Investors Bet on Obama & US to WIN

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Investors Bet on Obama & US to WIN
21
Tue, 06-08-2010 - 11:19pm

Even as he won a historic come from behind election, passed a package that is helping to revive our economy, passed healthcare, and is in line to pass financial reform, lots of people on this board can't come up with enough reasons why President Obama already somehow already has failed at everything as if he left the office in shambles like the last President they don't talk about so much.

Here is what successful people who are putting their money where their mouths are think:

"Investors are putting their money on President Barack Obama’s stewardship of the U.S. economy even as his job-approval rating has declined, according to a global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601010&sid=aaE0ossGaCAQ

It's going to be like President Clinton again. Republicans are going to cry their way to the bank as President Obama slowly but surely restores our fiscal house and brings balance back to America.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-14-2010
Thu, 06-10-2010 - 5:15pm

"However, it can be said with a high degree of certainty that the policies enacted during the Obama administration did not stop the Dow Jones Industrials from growing 25%. "


Hehehe, suuuuuuure. It's just a coincidence the Dow started slipping after the messiah's policies got implemented.


"The Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed into law on February 17, 2009.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 9:38am

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 9:41am

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 5:25pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Sat, 06-12-2010 - 9:54am

"Obama proves that dumb folks can elect an empty shirt."

Anyone who voted for Obama, please note that the captain and other Republicans say you are dumb. Are you really so dumb for voting against the same Republican politicians that led America into a costly war for no reason, failed to lift the stock market, failed to create a significant number of jobs, and left us in the worst downturn since the Great Depression, with our banks, major financial institutions and financial system teetering on the brink of zero investor confidence?

I don't know about you, but I'll gladly accept this definition of dumb for a long time if it means avoiding reelecting these same Republicans who got us into this mess.

The Democrats are far from perfect. Lord knows the Republicans and their right-wing media Fox media network remind us every day. But Democrats gets the job done for the real people of America. Slowly but surely. And they have earned our trust the last time they held the Presidency by dragging us out of a recession in the early 1990s and then creating government surpluses by 2000 to restore our fiscal stability. Even as far back as the Great Depression itself in the 1930s, FDR led America on the path to recovery after the fallout from the same type of reckless, anti-regulation, fiscally irresponsible Republican Presidents of the 1920s.

So, as far as I can tell, dumb means smart and vice versa. I think anyone who the captain and the Republicans call dumb ought to think long and hard before voting again for the Republicans who insult them. To be fair, in the past Republicans have had some truly smart politicians and Presidents like Ike and Reagan, but they are a distant memory in a party dominated by the Bushes, Cheneys and Palins - you know the folks who wanted to "privatize" Social Security into the stock market right before the recent crash. For whatever it's worth, I say play it safe and follow the sure path, and stick with the party that has shown it knows how to guide America during tough economic times.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2010
Sat, 06-12-2010 - 10:40pm

"Obama proves that dumb folks can elect an empty shirt."

>>> Anyone who voted for Obama, please note that the captain and other Republicans say you are dumb.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding...

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/media-malpractice-obama-voter-video.asp

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/13/howard-stern-exposes-why-so-many-people-support-obama

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/research-zogby.asp

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/research-wilson.asp

>>> Are you really so dumb for voting against the same Republican politicians that led America into a costly war for no reason,

You probably couldn't tell because of the Dems rhetoric and propaganda, but Bush and Cheney weren't really running in the election against Obama. Biden, on the other hand, who voted for the war, was in the election...as the VP you voted for...and Obama, who never voted on the war, said he didn't know which way he'd have voted and that he "might have been wrong" when he opposed it in a speech...and you voted for him anyway.

>>> failed to lift the stock market,

The stock market that steadily grew during Bush's two terms in office? But tanked when the Dems social engineering policies finally "came home to roost?"

>>> failed to create a significant number of jobs,

You're probably confusing Obama's 10-20% unemployment rate with Bush's 4%...and have forgotten that the Dems controlled Congress throughout the economic collapse.

>>> and left us in the worst downturn since the Great Depression, with our banks, major financial institutions and financial system teetering on the brink of zero investor confidence?

Actually, it was Obama who lulled the stupid people into believing that he had all the answers to solve the economic collapse caused by the Dems corruption and foolishness. Unfortunately, he didn't have any answers except uselessly spend, spend, spend and point the finger at the other guy.

>>> I don't know about you, but I'll gladly accept this definition of dumb for a long time if it means avoiding reelecting these same Republicans who got us into this mess.

I guess there's no accounting for sheer, unabashed ideology and copious amounts of kool-aid. That's the only way to explain how anyone can still be supporting such an obviously "out of his depth" fool like Obama.

