We have had 1 good day in the market since Obama was elected

[iheartscience]

Date: 11/23/2008 4:03:54 PM
Author: Apsara

Date: 11/23/2008 10:52:24 AM

Author: thing2of2

OMG, Aspara! It''s like you read my mind! I''m totally only into Obama ''cause he''s like a celeb and stuff. I think most Obama supporters can agree-he''s basically like our golden calf to blindly worship! I''m nowhere near as smart as you so I can''t see that he''s only human, like any other president we''ve had in the past!

I really can''t fathom the idea that he isn''t going to wiggle his nose and make the whole world better! And buy us all a Coke, too! And I didn''t even really listen to him when he said the economy is really bad because I was blinded by his good looks (plus I was on my knees worshipping him so it was hard to hear), but did you ever think maybe he said the economy was really bad because...the economy is really bad?

Should he have told us the fundamentals of our economy were strong? Would that have been better?

My word; it seems we''ve struck a chord. I guess my use of ''many people'' not ''all people'' went unnoticed, unless of course, you identify so readily with the notion of blind celebrity driving part of Obama''s vote, as it appears you do.

Come on--I watched countless interviews with people who voted for Obama because he was black, popular, new, different.... many reasons cited BUT his policies/experience. A lot of people voted on that premise, but not all people by any means. Read more carefully next time.

Yes, I''ve been upset all day because you struck such a chord! Seriously? Your post is the exact same argument that everyone who doesn''t support Obama has used since the beginning of his campaign. So actually, no...not a single chord was struck. Not even just one note, either!

But next time I''ll be sure to read more carefully. Your use of the word "many" was a crucial detail that I overlooked and would surely have changed my response to your extraordinarily common criticisms.

 

[stone_seeker]

Guess I was right. Obama considers delaying raising taxes.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081123/business_us_financial.html?.v=5

Obama was elected based on his platform, on his "promises" ... And now that he is rethinking his stance, owing to the facts of reality, folks will praise him for it ... rather than chastising him for not getting the reality of the situation beforehand, which many of us who did not vote for him did get.

Sometimes I think that those who elected Obama will forgive him every broken promise, and cast in glowing terms even the most blatant of back-pedaling tactics. It does not do to believe SO much in one man, that one will paint his failures as successes ...

Can you not see things, for a moment anyway, from the perspective of those of us who didn't believe a word - or a promise - that he made? Suddenly, NOW, he's so much better "informed", and changes his stance on everything he ran his campaign on. Now, everyone will see first-hand all the "change" he promised to the American voter.

But if it helps the market, then I'm all for it.

 

[Linda W]

All presidents make promises and don''t keep them.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/23/2008 10:41:54 PM
Author: Linda W
All presidents make promises and don''t keep them.

Thats for sure. I just wish he broke the anti-growth, anti-corporate promises sooner before more people lost more of their wealth.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/23/2008 10:38:41 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Guess I was right. blah blah blah ... to the American voter. But if it helps the market, then I''m all for it.

Your black & white mentality speaks for itself. No one even needs to respond directly! Guess that''s the true beauty of transparent bias & baiting.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 11/23/2008 10:38:41 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Guess I was right. Obama considers delaying raising taxes.



Can you not see things, for a moment anyway, from the perspective of those of us who didn't believe a word - or a promise - that he made? Suddenly, NOW, he's so much better 'informed', and changes his stance on everything he ran his campaign on. Now, everyone will see first-hand all the 'change' he promised to the American voter.


But if it helps the market, then I'm all for it.

Just like the rest of us, you have the right to believe or not believe in anything about anyone. I am respectful of our President elect, and have faith in his decision-making ability to change policy directions as situations call for them. He defenitely has not changed "his stance on EVERYTHING he ran his campaign on" - as he does not even have the presidential power just yet. Is it too much to ask you to be a little more patient?

