[ASAP]

Lol,I just read this thread and I think every single post was dead wrong. I called a landslide for Obama, even bet on it...

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by dr335is

It was soooo obvious it will end exactly this way...

Yup, I lamented it weeks ago. Ironically, the very thing that should cause him to be punished (mismanaging the economy so that there are millions more on food stamps today than when he took office), is the very thing that got him re-elected.

If you force more folks into the poorhouse, (and the foodstamp count is just one of many possible metrics to prove this is happening), and then make them dependant on big government, then if you run against someone who wants to reduce the size of government, well, guess who is gonna support you?

Hate to sound like a stuck record, but: "Any plan that calls for taking from Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul". And if the people who fall into the Paul camp are growing at a much faster rate, and everyone's vote counts the same, then the outcome is very predictable.

Of course the left was so busy keeping Romney out they forgot to vote Democrat Congressmen in, so the House is still controlled by the Republicans, so we'll have 4 more years of gridlock. (a popular vote of almost 50/50 is hardly a decisive mandate to change how they do things). Then, in 2016, even MORE folks than today will be on food stamps, and whoever is running for the left will get in again.

If you are rejoicing at Obama's win, here's a hint to not spoil your mood: dont look at your 401K; so far in today's trading, the Dow has taken it's biggest drop in a year in response to the election results.

I guess the Harvard Business School grads who run Wall Street dont agree that it's mathematically possible to spend your way out of debt, after all....

[M_Six]

Yep, keep blaming Obama for today's drop in the market. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the same political landscape that got us to the edge of the fiscal cliff is now still in place, right? Let's not forget it was the GOP who pushed for this fiscal cliff option so the debt ceiling could be raised. And then they stonewalled any attempts at meeting the criteria needed to avoid the cliff. Now the market is worried that they'll keep stonewalling and we'll go over that cliff.

Obama and the Dems will want to let some of the Bush era tax cuts expire and cut spending on things like defense (which needs a complete overhaul anyway, but that's another issue). The GOP will stick to their foolish vow not to raise any taxes (and ignore the fact that it's not a tax hike, but the end of a tax break) and they won't want any cuts to defense. Obama can just let us go over the cliff and he'll get the tax hike and the defense cuts, but it will also hurt many things he supports and will really hurt the country in general. This is what is causing the market downturn today. The market is not all sure that this current Congress is any more capable of compromise than they were two months ago. So if you're looking for a scapegoat, look first at Congress and then maybe consider how we got to this cliff in the first place.

If Romney had won, the GOP would have just postponed the cliff with a short term fix until they figured out a way to avoid it completely. I suspect Obama and the Dems will do the same unless the GOP House decides to commit political suicide and block attempts to do so.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by M_Six

the same political landscape that got us to the edge of the fiscal cliff is now still in place

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the portion of your statement I quoted above.
Obama in power with an incredibly slim popular vote margin of victory (hence no real ability to say that he got a clear, convincing message from the people they wanted real change). Republicans still in charge of the congress.

Like I said numerous times in these various threads before, a vote for Obama is a vote for 4 more years of gridlock. The people spoke, and got what they asked for (or at least a tiny sliver above 50% did, anyways).

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Like I said numerous times in these various threads before, a vote for Obama is a vote for 4 more years of gridlock. The people spoke, and got what they asked for (or at least a tiny sliver above 50% did, anyways).

If Romney got elected and Congress stayed the same, it would still be gridlocked. It would just be the Dems in the Senate stonewalling.

The "mandate" I see from the voters is that slightly more than half of them realize that the mess the previous administration created could not be fixed in a mere four years. They know it will be a slow but steady climb out. They also saw Romney for what he is, a friend of Wall Street. Americans know that when Wall Street is doing well, it usually means the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are falling behind. Romney would not have turned this economy around any faster and probably would have driven us deeper into debt with more tax breaks for businesses and the super rich.

That said, the Dems and Obama need to accept that right now, starting immediately, some of their pet programs (entitlements) need to be overhauled, pork barrel spending needs to be stopped cold, and compromise is *not* a bad word.

The GOP needs to accept that right now, starting immediately, some of their pet programs (tax breaks) need to be overhauled, pork barrel spending needs to be stopped cold, and compromise is *not* a bad word.

ANY credible economist will tell you that it will take a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts to fix the economy. The current Congress is unwilling to do either. The cliff is coming up fast and the markets are screaming at the driver about it and reacting accordingly. Anyone with sense is quickly moving their money to a safer locale. But once the cliff is (hopefully) avoided, the markets will bounce back in a big way. If we don't avoid the cliff, god help us all.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

If you are rejoicing at Obama's win, here's a hint to not spoil your mood: dont look at your 401K; so far in today's trading, the Dow has taken it's biggest drop in a year in response to the election results.

I guess the Harvard Business School grads who run Wall Street dont agree that it's mathematically possible to spend your way out of debt, after all....

Yes the Dow is down today, but it's up over 60% over the last 4 years. If you're going to make Barack Obama responsible for todays temporary drop you have to also give him credit for the lasting surge. My 401K looks a helluva lot better today that it did 4 years ago, even with todays significant drop.

Those Harvard Business School grads who run Wall Street should be thanking the president for all their success over the last 4 years.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by M_Six

It would just be the Dems in the Senate stonewalling.

I suspect that would possibly be the case, although if you believe some of the posters on this forum, that would be impossible. Such "Anti-American Obstructionism" is the exclusive domain of the mean, selfish Republican party. They would NEVER put ideology above country, and if they were seen to do so, it would be called "justifiably adhering to their principles", not obstructionism.

Originally Posted by M_Six

That said, the Dems and Obama need to accept that right now, starting immediately, some of their pet programs (entitlements) need to be overhauled, pork barrel spending needs to be stopped cold, and compromise is *not* a bad word.

Yes. What happened in congress in the mid-term elections in 2010 should have sent that message already, but apparently it didnt get thru.
Some folks on this forum even speculated that the general public has become so disillusioned with the lack of progress that this time around (ie: yesterday I'm talking about), the right majority in the house would be swept out of power in a fit of righteous indignation, similar to what happened in 2010, only in reverse. Clearly that didnt happen. Overall the senate/house numbers are remarkably unchanged. For every 5 people who held the Republicans responsible for the gridlock, apparently another 5 (or more) didn't, based on the congressional results.

Maybe (hopefully), the message that failed to resonate with Obama in 2010 might start to take hold, now that it's been delivered twice in a row.

Originally Posted by M_Six

The GOP needs to accept that right now, starting immediately, some of their pet programs (tax breaks) need to be overhauled, pork barrel spending needs to be stopped cold, and compromise is *not* a bad word.

To some degree I would concur, but I'm not sure the message from the electorate about this is as loud and clear; see my comments above regarding the 2010 congressional elections, and then the failure of the people to exercise their right to reverse them yesterday.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I suspect that would possibly be the case, although if you believe some of the posters on this forum, that would be impossible. Such "Anti-American Obstructionism" is the exclusive domain of the mean, selfish Republican party. They would NEVER put ideology above country, and if they were seen to do so, it would be called "justifiably adhering to their principles", not obstructionism.

Politicians are politicians. Those on the fringe (which is way too many) will bear down like a mad dog in defense of their "principles." Rather than sweeping one party or the other from power, I would have liked to see the fringe folks on both sides get swept from power. We need people who think for the good of the country (which is why part of me is sad to see Scott Brown gone).

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Yes. What happened in congress in the mid-term elections in 2010 should have sent that message already, but apparently it didnt get thru.
Some folks on this forum even speculated that the general public has become so disillusioned with the lack of progress that this time around (ie: yesterday I'm talking about), the right majority in the house would be swept out of power in a fit of righteous indignation, similar to what happened in 2010, only in reverse. Clearly that didnt happen. Overall the senate/house numbers are remarkably unchanged. For every 5 people who held the Republicans responsible for the gridlock, apparently another 5 (or more) didn't, based on the congressional results.

I think that many of those responsible for gridlock were reelected due to their social leanings rather than their ability to correct the economy or affect change. There are way too many people in this country who will vote for someone for stupid reasons regardless of the person's ability as a legislator. I give you Michelle Bachmann and Jesse Jackson, Jr. as examples. Neither deserves to be in Congress yet both got reelected.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

To some degree I would concur, but I'm not sure the message from the electorate about this is as loud and clear; see my comments above regarding the 2010 congressional elections, and then the failure of the people to exercise their right to reverse them yesterday.

See above. Conservative social issues (pro-life, gay marriage, etc) and abject stupidity are widely responsible for many successful reelections.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Yes the Dow is down today, but it's up over 60% over the last 4 years. If you're going to make Barack Obama responsible for todays temporary drop you have to also give him credit for the lasting surge. My 401K looks a helluva lot better today that it did 4 years ago, even with todays significant drop.

Of course I dont know what your 401K contains, but if I assume it matches, say, the mix represented in the Dow, then it may look a helluva lot better today than 4 years ago, but still not as good as it looked in 2007, when a Republican was at the wheel. Even if it looks as good as it did in 2007, you would have fallen behind due to inflation, but if it shadows the Dow and is lower than that height, then you are way behind where were were then in raw purchasing power.

Of course, this is where the short-memoried folks all chime in and say it's all Bush's fault, even tho Clinton put in place 2 key elements that precipitated the eventual housing crash (push for homeownership and repeal of Glass Steagal), and the other big smoking guns of spending (the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq), were all supported at the time by a variety of big-name Democrats who were happy to appear patriotic at the time and not vigorously oppose those actions, and yet today are happy to divorce themselves from those votes under the guise of being stewards of fiscal responsibility.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Of course I dont know what your 401K contains, but if I assume it matches, say, the mix represented in the Dow, then it may look a helluva lot better today than 4 years ago, but still not as good as it looked in 2007, when a Republican was at the wheel. Even if it looks as good as it did in 2007, you would have fallen behind due to inflation, but if it shadows the Dow and is lower than that height, then you are way behind where were were then in raw purchasing power.

The point was made and you agreed that the Dow looks better today than it did 4 years ago when Barack Obama took office. Period.

What happened in 2007 is irelevent because Barack Obama was not in office. Let's please stay on topic.

[M_Six]

From a CNN article about GOP finger pointing:

Many campaign aides pointed the finger at Sandy, the punishing superstorm and October surprise that razed the East Coast and consumed news coverage for what was supposed to be the final full week of campaigning.

It upset the dynamic of a campaign that had been reset during the first debate in Denver, where Obama delivered a wilting-flower act in full view of the American populace that allowed Romney to seize control of the race and set the terms for the final fall sprint.

The storm, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told CNN on Sunday, "broke Romney's momentum."

There's a sweet irony here that the party which poo-poos the science behind global warming is blaming their election loss on a storm that was caused (or at least made worse) by global warming.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

The point was made and you agreed that the Dow looks better today than it did 4 years ago when Barack Obama took office. Period.

What happened in 2007 is irelevent because Barack Obama was not in office. Let's please stay on topic.

The only thing that matters is that the Dow closed higher today than when he was inaugurated ? Where he started from is irrelevant ?

They day Obama took office in 2009, the DJ was only at 7949 points.

There's really nowhere to go from there but up. Saying that he has improved on that hardly takes much. The last time a president had a number at the start of his term that was actually lower than that was when Bill Clinton got re-elected in 1996.

Saying that he managed to improve upon a starting point of the Dow from the level last seen in the mid-90's is hardly an impressive feat. If a recruiter called me up and said he could get me more money than I made in 1996 (but less than I made in 2007), I wouldnt be terribly impressed with that, either.