Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Okay, anyone disappointed in Obama so far?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Even worse is his public speeches. Whenever he speaks, the market go down the next day |
Anonymous
Wonder whom they polled. The stock market certainly dis-agrees with the poll. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
This is actually not true, but think about it for a minute. If Obama came out and said "we plan to buy all toxic debt from the banks at book value", stocks would soar. However, people like you would scream yourself hoarse because that would be "socializing losses". Someone is going to have to take a big financial hit and as long as it looks like that might be bank stockholders, those shares will tank. That's dragging down the entire stock market. Also, GDP dropping more than expected is not exactly helpful to the stock market and that can hardly be blamed on Obama given that he wasn't even in office the entire time. |
Anonymous
|
Respectfully dis-agree.
I have the feeling that you are not a regular market watcher (most people in DC don't). Before yesterday (Feb 27) the market already dropped to the 1997 level. That is before the Q4 GDP news but after Obama became the president. |
Anonymous
| Hey OP, are you kidding? He's been Prez for 5-6 WEEKS. This economic calamity took at least 8 long YEARS of pure incompetence and corruption. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Ok, let's accept all of your premises, despite your desire to ignore the affect of the GDP news on the market and your similar desire to ignore the impact of Obama's resistance to buying toxic debt at book value. Agreed, Obama's policies completely suck and are the sole cause of the the market drop. What would you have done differently? |
Anonymous
| FOCA? I'm sorry, my understanding this bill never made it out of committee and the comment about "being the first bill I'd sign" was made in 2007. |
Anonymous
"the toxic asset purchase plan " was proposed and then rejected by the same person, Huck Paul son. It's dead on arrival, long before Obama came. Obama never had to take a position on this. Why the market crashed? because it did not SEE ANY POSITIVE SIGN. Think about it, even Clinton urged him to talk more positively. |
Anonymous
We can disagree on what caused the crash. But why the market constantly crashed on the major public speeches of Obama in the absence of other economical news? |
Anonymous
If the stock market was so wise, then why was it going like gangbusters in 2007, when our country was loading up on debt and pushing housing prices to insane levels? Here is what that stock market looked like only 19 months ago. The stock market sucks at predicting the soundess of an economy. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/ComingSoonDow15000.aspx http://www.forbes.com/feeds/options/2007/07/17/options17673.html?partner=links |
Anonymous
|
The stock market was very weak in 2007. If you don't believe me, just check your 401k statement for 2007.
In economics it's well known that the stock market is the best leading indicator as far as predicting the economics is concerned. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
So, it is your understanding that there has never been consideration by the Obama Administration of purchasing toxic debt? You completely missed the discussion of a "bad bank"? The fact that Geither is even now discussing private-public partnerships for purchasing toxic assets is something of which you are unaware? The toxic assets are still there. Someone needs to take the hit for them. It will either be the financial institutions or the taxpayers. As long as it looks like it will be the former, the stocks will fall. But, that may be the lesser of two evils. Ironically, from the taxpayer point of view, the stock market reacting rationally to some of the largest financial institutions in the nation swallowing billions of bad debt is a good thing. And, do I understand correctly? Your entire economic plan is to have the president talk positively? |
Anonymous
|
As I understand, "bad bank" is not the same as the original plan Paulson proposed. It is actually more similar to the idea that Lehman floated before its bankruptcy. The basic idea is to separate bad asset from good ones. It has its merit, but it is easier said than done, and I doubt the market is ever serious about the plan.
The toxic assets are basically defaulted mortgages. Who pays to have them cleaned up? There are basically three parties on the hooks 1. borrowers 2. banks 3. government Obvious with the mortgage modification plan, the borrowers are basically off the hooks. Banks have already written down 1 trillion and are so weak they cannot take more. But the government is taking over banks so who knows? As for economical plan, I am not paid to develop an economical plan except for my family. |
Anonymous
|
Rome was not built in a day, OP. Obama cannot possibly be expected to clean up a mess years in the making in five short weeks. The economy has failed because it was built on cheap money, e.g. Greenspan's low interest rates. Much of the prosperity of the Clinton and Bush eras was built on borrowed money. At some point, this gargantuan Ponzi scheme must fail, and here we are.
Warren Buffet says now is a time to buy if you've got the money. Some strong stocks are undervalued, and you can find bargains if you can hold them for the long haul. The stock market is headed down, and nothing Obama does or says is going to stop it. The economy is contracting, inventories are remaining in stores, manufacturers are not producing goods if no one wants them, and suppliers' orders are down. Layoffs continue, contracting demand even more, and the vicious cycle continues. The stimulus plan is a desperate move to keep us from landing in a decade-long depression. But it's only part of the plan, and please remember it takes more than a few days to rebuild a ruined economy. Time will tell if Obama has made the right moves, but no one can accuse him of sitting still. |
Anonymous
|
Didn't vote for him, didn't think he had the best solutions, but I will say he is doing exactly what he promised to do. Problem is that some are having second thoughts now they see the details.
I think his economic team is ill serving him, but really I don't think the entire premise of govt. saving the economy is valid. So if the foundation is not solid, the probability of success is slim. The voters gave him the majority, he is doing what he said he would do, he is obviously a true believer, what's to be disappointed about? |