• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BREAKING: Dow Jones Closes Above 13,000 For The First Time Since May 2008

1Perry said:
There was no gun held to their head. You claim in one breath that it takes time to "buck" Wall Street when the rest of the thread is about how great it is that the government has provided Wall Street everything it needed to get back to where it was before they screwed the economy up.
Click to expand...


Being glad to see a sign of economic improvement does not mean that I don't want to prevent banks too big to fail that necessitate taxpayer bailout.

Can you answer this honestly - Are for or against reestablishing the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks?
 
Catawba said:
It takes a while to build support or this kind of landmark legislation that bucks the power and wealth of Wall Street. It seems you think major political change should happen on your schedule. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

Well, that's all well and good, but plenty of things "worked that way."

Just out of curiosity, how long exactly have they been pushing this bill to repeal the bipartisanly supported and Clinton backed Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill?

But you both refuse to acknowledge in your hang up about everything being done when you want it done, is that it now has 58 co-sponsors in the House. How could the Democrats support it more?
Click to expand...

Um, it has nothing to do about when I want it done. It's kind of like Republicans presenting flat tax legislation when they are a minority just to appeal to the disenfranchised conservative base. If they wanna get it done, they need to do it when it can actually be done, not just pose the bill so you appear to be for it.
 
Catawba said:
Everyone, including Obama, would have preferred a single payer system as opposed to the GOP insurance mandate. We will eventually have to upgrade to a single payer system.
Click to expand...


Uh, who voted for the bill?
 
Obama bashing dies down as long as the Dow is above the 13,000 benchmark.
 
1Perry said:
There was no gun held to their head. You claim in one breath that it takes time to "buck" Wall Street when the rest of the thread is about how great it is that the government has provided Wall Street everything it needed to get back to where it was before they screwed the economy up.
Click to expand...


So rather than once again separating investment banks from commercial banks to prevent our economy being tied to risky investments, you prefer we address the situation by letting the economy fail and thereby starve the beast, and us in the process?
 
Republic Now! said:
Well, that's all well and good, but plenty of things "worked that way."

Just out of curiosity, how long exactly have they been pushing this bill to repeal the bipartisanly supported and Clinton backed Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill?
Click to expand...


Long enough to have 58 co-sponsors in the House. Are you for it or against it?
 
Captain America said:
Moments ago, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed over 13,000 for the first time since May 19, 2008. The stock market is now up over 56 percent since Obama took office. <snip>

BREAKING: Dow Jones Closes Above 13,000 For The First Time Since May 2008 | ThinkProgress

Thank you Mr. President. SOME of us are actually paying attention out here. Looking forward to your next term. ;)
Click to expand...

Does anyone else find it funny that when the Dow pumped out record numbers under Bush the Libbos said that it didn't mean anything?
 
Catawba said:
Being glad to see a sign of economic improvement does not mean that I don't want to prevent banks too big to fail that necessitate taxpayer bailout.

Can you answer this honestly - Are for or against reestablishing the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks?
Click to expand...

It isn't as simple as that. It's none of my business what a bank does with their money. It also should not be my responsibility when they screw up. If they want to risk their money, fine, but don't ask us to insure their depositors.
 
Catawba said:
So rather than once again separating investment banks from commercial banks to prevent our economy being tied to risky investments, you prefer we address the situation by letting the economy fail and thereby starve the beast, and us in the process?
Click to expand...

I get it. You are for Wall Street welfare. Well, I imagine that is only true depending on who is supporting it. That's fine but it makes any argument you have about any wealth gap completely dismissable.

But again, the Dems could have done this very thing but didn't.
 
Catawba said:
Evidently, I do not have the libertarian conversion factors needed to turn a positive to a negative.
Click to expand...

It's not libertarian, it's just math. As soon as the **** hit the fan, look at how quickly Congress in a bipartisan movement came together to take our tax dollars and give it to the very people who cause the mess in the first place. Look at how quickly that occurred. The banks were hurting, Wall Street was hurting, and BAM! Government bailout. But Middle Class was still hurting Lower Class was still hurting. And what happened then? Once their buddies in the Banks and Wall Street were taken care of, back to partisan bull****, back to bickering, back to pointing fingers at each other relentlessly, back to not doing anything for the very People they’re to represent. And for YEARS this continued, YEARS we endured, YEARS we tried to recoup and move on. And after YEARS of Congress and the President doing NOTHING to help the Middle Class, the Lower Class, the People who were actually suffering; the economy finally starts recovering. Not because of anything Government did, but rather because given enough time it would have recovered on its own.

Take a positive and make it a negative? Hell no. If someone is applying an inverse amplifier of unity gain, it’s those who think Obama or Congress or any of those bastards had anything to do with this recovery. They left us out in the rain, kicked us to the curb and let us fend for ourselves. The Banks and Wall Street…they got the attention, they got the reaction, they got our money. The rest of us…treated as cattle and nothing more. Some infinite supply of tax payer dollars to be dolled out at their convenience to their buddies when they see fit; that’s it. And this economic downturn has proven just that.

I honestly do not know how anyone can look at the actions of government and the Banks and Wall Street during our economic meltdown and NOT see who government is beholden to. It’s not the People, not anymore. It’s all their richer buddies running the financial districts. That’s it. And that was well demonstrated by both the left’s and the right’s reactions to the economic disaster.
 
Captain America said:
No doubt, right? I am FINALLY back to the dollar amount I was at before Bush took office. (A bit more actually.) It has been a long road for sure.

