Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Maria Bartiromo Reports Market Wants McCain

Maria Bartiromo Reports Market Wants McCain
Thread Tools
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 03:48 PM
 
Maria Baritromo just reported talk from traders that suggests the market has been depressed in part because of the polls showing Obama's widening lead; news that the polls are tightening causes market rallies. I strongly agree with this view.

Don't bitch at the messenger.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 03:50 PM
 
I read a report that everything bad in the world is the fault of Democrats and everything good is thanks to the Republicans valiant efforts to stop them.

Don't bitch at the messenger.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I read a report that everything bad in the world is the fault of Democrats and everything good is thanks to the Republicans valiant efforts to stop them.

Don't bitch at the messenger.
Not far off!

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 04:11 PM
 
Of course they do! He'd help Joe the Plumber, as well as CEO's, with his tax plan. He CAN make all the people happy ALL the time!
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Maria Baritromo just reported talk from traders that suggests the market has been depressed in part because of the polls showing Obama's widening lead; news that the polls are tightening causes market rallies. I strongly agree with this view.

Don't bitch at the messenger.
Interesting. I've heard the exact opposite from my friends in hedge funds. The market has been depressed because of McCain's ridiculous non-solutions to the economic crisis. Cutting the capital gains tax will be be really helpful when nobody has capital gains.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Maria Baritromo just reported talk from traders that suggests the market has been depressed in part because of the polls showing Obama's widening lead; news that the polls are tightening causes market rallies. I strongly agree with this view.

Don't bitch at the messenger.
Do you strongly agree for actual reasons you can give or do you strongly agree because this is the way you've always felt and now you've just found someone who agrees with it too? Explain to us your theory of why Obama's lead in the polls is depressing the market ?

I'll see your reference to a TV anchor and raise you a reference to a professor of finance, Dr. Jeremy Siegel, who has studied the stock market going back to the 1800s. In his findings, since 1948, the stock market advances by an average of 15.26% under Democratic presidencies and 9.01% under Republican presidencies.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 06:15 PM
 
My leg gets all tingly when I watch Maria Bartiromo talk about the market!
     
villalobos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Maria Baritromo just reported talk from traders that suggests the market has been depressed in part because of the polls showing Obama's widening lead; news that the polls are tightening causes market rallies. I strongly agree with this view.

Don't bitch at the messenger.
And we should care because?... If anything the market just showed us what it's made of this last months : greed. They are no role models.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Interesting. I've heard the exact opposite from my friends in hedge funds. The market has been depressed because of McCain's ridiculous non-solutions to the economic crisis. Cutting the capital gains tax will be be really helpful when nobody has capital gains.
Bullsh!t. Not even close to being funny or witty.

-t
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by villalobos View Post
And we should care because?... If anything the market just showed us what it's made of this last months : greed. They are no role models.
You should care because the market will likely continue to tank if BHO gets elected.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You should care because the market will likely continue to tank if BHO gets elected.
Likely continue to tank?

Does the whole "you should vote McCain out of fear of Obama" schtick ever get old for you ?
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 01:40 AM
 
Fear, loathing, doubt, substantive policy differences - whichever way you please. Barack Obama will do immense harm to the United States if elected.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 02:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Interesting. I've heard the exact opposite from my friends in hedge funds. The market has been depressed because of McCain's ridiculous non-solutions to the economic crisis. Cutting the capital gains tax will be be really helpful when nobody has capital gains.
So these guys are pretty sure McCain's going to win then huh?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 02:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Fear, loathing, doubt, substantive policy differences - whichever way you please. Barack Obama will do immense harm to the United States if elected.
So that'd be a "no", it never gets old for you.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 02:26 AM
 
Nope, not really.

Hopefully we'll be done with this particular debate on November 5th. Until then. . . .

