This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore golfinsailor. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
1. You're the one who wrote that the stock market is a good indicator of the economy! AS YOU POINT OUT IN 2. the prices are controlled more by the Fed ansd aministrations than the economy!
3. It was the actions by Pelosi,Reid and Obama in '08 and '09 that caused the reaction in the '10 election. Reid and Obam a did nothing in the following years to change or reunite the division '1o election created.
4. I have advanced degrees in more practical endeavours than economists and am hardly "gullible" or ignorant. i'll compare my AGCT score with yours any day!
I was not taken in by the blatant class warfare that made so much of the fact that high incomes didn't pay the taxes on income while ignoring how many filers paid NO income tax which is the real cause of too little return!
Posted by krlklar
I wrote that the stock market is a LEADING economic indicator which means that when stock prices rise or fall, it reflects investor and consumer confidence in the economy. Stock prices rise and a bull market begins when investors see that a recession has bottomed out and stock prices will fall when investor confidence drops. The market can fluctuate daily with swings in either direction based on news reports and other items. When the economy is in a recession, usually the federal reserve will loosen credit to spur demand and make it easier to borrow money. This usually caises a rise in stock prices. When there is fear of inflation, the federal reserve will tighten credit which will have a dampening effect on the economy and cause stock prices to fall.
When President Obama took office in January 2009, the economy was in a free fall. He had to act in a decisive manner. But perhaps one thing that you seem to ignore is that on the day he was inaugurated, on January 20 2009, there was a meeting with the leading Republicans in the congress; John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and others. Their objective was to show united opposition to anything that was proposed by President Obama.
Health care reform was an issue that had been ignored for fifteen years, ever since congressional inaction killed the Clinton health care proposal. Since the Clinton plan was killed by congress in 1994, the number of uninsured had increased from an estimated 27 million in 1994 to an estimated 45 million in 2009. Health care costs had been increasing at a rate three times faster than incomes since 1994 and medical bankruptcies were reaching record levels. Something had to be done. The new president took the Massachusetts health care reform model that was signed into law in 2006 by then governor Mitt Romney and congress wrote it up for the entire nation.
President Obama tried mightily to work with Republicans in congress to get bi partisan agreement on his health care reform bill. But the congressional Republican caucus simply refused to work with the new president on anything. That is not the president's fault.
There was no Republican opposition to the TARP bail out of the big banks in the fall of 2008 when GWB was president and it was proposed by then treasury secretary Hank Paulson, a GWB appointee. But when President Obama proposed a massive stimulus bill to prevent the economy from slipping into another great depression, suddenly the entire Republican party became deficit hawks. I guess it was fine to supprt a bank bail out costing more than 700 billion dollars, but not to support a stimulus bill that would put Americans back to work.
You are blaming Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for the divisiveness in congress when the actual blame should be placed on John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. In 2006 when Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts health care reform bill into law, he trumpeted it as a model for the nation. Yet when President Obama took that Massachusetts law and did what Romney had suggested, the GOP was united in opposition to the health care reform. Their opposition might have had some credibility if they had an alternative, but they had nothing. Then in the 2012 presidential campaign Romney spent the entire campaign trying to disown the Massachusetts health care reform act that he signed into law. He consistently dodged questions about it and refused to discuss it. he showed that not only was he as phony as a three dollar bill, but that the Republican party had become consumed by ideology and had no interest in actually governing.
I have no idea of what your advanced degrees in "more practical endeavours" than economics are and frankly I don't care what subject you have your degrees. Your posts show a complete ignorance of economics and politics. My guess is that your degrees are in engineering. Advanced degrees in one subject does not make one an expert in some other field.
While I once held a series 7 general securities registration, that hardly made me an expert on economics or the stock market. However i also realize that when i want or need expert opinion or advice, i know where to go for it and a friend who has PhD in economics and is a self made millionaire in the investment business is a very credible person to ask.