|
|
Post by lazarus on Feb 11, 2009 0:07:13 GMT -5
Stocks Tumble as Bailout Plan Is Unveiled www.cnbc.com/id/29119665The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down nearly 300 points after Treasury Secretary Tim Geither revealed details of the bank-bailout plan. Earlier, the blue-chip index was down less than 100 points. |
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 11, 2009 5:17:28 GMT -5
In other words the market was already trending downwards before the fact. So the 300 fall might or might not have been the result of the speech.
Who's to say that an already-falling market might not have fallen further In the absence of the Secretary's speech? You just don't know.
Anyway, if you know anything about the market you'll know that short-term movements are all based on emotion and it is the long-term trend that will be the real measure of its success. Will you be reversing your position if the market rises tomorrow?
Finally, the way Wall St has performed lately, why the hell would anyone treat their reaction as an accurate estimation of the plan's worth?
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103 
|
Post by Pax on Feb 11, 2009 9:08:14 GMT -5
The Geithner speech is being pretty well beat up in the press (oops -- evidence that the press isn't biased after all). From what I heard, the criticism is warranted.
That said, Obama may have a point that wall street is looking for a magic bullet, and the stock market drop is due to their not being one. That may be a part of it. But I think Geithner should have come with more than just vague plans. Wall Street hates uncertainty, and in these times, so do I. Specific plans -- well crafted -- might have prevented the stock market slide, or actually made it rise.
Lazarus -- You'll be interested to know that the stock slide was described this way: That the market rejected Geithner's comments because it sounded too much like the same old vague wandering from pillar to post that characterized all of Bush's "plans." Not looking good for Bush's legacy that he is the yardstick for vague ineffectiveness by which all else is measured -- don't you agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Feb 11, 2009 21:04:20 GMT -5
Pax~ Al I know is that, since The Annointed One came into office, the market has plummeted, the American people are rejecting his "Porkulus" plan by well over 50% and there is not ONE single Republican that sits behind his absurd wasteful spending program. God help the Dems when we come back into power. We'll "treat" them to the same crap they're dishing out now.....
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Feb 11, 2009 21:07:37 GMT -5
And, I'm curious. Why, since the Dems are in power, don't they simply vote this bloated spending bill in? They could do it....but seem to be resisting, simply because there are no Republicans willing to get on board? Could it possibly be that they don't want to take the credit/blame when it fails miserably?
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 12, 2009 3:27:43 GMT -5
Why are you incapable of accepting that Obama was elected? Do you have some problem with democracy? Have you considered moving? I believe Zimbabwe shares similar democratic attitudes to yours. |
|
|
|
Post by patchoulli on Feb 12, 2009 4:03:27 GMT -5
re Laz post #3 - "God help the Dems when we come back into power. We'll "treat" them to the same crap they're dishing out now....."
Did he just say, "I'll get you, my pretties, and your little dogs too!" ??
|
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Feb 12, 2009 9:21:40 GMT -5
Had the stock market shown a rise as bailout plan was unveiled then Laz no doubt would have posted something to the tune of "Bailout shown to be unneccessary as markets rally and fat cats prepare to gorge on government money".
|
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Feb 12, 2009 9:23:49 GMT -5
Had the stock market shown a rise as bailout plan was unveiled then Laz no doubt would have posted something to the tune of "Bailout shown to be unneccessary as markets rally and fat cats prepare to gorge on government money".
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 12, 2009 10:49:10 GMT -5
Lazarus, under Obama, the stock market has plummeted no more than 400 points; under Bush, it plummeted about 6000 points. Don't like those numbers? Okay, under Obama, the biggest drop was less than 400 points; under Bush, there have been a dozen drops greater than 600 points.
If you're going to complain about this item as self-evident proof that a president is a bad leader, that's fair: You're saying that, as bad as Obama is, Bush was far worse. I can live with that.
Speaking of Bush, this "porkulus" plan as you call it had its start under Bush, and it was unpopular under Bush, but you never called it "porkulus" under Bush. In fact, I don't remember you posting much if at all regarding its popularity under Bush.
Speaking of Bush, Bush considered it a virtue that he would do "what he felt was right, regardless of what was popular." Was Bush right that it was a virtue?
That reminds me, so I'm reminding you, there was a thread from a few days ago where we were having a conversation that went into a LOT more detail than we are here on what majorities are, what their place in politics are, what their place in history is/should be, etc. I noticed you haven't gotten back to me on a number of questions I asked you about your position. Can I assume you'll get to my questions with thoughtful answers by the end of the day today on that thread?
Not ONE single republican sits behind the bill? Really? You might want to check who voted for the bill again.
What crap exactly did the Dems dish out to the Republicans? As you pointed out, the Dems could have passed it without a single Republican, assuming, of course, that Republicans stuck to their principles and allowed an up-or-down vote.
It seems implicit in your position that the Dems are treating the Reps worse than when Reps were in power. I don't agree, but I'm always trying to learn, as you know. Please give at least three specific examples of instances where the Dems treated the Reps badly in the last three weeks, vs. specific examples of similar occasions when Bush/majority Republicans treated the Dems better during their six joint years in power.
I can't speak to the Dems in congress, because they're all a bunch of craven weasels just like the Republicans in congress are. However, the directive to go out of their way to work with the Republicans came from one man, who said he'd reach across the aisle to work with the opposite party to solve the nation's problems. Do you disagree with this central plank of John McCain's campaign strategy/promises?
|
|
