Economic Stimulus

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by thrasher

We could easily get into a wasteful spending war here, and I'm pretty sure the Republicans will not fare well either. Characterizing pork spending as exclusive to Democrats is absurd. Of course there is pork in this bill!

Well, I can't speak for anyone else. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Dems are the only party responsible for pork spending, but we're discussing THIS bill, at THIS point in time, with a federal government under Democratic reign in all three branches. Right NOW, it's perfectly appropriate to characterize the pork in THIS bill as Democratic. Like it or not, it IS a Democratic bill.

NOW is NOT the time for pork projects. If it takes Republican hard headedness and partisan saber rattling to bring it to more debate, so be it. And if the Republicans don't get on board and this bill tanks us, what then? Blame them for not wanting to help sink the ship?

I would quote Bob's post #49 for truth, but I don't want to see soup lines and I sincerely hope we can get out of this mess. However, it won't happen with Obama still back on the campaign trail and Pelosi running around congress like she just won the damn lottery.

I'll agree with you on one point; it IS partisan politics, but it needs to be. Somebody had to slow this thing down and get it out into the open. You might want rubber stamped legislation, but many others do not.

If you want to talk about all past grievances and pork spending, then go ahead and start another thread and knock yourself out. Let's talk about THIS one right now.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

If you want to talk about all past grievances and pork spending, then go ahead and start another thread and knock yourself out. Let's talk about THIS one right now.

I was against Bush's 700 billion dollar TARP plan and have not changed my position on the Obama, Pelosi, Reid Democrat 800 billion dollar plan which is a joke and an insult to all Americans. Nothing but a spend, spend, spend bill which is typical of Democrats and in keeping with their ideology. Note: Bush's TARP plan was clearly supported and pushed by the Democrats. More Republicans were opposed to it.

The issue is this particular economic stimulus package which is far from being any form of stimulus package. It is so full of pork and earmarks it is not funny. This is the Mother of all pork bills.

The three Republican Senators that voted for it should be ashamed of themselves.

I sent thank you emails to Senators John Cornyn (R) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) for voting against the bill.

Source: AP

Highlights of Economic Recovery Plan

Spending

Energy
$32 billion Funding for "smart electricity grid" to reduce waste
$20 billion + Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit
$6 billion Funding to weatherize modest-income homes

Science and Technology
$10 billion Science facilities
$6 billion High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas

Infrastructure
$32 billion Transportation projects
$31 billion Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure
$19 billion Water projects
$10 billion Rail and mass transit projects

Education
$41 billion Grants to local school districts
$79 billion State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid
$21 billion School modernization

Health Care
$39 billion Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid
$90 billion Help to states with Medicaid
$20 billion Modernization of health-information technology systems
$4 billion Preventative care

Taxes
Individuals:

$400 per worker, $800 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion. Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor. Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children. A $2,500 college tuition tax credit. Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time

Businesses:

An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two. Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment. Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases. Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans. Source: Associated Press

[CL8]

Originally Posted by thrasher

As far as Obama is concerned, how could any leader possibly be doing better in his position?

1. By giving REAL tax cuts to all people of all income levels
2. Don't spend billions our budget doesn't have. Ordinary citizens aren't even allowed to spend like this.
3. Down size government, get rid of unneccesary positions , like private companies are now doing.

He is pushing for increased personal responsibility for all Americans

Except for HIMSELF!

as well as serious review and slashing of ineffective programs (Reagan anyone?)

While CREATING hundreds more INeffective programs!

He wants to require welfare recipients to earn their keep through public service. And he wants to create millions of jobs by investing in public works and infrastructure. I've said this before, but all 3 of the biggest economic booms in modern times (Germany WWII, US post WWII, and China recently) have been associated with massive infrastructure and public works projects. This money HAS to be spend. Cutting taxes alone will not do the job.

You can't do all that if you destroy the private companies that would be used for those jobs!

[HotZ28]

The plan has more than $3 billion in “neighborhood stabilization” and Community Development Block Grant funding, much of which will go to benefit ACORN!

And this one put's the icing on the cake; the "stimulus" bill had $30 million allocated for restoration of wetlands to be spent in the San Francisco Bay Area – Pelosi’s district. The money will go in part to protect the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. 30-million for RATS?

After all is said & done!

[BNaylor]

It looks like the stock market and investors don't have any confidence at this point in time with any of Obama's economic policies. In case anyone has not noticed the market has been in a downward spiral since he took office.

Yesterday the Dow was at its lowest levels since 1997.

Source: AP
Major stock market indexes fall to 1997 levels

NEW YORK (AP) — The major stock market indexes have staggered to their lowest levels in more than a decade, pulled down by investors' rapidly waning confidence. The Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard & Poor's 500 index are at the lowest point since 1997, succumbing to growing worries about a recession that has no end in sight.

Link to Article

[HotZ28]

Alan Keyes: Obama Will Destroy U.S.

Click Here

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

It looks like the stock market and investors don't have any confidence at this point in time with any of Obama's economic policies. In case anyone has not noticed the market has been in a downward spiral since he took office.

[/i]

Because we all know stocks were doing so well before Obama took office. In fact, I do remember a distinct upward trend before Obama took office, and it looked like Bush was going to lift the country right out of this recession

Originally Posted by HotZ28

Alan Keyes: Obama Will Destroy U.S.

Click Here

That was really, really good. I especially like the radical communist, infanticide, and birth certificate parts. Oh man, thanks for the laugh!

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Because we all know stocks were doing so well before Obama took office. In fact, I do remember a distinct upward trend before Obama took office, and it looked like Bush was going to lift the country right out of this recession

I don't know about doing so well but obviously they were higher up to the weekend before Obama's inauguration. A fact is a fact no matter how you parse it.

