| 0 |
Subject: The 2008 Presidential Election - pt. 2
Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- Dude [01629107] Tue, May 13, 2008, 17:15
Pt. 1 is well past 500 posts. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 441 | Building 7
ID: 1103028
Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 22:36
|
Boxman, the market has anticipated an Obama victory for some time. The market has been aware of Obama's policies and impending victory for some time and any asset has already incorporated that into its pricing.
6/5/08 Clinton concedes, Obama wins nomination
S&P 500.....1404
11/4/08 Day before election day
S&P 500....1006
11/7/08 Today
S&P 500....931
|
| 442 | Perm Dude
ID: 171049717
Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 22:55
|
Now, show that the change is causal.
|
| 443 | nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 5047110
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 01:22
|
MITH I assumed any tax changes wouldn't happen until the fiscal year beginning after inauguration day, which would be 2010.
I'm not going to say this is an incorrect statement, but I wouldn't "assume" anything right now. Not just because Obama is gun ho to raise taxes (Which he has made clear ad-nauseum) but because he will have both Senate and Republican majority.
There is nothing stopping them from passing a law tat is retroactive to the start of that tax year (2009). I would be somewhat surprised if something doesn't happen for 2009.
A retroactive tax was signed by Clinton in 1993 and by Ford in 1976. Those are just 2 examples.
They can use the seriousness of the current crisis to justify immediate action.
|
| 444 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 01:59
|
You will be amazed how much they can collect when they take the 401K's.
|
| 445 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 06:39
|
You will be amazed how much they can collect when they take the 401K's.
This is really where Obama shows that he's desperate for revenue, doesn't give a damn about your savings, and has the same short minded mindset of the "I want it now" Generation.
People shouldn't be allowed to early withdrawal for their 401(k) accept for the existing legal reasons which make sense. Obama enabling or encouraging further withdrawals is only going to exacerabate a problem of people having zero real assets and will cost the taxpayers millions or billions in capital gains that will never occur over the natural life of a working career.
He is either willfully ignorant about the power of 401(k)s or he wants people to rely even more heavily on a system that is most likely going BK. I'll hang up and listen for my answer.
Can we retard the retirement security of Americans? YES WE CAN!
|
| 446 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 06:41
|
Now, show that the change is causal.
Instead of peppering others for homework assignments, why don't YOU show that it's not?
|
| 447 | Perm Dude
ID: 171049717
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 09:35
|
Er, because it isn't my assertion that he is. Why should I go about proving your assertion?
My own belief (as noted above) is that the pending Obama presidency is at best a tiny reason for the drop in the stock market. Event such as a global credit crunch, the failure of large companies (such as AIG and some banks), home mortgage failures spreading, and other stictly financial events have taken hold of the marketplace.
Indeed, as you've already shown, the drop in the stock market has been going on for some time.
You are confusing causality and co-relational events, Boxman.
My own belief is that the largest of many factors is that there is less credit going around, forcing companies and others in need of cash to sell stocks (which are more liquid than other instruments) to finance operations. The credit cruch is well known but boring, and so probably not worth my own show on CNBC. Maybe if I yell like Cramer and have some spectacularly wrong on-air predictions they'll give it to me.
|
| 448 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 09:37
|
441:
Look, I can toss numbers out too to prove a point:
November 3, 1992 S&P (Clinton elected): 419.92
November 7, 2000 (Bush elected): 1431.87
November 4, 2008 (Obama elected): 1005.75
I think my numbers mean a lot more than your numbers.
|
| 449 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 16:09
|
I'm getting the biggest kick out of all this. The rightwingbuts are 'blaming' anything and everything except the root cause; for Obama's victory. Then, they are trying to project future negatives, and blame those on Obama, when he hasnt even been sworn in yet.
Articles yesterday, said the RNC is blaming "moderate Republicans" for the Obama victory.