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 07:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You should care because the market will likely continue to tank if BHO gets elected.
I am someone who wants the markets to tank. I want the economy to contract significantly. I want the economy to be so bad for so long as to force radical changes in how me and everyone else lives their lives. I want the economy to be so troublesome as to force consumers to have to think about fundamental economic choices all the time, every single day, with every single one of their actions. I want the economy to be so bad that people will be forced to stop living off borrowed money and instead live within their means even if that requires a radical diminishment of their standard of living. I want the economy to be so bad for so long that it forces fundamental, long-term changes in how all of us financially order our lives. I want the economy to be so bad, that people get so scared, that we all decide to become a nation of moderate spenders and immoderate savers. Right now our nation as a whole has a *negative* net savings rate. I want that to change such that over the course of the next decade or two we become a nation of net savers and never again allow our economy to be based so heavily on debt-financed personal spending.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 07:39 AM
 
Would that include for you true fiscal conservatism and Constitutional spending, macdaddy, or are you just referring to personal habits?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 07:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Would that include for you true fiscal conservatism and Constitutional spending, macdaddy, or are you just referring to personal habits?
"I want the economy to be so bad for so long that it forces fundamental, long-term changes in how all of us financially order our lives." = personal habits.


Of course, such a change in personal spending habits will have a significant change in tax revenues provided to the state and federal governments (through sales and excise tax revenues as well as corporate income taxes) which should lead to a reduction in government spending as well. Of course, if politicians don't cut back on government spending commensurate with individual's cut-backs in personal spending we'll have a rapidly increasing national debt which I hope would lead to an eventual bankrupting of our country. I want our government to live within its means as well and if that means a major reduction in government services than so be it: Cut government spending on *everything*. Cut back government funds for everything from planetarium projectors to new weapons systems to foreign aid to business subsidies to social security payments. I would like to see a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget except in times of national defense and a long-term (20- or 30-year) plan to reduce the national debt by %50 or more.

As I said before, we need to learn how to live within our means; That applies to us as individuals and as a collective society.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Oct 24, 2008 at 08:04 AM. Reason: fixed a typo.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 08:17 AM
 
I agree with almost all of what you said, but I would note that of our $10T current national debt, half of it is debt the government owes to itself - I.O.U.s from the Social(ist) entitlement schemes.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Oct 24, 2008 at 09:23 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 08:33 AM
 
The real question is, how much would the government and/or general public owe if it *weren't for* Medicare/Medicaid - what Big Mac thinks of as a socialist entitlement scheme?
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 09:26 AM
 
You forgot Social(ist) (in)Security, the one I despise most of all. But I'm glad you're thinking about this issue. Aside from the $5T in I.O.Us, the bulk of the rest is institutional and individually purchased treasury bills. From my understanding, about $1T of it (let's be generous and say $2T) is owed to foreign countries.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The real question is, how much would the government and/or general public owe if it *weren't for* Medicare/Medicaid - what Big Mac thinks of as a socialist entitlement scheme?
None more than current. Remember SS and Medicare are paid for by FICA taxes ... NOT by income taxes and we've not borrowed money to pay for either of these (yet). There is a looming crisis in the decades ahead but, as of right now, FICA is still in surplus and not adding to our debt (yet).
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 09:46 AM
 
You may want to look at how it's all structured:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
. From my understanding, about $1T of it (let's be generous and say $2T) is owed to foreign countries.
Better yet, instead of being generous, let's be accurate. US Treasury says that as of 7/31/08, its 2.676 Trillion, or a little over 25% at that time. Hey, one good thing about all these bailouts ... at least Americans will owe an increasing portion of the national debt.
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You may want to look at how it's all structured:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Yes, read your own link.
The US debt in the hands of foreign governments is 25% of the total[33], virtually double the 1988 figure of 13%.
.... and also from your link
There is a significant difference between the reported budget deficit and the change in debt. The key differences are: 1) The Social Security surplus, which reduces the "off-budget" deficit often reported in the media; and 2) Non-budgeted spending, such as for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The debt increased by approximately $550 billion on average each year during the 2003-2007 period, but then increased over $1 trillion during FY 2008.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
So these guys are pretty sure McCain's going to win then huh?
No, he has at best a ten percent chance of winning. But his economic policies are so idiotic that that small chance is enough. According to his economic advisor Kevin Hassett, the Dow should be in the 50,000s right now. Instead it is at 8,400. Wall Street wants economic policies based on reality and John McCain hasn't a clue.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
No, he has at best a ten percent chance of winning. But his economic policies are so idiotic that that small chance is enough. According to his economic advisor Kevin Hassett, the Dow should be in the 50,000s right now. Instead it is at 8,400. Wall Street wants economic policies based on reality and John McCain hasn't a clue.
Again, polls show Obama ahead. It's irrational to suggest that the markets are basing their actions on what doesn't look as likely to happen. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Krusty View Post
Better yet, instead of being generous, let's be accurate. US Treasury says that as of 7/31/08, its 2.676 Trillion, or a little over 25% at that time.
Thank you for the correction - my numbers were rough.
Originally Posted by Krusty View Post
Yes, read your own link.
I never disputed that Social Security is currently enjoying a surplus (which won't be here for much longer), which gets thrown into the general fund. However, there is a so-called 2.5T old age (SS) trust fund in that publicly held debt. I don't see why it makes sense to call debt a trust fund. Medicare is almost assuredly running deficits now and probably ever since the prescription drug boondogle was passed, unless I am mistaken. Edit: Yes, according to Wikipedia's national debt article, Medicare Part A is already in deficit:

The U.S. government is committed under current law to mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The GAO projects that payouts for these programs will significantly exceed tax revenues over the next 75 years. The Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) payouts already exceed program tax revenues and Social Security payroll taxes fully cover payouts only until 2017. These deficits require funding from other tax sources or borrowing.[72] The present value of these deficits or unfunded obligations is an estimated $41 trillion. This is the amount that would have to be set aside during 2008 such that the principal and interest would pay for the unfunded commitments through 2082. Approximately $7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $34 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, healthcare programs are nearly five times as serious a funding challenge as Social Security. Adding this to the national debt during September 2008 of nearly $10 trillion and other federal commitments brings the total obligations to nearly $53 trillion.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Oct 26, 2008 at 05:46 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's irrational to suggest that the markets are basing their actions on what doesn't look as likely to happen.
??? Do you know what probability is? This is a really baffling (irrational?) statement.

Sorry, I was wrong about there being a 10% chance of McCain winning. It is currently about 12% on the BetFair market, and above 13% on InTrade.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
??? Do you know what probability is? This is a really baffling (irrational?) statement.
How so?

How is it irrational to suggest that the markets are looking at probability and they see 88% probability one thing will happen, and 12% that the other will happen, and they adjust the actions based on the 88% chance instead of the 12%? The market is a gamble. Gamblers go with the odds. The odds are with Obama, and they will react based on that.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 11:14 AM
 
Well, because my whole argument in this thread is that McCain will be so bad for the economy that even a 12% chance of him winning is enough to drive the markets into a tailspin.

(Of course I am not seriously arguing this, only arguing it as a counterpoint to Big Hussein Mac's ridiculous contention. It is however true that McCain will be terrible for the economy. Dow 36,000 indeed; is McCain on drugs?)
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Interesting. I've heard the exact opposite from my friends in hedge funds.
Wow. That explains a lot about recent hedge fund developments.

What we're seeing is as much as anything what economists would call the "present discounted value of socialism". A liberal supermajority scares the sh*t out of every market participant I've talked to. That, along with a reactionary media, is driving the volatility right now.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 04:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Again, polls show Obama ahead. It's irrational to suggest that the markets are basing their actions on what doesn't look as likely to happen. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
I don't either.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Again, polls show Obama ahead. It's irrational to suggest that the markets are basing their actions on what doesn't look as likely to happen. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
"The markets" are not actors. There are many individual actors, large and small, within the markets. It's irrational to suggest that their actions are fueled en masse in reaction to the presidential election, which is merely one factor among thousands.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Again, polls show Obama ahead. It's irrational to suggest that the markets are basing their actions on what doesn't look as likely to happen. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
*When* have the markets *ever* behaved rationally? I've always compared the stock markets to a heard of perpetually scared cattle; all it takes is for one or two to get spooked, and the rest will stampede in whatever direction the first ones went.
     
shinji
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie
I've heard the exact opposite from my make-believe friends in hedge funds.
fixed.

