reaganfan: "With Dashle, Richardson, and
Hillary leading the way it's more like
'Back to the Future'!"

Lol, the Republican ability to spin has really been diminished, hasn't it? I guess the whole party has been Palinized.

Anyway, let's go through this again. Change doesn't mean appointing a bunch of folks no one ever heard of. The president sets direction and his administration, which consists of appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president as well as career civil servants, works to execute that presidential guidance.

Consider a professional football team as an analogy. A new coach can promote a new playing style - say going from a running attack to a West Coast offense. That coach, however, isn't going to attempt the new playing style with a bunch of players who had never before been in the NFL.

come on Barack! a smart man like you, can do better than uh" uh" David Axelrod for uh" "uh press secretary, uh? uh? dont you uh" uh ? think? I kind of hate to hearing this guy talk for the next uh " uh" four years,and I am a life -long uh uh southern democrat! yall come back now, you hear!

Oh give me a break! Obama isn't going to fix anything! How is he going to cut costs when his first plan of action once he gets into the Whitehouse is to tear out the bowling alley and build a gym so he can play basketball! What a waste of tax money!

Yesterday, Barack Obama’s surrogates fanned out across the talking-head shows to promote Barack Obama’s new jobs program. Obama promises to create 2.5 million jobs in the next two years through government stimulus packages and heavy reliance on public-works programs. Many, like the Washington Post, compare his vision to that of FDR — without pointing out that FDR’s programs failed:

The best stimulus package that Congress could offer would be a sharp reduction in government spending, accompanied by a decrease in tax rates on investment income — the capital-gains rate. While few will realize any capital gains in 2008, the commitment to low rates will signal investors to start putting their resources to work again. Best of all, it will also signal that the government won’t compete for projects that could be accomplished by private enterprise — projects that will get completed more quickly and with better quality than with heavily-bureaucratized government labor.

With Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, though, Obama won’t likely see that kind of long-term stimulus to the nation’s economy. Instead, Congress will confiscate more capital to fund its own projects, making recovery more and more difficult. They’ll expand government spending while either hiking tax rates, expanding deficit spending, or both. In the end, that will be as effective as the CCC and the WPA was from 1933-1941. Hopefully, this time it won’t take American voters that long to reach that conclusion.

Paul:
The Only Spin I see is coming from
you Obama Cheerleaders waving your
Pom Poms!
Obama said he was going to change the
way things are done in Washington!
It won't happen with the Washington
Insiders he is choosing for his
Cabinet!
He is already backing off his proposal to
withdraw our troops in Iraq in his
first 16 months as president!
He's backing away from the tax cuts
for 95% of the country that he promised
and is backing away from the pledge he
made to increase taxes on people
making more than $150,000, $200,000, or
$250,000 a year(hard to tell which is the actual figure).
Just another liar like all the rest.
Obama went from "change you can believe
in" to you can't believe a word I say!

Well, it is your right to rant on, reaganfan. So have at it.

The seething, spittle-filled rants in this comment section just makes me giddy. I guess you guys are still reeling from November 4th, when you got trounced.

Obama's nowhere to be seen? Oh, except for the weekly video addresses and daily updates from his change.gov website. Remind me again where our CURRENT president is making weekly statements about all this? Oh, that's right, the last address he made was in April.

I used to donate to the campaign every time I saw a hate-filled rant with no reason or intelligence behind it. Since I can't do that anymore, I'm just going to laugh at you instead.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

What the heck does he care about now. He got your votes; you got a tanked economy and falling Stock Market.

You or your dad are not going to retire any time soon.

Now, we've got a cool PEBO.

Do you think our Greatest Leader felt your pain?

Michael,

Good luck, and good night.

Still don't understand the Clinton appointment, assuming the reports are correct. She's not exactly among the steady hands I assumed Obama would tap.

Posted by: Paul | Nov 21, 2008 4:54:50 PM
-------------

What you don't understand.

Our Greatest Smartest Changest Leader is so afraid he will make so many boneheaded mistakes. He needs someone to safe guard his administration so that things will not go too wrong.

Hillary will do whatever she feels good for the country, and he skills in promoting global cooperation will help bring the world economy to a sooner recovery, which is a good thing to help lead our own recovery.

Hillary is the stability and reassurance that we and the world need now and in the next 4 years.

Why is the President-elect being held responsible for the current mess? Why can't the CURRENT PRESIDENT DO HIS JOB?

Posted by: SG in PG | Nov 21, 2008 9:56:22 AM
-----

Because the current president is incompetent, unfit for his job, and a disaster on everything he touches. Do you really want him to formulate an economic policy for the recovery in the next four years?

Our Greatest Changest Leader has the same qualities. He is incompetent for not filling the leadership gap that is present in Washington and in Chicago. Does he understand the economic problem is his problem? Does he understand there are 60 days without any real leadership in this country?

He is unfit because he has no clue he needs to help bring confidence, stability, reassurance to the Market. Where are his feel-good, inspirational words?

He is responsible for the current economic meltdown because he promoted Bush $300 billion giveaways one year ago, ridiculed Hillary's correct diagnose and solution for the economy at that time, which is to use that money to target banking and mortgage crisis. Had he followed Hillary's lead, putting our economy first instead of his own ambition, the Stock market might have been still in the 14000 range today.

fatcat: "Had he followed Hillary's lead, putting our economy first instead of his own ambition, the Stock market might have been still in the 14000 range today."