Today on msn.com, is a video link to some clown blaming "slackers", for Obama's victory.
ummmm, why aren't they even entertaining the notion, that it is/was failed rightwing policy; which ultimately led to Obama's victory?
|
| 450 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 16:46
|
#446: Right Box. That's not statistically valid. You don't assume correlation equals causation. It's a classic tenet of inferential stats (of which I have a fair amount of knowledge). The burden is on the one making the hpothesis, in any research, to disprove the opposite (null hypothesis), and to show the relationship proposed does not exist by chance factors is could be mitigated by other intervening factors. It is complete methodological consensus that the burden is on showing evidence supporting the one proposing the relationship between two sets of variables.
|
| 451 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 16:49
|
Pardon: typo: "...and to show the relationship proposed does not exist by chance factors is and is not mitigated by other intervening factors.
|
| 452 | Perm Dude
ID: 171049717
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 16:51
|
If we all fixed our typos, the threads would be twice as long.
:)
|
| 453 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 17:06
|
Walk, if all economic conditions could be explained via statistics or pure numbers we'd all be billionaires. Try something other than the NYT. If you don't believe me, turn on CNBC or Bloomberg radio for a few days and listen.
|
| 454 | Building 7
ID: 1103028
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 17:16
|
Books have been written on the cause of the 1929 stock market crash. You want me to do the same thing for post #441. I'll get right on it. Check this thread repeatedly for results.
MITH I assumed any tax changes wouldn't happen until the fiscal year beginning after inauguration day, which would be 2010.
The federal fiscal year begins Oct. 1. I doubt we'll be required to calculate taxes thru Sept under one set of rules/rates and another after 10/1. Nerveclinic is correct. Clinton and the Democrat Congress made taxes retroactive, you may remember the phrase "Clinton raised taxes on dead people." I do.
November , 1994 (Republican House elected):S&P 500....462
November 6, 2006 (Democrat House elected):S&P 500 ....1380
November 7 , 2008 (Today):S&P 500......931
We could go on, but I'm done. I see where nobody is damanding DWetzel to show the change is causal.
|
| 455 | WiddleAvi
ID: 323531619
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 17:45
|
B7 - this is amusing. I think we all agree that the stock market crash can be attributed to the housing crisis. You blame the housing crisis on Clinton (which had a GOP house). Then you point to Dems taking the house in 2006 as the begining. So was it the Dem house in 2006 that caused the crash ? Clinton ? GOP house during Clinton years ?
|
| 456 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 18:16
|
The point, B7, is that you came on here and made an asinine "the market is crashing because of Obama" crack right out of the Limbaugh playbook, which I called you on because it was bullshit. Do you think the 250 point gain had jack squat to do with Obama being elected? I'm sure you don't. And on that point we agree.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just MAYBE, part of the reason the housing crisis became such a crisis (with so many homes in foreclosure) is that middle class incomes have actually DECLINED compared to inflation over the past eight years? Why, pray tell, do you suppose that is? Oh wait, I know, it's probably Obama's fault too.
Did you ever stop to think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the housing crisis was brought to an absolute head because people who already (wrongly) stretched their budgets got hammered by the spike in gas prices (for which there is PLENTY of blame to go around on all sides, but I'm sure you think it's all Clinton's fault) and suddenly went into foreclosure instead of squeaking by?
|
| 457 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 19:11
|
We know exactly how it happened. Everyone all of a sudden realized everyone else was using Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae bundles of crap as their Tier 1 capital.
Bundles carefully wrapped by people like recent Fannie Mae CEO Rahm Emanuel.
|
| 458 | Building 7
ID: 1103028
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 19:34
|
It was just a matter of time for the insults and the cussing. Normal times on the Political Boards. Where did I make this statement "the market is crashing because of Obama" ?
|
| 459 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 19:51
|
411 Building 7
ID: 1103028
Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 23:53
"U.S. stocks slid, sending the market to its biggest two-day slump since 1987. Over the past two days, the Dow is down 9.7 percent, the S&P 500 index is off 10 percent and the Nasdaq is down 9.6 percent.
The market does not appear to like the election results so far."
What, precisely, did you mean by this if NOT "the market is crashing because of Obama?" I mean, duh.
|
| 460 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:00
|
And here on Planet Earth, Emanuel was on the board of directors (not the CEO) of Freddie Mac (not Fannie Mae) from 2000-2001.
