The market reacts to the future after an election. Hold on to your pennies...you're going to need them.
Funny, I never saw you blame Bush in the last couple of months when the dow would drop over twice as much. Many many days of big drops and not one post by you about how that is Bush's fault. Hmmmm
That was because of the Fannie/Freddie mess, and I posted plenty of videos of DEMOCRATS disregarding the regulators sounding the alarm bells. I also didn't see anyone patting Bush on the back when the DJIA was over 14k last year. Regardless, the market is reacting to the election right now. If you don't like this fact, I suggest you disregard this thread.
Obama is clearly the most powerful president ever. He is already impacting the stock market and he hasn't been inaugerated yet! Man, are we all fucked. What were we thinking?
Or it could be reacting to the fact the economy is getting worse, the fact the GM (who is reporting earnings tomorow) is going to need a government loan (along with the other big three) just to stay in business, or the fact that the Jobless rate is going to be highest its been in ten years. But hey, I am sure that Obama caused all of this. Forgot to add that our industrial production has the biggest percentage decrease this year than in almost 40 years.
Obama has been in the Senate for four years and has been a part of a majority in both sides of Congress for 2 years. Has he been saving his plans until things got REALLY bad? "There is no challenge we can't meet." Lots of promises, let's call Congress into session NOW and get on some answers before we are all out of jobs.
Well a majority isn't worth much if a president can veto at will and the minority can filibuster as long as they want. Apparently you haven't been paying attention the last four years. Prior to that the president passed almost everything he wanted when the republicans had the majority in the first term.
I wouldn't expect PapaG to be intelligent about these things, because he hasn't really shown any intelligence at all during the last 6 months while he's been bitching and complaining about anything not Republican. Not surprising that he's jumping all over this news as a chance to bash Obama as some sort of "I told you so" - as if John McCain winning would have had any different effect, with almost 70% of voters saying they trusted Obama on the economy more than they trusted McCain. This is simply the continued volatility from a deep, bruising recession that isn't going away any time soon. I suggest you read the following from the Associated Press: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/122594372743120.xml&coll=7 -Pop
70% of the voter's opinions have almost nothing to do with the stock market. The effect is very little considering most stock is institutionally owned. Also, we can turn around the talking point that you love to use: 5% of the population owns most of the wealth (stocks), so most of those 70% of voters have no impact. The majority of voters have no idea what they are talking about, and Obama's plans don't affect them, it affects the people that actually can influence the market: businesses and those with larger investments. Guess who may get hurt the most. The middle class who had significant amounts of their retirements and worth in the market as it plunges. PS. I'm not saying this recent plunge is a result of Obama winning. It is just silly to use the 70% stat as some indication that it will be true.
Interesting fact, though: Obama won a higher percentage of voters who make $250K or more. So, do the people who will be most affected by "investor class" policies really think Obama is bad for the country?
The Dems win majorities in 2006, and two years later we're in a recession. Imagine how much fun we'll have over the next two years!
One thing is absolutely certain: corporations and businesses don't get to vote. Obama won a higher percentage of voters who make $250k or more. I wonder how that percentage would look if it could be applied to corporations or businesses. Another thing to consider is many of the people that can affect the market don't fall into the conversation about Obama's $250k income threshold. These are people like Buffet, Gates, Brin, Page, Schmidt, etc, who don't make salaries. Their "income" in this sense can be well below $250k.
I love how Conservatives trot out this fact (Democrat majority in Congress since 2006) from their "It's not our fault ... we didn't fuck it up ... really" manual. Yet they completely ignore the fact that the Republicans had control over both the executive and legislative branches for the previous six years. Not only that, the democratic "majority" in the Senate wasn't really an effective majority (it was 51-49, with Lieberman being the one of the 51), and Republicans still carried plenty of opportunity to find ways to kill bills before they were signed into law. So while this may be a convenient way to avoid a mea culpa for the lack of action on any of this stuff between 2001-2006, it really doesn't carry any weight with those of us who know how the political system works. So, PapaG, go to the next talking point from your manual. I'm eager to shoot that one down as well. Did you at least get a free oil change from Jiffy Lube or something when you ordered your manual from Rush Limbaugh's Web site? -Pop
Sure enough, but do you think the largest share-holders in publicly traded corporations and businesses earn less than $250K? Are you sure dividends and such aren't considered income? My impression is that they were. Certainly, if you count dividends, all those people earn well over $250K/year. In any case, many, many people in the investor class who both significantly affect the economy and are affected by the economy, like CEOs and bank presidents, earn well over $250K year in salary.
I love when people call me a "conservative". It really makes me want to pay attention to the drivel that will surely follow.
The tax policy still isn't crystal clear to me, but I think you are asking if the $250k (it is actually $200k for individuals) applies to income, or earnings. This is one aspect I'm still not sure of. However, dividends, capital gains etc are considered earnings, not income. I saw the numbers awhile ago (can't find it at the moment) that to be in the top 5% of incomes, one would have to make around this $200k threshold. To be in the top 5% of earnings, one would have to earn about $600k. Since Obama keeps saying 5% of people will be over the income threshold, based on the data I mentioned above, I have to assume that he is talking income. If this is the case, then as I said, people like Buffet, Gates, Brin, Page etc, who don't have salaries, may not be affected as much.
A good and fair point. Ultimately, too, the very, very highest end of the economic scale (billionaires) may not be an accurate way to measure economic policy, as they are often unaffected, or very mildly affected, by things that may be life-changing to the the majority. Even if they voted for Obama (I don't know what percentage of them did), it may be for reasons other than the economy. However, the > $250K crowd contains many people, like executives, who are very affected by the economy and by capital gains issues. Corporations may not appareciate Obama's policies, but it seems like a lot of the people who run them voted for Obama.