Also, maybe money is everything to you personally. But to some of us, education, health care, policies on international affairs and environmental protection are equally, if not more important issues when we considered who we voted for. So I am sorry that you are so distressed about the economic situation and find Obama to be the perfect person to blame for it, but please don't be too surprised if others think differently from you.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/23/2008 10:57:39 PM
Author: zhuzhu

Date: 11/23/2008 10:38:41 PM

Author: stone_seeker

Guess I was right. Obama considers delaying raising taxes.




Can you not see things, for a moment anyway, from the perspective of those of us who didn't believe a word - or a promise - that he made? Suddenly, NOW, he's so much better 'informed', and changes his stance on everything he ran his campaign on. Now, everyone will see first-hand all the 'change' he promised to the American voter.



But if it helps the market, then I'm all for it.

Just like the rest of us, you have the right to believe or not believe in anything about anyone. I am respectful of our President elect, and have faith in his decision-making ability to change policy directions as situations call for them. He defenitely has not changed 'his stance on EVERYTHING he ran his campaign on' - as he does not even have the presidential power just yet. Is it too much to ask you to be a little more patient?


Also, maybe money is everything to you personally. But to some of us, education, health care, policies on international affairs and environmental protection are equally, if not more important issues when we considered who we voted for. So I am sorry that you are so distressed about the economic situation and find Obama to be the perfect person to blame for it, but please don't be too surprised if others think differently from you.

The thread was about economic policy and the market. Not a general thread on Obama. I feel no need to discuss other issues that I may or may not disagree with Obama on in this thread. So please do not throw in insults such as "money is everything." If money and the market dont matter to you, you dont have to comment on this thread at all.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/23/2008 10:52:35 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 11/23/2008 10:38:41 PM

Author: stone_seeker

Guess I was right. blah blah blah ... to the American voter. But if it helps the market, then I'm all for it.

Your black & white mentality speaks for itself. No one even needs to respond directly! Guess that's the true beauty of transparent bias & baiting.

But you felt the need to respond? Just know that without the tax hike - many of his plans go on permanent hiatus. If this were mccain making a major policy change 3 weeks after election day, you would be outraged. But since you arent capable of seeing Obama as a falable human, you will buy whatever crap he throws at you and think "he must be right". Just saying, buyer beware.

 

[luckystar112]

A troll in her own thread?

That''s a first!


hmmmm....how about a joke?

What does Kenny G say when he walks into an elevator?
"This place rocks!"

 

[AGBF]

stone_seeker, I wasn't clear on how you felt about Timothy Geithner as Mr. Obama's choice for Secretary of the Treasury. Do you think it was a good one? I believe that he was in charge of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York.


PS-I read earlier in this thread that you went to medical school. How did you wind up in banking?



Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/23/2008 10:38:41 PM
Author: stone_seeker

But if it helps the market, then I'm all for it.

I'm glad you support our president, stone_seeker . He kept telling everyone he didn't want to raise taxes for most Americans, but no one would listen! Now he is following in the economic footsteps of FDR in dealing with a depression: not raising taxes at all. That was a position taken by the most liberal of Democrats, after all!





Here is an excerpt from an article in today's, "The New York Times" about his current position and his latest appointments.


Obama Advisers Signal Tax Cuts May Stay

By JACKIE CALMES and JEFF ZELENY
WASHINGTON —

"President-elect Barack Obama has signaled that he will pursue a far more ambitious plan of spending and tax cuts than anything he outlined on the campaign trail — a plan 'big enough to deal with the huge problem we face,' a top adviser said Sunday — setting the tone for a recovery effort that could absorb and define much of his term.

A member of the Obama economic advisory team, William M. Daley, acknowledged that because of the gravity of the situation, Mr. Obama was leaning toward letting a Bush tax cut for the wealthy expire on schedule in 2011 rather than repealing it sooner.

There were hints Sunday that a stimulus package might be extraordinarily large. Austan Goolsbee, a senior Obama economic adviser, charged that the Bush administration had “dithered” as the economy turned down and suggested that the incoming administration would take dramatic action.

'We’re out with the dithering, we’re in with a bang,' he said on CBS. A senior Democrat, Senator Charles Schumer of New York, said that any package should be as much as $700 billion, equivalent to the recent financial bailout plan.

