Dow is getting crushed

I like Obama, but, man, he needs to be doing this better.

He's a great speaker, but he's probably been about even on the fear/hope scale. He needs to be higher. Especially when you add in Geitner, the guy who always looks like his dog just died.

Couldn't agree more. What the f*** was Obama doing holding "town meetings" (in Florida - of all godforsaken places) when Geitenr was addressing America on this economic catastrophe. He should have been standing there with him to inspire confidence. I fear his political side is shining through - he wants to distance himself from the implosion of the capital markets. Doesn't look like the market is buying anything Obama is selling right now. So now what???

This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I think the market was hoping something miraculous would happen with the new adminstration. The market will eventually realize that no magic bullet exists. More pain is yet to come.

Unfortunately, Obama might just prove that he's little different from all the other politicians.

I hope otherwise, but I'm running out of hime.

Anyone ever consider that what might be good for the country might not be good short term for wall street?

stealth, I don't think Obama wants to distance himself, I think he hasn't shown whether he understands how markets work and the political implications.

Geithner should've known better than to make such an anticipated announcement w little substance. As a result the market is showing that it has little confidence in the Obama administration's policies. What the Prez needs to do is solidly show support for any - w no wavering, no 'i screwed up' apologies - that way people will know where he stands. Even if you don't agree w him, there has to be a baseline somewhere.

I agree with uptowngal. Obama made a big deal out of Geithner's proposals, and when the moment arrived, he bombed. Not enough specifics, much too vague.

More importantly though, Obama has delegated the stimulus bill to liberal members of congress who want to use taxpayer dollars to fund every government program they desire, turning it into a giant porkulus.

Obama has also failed to articulate his vision for this country and convince the American people that this bill will indeed revive the economy. He needs to step up to the plate and show that he's in charge and know what's going on.

the market is beginning to realize that the free ride for Wall Street is over, and that the ruinous policies of the last administration were, well, ruinous.

you don't deleverage to the tune of $3 or so trillion dollars wihout a massive amount of dislocation and pain. there are no more interest rate solutions, there's no money, at least a few of the large banks are currently technically insolvent. thank you W. (with a big old happy nod to Greenspan), what a legacy you've left. all we can do is borrow and print, and now the Chinese have warned they'd like some guarantees that we're good for our debt. what a great big cluster.

"Geithner should've known better than to make such an anticipated announcement w little substance. As a result the market is showing that it has little confidence in the Obama administration's policies."

Absolutely. Geithner laid an egg on this one. Scary.

"Obama has delegated the stimulus bill to liberal members of congress who want to use taxpayer dollars to fund every government program they desire, turning it into a giant porkulus."

This makes me sick. Pelosi is the anti-christ

"He needs to step up to the plate and show that he's in charge and know what's going on."

I wonder if people still think he is "different"??????

you know, its not too late for damage control.. replace Geithner with Volcker, at least confidence will be restored. Volcker's reputation of not pandering is still intact

"Anyone ever consider that what might be good for the country might not be good short term for wall street?"

At other times... perhaps.

Now... not a chance.

This isn't the market reacting to capital gains changes or labor law or things that might influence profits. The market has already priced in MAJOR profit reductions.

The vsriance now is the fear on whether the market collapses or not.

Like it or not, we're all in the same boat. And Obama has to start everyone paddling in the same direction.

"thank you W. (with a big old happy nod to Greenspan), what a legacy you've left."

Don't forget the happy, happy, joy-joy, Dems who wanted home ownership for all. All of these idiots are to blame.

"I wonder if people still think he is "different"?????? "

LOL - Yes, people do!

Geithner is/was part of the problem. Why he has been selected is beyond me. There seems to be rampant cluelessness in the white house right now.

Though, as I've said before, these are not easy times.

"thank you W. (with a big old happy nod to Greenspan), what a legacy you've left."

Well, need to throw Clinton into that, too... he also appointed him! (and he ended Glass Steagal!).
And where would we be without Barney Frank!

But what's done is done... and Obama has the podium. Pretty dumb to look back now...

