blzrul Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 How surprising that we'd get this kind of ignorant statement from you. If you actually read the Journal, you might understand that their criticism of Bush and the GOP over the last decade has been withering. So what your saying is that the WSJ is right and Bush did suck as bad as they say? I dismiss the WSJ no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 So what your saying is that the WSJ is right and Bush did suck as bad as they say? I dismiss the WSJ no matter what. So you're going to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you when you need them to. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 So you're going to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you when you need them to. Got it. Well that's a stupid statement, as a strong opponent of Bush if that was true then I would LOVE the WSJ. There was never a time when I loved the WSJ, no matter WHO it picked or panned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 It's fairly obvious that the market will tank even more under Obama. You will see mass selling just before he gets into office (to avoid paying double the capital gains taxes), and will see people more reluctant to invest in the market. This will be disastrous for the already tanking market, and (ironically) cause even more hardship for the 401k's of the middle class. The question becomes... can we really afford to hit the markets when they are already on the brink of collapse? What a ridiculous post. Knowing that this whole mess started years ago. Yes, blame the new guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 What a ridiculous post. Knowing that this whole mess started years ago. Yes, blame the new guy. I think he's blaming only the last thousand points or so on Obama. And as I said before, a case can certainly be made that he is responsible for that short-term drop. I certainly think in part the market's reacting to his public statements, and budget, and tax policy...and the idiots in Congress...and dismal corporate earnings reports. Point being, it's not unreasonable for Obama to be held responsible for short-term market swings, even though he's done little but talk yet (especially because he's done little but talk yet). The key words, of course, being "short-term" - anyone who wants to pretend they can derive a long-term trend from a three week, thousand-point drop in the Dow in reaction to "We're in a pretty bad recession" delusional. You can't predict long-term trends from...ah, you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I think he's blaming only the last thousand points or so on Obama. And as I said before, a case can certainly be made that he is responsible for that short-term drop. I certainly think in part the market's reacting to his public statements, and budget, and tax policy...and the idiots in Congress...and dismal corporate earnings reports. Point being, it's not unreasonable for Obama to be held responsible for short-term market swings, even though he's done little but talk yet (especially because he's done little but talk yet). The key words, of course, being "short-term" - anyone who wants to pretend they can derive a long-term trend from a three week, thousand-point drop in the Dow in reaction to "We're in a pretty bad recession" delusional. You can't predict long-term trends from...ah, you know... Good post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 So what your saying is that the WSJ is right and Bush did suck as bad as they say? Yes. His ramp up of government spending was criminal. I dismiss the WSJ no matter what. That's because you're an idiot and the WSJ is not written for idiots (as opposed to virtually every other paper in the US). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 That's because you're an idiot and the WSJ is not written for idiots (as opposed to virtually every other paper in the US). Well, maybe a year ago you could have said that .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I think he's blaming only the last thousand points or so on Obama. And as I said before, a case can certainly be made that he is responsible for that short-term drop. I certainly think in part the market's reacting to his public statements, and budget, and tax policy...and the idiots in Congress...and dismal corporate earnings reports. Point being, it's not unreasonable for Obama to be held responsible for short-term market swings, even though he's done little but talk yet (especially because he's done little but talk yet). The key words, of course, being "short-term" - anyone who wants to pretend they can derive a long-term trend from a three week, thousand-point drop in the Dow in reaction to "We're in a pretty bad recession" delusional. You can't predict long-term trends from...ah, you know... I met an (obviously) retarded little dwarf the other day who kept insisting the economy was fine and dandy until Barack-o won the dem nomination, and claims that was the sole reason for the mess we're currently in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Well, maybe a year ago you could have said that .... Ouch. You may have a point there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 So what your saying is that the WSJ is right and Bush did suck as bad as they say? I dismiss the WSJ no matter what. Well thats foolhardy. I rarely agree with the NYT on political commentary, but there are some very well-researched, non-slanted educational articles. For example, the article on VAR linked by GG a few weeks ago. To dismiss an entire newspaper "no matter what" is ignorant. Disagree if you want, ignore certain sections/articles, but to not even consider an article due to the newspaper (not blog, newpaper, different standards there) in which it was printed is extremely closed-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Well thats foolhardy. I rarely agree with the NYT on political commentary, but there are some very well-researched, non-slanted educational articles. For example, the article on VAR linked by GG a few weeks ago. To dismiss an entire newspaper "no matter what" is ignorant. Disagree if you want, ignore certain sections/articles, but to not even consider an article due to the newspaper (not blog, newpaper, different standards there) in which it was printed is extremely closed-minded. blzrul being closed minded? Nooooo? The hypocrit accusing "wingnuts" of being closed minded is one of the most closed minded people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Here's a chart on 4 recent post-bubble declines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Here's a chart on 4 recent post-bubble declines. That chart has pretty colors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Well thats foolhardy. I rarely agree with the NYT on political commentary, but there are some very well-researched, non-slanted educational articles. For example, the article on VAR linked by GG a few weeks ago. To dismiss an entire newspaper "no matter what" is ignorant. Disagree if you want, ignore certain sections/articles, but to not even consider an article due to the newspaper (not blog, newpaper, different standards there) in which it was printed is extremely closed-minded. The article may have been from NYT Magazine, I don't recall - so there is a bit of a difference. But, yeah, the main point stands - people need to have their own editorial filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I dismiss the WSJ no matter what. That's embarrassing for you. The WSJ is the best newspaper in the US, and this is coming from a guy who thinks the NYT is #2. I gaurantee the "Rush is Right" crowd doesn't read the WSJ. It's well beyond them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Here's a chart on 4 recent post-bubble declines. Great chart because it encapsulates what the right wing loonies are screaming about. You may get a pop from a false sense of a recovery thinking you've hit the bottom, until the reality sets in that there's really no appetite in the private sector to stimulate growth and you're in a decade-long quagmire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 What a ridiculous post. Knowing that this whole mess started years ago. Yes, blame the new guy. That'd be a lot more honest if the "new" guy wasn't carrying on with the same garbage that led to this mess in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Jim Cramer's http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinv...nse-white-house]not much of a fan. Of course, he's just a capitalist-pig-running-dog-lacky-of the bourgoise and robber barons like the Rockefellers who's opinion counts for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Jim Cramer's http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinv...nse-white-house]not much of a fan. Of course, he's just a capitalist-pig-running-dog-lacky-of the bourgoise and robber barons like the Rockefellers who's opinion counts for nothing. First Santelli then Cramer At MSNBC Olbertard, Tingly Leg, and Dude Looks Like a Lady are probably scratching their heads wondering what's wrong with those crazy cousins down the hall at CNBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts