Posted on 11/20/2008 2:25:59 PM PST by Bill Dupray
I think the poster above is 100% correct. In any other presidency, the market would come back to bite Obama. But that’s not a problem with this group, that’s what they want - a system completely broken down so that “we, the people” are 100% reliant on the government.
This is the end game with these guys. He’s not looking at this for a 4 or 8 year period, and neither should you. This is a complete coup d’etat of the American government and everything that every American has always believed to be true.
That’s when the really scary stuff starts happening - changing the constitution to whatever he wants, civil national police, losing 1st and 2nd right amendments, etc. Get armed now, stock up on ammo and food - hell, put it on credit cards, the banks are going to fail anyway. We may be in store for a long fight.
I miss Rush, I had my first chance to listen to him every day from mid August to mid Oct (home looking for a job) he was a real delight.
Which is more profitable: selling lottery tickets at $100 each that will pay off $500,000, all for different pick-four numbers (1:10,000 chance of winning) or selling lottery tickets at $100 each that will pay off $1,200,000, all for the same pick-four number? The latter is much more profitable if one has suitable escape plans in place.
The problem wasn't that CDS issuers didn't know what would happen if the markets tanked. They knew precisely the first part of what would happen: they would welsh on their bets, and wouldn't care what happened to the bettors.
If stock prices get high enough, it becomes worthwhile for companies to issue more stock, thus injecting more capital. If they become low enough, and if the government doesn't interfere, it is beneficial for all shareholders to have the company buy back stock (shareholders who don't sell see the value of their shares increased because they are less diluted).
Nonetheless, it is very important to keep in mind that there is no universal benefit from having stock prices rise. It benefits sellers, but harms buyers.
Balance the budget.
Then Europe and Arabs can’t dictate us to save their bad American investments on threat they will cease financing our deficits.
To be fair, Kudlow is a giant incompetent coke head. If you actually listen to him for investment advice, let alone political wisdom, you probably deserve to be living in that cardboard box and wearing an empty barrel.
I understand that. I was making the point that the media and the general population shape the argument. The facts don’t matter. Bush is on the watch, so he gets blamed. Just like his old man.
From 14000 to 7500, thats what has happened to the Market since the demonrats took over Congress. At least gas prices are going down, well at least until the First Gay President takes power and starts to RULE.
When he starts raising taxes on everybody and everything, there will be riots of his own Bros marching on his White House.
I hope like hell the U.S. is stockpiling gasoline. Once it dives to 25 bucks a barrel, Iran will blow up and so will gas prices.
lets face it.....when we needed loud and assertive leadership, we didn't get any from Bush nor Congress nor Alan G.....
its going to be a long, long 4 yrs....I can't stand him now and he's not even in office....
Indeed so. Were it not for the double taxation of dividends, sensible market behavior would be for stocks to have stable prices, with shareholders expecting to profit from dividends rather than appreciation. As the company expanded, it would issue more stock (paying out the proceeds as dividends) thus keeping prices stable and avoiding mania. Unfortunately, tax policies would preclude such behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.