whats W got to say about,,

[juanbenae]

the stock market continuing to tank? cant he do something?

[turbocarrera]

"Outsourcing is good!"
"The economy is seeing it's strongest growth in 20 years!"
"We've turned the corner!"

Say that enough and Mul will believe it..

[joeclarke]

brutal day today in the markets - scrubbed a hunk off my net worth in just a few hours.

It's all based on the that old issue around crude prices (and natural gas, of course). Shrinking supply (Russian crude at risk with Yukos fiasco) - peaking demand.

Economic growth will be hobbled by high energy prices.

Just wait till you see the pump prices next month, boys!

[techweenie]

W will no doubt have something funny to say about it -- with luck, it'll be like yesterday's howler.

If you want to see some of the Bushisms we missed here in Uh-merica, check this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/quiz/questions/0,5961,612460,00.html?

[speeder]

It's one of those days when I just thank my lucky stars for being poor and not owning any stocks/bonds/real estate/etc..., sitting on the sidelines watching others get creamed.

[fintstone]

Took my money out of the market two days ago...you must not have gotten the call

Oh, thats right...you are not conservatives.

[dd74]

It's about the long haul, guys. Like keeping the throttle down through the whole sweeper.

[on-ramp]

excellent time to buy, the NASDAQ will be over 2,000 in a couple months.

[island911]

Originally posted by k911sc
the stock market continuing to tank? cant he do something?

WTF do you socialist lib's think the President is .. some sort of magic-wizard-parent?

Take some responsibility for yourselves. (I know; thats outside your paradigm.) Anyway, it goes like this; $hit happens, plan for it.

[Moneyguy1]

Island

You make an excellent point.

Whereas both parties attempt to use the economy as a weapon, the truth of the matter is that the economy and the market inparticular are run largely by emotions. And, if the past is any indicator, if the market goes "up" under one party's watch, that party tries to take credit for it, and blames the other party if the market goes "down". The fact of the matter is that the politicos can't have it both ways. Either the federal government has a large role to play or it does not. One of the greatest lies perpetrated on the public is "Think how much worse it would be if we hadn't done (fill in the blank). An unprovable, and our elected officials know it!!!

The very fact that the market is doing poorly says things about investor confidence, both at home and abroad. Unsettled and uncertain as the world is, it may take years for a great degree of that confidence to return.

It has little to do with "liberal" or "conservative" philosophy. It has to do with greed.

But one of the sad offshoots involve people with 401 plans that limit their purchases to company stock and the economy does poorly or the company doesn't make the cut. In this case, they really cannot plan for it. I could cite examples of companies that were riding high a short time ago and are either gone or fighting through bankruptcy.

A politician is one that observes the direction in which the crowd is moving, then runs ahead so he looks like he is leading.

[juanbenae]

island,, you think if the markets were booming right now that bush would not be approving the message in his next tv spot about what his admin has done for the economy? I will admit that the president only has so much control over the day to day economy, but his policies sure as hell do influence the over all health of it. war?

Another thing that bush has done is S on california his entire term and as california goes, so goes the country to some extent. see dotcom rise, late 90's dotcom crash, bush era.

you know if bush was not such a smug arrogant F his gaffes might be funny. a least when bubba was getting oral, he was the everyman there for a minute. lie about the fat chick till you cant lie no more,, then cop to it. ive been there.....

[techweenie]

Here we go again. Some folks here are so predictable: Everything bad that happened on Clinton's watch was his fault. Nothing bad that happens on Bush's watch is his fault.

Nobody here has mentioned that the government recently revised its assessment that America was in recession in the Spring of 2001. Now it's just classified as a 'slow economy.'

This is not good for the Bush supporters who depended on the fiction of a Clinton-caused recession to explain away 3-1/2 years of dismal economic performance.

Presidents can do something to influence the stock market and the US position as economic belwether for the world. They can strive for a balanced budget.

The record deficits produced by this administration are hurting the US economy in many ways that seem invisible to Joe Sixpack, but are very visible to institutional stock traders.

[Superman]

Right. I don't particularly care for the "You're a bunch of idiot-morons who lie all the time" way of introducing your post, but I can't be responsible for other Pelicanheads' level of maturity, or lack thereof.

While I agree that a United States President has little control over the economy, I can also see that the candidates are not going to respect that fact. One of the few measures where Dubya could possibly be considered to be doing a good job is in the economy. At least I've been hearing all about how the libs are crying wolf while the economy is soaring. Dubya has been bragging about this several times each day for many weeks now.

well, as it turns out, the number of jobs actually created in June was extremely disappointing, apparently, to the nation's financial analysts. so, I expect that we'll be hearing soon about how mistaken and misguided the nation's financial analysts, and financial markets for that matter, are....compared to Dubya's razor-sharp economic and analytical skills.

[juanbenae]

sup i reread my post title, and the original content and was wondering if i may have been misquoted by you? i may not be able to defend my lack of maturity (or spelling prowess) around here often, but come on now.

have i misunderstood your reference?

[Superman]

You're fine. Relax. Here's a couple of quotes from a very brief post:

"WTF do you socialist lib's think....?

Take some responsibility for yourselves. (I know; thats outside your paradigm.)..."

Again, relax. I don't think you could post something like the quote above and feel good about it.

[juanbenae]

as you were.

[island911]

Yes super, you clearly have a different approach to disparaging language.

Let me re-phrase that earlier post in "super-speak":

I will apologise, in advance, if this post sounds pedantic, and I don't feel good about posting something like this, but I must share with you all, my thoughts on something stongly affecting the course of events and the nature of people.

While there exist many levels of mental acuity, clearly the socialist lib's among us, are rather challanged in this arena.

This challenging issue, of theirs, is shared and effects all of us. While the socialist lib may like to believe that we are being taken care of. . .craddle to grave, by our pappa-government, this is simply not reallity. Indeed it take the individule to assume self-responsibility for society to progress forward in a civilized manner.

Those mental challenged (socialist lib's) need our help in understanding these, otherwise simple, ideas.

Oh poo! I'm afraid that I may have offended someone.


. . .eh. . .I liked my first version better.

[MichiganMat]

First lets see if he can answer a simpler question:

Whats W got to say about tribal sovereignty?

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/001455.html#001455

[ronin]

what was he supposed to say?

[dd74]

I understand Island's post, especially since the train of thought that gov't should be relied upon for securities long after one's usefulness should have effectively disappeared long ago. If at all, gov't's role has changed with the current administration where for better or worse, its positioning is one of the nation's survival against violence, and not necessarily economic vitality. Besides the fact that no president or his administration wants to see an economic downturn on their watch, economics have never truly been part and parcel to whomever's in office. I can honestly say that though there I've paid an emotional price for Bush's goings-on in Iraq, economically, his efforts have not effected me. I'm not out of work or can't buy food because of his war.

Despite my nostalgia for certain government guarantees; ideals as they are which have been handed down from our parents, I've always known that social security, for example, will run out before I'm at an age to collect what I've put into the system. Other services will likely do the same. Island, aside from his glib and possible offensiveness to liberals, states a true point. If you haven't already been looking out for yourself, you most probably have long since missed the boat.

As far as any wide-reaching lumping of liberals, well, a liberal I am not, so I take no offense to Island. Wisdom can be blunt now and then.