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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (834049)	2/3/2015 3:33:04 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579935

>> So Obama was 11 days in office at the end of January of 2009 and that means what according to you? I have previously stated, and I can't prove it but I do believe it, that the election of Obama exacerbated the collapse. Anyone who understands what actually happened recognizes that the problem, initially, was that people couldn't pay their bills. But it soon became a crisis of confidence which was feeding the wild swings of the derivative markets. It is my opinion that had a more experienced person with a real understanding of economics and business been elected, the shedding of jobs at the time Obama entered office would have been less severe. That is my opinion, but I understand you will not agree with that. GWB had already done what was necessary to prop up the economy and get through the crisis. And I believe my position makes more sense than yours does, if you look at the chart. What exactly did Obama do between January and April that would have caused the job losses to be curtailed? The Stimulus? Seriously? That money was not hitting the economy in that time frame. Any money from the stimulus hitting before April would have been totally incidental and immaterial. What DID happen is that TARP had stabilized the situation -- before Bush left office, but also with the second tranch which coincided roughly with Obama's taking office. This is an argument that never ends. CJ plays that game just as you do. But the reality is that you can't usually pin these events down to the second a new congress takes over or an old president leaves or whatever. That's convenient sometimes -- usually for Democrats, as they're experts at making hay out of it -- but it simply isn't reality.