In the Democrats’ weekly radio address, Mr. Obama said that he would direct his economic team to craft a two-year stimulus plan with the goal of saving or creating 2.5 million jobs.

'Our hope is that the new Congress begins work on this as soon as they take office in early January, because we don’t have time to waste here,' David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president-elect, said on 'Fox News Sunday.'

When asked if the tax cuts might be allowed to expire on schedule, Mr. Axelrod replied: 'Those considerations will be made.'

In an inauguration year Congress usually convenes in early January, a few weeks before the inauguration, then members leave again. This year, however, they intend to stay and work in anticipation of the president’s inauguration and the heavy agenda he is expected to bring.With the economy likely to get worse before it gets better, Mr. Axelrod said, 'We want to hit the ground running on Jan. 20,' the day of Mr. Obama’s inauguration. He said a plan should be 'big enough to deal with the huge problem we face.'"


Deborah

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/24/2008 6:44:35 AM
Author: AGBF





stone_seeker, I wasn''t clear on how you felt about Timothy Geithner as Mr. Obama''s choice for Secretary of the Treasury. Do you think it was a good one? I believe that he was in charge of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York.


PS-I read earlier in this thread that you went to medical school. How did you wind up in banking?



Deborah

I''m not in banking but I do manage assets for other people. Started out analyzing companies in the biotech field (hence why I thought the MD would help) before moving into more general technology. Never got into clinical work although I think I might need to prescribe some meds for some of the folks on here.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/24/2008 6:44:35 AM
Author: AGBF





stone_seeker, I wasn''t clear on how you felt about Timothy Geithner as Mr. Obama''s choice for Secretary of the Treasury. Do you think it was a good one? I believe that he was in charge of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York.


PS-I read earlier in this thread that you went to medical school. How did you wind up in banking?



Deborah

I think its better than Rubin or Summers for sure. He''s young, full of energy and already in the middle of everything going on with the NY banks. Solid choice.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/24/2008 7:46:20 AM
Author: stone_seeker

I''m not in banking but I do manage assets for other people. Started out analyzing companies in the biotech field (hence why I thought the MD would help) before moving into more general technology. Never got into clinical work although I think I might need to prescribe some meds for some of the folks on here.

Ah...I misunderstood then. I had thought that you started out in banking and then moved to a hedge fund . Be careful prescribing meds for people on-line now. It can get you into trouble . After a weekend with my family I could use some Thorazine, however. Would you send me a script? (I don''t drink alcohol, or I could just hit the bottle.)


Deb

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/24/2008 7:55:16 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/24/2008 7:46:20 AM
Author: stone_seeker

I''m not in banking but I do manage assets for other people. Started out analyzing companies in the biotech field (hence why I thought the MD would help) before moving into more general technology. Never got into clinical work although I think I might need to prescribe some meds for some of the folks on here.

Ah...I misunderstood then. I had thought that you started out in banking and then moved to a hedge fund . Be careful prescribing meds for people on-line now. It can get you into trouble . After a weekend with my family I could use some Thorazine, however. Would you send me a script? (I don''t drink alcohol, or I could just hit the bottle.)


Deb

No, you are right, I started out as an analyst for an investment bank covering biotech firms and then when my group head left to start his own shop, I moved into the tech and telecom group before leaving for the hedge fund world in 2002. That was before people knew what a hedge fund was. I wish that was still the case!

Agreed, the requests for diazepam and ativan usually rise right befor the holidays

 

[Ali]

You may argue the issues of the topic.

DO NOT argue personal issues with or about eachother.

 

[sklingem]

Stone - you did not ask for an explanation or a debate intially. You merely stated that Obama needed to change his economic/tax policies because they are crap. Since then you have dismissed any posting/argument that did not agree with your position as proof that the author was incapable of criticizing Obama.
So maybe next time it may be more productive to say this:
"In my humble opinion, I think that Obama''s policies will hurt the economy for reasons xyz. What do you guys think?"
I know that is difficut to do when the goal is not an open discussion but shoving your personal opinion down other people''s throats as "facts/truth" and attacking them for not sharing your beliefs. But at least you could initially keep up the illusion.
Cheers!