There's been rampant cluelessness for a long time. It was just far more consistent. Geithner does totally suck, I've hated that selection from the very onset, and I agree with Bugelrex that Volcker would at the very least be viewed as highly credible.

Republicans, of course, hated the concept of home ownership, increased bank and corporate profits, deregulation. Very little could have been "accomplished" without ridiculously low interest rates for a stunningly long time.

COuld it be the at it was a mistake to put Geithner and Summers in charge of fixing this mess that they helped create?

I have to agree that this is a time of the truth hurts. The only thing wall street is going to rally on is more bailout, another bubble. The truth is that there is nothing to prop up the sagging bubble, and it is not done deflating. Saying anything else is like trying to keep the fix going. America had better face the truth sooner rather than later, hunker down, recast it's economy, or have a lost decade. It was in part the constant obsession to drive the market higher that got us into this mess.

> The truth is that there is nothing to prop up the sagging bubble

Except consumer sentiment.

And Obama, so far, has blown that completely...

Yes. It is stunning the impact that Obama has had on consumer sentiment in the last 22 days. Get real. Wall Street was waiting for more handouts to the banks and when it became apparent this was not coming, folks sold off and trashed Geithner. I'm not saying he did a good job but its pretty obvious the motivations here.

I'm not a big fan, but what if Romney would have won? He was the only one of the lot that had real business experience. Obama seems lost. Would we be better off with a President that has also run a business or is Washington just completely incapable of running anything?

"Would we be better off with a President that has also run a business or is Washington just completely incapable of running anything?"

You mean like W?

"but what if Romney would have won?"

JuiceMan, as a former MA resident, I think this would have been a pretty bad deal for the country. He's not a dumb guy, but not really likeable either. I think he would have faced an uphill climb with Congress on nearly every issue.

Consumer sentiment? Gee, Citi et al. pulling credit lines and raising credit rates wouldn't have had anything to do with that, how about a horrifically spiralling out of control unemployment situation? even if you have a job you may have zero to little safety net at this point, it's hard to be cheerful. malthus, yes, the banks didn't get their candy, the bad bank didn't materialize to take their pain away, and even the rumors of the suspension of mark to market did not come to fruition. And they had to go be b-slapped by some lunatics in Congress. Not a good week.

JM, I don't know whether or not Romney would have done any better, and I don't know if it's necessary to have a businessman in the white house. I do think that keeping the foxes out of the henhouse is wise. I wonder if Obama felt that having people familiar with the situation would increase confidence in their abilities, but the Rubin boys have just got to go.

We are printing so much money to keep ourselves afloat that I'm not sure our children/grandchildren will ever be able to dig themselves out. Next all the foreign governements will begin to dump our T Bills and they will price oil to the Euro instead of the $. Then we are all just f***ed. (Like I'm not already.)

Its pretty obvious that Obama has failed and should turn the reins back to Bush. How is it possible that after almost an entire month, he hasn't stopped the water from rushing into the Titanic and navigated his way around that huge Republican orchestrated Perfect Financial Storm rogue wave. How is it possible? The Republicans are absolutely right, the government should do nothing and let the markets right themselves or at the very least expedite massive tax cuts so that the economy can be saved. How is it that the Democrats don't get that. Doesn't Obama understand that this downturn is not any different than any other and doesn't require excessive government intervention. I mean, what's the worse that can happen if he doesn't make an extreme and unusual effort to try to stimulate the economy. Its not like those Wall Street jobs won't be returning by next year and will continue to stoke the upward march of Manhattan real estate. Its not like everyday it seems that companies are announcing thousand or tens of thousands of job cuts. Does Obama really think that foreclosures are going to continue to rise, credit will remain tight, compensation deflation is not just going to be a passing fad in the financial services industry, and the Irag war won't soon become a revenue generating engine for this country. What planet is Obama living on? So I have to agree with Metalhead and all the other astute members of this blog that share his views because, Frankly, you would have to be pretty stupid and a moron to not realize how inadequate Obama is compared to Bush, Cheney, Boehner, and, of course, Metalhead.