>>> The Democrats are far from perfect. Lord knows the Republicans and their right-wing media Fox media network remind us every day. But Democrats gets the job done for the real people of America. Slowly but surely.

Which failed policy are you referring to? Or are you thinking of the policies that Obama has shoved down the throats of the American people? Oh, I know, you're probably thinking of how Obama "got the job done" by saddling our grandchildren's grandchildren with trillions in debt while successfully maintaining a failing economy and a 10-20% unemployment rate. Or by "real Americans" were you referring to the illegals who Obama wants to give free welfare and free health insurance paid for by working folks?

>>> And they have earned our trust the last time they held the Presidency by dragging us out of a recession in the early 1990s and then creating government surpluses by 2000 to restore our fiscal stability.

You mean when Slick Willy got lucky by coincidentally being President during the boom years of the internet?...but still managed to leave Bush with a recession? Or when he wised up and decided to abandon his socialist policies for a more centrist position and started working with the Republicans?

>>> Even as far back as the Great Depression itself in the 1930s, FDR led America on the path to recovery after the fallout from the same type of reckless, anti-regulation, fiscally irresponsible Republican Presidents of the 1920s.

FDR, like Obama is doing now, dragged America through an additional 8-10 years of unnecessary depression as a direct result of his foolish "progressive" policies.

>>> So, as far as I can tell, dumb means smart and vice versa.

That kind of explains how Obama got elected. ; )

>>> I think anyone who the captain and the Republicans call dumb ought to think long and hard before voting again for the Republicans who insult them.

As compared to the Dems who caused the economic collapse...and who have easily tripled America's debt...passed a stimulus bill that failed to stimulate...took over private businesses...destroyed jobs...shoved a health insurance bill down the throats of the American people who didn't want it...are trying to pass bills that will cause American's energy bills to "skyrocket"...have caused our allies to hate us...who are overseeing Iran becoming a nuclear power...it's no wonder the country has turned against them.

>>> To be fair, in the past Republicans have had some truly smart politicians and Presidents like Ike and Reagan,

Who the left opposed at every turn and tried to demonize.

>>> but they are a distant memory in a party dominated by the Bushes, Cheneys and Palins -

No need to be afraid...Bush and Cheney can't run again and Palin is just a private citizen with a Facebook page.

>>> you know the folks who wanted to "privatize" Social Security into the stock market right before the recent crash.

As opposed to the unsustainable, bankrupt program that it is?

>>> For whatever it's worth, I say play it safe and follow the sure path, and stick with the party that has shown it knows how to guide America during tough economic times.

Right...vote Republican.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Sun, 06-13-2010 - 11:11pm

You are entitled to your own opinion captain.

You certainly can call people names who voted for Obama because the Republican Party today has fallen off its wagon of fiscal responsibility, conservative foreign policy and small competent government. Most disagreed with you then and most still do now.

What you are not entitled to do is make up your own facts. And you've got the most basic facts totally backwards.

For example, you say that President Obama "failed to lift the stock market,
The stock market that steadily grew during Bush's two terms in office? But tanked when the Dems social engineering policies finally "came home to roost?""

Here's what happened back in reality:

"The S&P 500 dropped under George W. Bush between his inauguration on January 20, 2001 and March 26 of that year (one day more than Obama has been in office), from 1,342.54 to 1,152.69. It would take 11 months to finally see the index rise to where it stood when Bush took office -- closing February 1, 2002, at 1,373.73. But by October 9, 2002, it had hit a low of Bush's presidency -- 776.76 -- and wouldn't break the 1,300 mark again until March 15, 2006.

Ultimately, with a market boom driven in large part by the housing bubble, the S&P 500 would peak on October 9, 2007 at 1,565.15 before plummeting to 952.77 the day of the 2008 election and the aforementioned 805.22 when the new occupant entered the Oval Office."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/26/defying-doomsayers-sp-and_n_179251.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/S8cW4-njIRI/AAAAAAAABGo/A0Z7DWoJQfk/s1600/Clipboard01.bmp

So let's review. You say we should go with the President under whom the stock market improves. Only you got the facts backwards. The stock market went down under Bush and has gone up under Obama, and investors have confidence in Obama according to the authoritative Republican-owned source Bloomberg News at the beginning of this thread.

So will you be fair? Will you follow your own standard? Will you now defend Obama the way you were defending Bush and attack Bush the way you were attacking Obama? On second thought, don't even bother answering that one.

For everyone else who voted for President Obama, I again suggest you think twice before you vote with those self-proclaimed "smart" people like the captain who get key basic facts wrong and call you stupid for voting the way you did.

