Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (69733)	2/21/2009 5:06:38 PM
From: mph	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

What is happening in our country is that Obama has hoodwinked the population. His guy Rahm basically admitted the strategy. When you have a crisis, sneak in everything you can. That's the reason for the contents of the stimulus package. That and the fact that Obama delegated the writing to San Fran Nan. The stimulus bill is the centerpiece of your party's strategy. It contains a broad cross-section of the Democrat agenda. Are you in favor of it or not? Given your comments, you must think tax increases are the way to prosperity? Clinton largely achieved financial successes by cutting down the military budget. The military had to be rebuilt during Bush's tenure. Clinton had to be pressed into welfare reform, but after it worked, took credit for it. Now it's being reversed in the so-called stimulus bill. You've been railing about money being spent in Iraq, but Clinton just threw money at every foreign problem. That was his way of dealing with it. Trying to buy off people. Mrs. Arafat is living well somewhere on taxpayer dollars. Even Obama is not naive enough to think that he can sway foreign enemies by sheer dint of his brilliant oratory. He'll back it up with payoffs, just like Clinton did. Since his administration is Clinton Redux, why expect anything different? What do you think George Mitchell, the "envoy", is out there doing right now? Looking to see who can be paid off. It's just a question of when the administration lets that cat out of the bag, given its lack of transparency. So, to bottom line it, I think the Republicans went awry in not keeping to fiscal conservatism. I think Bush went wrong in failing to use the veto power and in trying too hard in bi-partisan spending. I think that the Democrats should not have blocked efforts to rein in Fannie and Freddie and I think Bush should have pushed them HARD on that. I think the stimulus bill is a disaster.

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (69733)	2/21/2009 5:41:54 PM
From: MrLucky	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

...an unbelivable number..about 75% of the people who worked in Bush's administration haven't been able to find a JOB! Gonzalez..going on two years and NO job! Can't you smell what is happening in our country...?? Are we to assume because someone has worked in a president's administration that they should be guaranteed future employment in the private sector or as a college professor/administrator or such? Very few of us have been assured of a job. Perhaps you have. It pays big to "dirty up" a president. They can always write a "tell all". Don't worry about Gonzales. He'll get by financially.

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (69733)	2/21/2009 6:10:53 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Dude, even though you're a pinko fascist totalitarian Mao-like ComSymp and a racist (1), you bring valid and considered points here. I would however quarrel with your assessment of Clinton. By comparison with today's Democrats he was at least semi-sane and was held in check by that occasional rare phenomena: a coalition of Republicans who stuck to founding principles. Now we have a majority party that wants to drain capital from potentially productive use for fanciful purposes. Another that wants to pretend it can spend without taxing, far exceeding the insights Laffer resuscitated. Real growth happens best when government is considered a necessary overhead expense that needs wise and frugal minimizing. Reagan tried, but we haven't had optimal conditions since Silent Cal. Now, only a little OT: During the Six Years War I was married to a babe with Texas roots. Her grand and great-grand father were Texas Rangers. While not well read she was imbued with the ideals of a free Republic. Hope LBJ didn't wring that spirit out of the air down your way. (1)See Mq rule: I called you that first, so I win!

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (69733)	2/21/2009 6:14:44 PM
From: jimcav	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Excluding the time Clinton was in office and only count the 20 years that Reagan,Bush I, and Bush II were in office the DJIA LOST a combined 15%. That is some of the most misleading math ever LOL! DJIA was basically a triple during the Clinton years, but was about an 8 timer from the beginning of Reagan to the end of BushII. So you are trying to tell me that if i was fully invested tracking the DJIA since 1981 except during the Clinton years I would have lost money?!? LOL not even close. 20-Jan-81 950.68 close 20-Jan-93 3,241.95 close $100 invested turns into $341 19-Jan-01 10,587.59 close 21-Jan-09 7,949.09 close $341 invested turns into $256 net result is your so called 15% loss would have turned my $100 into $256! hmmmmm

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (69733)	2/21/2009 8:05:55 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

Excluding the time Clinton was in office and only count the 20 years that Reagan,Bush I, and Bush II were in office the DJIA LOST a combined 15%. Wrong. On Reagan's inauguration day, January 20, 1981, the DJIA closed at 950.68. On the day Bush I left office the DJIA was at 3,241.95, that's an almost 250% increase. On the first trading day after Bush II entered office the DJIA closed at 10,578.24, the day he left it closed at 8,228.10. That just over a 22% drop. A 250% increase combined with a 22% drop doesn't equal a 15% drop, but rather about a 212% percent increase. And then the increase during Clinton's presidency has a lot to do with what happened when Reagan was president. Rerun the Clinton years with 70% tax rates, an active cold war, and regulation of prices in transportation and energy, and you wouldn't get a DJIA moving like it did historically. Have you forgotten that in 1993, Al Gore had to cast the tie breaking vote to implement Clinton's tax increase. Not one Republican voted for this measure. That reflects very well on Republicans. Even to the extent that Clinton deserves credit for the economy doing well on his watch (and you greatly exaggerate that idea), it wasn't because of tax increases, but rather despite them. The economy was in the range of $7tril a year. Clinton's tax increases where in the range of tens of billions of dollars a year. Not large enough to derail an economy that had many positive trends, some dating back to the early 80s, and others (like the explosion of the internet) that where new.