Imagine President Palin in this situation.

With Joe the Plumber by her side.

canny, thats some pretty good writing!

Canny - I am with you. I also can't believe that Obama has failed to cure cancer and end poverty in his first month in office. I mean Bush was so much better in handling the economy. I'm so glad that Meathead has blessed us with his brilliant insights! The Republicans are so right - what we need now is a big tax break for all the folks who got us into this mess. I just wish we had Palin or McCain to lead us now. I can't believe that election is over and now I have to cry, cry, cry every night because the Republicans got there butts handed to them! Ah - that was fun.

Just imagine if McCain was assembling his economic advisors! Surely Thain, Fiorina and Phil (Nation of Whiners) Gramm could pull our chestnuts out of the fire!

"Wall Street was waiting for more handouts to the banks and when it became apparent this was not coming, folks sold off and trashed Geithner"

Actually, thats the problem. We're GETTING the handouts. We're GETTING the pork. We're getting all the stupid spending everyone wanted.

But, the president has to "sell" it that it works, whether it does or it doesn't.

And that has flopped.

Lets also keep in mind that the unemployment number is actually down slightly, retail sales are UP for the first time in several months.... the actual data 'aint great, but we've stopped getting worse (for now).

All that, and Geitner still tanked the market by 600 points.

LMAO... everyone look in the mirror... any blame there?

I missed yesterday's thread about the Dow soaring because everybody loves the stimulus plan.

The markets go up, the markets go down. Why start a thread about one day's movement, then another two days later about the same thing? "Chicago is better than NY" has more merit as a thread topic.

> LMAO... everyone look in the mirror... any blame there?

Nope... I'm been pointing out the RE bubble for years now. I should have just been louder...

alanhart, the markets have been recovering slightly (although as I write this, who knows). Maybe they like Obama a bit better this afternoon than this morning.

I'm still a HUGE supporter of President Obama; at least his heart & mind are in the right place & he doesn't think that we should just pander to the wealthiest amongst us & have zero government oversight. What I am sensing, however, & it's quiet troubling, is that not only do we have A LOT of horror ahead but that apparently NOBODY has any idea what to do. Eegads!

Bingo

the problem is not with government or wall street by itself...it has to do with people living beyond their means in this country. you shouldn't be at per se if you need to use a credit card; you shouldn't lease a beamer if you can't afford to buy it cash down (you should stick to non-luxury items if you are cash-strapped), you shouldn't buy apts/houses beyond your means.

all of us are responsible partly. i have def been guilty of going out in nyc and blowing too much cash having fun - only to realize now a few years later that a little moderation would have been better. in fact just 6 months ago i was thinking of leasing a porsche....my rationale was that i currently make over 20 times the lease amt per month after taxes. that is not a good rationale because i actually don't have enough cash to outright buy the thing - and income is not even close to guaranteed for anyone! i was smart enough not to do it but the fact that i considered it rational at all is nuts!

the majority of us were swept up into this in some way or another - and now that information is spreading and people are educating themselves throughout the world, we will experience wage loss and currency devaluation as a result of this exuberant debt.

the game is over.

the market is prob gonna get worse - i dont think the true scale has been factored into the dow yet - it is only 40% down from peak but the write-offs are not finished. we are entering 2nd phase of massive deleveraging - wouldnt be shocked if ted or libor rise again

W had 8 years to run the country into the ground and the Republicans didn;t utter one word about any spending bill for 8 years...all of a sudden they are concerned about debt? Please...give me a f-in break! Obama has been in office a month and people expect him to fix everything...tell Larry Kudlow to STFU already! Larry was the one who just last week said that Obama better hurry up and get the stimulus package passed before the economy fixed itself in a matter of weeks.

Conservatives need a timeout and realize that they don't play well with the other kids in the sandbox when they are team captain.