At least if the dreaded Wikipedia is to be trusted. I haven't the Google energy to chase it much further.
But I'm sure that minor details like that don't matter when you're in full America-hating slander mode.
|
| 461 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:03
|
And the saddest irony of it is that there is much genuinely to dislike about the Democrats. But when you start throwing every single piece of mud (and worse) against the wall in hopes that something sticks, it's hard to tell what might be legitimate. Peter and the Wolf, to say the least.
(And the reverse applies as well--if you blindly defend a side--either side--simply because of WHO it is, as opposed to the ideas--you lose most of your credibility very quickly. I'm honestly trying not to do that, but it's hard.)
|
| 462 | Building 7
ID: 1103028
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:22
|
The markets get hammered for two days. One looks to see what happened two days ago....wow, it was election day. Many elections besides just Obama. Thus the statement:
The market does not appear to like the election results so far.
I stand by that statement. That seems like a reasonable statement to make. That statement is far from definitive. It could also be a coincidence that it crashed after the Democrat sweep of the elections. It is not the same as..... you came on here and made an asinine "the market is crashing because of Obama" crack.
|
| 463 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:35
|
Then what was the point of it, if not that?
|
| 464 | Perm Dude
ID: 541010817
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:35
|
It is cherry picking, B7. On a co-relational event.
If you are willing to make the statement you did, then you have to give credit that, after Obama's first presser, suddenly the markets picked up as a result, closing up nearly 3% across the boards.
[The point is that there is no hard day-to-day relationship.]
|
| 465 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:41
|
Actually, now that I think of it, the most unexpected thing that happened in the elections (Obama winning wasn't a shock at all) was that the Democrats picked up a bit less than expected in the House and Senate.
Therefore, I am going to make the observation that the markets crashed because the Dems didn't get a filibuster-proof Senate and more seats in the House, and because the people of Alaska (where something less than 20% of our nation's energy reserves are located!) decided electing a convicted felon was in their best interests. That must be what you meant.
(It's not--and this would be a silly observation too--but it's just as valid.)
|
| 466 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 21:08
|
On a lighter note... this is some funny stuff right here:
McCain's Concession Speech... well, not quite
|
| 467 | Building 7
ID: 1103028
Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 22:00
|
I just noticed this message from guru about dealing with abusive messages:
(3) Users who post profane or disruptive messages will be blocked from the ability to post new messages. If you engage an abuser in a profane exchange, you risk losing your privileges as well.
As we all know, the world is full of jerks who crave attention and who don't know how to conduct themselves in public.
I'm not allowed to respond to you. Thanks for getting me in trouble.
Who are these moderators guru talks about? I've been insulted and cussed at over 200 times, and these moderators have never done anything.
|
| 468 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 07:53
|
Box, thanks. I have plenty of sources for my financial info, including talking to folks where I work who are experts by definition. I've worked in banks for 20 yeas, IB's for 14. I have plenty of exposure. They are just not on TV or radio.
My point is the simple stat tenet that correlation does not equal causation. One cannot put up some #s and dates and conclude causality. It's not valid. Need more causal data...not statistics, data.
|
| 469 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 08:01
|
NYT, Frank Rich: The Year we Reclaimed our Country
Very thoughtful essay.
|
| 470 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 08:52
|
NYT, Kristoff: The War on Brains
Another interesting piece. Kristoff concludes that the record is not so strong for the success of "intellectual" leaders, but there's reason for hope. Our leaders should embrace ideas, and know nuance, and be comfortable with complexity. While when speaking to the masses, leaders to be able to distill complex issues in ways that everyone can understand, they also need to set for the tone for citizens to realize the importance of learning, appreciating other cultures, recognizing that we may not have all of the answers, and that might is not always (and nearly often) the right way to approach problems.
What's very troubling is how many folks have said "Obama is elite" or embraced leaders like Palin or Bush cos "they are someone I can have a beer with." Leaders of big organizations should be smart and knowledgeable, amongst many other things. It's a prerequisite, a core criterion, a must. Another reason I voted for and am glad Obama won. He needs to do many other things than merely be smart and knowledgeable, but I'm glad we have a leader who is at least that, for starters.
|
| 471 | Building 7
ID: 1103028
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 12:21
|
11-4-08....Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
"The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution."
"Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans"
I'm just posting an article I found dated 11-4-08. Try to hold the insults, homework assignments, and accusations to a minimum.
|
| 472 | Perm Dude
SuperDude
ID: 030792616
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 12:56
|
The premise doesn't match the story.
That story is taking what one witness (Teresa Ghilarducci) said about her idea during the course of a hearing a month ago and suddenly inflating that to be not only what the Congress wants to do but Says that the Congress is actually doing it. This is nonsense. Witnesses say a lot of things during fact-finding investigations by Congress--it doesn't mean Congress will take up the most wacky one.
Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.
This was taken up elsewhere, and completely takes out of context the remarks that Obama made. Obama was actually saying the opposite of what was implied, that the left has been far too dependent upon the courts to enact social change.
All in all, a poor article.
|
| 473 | Seattle Zen
ID: 358591721
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 13:07
|
re post 471
On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits. Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said.
The article mentioned some pretty radical ideas, but the idea I highlighted is neither new nor radical, it's just sound, progressive tax policy that is overdue.
Seattle Zen - insult free since this morning!
|
| 474 | jedman
Dude
ID: 315192219
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 15:35
|
Well, I have been lurking here for a number of months, reading
the back and forth and quite honestly, scared to post anything.
But reading these last posts, I had to just say something. From
the above article:
Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the
government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said.
“There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or
people who do not file income taxes should get smaller
incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.
Why should people who pay no taxes get money from the
government? I just don't understand that concept at all.
Telling people they are not smart enough to make their own
investment decisions just sits wrong with me. Whatever
happened to personal responsibility?
I made some stupid decisions in my business the last couple
years that have cost me a lot of money. Where do I go for my
bailout money? I have to work my way through it and face the
consequences.
|
| 475 | Seattle Zen
ID: 358591721
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 16:40
|
Why should people who pay no taxes get money from the government? I just don't understand that concept at all.
Have you heard of the Earned Income Credit? It's a very effective incentive to get low to no income people work.
And no one who works even just one day pays "no" taxes, everyone pays FICA, but there are people who do not make enough to start paying income taxes.
|
| 476 | Building 7
ID: 1103028
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 16:53
|
Seattle Zen - insult free since this morning!
It may be a new record.
jedman: Why would you be scared to post anything?
|
| 477 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 17:25
|
Yeah really jedman. Don't be afraid of these people and their pumped up sense of selves. I just stopped posting here because for true objective conversation it's a waste of time like Nerveclinic says. This board is the true lifeblood of quite a few people here I'm convinced.
If Guru actually enforced his own rules, the political board would be a wasteland; absent of any life or signs of activity. You would then see the rate of suicide amongst Guru patrons skyrocket 5000% as Zen, Tree, Sarge, Perm Dude, and who knows who else all hang themselves by their own mouse cords.
Sarge even challenged me to a fight one time because I called him a liar, which he is. Big deal.
|
| 478 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 18:35
|
Why would you be scared to post anything? - B7
The swineherd ganging up of the liberal majority here is not to be faced without a thick skin and a flinty face. And you have to swim thru the liberal trolls just to get there.
|
| 479 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:08
|
Eeeeeeeeeesh, well I guess these kinda posts would reinforce why someone would not want to post here. Maybe we can show a better side?
|
| 480 | jedman
Dude
ID: 315192219
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:38
|
Exactly walk. In all my reading through this forum, I see a lot of
very smart people who are very passionate about their political
beliefs and generally present well thought out and well
researched opinions. Most of those I do not agree with. I
generally do not discuss politics with people because I am not
an argumentative type of person and do not like to debate. I see
this forum as a place for those who like to debate and obviously
discuss politics. My experience is that unless you are very good
friends with somebody, opposing views can tend to get blown
out of proportion and bring out the worst in people. It is even
more so in faceless cyberspace. I don't think much of what is
posted here that is personally negative towards others would
ever be said face to face.
I walked in support of Prop 8 here in California and did not have
one person call me names are get into an argument with me.