But stocks are for the long term I am told. Just hang in there Tuck.
Click to expand...

Is it back to the dollar amount that it was at the height of the Bush Presidency?

Much of the same glowing adoration coming from the left for Obama regarding the economy seems similar to what we saw for Bush in 2004 when "he" got us out of the big hit that occured following 9/11. Yet 4 years later...we slumped again.

But of course, Such could never be the case with Obama becuase he's not Bush and Bush is bad.

I seem to remember liberals I knew at the time of 04 arguing that the American economy is greater than any President and Bush's actions didn't have anything to do with it bouncing back but rather was actually harming it with all his war spending. Funny, that argument is invalid now. (And of course, the flip side is conservatives saying its valid now when it wasn't bad then).

Forgive me if I don't get excited and desiring to hoot and hollar when petty hyper partisans play their petty hyper partisan games over whatever news story they can leverage to do such rather than simply being happy for the story itself rather than how it can be spun to make your side get points.
 
Thunder said:
clearly, the stock market and many businesses like Obama's policies.
Click to expand...

So then you obviously bought into the notion that when the stock market was doing poorly under the point in time where Obama was heavily pushing his Stimulus policy that it was because they don't like Obama's policies?

Because you're banal comments and analysis would of course be consistent, yes?
 
apdst said:
Does anyone else find it funny that when the Dow pumped out record numbers under Bush the Libbos said that it didn't mean anything?
Click to expand...

That's not true. when it had it's record collapse under Bush libbos blamed him for it.
 
I think the average time between recessions is around six years. Since the last one ended three years ago, the next president will likely have to combat a downturn while simultaneously struggling to reign in the massive debt that was the response to this past recession. That should be fun.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's not true. when it had it's record collapse under Bush libbos blamed him for it.
Click to expand...

The funny thing with this is everyone can cherry pick something to make the numbers to mean whatever they wish. For example, you could state the Dow started going down a year after the Democratic Party took control of congress and continued that path through the first bit of Obama's Presidency before the economy began to recover, but has since recovered faster once the Republicans took the house.

Now, that's likely Bunk...but likely as much bunk as attempting to say that Bush had nothing to do with hitting the all time high in 2007, that Bush had the majority of the fault for it falling at the end of his term, that Bush has the fault for it falling during the early parts of Obama's return, and that Obama is responsable for its rise as his Presidency has gone forward.
 
Zyphlin said:
The funny thing with this is everyone can cherry pick something to make the numbers to mean whatever they wish. For example, you could state the Dow started going down a year after the Democratic Party took control of congress and continued that path through the first bit of Obama's Presidency before the economoy began to recover, but has since recovered faster once the Republicans took the house.

Now, that's likely Bunk...but likely as much bunk as attempting to say that Bush had nothing to do with hitting the all time high in 2007, that Bush had the majority of the fault for it falling at the end of his term, that Bush has the fault for it falling during the early parts of Obama's return, and that Obama is responsable for its rise as his Presidency has gone forward.
Click to expand...

what event(s) occurred in early '09 do you think were the catalyst for turning the maeket around?
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
what event(s) occurred in early '09 do you think were the catalyst for turning the maeket around?
Click to expand...

The end of the selloff by those who were protesting the results of the ’08 election...which coincidently happens every presidential election year…get ready for the next one...;)
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
The funny thing with this is everyone can cherry pick something to make the numbers to mean whatever they wish. For example, you could state the Dow started going down a year after the Democratic Party took control of congress and continued that path through the first bit of Obama's Presidency before the economy began to recover, but has since recovered faster once the Republicans took the house.

Now, that's likely Bunk...but likely as much bunk as attempting to say that Bush had nothing to do with hitting the all time high in 2007, that Bush had the majority of the fault for it falling at the end of his term, that Bush has the fault for it falling during the early parts of Obama's return, and that Obama is responsable for its rise as his Presidency has gone forward.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's all hackish bull****.

The post I quoted is a prime example of it. Apdst dutifully ignored the record negative record numbers that happened while Bush was in office (and how the libbos attacked him for it), instead choosing to focus entirely on the positive numbers and how the "libbos" didn't give him credit for it. By approaching the issue like that, he's doing exactly the thing that he's bitching about while he's bitching about it.

I couldn't let that irony go without making some note of it.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
what event(s) occurred in early '09 do you think were the catalyst for turning the maeket around?
Click to expand...

Largely the same thing that I think occured around '03...our economy began recovering due to a large variety of factors, many and most of which are tangentally at best influenced by the President alone. The same thing that helped cause the Dow to hit to a record high under George Bush. I don't put a lot of stock on Presidents being the primary motivating factors for what the market does on a macro scale.

If we're to believe that Bush's is the primary reason that the economy fell during his term AND during Obama's term then its also hard to believe that his policies also didn't help us have steady growth to record highs for four years. We're also to believe that that the factors in the economy and in government that changed during the point where the markets dropped under Bush can't be taken into account, and we can't take into account the context and factors of the changes in the economy and in government after Bush left office, but we're supposed to take into account the changes that occured in those situations once the economy begins to upswing again?

It's a bunch of partisan rhetoric cached in picking and choosing on cherry picked facts when an individual thinks the President does or does not matter and should get the lionshare of credit for the markets based on their desire to score political points for their side.
 
Dickieboy said:
The end of the selloff by those who were protesting the results of the ’08 election...which coincidently happens every presidential election year…get ready for the next one...;)
Click to expand...

What you are calling a "sell off" was really the market collapsing in response to the economy collapsing. Something turned that around in early 2009. What was it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom