again, you apparently don't even know what I say, as you seem to think I said things I didn't.

Are the graphs you posted going up or down?

And, do you currently have a job?

teamosil · Jun 24, 2012

Republic Now! said:
Which head of the EPA was CEO of an oil company?

Actually, I can't find the secretary of interior who was a CEO of a logging company either.

Gale Norton was one of Bush's department of the interior heads. She works for Shell Oil.

Dirk Kempthorne, his other head of the department of the interior after Norton was Dirk Kempthorne. Actually I was wrong- he wasn't a CEO of a logging company, he was a former governor who took more donations from logging, mining and oil companies than any other governor in US history ever has. He is #1 on all three lists. Fervently anti-environmental.

Mike Leavitt was one of Bush's heads of the EPA. He was a board member of Utah Power and Light- an oil company.

Christine Whitman, who was Bush's head of the EPA before Leavitt was never a CEO or board member of an oil company, but she owned hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in oil companies and was openly anti-environment.

TurtleDude · Jun 24, 2012

teamosil said:
And that would matter if dividends made up a large percentage of investment income and if a large percentage of corporations actually paid meaningful taxes.

for many retirees dividend income is a large portion of their income. that was true of my late mother-when my father died before her-he left her the income from his stock holdings. People like Haymarket want to almost triple the tax rate on such income

TurtleDude · Jun 24, 2012

teamosil said:
Gale Norton was one of Bush's department of the interior heads. She works for Shell Oil.

Dirk Kempthorne, his other head of the department of the interior after Norton was Dirk Kempthorne. Actually I was wrong- he wasn't a CEO of a logging company, he was a former governor who took more donations from logging, mining and oil companies than any other governor in US history ever has. He is #1 on all three lists. Fervently anti-environmental.

Mike Leavitt was one of Bush's heads of the EPA. He was a board member of Utah Power and Light- an oil company.

Christine Whitman, who was Bush's head of the EPA before Leavitt was never a CEO or board member of an oil company, but she owned hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in oil companies and was openly anti-environment.

I love what the extreme left calls "anti environment". is pure hackesque bs.

clownboy · Jun 24, 2012

Utah Power and Light is not an oil company but an electric utility company. Gale Norton went to work for Royal Dutch Shell AFTER she was in government (three years after by law). Whitman has never been known as "anti-environmentalist", in fact as governor:

In 2000, under Whitman's leadership, New Jersey's violations of the federal one-hour air quality standard for ground level ozone dropped to four from 45 in 1988. Beach closings reached a record low, and the state earned recognition by the Natural Resources Defense Council for instituting the most comprehensive beach monitoring system in the nation. Additionally, New Jersey implemented a new watershed management program and became the United States leader in opening shellfish beds for harvesting. Governor Whitman agreed to give tax money to owners of one million acres (4,000 km²) more of open space and farmland in New Jersey.

From the wiki

You already admitted to getting it wrong about Kempthorne.

AdamT · Jun 24, 2012

TurtleDude said:
for many retirees dividend income is a large portion of their income. that was true of my late mother-when my father died before her-he left her the income from his stock holdings. People like Haymarket want to almost triple the tax rate on such income

Yep, and other people have to work into their 70s and 80s and they're paying a higher tax rate than someone enjoying a nice retirement, living off dividends. People like you seem to think that's fair.

TurtleDude · Jun 24, 2012

AdamT said:
Yep, and other people have to work into their 70s and 80s and they're paying a higher tax rate than someone enjoying a nice retirement, living off dividends. People like you seem to think that's fair.

cry me a river over your faux concern. Most people who work that hard invest some of what they make and the last thing they want are the pimps in office and the parasites those pimps represent demanding even more money from what they put away. FOr someone who spends so much time scheming against the private property of others and for someone who spends so much time advocating the government taking more and more from other people, you using the term "Fair" is really rather amusing

teamosil · Jun 24, 2012

TurtleDude said:
for many retirees dividend income is a large portion of their income. that was true of my late mother-when my father died before her-he left her the income from his stock holdings. People like Haymarket want to almost triple the tax rate on such income

As you know, there are tons of exclusions for retirement savings. A retiree saving up to cover their living expenses has nothing to do with any of this.

Regardless, you're totally off topic

TurtleDude said:
I love what the extreme left calls "anti environment". is pure hackesque bs.

Are you kidding me? If those guys aren't anti-environment, who would be lol? Really I should have said "anti-environment extremists", but I figured I'd keep it low key...

AdamT · Jun 24, 2012

clownboy said:
Utah Power and Light is not an oil company but an electric utility company. Gale Norton went to work for Royal Dutch Shell AFTER she was in government (three years after by law). Whitman has never been known as "anti-environmentalist", in fact as governor:

You already admitted to getting it wrong about Kempthorne.

At least Norton managed to avoid being indicted!

DEC 09 2010

The Office of Inspector General concluded an investigation based on a complaint that Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) received preferential treatment during the awarding of oil shale Research, Development, and Demonstration (RDD) leases in 2005 and 2006 by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Since former Secretary Gale Norton subsequently secured employment with Shell, we expanded our investigation to consider her involvement in the RDD process.

We found that Norton was very interested in the RDD program during her tenure as Secretary, but we did not find evidence to conclusively determine that Norton violated conflict-of-interest laws, either pre- or post-employment with Shell.

We discovered that BLM appeared to give preferential treatment to Shell in two specific issues regarding these leases. We found that two of Shell’s bid proposals included acreage amounts in excess of the allowable amount specified in the Federal Register notice, and that someone in BLM changed the amount to comply with the requirements. BLM did not disqualify Shell’s bids. We also found that Shell submitted three bids, while other prospective bidders were allowed to submit only one bid. Shell was awarded leases on all three bids. No other company received more than one lease.

We did not find evidence that Shell committed any criminal violation, but we did discover that someone in BLM provided Shell with information, which allowed Shell to submit a complete bid document on the same day that the Federal Register notice soliciting applications for leases was published. The next bid that BLM received came in 82 days later.

clownboy · Jun 24, 2012

AdamT said:
Yep, and other people have to work into their 70s and 80s and they're paying a higher tax rate than someone enjoying a nice retirement, living off dividends. People like you seem to think that's fair.

Since when has "fair" been a part of the equation. That's a wandering standard solely based upon opinion. There are people who have spent like drunken sailors their whole lives and ended up winning a jackpot - is that fair? It's a laughable standard to use.

AdamT · Jun 24, 2012

TurtleDude said:
cry me a river over your faux concern. Most people who work that hard invest some of what they make and the last thing they want are the pimps in office and the parasites those pimps represent demanding even more money from what they put away. FOr someone who spends so much time scheming against the private property of others and for someone who spends so much time advocating the government taking more and more from other people, you using the term "Fair" is really rather amusing

I spend time scheming against the property of others?! Do tell! :lamo

S&P 500 up 61% since Obama took office

More options

haymarket

Born Free

AdamT

Fletch

teamosil

teamosil

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

mike2810

teamosil

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

teamosil

OnWisconsin

Well-known member

Republic Now!

Texmex

teamosil

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

clownboy

AdamT

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

teamosil

AdamT

clownboy

AdamT