 

[risingsun]

Date: 11/24/2008 9:56:15 AM
Author: rob09
Stone - you did not ask for an explanation or a debate intially. You merely stated that Obama needed to change his economic/tax policies because they are crap. Since then you have dismissed any posting/argument that did not agree with your position as proof that the author was incapable of criticizing Obama.
So maybe next time it may be more productive to say this:
'In my humble opinion, I think that Obama's policies will hurt the economy for reasons xyz. What do you guys think?'
I know that is difficut to do when the goal is not an open discussion but shoving your personal opinion down other people's throats as 'facts/truth' and attacking them for not sharing your beliefs. But at least you could initially keep up the illusion.
Cheers!

Thank you for posting, Rob. There have been several posters with a similar agenda and it has become tiresome. Whatever is said in response to these agent provocateurs is held up to ridicule...but that was, afterall, the OP's intention. I would love to see one of these posters have the honesty to say that they are stirring the pot for the sake of doing so. What are the chances that this will happen....

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/24/2008 9:56:15 AM
Author: rob09
Stone - you did not ask for an explanation or a debate intially. You merely stated that Obama needed to change his economic/tax policies because they are crap. Since then you have dismissed any posting/argument that did not agree with your position as proof that the author was incapable of criticizing Obama.
So maybe next time it may be more productive to say this:
'In my humble opinion, I think that Obama's policies will hurt the economy for reasons xyz. What do you guys think?'
I know that is difficut to do when the goal is not an open discussion but shoving your personal opinion down other people's throats as 'facts/truth' and attacking them for not sharing your beliefs. But at least you could initially keep up the illusion.
Cheers!

Never said that - do i need to repost the original post for you? Those are your words but Freud said something about slips.

In any event, since the original post I have asked for comments from Obama supporters. 4 posts which clearly ask for reasons why the policies I mentioned were good for stocks. No responses then and still. Actually, strm made one comment about how he likes stronger unions or thought they would help the economy. That's it after 6 pages. One comment. And I think Ellen also forwarded some nice links about market returns which I said I appreciated.

Your reaction was to be defensive rather than to prove me wrong. So either a) there is no tolerance for any criticism of our president-elect or b) the points I have made are not arguable.

I expect another several posts to further deride me but stll not one substantive post about policy.

Peace

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/24/2008 10:28:32 AM
Author: risingsun

Date: 11/24/2008 9:56:15 AM
Author: rob09
Stone - you did not ask for an explanation or a debate intially. You merely stated that Obama needed to change his economic/tax policies because they are crap. Since then you have dismissed any posting/argument that did not agree with your position as proof that the author was incapable of criticizing Obama.
So maybe next time it may be more productive to say this:
''In my humble opinion, I think that Obama''s policies will hurt the economy for reasons xyz. What do you guys think?''
I know that is difficut to do when the goal is not an open discussion but shoving your personal opinion down other people''s throats as ''facts/truth'' and attacking them for not sharing your beliefs. But at least you could initially keep up the illusion.
Cheers!

Thank you for posting, Rob. There have been several posters with a similar agenda and it has become tiresome. Whatever is said in response to these agent provocateurs is held up to ridicule...but that was, afterall, the OP''s intention. I would love to see one of these posters have the honesty to say that they are stirring the pot for the sake of doing so. What are the chances that this will happen....

What are the chances someone who doesnt like what I have to say will avoid a thread I have started in a public forum? Do I need to preface the thread title with "Only for those capable of critiquing an obama policy: [insert comment here]".

There are plenty of threads I dont respond to for that very reason.

 

[AGBF]

Well...the title of this thread didn't interest me, so I didn't follow the thread. I just read a comment at the end and responded to it. Then stone_seeker had to go and ask Marian if he had to repeat the original question and of course I never read the original question...so I went back and read the beginning of the thread. You two (stone_seeker and Storm) had me in stitches!!! You should be a comedy team! I thoroughly enjoyed your interplay. You are both, clearly, very bright...but I am not sure which of you is closer to Hugo Chavez in his politics! I will have to continue reading this thread now. Thank you for the entertainment!