Bipartisanship? I remember an awful lot of "Democrats are nothing but obstructionists" statments from 2000-2006. Yet, in 1 month Obama has reached across the aisle more then W did in 8 years. Why doesn;t everybody give him a little bit of a break and see what happens over the next few weeks/months before passing any judgement either way....okay? It's not only ineffective, it also doesn;t get us 1 step closer to recovery.

> and the Republicans didn;t utter one word about any spending bill for 8 years

Thats not quite true...

and, this isn't just a "spending bill". This is a MEGA chunk of our GDP we just promised.

Also, all of this "blame the republicans" logic was just as true before the market tanked this time. We had dow at 9k pre-obama.

So, at some point Obama has to start taking responsibility for the new government...

> Obama has been in office a month and people expect him to fix everything

No, just stop making it worse....

Ok, maybe not Romney. Bloomberg? Warren Buffet? A-Rod?

"Just imagine if McCain was assembling his economic advisors!"

OMG, the guy doesn't even know how many houses he has. I wonder if he pays taxes?

"So, at some point Obama has to start taking responsibility for the new government..."

"No, just stop making it worse...."

Great talking points, but completely without any facts supporting them. Am I crazy or didn't the Dow go up yesterday? So, Obama was taking responsibility and making things better on Wednesday, but not
on Tuesday or Thursday....give me a break. The criticism just doesn't pass the sniff-test. That is as baseless as the brokers telling us the OH traffic has picked-up and there is more buyer activity. You constantly call them out for this BS, yet you fall for the same crap about Obama's leadership and the stimulus package.

honestly I don't think it matters much what ANY President would do, the economy needs to work itself out. I'm not a huge fan of Obama's policies but it's really too soon to judge, as anything passed by Congress will have long term implications we can't fathom at this point.

I can see why Geithner was picked, after all he was a key player in designing these bank/Wall St rescue packages under Bush2, so he'd understand more than most how to deal with it. Which is why I'm surprised at how unsubstantial his speech was. The markets expected more.

"Except consumer sentiment."

Until they have credit, homes, jobs, and some security in these things, Obama can give a Shakspearean rousing speech and they ain't gonna open their wallents.

"Actually, thats the problem. We're GETTING the handouts. We're GETTING the pork. We're getting all the stupid spending everyone wanted."

Relating to the market downturn at the title of this thread, this is not true. Wall Street did NOT get what they wanted. Not even close. That's why the bank stocks were hit. It's all about the banks. Wall street knows they are insolvent, and that there will be no money coming from them unless the US gov't pours ULTRABUCKS into that black hole. It was evident that Obama is not about to do that (yet).

"and, this isn't just a "spending bill". This is a MEGA chunk of our GDP we just promised"

Smaller by a factor of three compared to what has been ponied up or put on the line for the banks. Many argue it's too small by a factor of two to solve the problem.

> Am I crazy or didn't the Dow go up yesterday?

Yup, you are crazy.

Down 400....

oh sorry, wait, missed a day. up 36 points. A dead cat bounce.

Tell me you aren't using that to make a point...

"honestly I don't think it matters much what ANY President would do, the economy needs to work itself out."

Agreed.... I believe the 'president as clerk' model in terms of actual politics. And if he has any effect, it takes a while.

That being said, the market is factoring in the next several years.... so either it is calculating in what they think his actual effect is, or he's just a cheerleader and he failed at that.

Either way, the one thing he can do (and NEEDS to do) is inspire confidence and he's not doing that very well.

Ohhhhh....I get it! When the Dow goes down, Obama is showing no leadership. When the Dow goes up, it is just a dead cat bounce....priceless! That is such a bogus argument that it needs no additonal information to show its ridiculousness. That logic is right out of the Fauxnews playbook.