By the way captain, your comment about job creation ("You're probably confusing Obama's 10-20% unemployment rate with Bush's 4%.") is also backwards, according to the Wall Street Journal:

"The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration"

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

And as for Obama's track record on jobs - he is trying much harder than the Republicans ever did, but it's too early to tell as he is not even half way through his first term.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-14-2010
Mon, 06-14-2010 - 2:13am

I've misread nothing, I simply set aside the gibberish then comment.


The obvious framing of

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2010
Mon, 06-14-2010 - 3:57am

>>> You are entitled to your own opinion captain.

Thanks you...and, if I may, so are you.

>>> You certainly can call people names who voted for Obama

Not calling them names...just characterizing their behavior.

>>> because the Republican Party today has fallen off its wagon of fiscal responsibility, conservative foreign policy and small competent government. Most disagreed with you then and most still do now.

I guess that explains Obama's gutter-like approval ratings...generally, and also in the areas of economics, foreign policy and government spending.

>>> What you are not entitled to do is make up your own facts. And you've got the most basic facts totally backwards.

Why am I not surprised to hear that from a liberal? ; )

>>> For example, you say that President Obama "failed to lift the stock market,
The stock market that steadily grew during Bush's two terms in office? But tanked when the Dems social engineering policies finally "came home to roost?"" Here's what happened back in reality: "The S&P 500 dropped under George W. Bush between his inauguration on January 20, 2001 and March 26 of that year (one day more than Obama has been in office), from 1,342.54 to 1,152.69. It would take 11 months to finally see the index rise to where it stood when Bush took office -- closing February 1, 2002, at 1,373.73. But by October 9, 2002, it had hit a low of Bush's presidency -- 776.76 -- and wouldn't break the 1,300 mark again until March 15, 2006. Ultimately, with a market boom driven in large part by the housing bubble, the S&P 500 would peak on October 9, 2007 at 1,565.15 before plummeting to 952.77 the day of the 2008 election and the aforementioned 805.22 when the new occupant entered the Oval Office."

Sure it dropped...that would be the result of the Clinton recession that Bush inherited...9/11 also caused major troubles with the economy. It's a good thing we had Bush there to enact policies that actually made the economy grow...unlike Obama.

>>> So let's review. You say we should go with the President under whom the stock market improves. Only you got the facts backwards. The stock market went down under Bush and has gone up under Obama, and investors have confidence in Obama according to the authoritative Republican-owned source Bloomberg News at the beginning of this thread.

No, no...put down that kool-aid. The economy grew under Bush and crashed because of Dem policies. As far as invester confidence goes...well, the fact that the market has kept tanking under Obama is pretty demonstrative of their confidence in the market.

>>> So will you be fair? Will you follow your own standard? Will you now defend Obama the way you were defending Bush and attack Bush the way you were attacking Obama? On second thought, don't even bother answering that one.

No problem, I'd be happy to answer. We all know what policies Bush enacted that helped turn the economy around...so will you be fair and tell us what specific policies Obama has enacted that has turned the economy around?

>>> For everyone else who voted for President Obama, I again suggest you think twice before you vote with those self-proclaimed "smart" people like the captain who get key basic facts wrong and call you stupid for voting the way you did.

One only has to look at Obama to see how stupid the people were to elect him...experience? None. Background? Hidden by Obama. Policies that create jobs? None. Policies that are positive for the economy? None. Policies that create strong international alliances? None. Obama's Presidency is the result of voter ignorance and support from socialists.

>>> By the way captain, your comment about job creation ("You're probably confusing Obama's 10-20% unemployment rate with Bush's 4%.") is also backwards, according to the Wall Street Journal: "The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration"

Actually, I didn't mention "job creation" I mentioned unemployment rates...with Bush's at a low, steady 4%, even through a recession, the aftermath of 9/11 and two wars compared with Obama who's around 10-20%. Clinton, who didn't create a single job, benefited from the internet boom that created tens of thousands...and ultimately lost thousands UNDER CLINTON when the dot.com bubble collapsed. Under Obama, the man with all of the answers, we have zero job growth...unless you count the government hiring census workers. LOL!

>>> And as for Obama's track record on jobs - he is trying much harder than the Republicans ever did,

And failing twice as hard...at everything. The result of stupid people electing a man based on skin color instead of experience. Your bad.

>>> but it's too early to tell as he is not even half way through his first term.

Thank God it will only be one term. With his effectiveness and divisiveness as a leader the country will be well rid of him in 2012. Hopefully it won't be too late to pull the country from the brink Obama has led us to.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Mon, 06-14-2010 - 11:14am