I am sure the market is thrilled with the increase in capital gains taxes. LOL
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 05:55 AM
 
So with Medicare Part A already in deficit mode (see my previous post) and our projected liabilities at $53T and growing rapidly each year, why are so many of you so eager to elect Barack Obama, a guy who is pro-huge government and who has no desire to reform entitlements other than to tax more and grow entitlements at an exponential rate? With an Obama-Reed-Pelosi triumvirate, there will be nothing at all standing in the way of a hard left turn to oppressive taxation and nanny-statism on a scale never before seen in this country. We'll have much larger deficits if BHO gets into office; when the federal government can no longer create more debt and the money for all of this immense government spending finally runs out (whether that's 15, 30, or 50 years from today), the crisis we're experiencing now will be looked back upon as no crisis at all by comparison.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 07:33 AM
 
Because this is the world we live in:

"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 07:41 AM
 
Too true, too true.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 08:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
Because this is the world we live in:

That's awesome. What they didn't show is that those kids got their candy in the first place by a combination of inheriting some from their parents, collecting free "interest" on the candy they actually had worked for at some point in the past, hiring out the other kids at 3 pieces of candy per hour but only giving those kids one piece per hour and keeping 2 for themselves, and having Willy Wonka (aka Paulson) give them more candy when they screwed up and lost a lot of it through their own stupidity and greed.
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 08:47 AM
 
Lol

as for this thread; they are really getting desperate now, but I figure once Obama is in the WH in Jan, they will be yellin' full force... fun is yet to come. Obama is the cause of all evil in this country and he is just running for president! jajaja
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 08:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Krusty View Post
That's awesome. What they didn't show is that those kids got their candy in the first place by a combination of inheriting some from their parents, collecting free "interest" on the candy they actually had worked for at some point in the past, hiring out the other kids at 3 pieces of candy per hour but only giving those kids one piece per hour and keeping 2 for themselves, and having Willy Wonka (aka Paulson) give them more candy when they screwed up and lost a lot of it through their own stupidity and greed.
Uh huh. So you think most of the people who are well off in this country got that way by accident, preferential treatment or fraud. It's a Republican myth that many work their way up from modest means, right? Good for you.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 09:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Uh huh. So you think most of the people who are well off in this country got that way by accident, preferential treatment or fraud. It's a Republican myth that many work their way up from modest means, right? Good for you.
No, I was making similar blanket statements to the ones implied by that cartoon. Fact is, there are plenty of poor people in this country -- a lot of them actually work hard their whole lives and aren't "too lazy" to go get their own candy. Yes, there are professional welfare recipients in the US, but if you look at the number of people on welfare vs. the number of people that are poor, you'll see that most of the poor in this country are working poor ... many of them working more than one job. In that cartoon, the kids who are "too lazy" to go trick or treating themselves are most likely at their second job

This whole discussion begs for a longer thread about "redistribution" in general in a capitalist economy.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 09:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Maria Baritromo just reported talk from traders that suggests the market has been depressed in part because of the polls showing Obama's widening lead; news that the polls are tightening causes market rallies. I strongly agree with this view.

Don't bitch at the messenger.
I'm not kidding you, I thought of this a couple of weeks ago, started compiling information to affirm it then got lazy.

I believe this is absolutely true.



On 9/8/08 the DJIA was 11,510.74 and McCain led Obama 48.3 to 45.4. Approximately 4 weeks later, the DJIA closed around 9,724.52 and Obama led McCain 49.3 to 43.3. The stock market declined 2000 points in the last month; Obama gained 4 points in the polls and McCain lost 6.

Granted, the article from which I attained this information claims it is disgust with Republicans causing the market decline, but I think this is a simpleton view perpetrated by media more than kind to Obama and would not see the possibility of a market sell-a-thon having anything to do with the prospect of an Obama presidency.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Oct 26, 2008 at 09:30 AM. )
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Krusty View Post
Fact is, there are plenty of poor people in this country -- a lot of them actually work hard their whole lives and aren't "too lazy" to go get their own candy... you'll see that most of the poor in this country are working poor ... many of them working more than one job.
... to support an entertainment budget rivaled only by their health care expenses, a house way above their means, new cars, 500+ channels of television, and at least two gaming systems.
ebuddy
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not kidding you, I thought of this a couple of weeks ago, started compiling information to affirm it then got lazy.