JM - A-Rod...haha....maybe he could lend us a few bucks at least, right?

i can't decide whether you are a bunch of twelve year old girls or a convention of the john birch society? i hope to god none of you nervous nellys are in the investment field. 'geithner tanked the dow by 600 points.' is this a joke? sometimes the markets go up, sometimes they go down--only over a long period do patterns emerge. one or two days means absolutely nothing. i would hope to god that the secretary of the treasury is not calibrating his performance to try to control the equity market.

but all of the conservative paranoia is even more bizarre. we gave bush eight years to do his best to wreck the country. we can't even give obama a month to try to start turning things around? i assume that most of you are somewhere on the political spectrum between hitler and mussolini, but there is a difference between ideology and competence. ideologically, obama is on the left, and if you disagree that's fine. but just because you disagree with him doesn't make him incompetent. and i think we should all be able to agree that we need a wee bit more than three weeks to pass judgment on his presidency.

all of you saying that it is 'scary' having obama in charge should remember that we somehow managed to survive eight years of bush. i hope you don't seriously entertain the idea that obama is scarier than w.

HR - good point! John McCain is not the sharpest tool, but even he would have been a big improvement over W's perfromance the past 8 years. This is a big mess and it is going to take time to fix. Tough medicine....not fun, but it is what it is.

> Ohhhhh....I get it! When the Dow goes down, Obama is showing no leadership. When the Dow goes up, it
> is just a dead cat bounce....priceless!

OK, now you are just being silly.

Down 400, up 36, then down 200...

And you're trying to play that off as market responding positively?

Really now, grow up...

nyc10022,
are you really going to judge the president's performance on the basis of daily market fluctuations?
pot, you're black, grow up.

What HR said....and thanks.

"nyc10022,
are you really going to judge the president's performance on the basis of daily market fluctuations?
pot, you're black, grow up."

When his primary role right now is instilling confidence... absolutely.

and still, really, I'm laughing about the 36 points thing again.

Were you really being serious with that one? Credit for the 36 point increase after the 400 point decline (then given up fivefold).

That might be the funniest thing I've heard in a while...

"ideologically, obama is on the left"

Not anymore....

And thats why I like him a lot more now...

his primary role is instilling confidence? gosh, i thought his primary role had something to do with defending the constitution, promoting the general welfare, overseeing two wars, managing the nuclear deterrent, preventing terrorist attacks, proposing and enacting various policies related to the economy, the environment, social policy, education, infrastructure, and foreign policy.

i thought obama had been elected chief executive, not chief cheerleader.

as i said before, some days markets go up, some days they go down. it would be absolute idiocy for the president to govern according to daily market fluctuations.

This just in: Home Prices in U.S. Slid 12% in Fourth Quarter, Most on Record

[Bad Obama, bad!]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY8hiszeIlbU&refer=home

Feb. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Home prices dropped the most on record in the fourth quarter as foreclosures dragged down values and the recession pushed buyers out of the market.

The median price of a U.S. home declined 12 percent from a year earlier and sales of properties with mortgages in default accounted for 45 percent of all transactions, the Chicago-based National Association of Realtors said today. Prices declined in almost nine out of every 10 cities.

The worst U.S. housing slump since the Great Depression is deepening as foreclosures drain value from neighboring homes and the economic recession worsens. The number of Americans collecting unemployment benefits rose to a record 4.81 million in the last week of January as companies such as Caterpillar Inc. and Home Depot Inc. slashed jobs. The U.S. lost 2.6 million jobs last year in the biggest workforce reduction since 1945.

[more]

... or it could just be the uncertainty of the Israeli elections.

> i thought obama had been elected chief executive, not chief cheerleader.

Ah, and you think there is a huge difference...

Got it.... makes sense, given your lack of understanding of politics. Perhaps you should have taken a class or two in Government in college (or passed the one you did).

"as i said before, some days markets go up, some days they go down. it would be absolute idiocy for the president to govern according to daily market fluctuations."

Who said anything about daily?

We're off 600 points and still sinking days later... and we were at 9k weeks ago. This isn't daily, this is just more of a negative trend.

He needs to do better.

What WOULD be absolute idiocy is a president who ignores the market...

All I heard for 5 years was, "It is going to take time to complete the mission in Iraq. We need to give the Iraqis more time. We must stay the course...more time...must stay vigilent...more time...blah blah blah...more time"

And now all of a sudden, Obaba has 30 minutes to fix the economy....give me a break.

