And then we have the Republicans who are now re writing the Bible because Jesus was too liberal. Shame on you. Shame on your lies. Shame on your Stupidity. Shame on your inbreeding that results in your stupidity.
didn't these same persons, before Obama took office, 1) cause this depression / recession?, remember Jim Cramer's ranting regarding the Fed Reserve knowing nothing?, with particular reference to how bad conditions really were? 2) threaten congress with a $350 billion or so, rescue plan, and when the Congress failed to vote, the markets (DJIA) drop over 700 points in one day? 3) pass the TARP funds act? 4) wipe out a $1.4 trillion dollar surplus in 2001/2002? 5) set in motion the unemployment and off shoring of millions of careers, jobs and such? hmmmm seems disengenuous to make the claims that so many continue to make, especially coming from such highly educated, highly degreeed persons, especially that are capable of trading in advanced systems, like we do on these boards. just doesn't seem honest, selectively forgetful, just not honest in assigning blame....
You don't seem to get it. Sure, Obama's predecessors did all those things. But rather than supporting and praising Obama for what he is, you're not recognizing the fact that HE IS WORSE THAN ALL BEFORE HIM in stomping America into the dirt with his own personal agenda... much as did Bush.... but Obama's agenda will do greater and likely permanent damage... which will be unable to be undone until The Second American Revolution, whenever that is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWksEJQEYVU NO IDEA they know nothing.. 1.95 million views, from 2 years ago.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOVXh4xM-Ww .66 million views, from 2 years ago... yeah, I get the point, it really doesn't matter who took office recently, they too would be confounded with all that was set in motion well before the election. the real question is, why did all those elite, well educated, manicured lawns types cause and allow all these excesses to occur and result in what they most certainly knew would build up to what we have today? really?, so can these "types" be trusted?, or vilified? not sure who is missing the point, and it really is academic, because we are all living (thank god), with the outcome and the reality as miserable as it has been to everyone, even in other countries... the damage done has been structural, and will not be a cosmetic repair.... Lehman, Bear Sterns, dozens of others, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo, Merrill Lynch, and how many others of smaller sizes? hmmmmm all those "proper", "upstanding" types, and look what we got here....
President Barack Obama and the 'socialist' fabrication Steve Chapman October 8, 2009 Since he's under attack for allegedly being a covert socialist, you would think President Barack Obama would get some love from the overt socialists. But they sound about as enamored of him as Sean Hannity is. "Obama's a market guy!" fumed Frank Llewellyn, head of the Democratic Socialists of America, in an interview with Politics Daily. "He's not any kind of socialist at all. He's not challenging the power of corporations. The banking reforms that have been suggested are not particularly far-reaching. ... I mean it's laugh out loud, really." In the past, Republicans had a damning word for their opponents. In 1988, George H.W. Bush denounced Democrat Michael Dukakis as a "liberal." Four years later, he portrayed Bill Clinton as a "tax-and-spend liberal." In 2004, John Kerry was tarred as a "rich, liberal elitist." But such is the intensity of disgust with Obama that his conservative critics had to escalate to a new epithet. To this sort of mind, Llewellyn's denial only confirms that socialists are sneaky as well as sinister. What better way to advance their agenda than by pretending to disavow the leader who is faithfully implementing it? As it happens, Obama has found other ways to hide his Marxist mind-set -- such as surrounding himself with known supporters of capitalism. Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council, has long been detested on the left for his support of free trade and financial deregulation. Christina Romer, one of three members of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, has done academic research that, according to The Wall Street Journal, "has even been cited by Republicans as supporting the idea that tax increases negatively impact economic output." Obama's chief economic adviser during the campaign was Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago, long a beacon of free-market thinking. Goolsbee, now a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, is also one of the rare Democratic economists who has defended subprime mortgages against liberal detractors. Obama, it's true, has done things that involve enlarging government -- bailing out banks, taking over General Motors, proposing a "public option" for health insurance and spending $787 billion to stimulate the economy. But it was George W. Bush, a conservative hero, who tossed a federal lifeline to financial institutions and automakers, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also signed the 2008 stimulus package, which was billed as a tax cut but was nothing more than a handout of $168 billion the government didn't have. Obama did take over GM after it went bankrupt, but Summers said in a speech last summer that "we will work to transfer government holdings into private hands as soon as practicable." He declared, "Only if government is no longer a major presence in any of the companies well before a decade from now will it have fully succeeded" -- only, that is, if it moves away from socialism. It's easy to forget, Goolsbee told me, that the stimulus originated not from an ideological zeal to abolish capitalism but the perceived need to avert a depression. The point, he stresses, was to revive the economic activity that the private sector depends on -- a policy in the tradition of legendary economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesianism, whatever its flaws, is not an indicator of socialist convictions. It is accepted to one degree or another not only by liberal economists, but by many conservative ones. Critics of the public insurance option, which include me, shouldn't exaggerate its likely importance. One feature of Obama's approach to health care is that it retains our system of private insurance. A socialist would, at the very least, support a universal system of government-provided insurance. Of course, some people say Obama's real goal is to use a government-run plan to destroy private insurers, paving the way for a Canadian-style system. But if that's true, why has he indicated he could give up the public option to get other reforms passed? In the end, Obama is more likely to benefit than suffer from this smear. The critics hope to convince the public that he is a dangerous extremist far removed from the desires of the average person. When conservatives like Mike Huckabee claim "Lenin and Stalin would love" the administration's policies, though, they sound like 3-year-olds crying about monsters under the bed. There is plenty to oppose in what Obama wants to do. But can we not be stupid about it? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...chapmanoct08,0,6061831.column?obref=obnetwork
I learned to floor trade in the NY markets from an older guy that was quietly successful. his cardinal rule was never talk politics, religion or race with respect to trading and on the floor or with the other traders, because they would know what your "tell" is (similar to the "tell" used in poker). so, I will not be lured into a viewpoints discussion regarding the politics of Obama, Bush II, or anyone else. I will share in an economics discussion although that does overlap between both conversations sometimes...I will stick to the economic aspect of that discussion. one thing I continue to notice is the hatred and outright malicious intent that so many openly express against the president, evidently in an attempt to inspire others to express their contempt also. I will also acknowledge that there was and still is silence of malice and contempt for the prior administration presiding over all this collapse and nothing being found wrong with them, their conduct, their policies or otherwise. I will also acknowledge the lopsidedness of these two observations.
the very same ones that found no fault with the obvious lack of any demonstrable form of education with the prior guy, and 8 years of mismanagement and micro minded policies that produced all these failures, catastrophes and financial collapses, hmmm, still seems conveniently lopsided....