Context is everything. The proposed transaction tax for "Wall Street" would have far reaching and unintended consequences. Much more so than a marginal tax rate increase of a few percentage points beyond the proposed threshold levels for higher earning households. Even you can figure that out. Further, these "increases" consist largely (but not exclusively) of returning marginal tax rates to their levels of 2001. http://www.newsweek.com/id/187933
Nearly everything Obama has proposed has "far reaching consequences", Newsweek, the mouthpiece of liberal media notwithstanding. OldTrader
The proposed income tax plan was already largely in effect in 2001 and yet you somehow managed to survive...
It's odd that when 9-11 happened 7 months after Bush became president the right said it was Clintons fault because Bush hadn't been in office long enough to be responsible. Now Obama is in office less than 2 months and according to the same republicans he is totally responsible for the recession. AIG, GE, Ford, Credit default swaps, Citi, Lehman, subprime bank crooks and liar mortgages of course had nothing to do with what is happening now does it and if it did that is probably Obama's fault also. Why didn't you and the other republicans write Bush's name as Nobush or some other nick name. The rights thinking is why they have no credibility now, they didn't police their own or hold Bush to the fire so the current criticism isn't taken seriously. As for your description of the drop in stock prices, that is fair, if when there is a rally you claim it is because of Obama. It has to work both ways doesn't it?
You miss the point. I didn't say Obama was responsible for the recession, etc etc. I said the market crumbled as Tim Geithner made it clear he had no plan on Feb 10. That has nothing to do with Bush or what happened on 9/11.
Should the White House be watching the tape whenever it has something to say? Should they be pandering to the markets as Bernanke has been doing, and Greenspan before him? Or should they focus on doing what they believe to be the right thing irrespective of what ADD-afflicted traders want and want NOW? In any event, the overriding down trend has a basis other than anything that can be attributed to the Obama administration. Your references to snippets along the way are fairly lost in the context of the big picture.
I got the point, I was just making one also. Geithner/Obama's plan probably had something to do with the market tanking, in my opinion the reason the market is tanking is because of the sorry state of business in American and the world. Where is the market going to go with 600,000+ job loses every month and no end in sight. And with company after company close to going bankrupt and this is happening world wide. Geithner may have the wrong plan but to blame the market tanking on him is short sighted.
There is a question being begged here: Where is the evidence that market news affects the market (that "good" news leads to a market rise, and that "bad" news leads to a market fall?)? In my experience, markets often top on "good news" and bottom on "bad".