"his primary role right now is instilling confidence" - uhhh...yeah, except, not so much. You normally make pretty solid arguments in defense of your positions, but this is so weak.

huh. there's no difference between a chief executive and a chief cheerleader. and the president should set policies in accordance with short-term market gyrations.

political science according to nyc10022. this is what they are teaching at yale?

alanhart,

clearly prices declined in the 4th quarter because people anticipated obama becoming president and sold their homes as fast as they could. isn't it obvious?

Wait a minute, I thought the President's job was as "The Decider". Didn't Obama pay attention over the past years? His job is to be the decider and to get rid of the leakers. That's what W told us his job was. Well that, and to shine Cheney's knob.

> political science according to nyc10022. this is what they are teaching at yale?

Wow, you really HAVEN'T taken any political science. Seriously, you really need to learn about politics and taxation before you try speaking abou tthem again....

> What HR said....and thanks.

waverly, as for you, don't be a hypocrite. If you side with HR, here, then you are completely contradicting yourself. You want credit for the 36 points, but then suddenly it doesn't matter at all?

Either way, it is moronic to ignore the market as an indicator of confidence in this economy.... unless one doesn't know anything about politics or the economy. Sorry, HR.

He needs to do better but you like him more now that he is not ideologically to the left?

BTW, I can't believe no one called you on your unemployment numbers have improved statement. BS, but I'll grant you retail. You seem to be confused, things aren't so bad, there so bleak this one man will destroy us all.

The market had factored in HUGE amounts of spending, stimulus and bank. Numbers being released all around the world have gone from bleak to catastrophic over the last couple of weeks. GDP estimates are being revised down a half a percent every month. Surely you don't think Obama managed that in his first few days? This is snowballing, and we, the president, and the whole damn world are about to get swept away. Obama really can't magically fix a few trillion in artificially created assets, and the world might wish he could wave his magic wand, but he doesn't have one.

so if the market shoots up tomorrow then obama is a genius? i guarantee you that within the next week there will be at least one day with a big positive swing in the market. should we give the president the nobel prize in economics when that happens?

anyway, enough trying to talk with nyc10022 it is hopeless. you honestly believe that government policy should be set to try to influence daily market gyrations? that's the dumbest thing i've read in a pretty long while. and that you are still defending it, and claiming that a disagreement with governing by daily market fluctuation is a sign of political naivetee or ignorance? incredible.

"The Decider".

One of the best political statements ever. I crack up every time I hear it. Hilarious.

It comes down to the name 'RAHM'.
Fidel has cracked the code. That's what's driving down the economy and the markets.
Another bright idea fresh from the caribbean. Hey if Fidel changed his political leanings toward capitalism...he would be...
A Castro Convertable! Open up that ancient communist...I need a snooze.

Riddle me this NYC.

I say to you that the markets are reacting negatively because the Republicans have been talking down the stimulus and the POTUS. Had the Republicans grown some balls and voted overwhelmingly for the stimulus package instead of being obstructionists waging straw-man arguments, the mood on Wall Street would have been much more positive and the market would have reacted accordingly.

Put the blame where the blame should lie if you feel you need to.

perhaps president obama should get the congressional leaders of both parties together and they should all come out and say 'we were wrong. everything if FANTASTIC! don't worry about a thing. ignore everything you read and see.' that would be....cheerleading, right? apparently what nyc10022 believes constitutes the president's primary role.

"Give me a B"

"B"

"Give me an A"

"A"

...

falco-awesomely funny, gruesome imagery.

There is no one in Congress that I want to see in a cheerleading uniform. That would require a lot of alcohol and perhaps a little bit of the old "better living through chemistry", but that is a story for another day.

i don't know. maybe stephanie herseth? she's probably the cutest of the bunch.

> He needs to do better but you like him more now that he is not ideologically to the left?

Yes and yes. He showed he's not quite in the pockets of special interests as I originally feared he would be.

> You seem to be confused, things aren't so bad, there so bleak this one man will destroy us all.