Your friend,
Deb

PS-I won't be needing the Thorazine, stone_seeker, and you really didn't have a good take on my mood if you thought you were going to fob me off with some minor tranquilizer like Ativan or Valium!

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/24/2008 12:37:32 PM
Author: AGBF




Well...the title of this thread didn''t interest me, so I didn''t follow the thread. I just read a comment at the end and responded to it. Then stone_seeker had to go and ask Marian if he had to repeat the original question and of course I never read the original question...so I went back and read the beginning of the thread. You two (stone_seeker and Storm) had me in stitches!!! You should be a comedy team! I thoroughly enjoyed your interplay. You are both, clearly, very bright...but I am not sure which of you is closer to Hugo Chavez in his politics! I will have to continue reading this thread now. Thank you for the entertainment!

Your friend,
Deb

PS-I won''t be needing the Thorazine, stone_seeker, and you really didn''t have a good take on my mood if you thought you were going to fob me off with some minor tranquilizer like Ativan or Valium!

Glad we can provide a little comic relief. Laughter is better than Thorazine in the long run...

PS - its good to see Obama surrounding himself with some very smart people.

 

[partgypsy]

Stone, reading, but I''ll try to explain why I didn''t respond to your question. I think even your question is part of "what''s wrong" with this country right now, namely putting the cart before the horse, letting Wall street numbers drive the American economy rather than the economy drive Wall street. I think that Obama should be focusing on the basics for this country, the economy, balanced budget, etc. All we had these last 8 years (and before, yes) is that the heads of companies, and the people whose job is to make money off stocks buying and selling were were motivated by short term, quarterly increases in profits rather than promoting practices that helped the long term health and soundness of the company. That caused people to do risky, greedy, and stupid things that were NOT to the benefit of those companies, and the economy in general.

I think there is no way for us not to experience alot of hurt, because after all, alot of the growth we saw was not sustainable in the first place because it was due to lots of aggressive stimulus (and even accounting misrepresentional slight of hand), and paper "wealth". No, people don''t want to hear that.

So my prediction is that is going to get worse before it gets better. I am hoping that Obama will enact policies that will make the fundamentals of our economy and our country on better footing for the LONG TERM, and screw the people who profit on short-term speculation.

 

[zhuzhu]

Thank you Part-Gypsy. I couldn''t agree with you more.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/24/2008 2:52:32 PM
Author: part gypsy
Stone, reading, but I''ll try to explain why I didn''t respond to your question. I think even your question is part of ''what''s wrong'' with this country right now, namely putting the cart before the horse, letting Wall street numbers drive the American economy rather than the economy drive Wall street. I think that Obama should be focusing on the basics for this country, the economy, balanced budget, etc. All we had these last 8 years (and before, yes) is that the heads of companies, and the people whose job is to make money off stocks buying and selling were were motivated by short term, quarterly increases in profits rather than promoting practices that helped the long term health and soundness of the company. That caused people to do risky, greedy, and stupid things that were NOT to the benefit of those companies, and the economy in general.

I think there is no way for us not to experience alot of hurt, because after all, alot of the growth we saw was not sustainable in the first place because it was due to lots of aggressive stimulus (and even accounting misrepresentional slight of hand), and paper ''wealth''. No, people don''t want to hear that.

So my prediction is that is going to get worse before it gets better. I am hoping that Obama will enact policies that will make the fundamentals of our economy and our country on better footing for the LONG TERM, and screw the people who profit on short-term speculation.

Very fair points and thanks for being one of the few to present an opposing argument.

I would just add that I dont think Wall Street should drive the economy but rather be a report card on the economy and its future prospects since stocks are forward looking. Not everyone who owns a stock is an evil person.

 

[goobear78]

Just read this quote and smiled.

The Economist has praised Obama's pick of Tim Geithner for Treasury Secretary saying, "...ah glorious, glorious competence. How we've missed you."

Here's the blog that this quote is from:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/11/meet_mr_geithner.cfm