Lol, if you think that's all it would take to get the Dow back up to 14,000 quickly, I suggest you buy equities now - all you can as quickly as you can.

However, if you have a little more understanding of our current economic mess, you might want to be more cautious with your investments.

Paul,

Do not try to deceive by talking about a different subject, as our Greatest Changest Leader always does.

I was talking about preventing it from going down more than ONE YEAR AGO.

You are talking about bringing it up after our Greatest Leader has equalized 95% poor and 5% rich by more than 50%.

They are different as you are well aware of. It is much easier to fall than climbing up.

Change is in the Air. Great post here about "Energy Clinics" in Southeast Asia, why can't we do in the U.S.??

fatcat: "Do not try to deceive by talking about a different subject, as our Greatest Changest Leader always does. I was talking about preventing it from going down more than ONE YEAR AGO. You are talking about bringing it up after our Greatest Leader has equalized 95% poor and 5% rich by more than 50%. They are different as you are well aware of. It is much easier to fall than climbing up."

True enough, but I'll add that the markets were over-valued a year ago and had to come down, as this economy has been hollowing itself for years and perhaps decades depending on your perspective - rising public debt, diminished manufacturing base, etc.

The band-aids Clinton proposed were just that. My concern is that even the level of reaction Obama is talking about may also may prove to be just band-aids.

So, I guess I'm saying my original point is still valid.

By the way, why do you say it would be easier to keep the markets propped up than it would be for investors to raise them now? Is that from an econ 101 book or just something you made up?

Paul,

No, not necessarily from econ 101.

It is because there is a vacuum of leadership in Washington, while our Greatest Leader is hiding in a hole in Chicago.

Bush is not and cannot do anything besides pardoning some friends, and you do not want him to do anything any way.

The Congress only knows to bailout banks, tingling with the Market of to bailout and not to bailout of the 4 million jobs potentially lost in the auto Industry.

Our Greatest Leader keeps his cool silence, messing around with rumors of hiring his family crony friend Pritzker as Sect. of DoC, enough to lose the Dow for 900 points and more than 11% in just two days. Even with the two day rebounce after her withdraw we are still 200 points shy where it was Tuesday last week.

Our Greatest Leader has Zero capacity to understand this problem is his problem, and he needs to tell the world what he will do, specifically, exactly, for the economy, not just feel-good inspirational speeches now. The Market needs confidence, stability, reassurance to be stabilized. Our Greatest Leader is cool playing fire simply testing waters for his crony friends.

There are still near 60 days left, and there is no leadership anywhere to be found. That's why it is hard to rise.

fatcat - I think looking at the Dow or other market indices as a daily referendum on the president elect is a little silly.

Further, as an investor I'm much more concerned in business fundamentals than governmental action when choosing my purchases or sales. For instance, I think Christmas sales will have a greater impact on stocks as a whole than would the question of whether it was Obama or McCain or anyone else preparing to take office.

P..as an investor who is concerned with business fundamentals more than governmental action, seems to me you voted for the wrong guy...me I could care less, I dumped my options when Obama became a serious contender fortunately I did not suffer losses; however unfortunately,others did and are. As for Christmas sales, don't depend on them with a predicted 5 percent decline in shoppers. Any "serious investor" knows it's all short-term gain...

socalindep - if you're buying options I'd say you're not an investor. That's trading territory.

I did sell about half my long positions more than a year ago. Fundamentals were turning south when oil started to sky rocket, and anyone who wanted to see it knew what was coming. I don't claim to have foreseen the extent of the crisis we now find ourselves in - at least not occurring this soon - but seemed obvious to me the markets were heading for correction.

I had this conversation with a co-worker a while back. I still have a yellow sticky stuck to my office wall, with the numbers 14,198 and 11,358. The high number was the Dow that day, and in response to my prediction that we could be looking at a 20 percent drop, he wanted to hold me to that - so the low number was written.

The connection between Christmas shopping and the markets is well established. And while I'm not sure you're numbers are correct, let's say they are. Then retailers are now valued with that 5 percent decline factored in. Anything above that, and those equities will rise in value.

As an experienced "investor" I'm sure you know it doesn't matter for the short term whether you make or lose money, so long as you beat estimates.

For the long term, we still have some serious problems. We don't produce much as a nation. We are having trouble servicing our public debt, and at least one of the big three creditors has suggested the U.S.'s AAA rating might be in danger. Our individual families are carrying additional debt and haven't been saving - being good 'patriots' they've been spending their money on more and more crap. And now credit is tight to non-existant.

And, oh by the way, the baby boomers have started to retire. While most people note the public strains that causes because of social security and medicare payments we can expect making, also consider what happens when that demographic bubble stops putting into its 401(k) and starts taking out.

P..I don't buy options, I earn them. The five percent decline stated previously is based upon the shopping public; example, for every 20 shoppers, one will stay home doesn't sound like a lot however when you are talking thousands, well.....I truly hope I am wrong, but thus far I have been on the money so too speak. I want Obama to succeed in the worst way for my kids' sake but I am not banking, excuse the pun, on the dem held congress and senate; therefore, I am putting my investments in reasonably safe securities and stocks ain't one of them, for now anyway; perhaps in another 18 months to a year if he is the miracle worker everyone is saying...