Those who disagreed were very congenial and many actually
complimented me for being out there in support of something I
believed in.
Yet after the election, friends of mine had their Yes on 8 sign
spray painted with swastikas and a Hmong family I know had
their house broken into and spray painted all inside. People
opposed to 8 had their signs switched and I'm sure other things
happen. It is people like that that sicken me and keep me away
from political discussion.
I voted for McCain, more as a vote against Obama. I'm not sure
the Republicans could have run anybody this year and won with
the economy and Bush being so unpopular. I think Obama will
raise my taxes personally and as a business and that inheritance
taxes will eventually rise as well. I hope I am wrong. I hope
Obama turns out to be the greatest President ever. I am sincerely
praying for him. We need somebody who can change things. I
just don't believe he will.
I am incensed at the housing debacle. When did it become a
right to own a house? Let everybody own a house, even if they
can't afford it. Create loans that are too hard for the average
person to understand the fine print. Did anybody ever tell those
people what negative amortization is? There is so much blame
to go around it's not fair to pick any one person. The main
problem was greed. Let's finance my house that's gone up
$200,000 and buy 2 more, the payments are only $100 per
month and I'll sell it before the real payment kicks in. Everybody
knows that houses go up forever. Then let Wall Street package
these lousy loans and sell them as prime investments. I could
go on, but the whole thing was so forseeable. Now we're in the
mess we're in and who knows if we will get out of it.
I think government is so big now that I'm not sure if it can be
fixed. I would love somebody to go in and ax all the
government agencies that are totally unnecessary. When you or
I hit hard times, the cable goes, the second car goes, the dinners
out with friends go. I let people go at my business because I
can't afford to keep them. In a dream world, government would
do the same thing, but I'm skeptical it will ever happen.
Sorry for the long post, but it just sort of all came out today.
|
| 481 | jedman
Dude
ID: 315192219
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 21:15
|
SZ, back to your post. Good point on the EITC.
If we already have the EITC, what more is needed? Is Obama's
plan going to give money on top of that?
At what point do the wealthy pay enough of the total tax
burden? 50% rate, 60% rate? How about massive spending cuts
and reducing the size of government.
|
| 482 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:00
|
Ask Obama's dad. He had no problem with 100% taxation and said so.
|
| 483 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:01
|
That would be the famous, 'Dreams of My Father', for those who do not follow along.
|
| 484 | Perm Dude
SuperDude
ID: 030792616
Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 23:34
|
And, for those unable to distinguish, Obama is going nowhere near 100%. He's going to tax the wealthy at a rate Newt Gingrich agreed to.
The horrors!
|
| 485 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:29
|
Count all receipts, PD.
And hold on to your 401K's with both hands.
|
| 486 | Tree
ID: 121035316
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:34
|
PD - my dad keeps kosher. i must keep kosher too. my dad goes to synagogue every saturday. i must go to. my dad used to smoke 4 packs a day. i must have done the same.
everything my father does, i do. apparently.
so sayeth our very own Reverend Bubba Flavel...
|
| 487 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:34
|
re 477...No Box, I'm not a liar. You're just not able to see the truth when its standing right in front of you.
and concern yourself not at all with my 'suicide'. That would be granting you FAR too much power.
|
| 488 | James K Polk
ID: 521051615
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 17:23
|
When I was in college, most of my fellow students would have told you it's a sin to vote Democrat. Apparently the past 8 years have opened up some WWJD eyes.
Obama Made Gains Among Younger Evangelical Voters, Data Show
The payoff was both generational and geographic. Mr. Obama doubled his support among young white evangelicals (those ages 18 to 29) compared with Mr. Kerry. The increase was almost the same for white evangelicals ages 30 to 44.
“There is definitely a generational division,” said David P. Gushee, professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University and author of “The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center.”
“Young evangelicals,” Dr. Gushee said, are “attracted to a broader agenda” beyond abortion and homosexuality, that includes the environment, poverty, human rights and torture.
|
| 489 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 18:06
|
The question is 'how much of that is research and reporting, and how much of that is a project the college left is working at'?
|
| 490 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 20:47
|
Mr. Prez is in the house!
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|