No, grasshopper, you are confused (and lousy at grammar, too).

"I say to you that the markets are reacting negatively because the Republicans have been talking down the stimulus and the POTUS.
No, things aren't "so bleak". Obviously, we were in bad shape before he started, but he's had some missteps in trying to work on solutions. No, he won't destroy us all... but he does need to do better...

> so if the market shoots up tomorrow then obama is a genius?

No, in the same way that he isn't an idiot for it going down... but he needed to do a better job (with his team) of laying out his plan. Geitner (who I supported) completely botched the delivery.

The market movements don't make anyone a genius or idiot, BUT the president has to be leading in restoring confidence. And in this specific area, he hasn't been very good so far.

"I say to you that the markets are reacting negatively because the Republicans have been talking down the stimulus and the POTUS."

Its an interesting idea... but are we really getting into the game of "its the party NOT in power that is at fault?" We going to play that one?

"perhaps president obama should get the congressional leaders of both parties together and they should all come out and say 'we were wrong. everything if FANTASTIC! don't worry about a thing. ignore everything you read and see.' that would be....cheerleading, right?"

it would be idiotic... but HR does seem pretty familiar with that kind of thing....

btw, what's funny is, when the market moved up post the election, democrats WERE taking credit for the "obama effect".

Hypocrisy is a bitch, 'aint it...

i certainly never took credit for an obama effect. don't accuse people of hypocrisy without getting your facts in order. in fact, i don't care what happens to the equity market in the short term. it is completely irrelevant.

so "it would be idiotic" for obama to act as a cheerleader? huh. i thought cheerleading was his main function? confusion, confusion. safeguarding the constitution, protecting the nation from attack, those are NOTHING compared to the obligation to talk up the market.

gtasshopper? the condescending malraux has returned, channeling NYC10022? OOO, I'm so chastised. I made a grammatical error while typing away on an anonymous chat board. What the hell do you think this is, the Dead Poets' Society?

Not confused in the slightest. Both the NYC real estate market AND the economy suck. Just as the former will inexorably find its way down into the abyss, so shall the latter.

"i certainly never took credit for an obama effect. don't accuse people of hypocrisy without getting your facts in order."

Wow, for a guy SO proud of being part of the Democratic establishent, you sure are running fast from it!

> so "it would be idiotic" for obama to act as a cheerleader?

No, genuis... it would be idiotic for him to do it BADLY.

> thought cheerleading was his main function? confusion, confusion

Yes, you are confused. We've gotten that for quite some time now....

> I made a grammatical error while typing away on an anonymous chat board.

And incorrectly accused me of something...

You're awfully thin-skinned for someone who dishes out so much. Someone disagrees with you and you need to call names (genius, grasshopper) or point out unimportant things such as grammar.

I don't think it was incorrect in the slightest. If things are not so bleak, why the urgency in tearing him apart for the last couple of weeks? Maybe that's consistent to you, but not to me.

nyc10022, you have a fairly balanced argument here but are missing the point. happyrenter has been completely brainwashed by the liberal spooge machine and his arguments are so blatantly partisan it is impossible to give them credibility. What do you expect? Can you imagine anything but a screaming liberal coming out of Harvard? It’s not like the place encourages political balance and it certainly isn’t a bastion for the free thinker. C’mon, happyrenter’s hero is Barney Frank. Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know?

"This is snowballing, and we, the president, and the whole damn world are about to get swept away. Obama really can't magically fix a few trillion in artificially created assets, and the world might wish he could wave his magic wand, but he doesn't have one."

This gets to the heart of the matter.

the 'democratic establishment' has been taking credit for an obama effect in the equity market? it is certainly possible that a few people did this but i certainly never saw a trend of major democrats touting the short-term performance of the dow as some kind of referendum on obama.

so the job of a head of state is primarily composed of capable cheerleading? did you get that idea from your study of thomas hobbes? locke? motesquieu? habermas? kant? perhaps aristotle? quine? williams? mill? comte? nietszche? rawls? macchiavelli? montaigne?

you claim to be an expert in political science and political philosophy, i'd love to hear where you came up with this one.