I believe this is absolutely true.



On 9/8/08 the DJIA was 11,510.74 and McCain led Obama 48.3 to 45.4. Approximately 4 weeks later, the DJIA closed around 9,724.52 and Obama led McCain 49.3 to 43.3. The stock market declined 2000 points in the last month; Obama gained 4 points in the polls and McCain lost 6.

Granted, the article from which I attained this information claims it is disgust with Republicans causing the market decline, but I think this is a simpleton view perpetrated by media more than kind to Obama and would not see the possibility of a market sell-a-thon having anything to do with the prospect of an Obama presidency.
How convenient that you omit the fact that the drastic drop in the DOW also coincides exactly with the Senate passing of the "bailout" package on Oct. 1.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
How convenient that you omit the fact that the drastic drop in the DOW also coincides exactly with the Senate passing of the "bailout" package on Oct. 1.
What necessitated the bail-out? Of course I'd take the bailout and other instances into account for the market decline, unfortunately many in the market were calling for just this solution. Could you at least admit that the market might be concerned about a filibuster-proof Democratic sweep including a Democratic President?

The polls will invariably tighten this next week and we'll see how the market reacts. It'll be interesting to see.
ebuddy
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
On 9/8/08 the DJIA was 11,510.74 and McCain led Obama 48.3 to 45.4. Approximately 4 weeks later, the DJIA closed around 9,724.52 and Obama led McCain 49.3 to 43.3. The stock market declined 2000 points in the last month; Obama gained 4 points in the polls and McCain lost 6.
This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg argument isn't it. Is the market responding to the chances of an Obama presidency or are the Obama's presidential hopes rising as the market falls off a cliff ? Do you have any reason to believe that its the market reacting to Obama's rise instead of Obama's rise being due to the market ? Seems to me like the latter situation is more likely true unless you can think of another good reason why Obama is rising in the first place. For your depiction to hold true, you'd have to find (invent ?) some reason other than the economy why Obama has been pulling ahead.

Strangely enough (or perhaps not), the biggest market crashes in US history occurred under Republican Presidencies (1929, 1987, 2001, 2008) ... 3 of the 4 of them DEEP into their Presidencies so not likely a holdover from a prior administration that was on the verge of happening (exception being 2001 when the dot com bubble of the 90s popped). 4 of the 5 biggest bear markets occurred under Republicans (the one under Dems was from 39-42 under FDR, the others under Hoover, Nixon (twice), and Reagan). Additionally, as I've pointed out in another thread, the market has averaged approximately 15% gains under Democratic presidencies as opposed to 9% under Republicans over the last 60-odd years. I won't even go as far as to assert that the market prefers Democrats, but will leave it with the very benign statement that the market has definitely not shown that it has any particular confidence, favor, or panic avoidance under Republican Presidencies as opposed to Democratic Presidencies.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What necessitated the bail-out? Of course I'd take the bailout and other instances into account for the market decline, unfortunately many in the market were calling for just this solution. Could you at least admit that the market might be concerned about a filibuster-proof Democratic sweep including a Democratic President?

The polls will invariably tighten this next week and we'll see how the market reacts. It'll be interesting to see.
This "solution" was pushed down our throats by Bush and Congress. Numerous economists, investors, and the public in general (i.e., "the market") didn't want this bailout to pass.

The market is slumping because the economy is in the sh!tter. It's as simple as that. It has very little to do with who might or might not win this election. If anything, the upcoming election only adds a small degree of further uncertainty. But investors are scared, not because Obama or McCain will be elected, but because the economy is horrible and they are unsure whether this "bailout" will have any effect whatsoever in turning things around.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
This "solution" was pushed down our throats by Bush and Congress. Numerous economists, investors, and the public in general (i.e., "the market") didn't want this bailout to pass.
The Democratically-controlled Congress, most prominently. It would have gone nowhere without Reed and Pelosi playing ball.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:37 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,