> or point out unimportant things such as grammar.

Wrong again, the grasshopper comment was about your logic mistake, not the grammar...

> If things are not so bleak, why the urgency in tearing him apart for the last couple of weeks?

Saying "I like obama" and the worst I've said is "he could do better" is tearing him apart?

Talk about someone being thin skinned....

Seriously, AR, maybe we got off on the wrong foot here, and I'm sorry about "grasshopper", I didn't mean for it to come off as insulting... but I do think you had me wrong here.

You must have me confused with someone else, because I've noted several times I like obama, and I like a lot of things he's done, I just think he could have done better in this specific (but important) area. Add up Dasshle, the McKinsey lady, Geither.... none huge on their own, but add them up at a time like this, and these should have been done better.

juiceman, it's true. harvard churns out liberal after liberal, like....mitt romney, harvey mansfield, ross douthat, charles fried, antonin scalia, not to mention our favorite fellow alum george w bush.

clearly you are as much of an expert on harvard as nyc10022 is on political philosophy.

> nyc10022, you have a fairly balanced argument

I know... isn't it funny how knee-jerk some Democrats can be? I said I LIKED the guy.

> here but are missing the point. happyrenter has been completely brainwashed by the liberal spooge
> machine and his arguments are so blatantly partisan it is impossible to give them credibility.

I actually agree there. I watched the guy talking about tax policy, and he was flaunting blatant lies made up by lefties. He SO drank the kool aid (and doesn't know enough to figure it out for himself) thinks we have a regressive system!

"What do you expect? Can you imagine anything but a screaming liberal coming out of Harvard? It’s not like the place encourages political balance and it certainly isn’t a bastion for the free thinker. C’mon, happyrenter’s hero is Barney Frank. Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know?"

Well, fair enough, academia is where those who couldn't make it in the real world go to die. Same thing happened in college for me...

But, yes, anyone with BF as a hero... amazing...

juiceman,

you consider it balanced to judge the president's performance on the basis of daily market fluctuations and to insist that cheerleading is the primary role of the head of state? if that's balanced, i'd much prefer unbalanced.

Yeah, Herseth might be the best, but the competition is not so strong.

I would expect a guy with a screen name of type3secretion to know what snowballing is, and I will have none of that.

and when all else fails, make shit up. barney frank is my hero?

well, you are certainly unbalanced... I give you that.

i'm still waiting to hear the genesis of your brilliant political philosophical ideas. no one i mentioned? could it be schopenhaur? schiller? liebniz? berkley? or is it socrates? democritus? epicurus? niebuhr? shklar?

"clearly you are as much of an expert on harvard as nyc10022 is on political philosophy."

So you are saying that Harvard isn't overwhelmingly liberal? LMAO! I've never walked through campus without coming across a sit in or some rage infested save the glow worm type hoopla.

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/march_1998_1.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Harvard_too_liberal

http://blueline.harvarddems.com/

"thinks we have a regressive system!"

i don't 'think it,' i know it and experience it. my secretary pays a significantly higher effective tax rate than i do on her 85k salary. with long-term capital gains taxed at 15%, and taking into account payroll taxes, her tax rate is 30-40% higher than mine.

juiceman, i have no idea what that your links are intended to prove, but here goes

1. the first is a right-wing website pushing the issue of Peter Berkowitz. Peter was a professor of mine and is a nice guy, but he himself acknowledges that he was a weak candidate for tenure (you can email him and he will tell you). his complaint against harvard was that the tenure process itself is unfair, not that he himself should have been granted tenure. he certainly never claimed that his political views (which are not actually conservative) had anything to do with his tenure case.

2. this is an anonymous wiki answer, not exactly definitive evidence. but what does it say? that harvard as an institution is neither conservative nor liberal and does not take politics into account when admitting students.

3. i don't even know what this is. most campuses have conservative, liberal, non-partisan, and humor publications. so what?