Stock Market Closing Prices - 1/16/09

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close - 8281.22 Up 68.73
Nasdaq Stock Market Close - 1529.33 Up 17.49
S&P 500 Close - 850.09 Up 6.35

Giving the man some credit at least Obama has sense enough to realize he inherited the economy from Bush and the do nothing democratic majority U.S. Congress. Gee ...........but wasn't he a member of the U.S. Senate.

Or as for inheriting the mess how about we go back to Bill Clinton and his social engineering experiment with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which last time I checked was the main reason for our current financial meltdown and the stock market heading South.

Government Intensifies Mortgage Investigation

New York Times
Published: May 5, 2008

Federal agencies are intensifying a criminal investigation of the mortgage industry and focusing on whether some lenders turned a blind eye to inflated income figures provided by borrowers.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the criminal division of the Internal Revenue Service have formed a task force to examine mortgages that were made with little or no proof of the earnings or assets of borrowers, a government official who had been briefed on the matter said Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/bu...ef=patrick.net

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

New York Times
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...p=1&sq=&st=nyt

Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’

Los Angeles Times
By Ronald Brownstein
May 31, 1999 in print edition A-5

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

Analysis: Reckless Mortgages Brought Financial Market to Its Knees

September 18, 2008
By John R. Lott, Jr.

Surprisingly, research done by economists a decade ago in 1998, particularly by Professors Ted Day and Stan Liebowitz at the University of Texas at Dallas, predicted the current problems and tried to warn people of a different cause. Starting during the early 1990s, mortgage-underwriting standards have been consistently weakened. Many of the names involved in the forefront of those changes, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as Countrywide and Bear Stearns, have been the most prominent financial entities to become insolvent.

Others did not share these economists' concerns. The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than ‘concern about housing.'"

The changes in underwriting standards were pushed to accomplish what many called a "noble goal" -- an increase in home ownership among poor and minority Americans -- but the changes created a time bomb that was set off as soon as property values began to decline. The new rules involved eliminating verification of income or assets, little assurance of the ability to pay the mortgage, and virtually eliminating down payments.

Making it possible for otherwise unqualified people to buy homes increased demand and increased the price of houses. As long as housing prices rose, the problems inherent in not requiring down payments or relaxing other standards were hidden. While prices rose, no one had to default. Instead, if someone was unable to pay the mortgage, the obvious option was to sell the house at a profit. As long as prices continued to rise, people could accurately claim that the new standards did not have an appreciably different default rate than the old standards.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424945,00.html

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

A fact is a fact no matter how you parse it.

Funny, you were saying quite the opposite in the racism thread

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Giving the man some credit at least Obama has sense enough to realize he inherited the economy from Bush and the do nothing democratic majority U.S. Congress. Gee ...........but wasn't he a member of the U.S. Senate.

Or as for inheriting the mess how about we go back to Bill Clinton and his social engineering experiment with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which last time I checked was the main reason for our current financial meltdown and the stock market heading South.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that Clinton had a hand in this. Although, to be fair, to deny that Bush and co. played a large part is equally insane.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories," California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_147311.html

In June 2002, President Bush spoke in Atlanta to unveil a plan to increase minority homeownership.

“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

So let's put the partisanship aside for a minute and recognize that both parties have responsibility in this matter. The wheels were set in motion long before Obama stepped in office.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Funny, you were saying quite the opposite in the racism thread

I don't recall that. The problem is you did not present any facts or any prima facie proof in your last reply at that thread. You yourself conceded it was not racism which was your argument in the first place. In other words you lost the debate by your own admission so therefore, nothing further to discuss on that matter. ........

Originally Posted by thrasher

I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that Clinton had a hand in this. Although, to be fair, to deny that Bush and co. played a large part is equally insane.

No one said Bush had nothing to do with it. Obviously it was his watch. But that is what happens when you deviate from good ole basic conservatism or listen to bad advice. My position has always been both parties are to blame for the financial meltdown so nothing has changed in my beliefs. But liberals are always one sided about it. The only reason why you conceded on Clinton is the facts supported my argument.

Contrary to your argument and articles Bush called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae many times over from 2001-2008 and the Demos ignored the warnings so what is their excuse?

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.

Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president's warnings:


** 2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

** 2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

** 2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
In 2005-- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending.
Democrats blocked this reform, too.

More... Not only did democrats not act on these warnings but Barack Obama put one of the major Sub-Prime Slime players on his campaign as finance chairperson.

Source/Link

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

I don't recall that. The problem is you did not present any facts or any prima facie proof in your last reply at that thread. You yourself conceded it was not racism which was your argument in the first place. In other words you lost the debate by your own admission so therefore, nothing further to discuss on that matter. ........

I forgot about the part in the thread where you provided a ton of evidence indicating that racism does not exist and that minorities have equal opportunity. I guess your formal logic skills are far superior to mine

No one said Bush had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by BNAYLOR

It looks like the stock market and investors don't have any confidence at this point in time with any of Obama's economic policies. In case anyone has not noticed the market has been in a downward spiral since he took office

Your post implies that the poor performance of the stock market is correlated with Obama being in office. Of this you have absolutely no corroboration, in fact everything indicates otherwise. See the DJI crash from 2007-current
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJXJI

The index has lost around 8% while Obama has been in office, compared with the 40-45% it lost under Bush. In a much more correct statement of fact, the markets have continued its decline under Obama, NOT "the markets have been in a downward spiral since he took office.

But liberals are always one sided about it.

I love ad hominem attacks, they always strengthen your argument!

The only reason why you conceded on Clinton is the facts supported my argument.

See thread entitled "The Official Barack Obama Thread", post #17, and you'll find this beauty

Originally Posted by Thrasher, posted over one month ago

I couldn't agree more. There is no question that Clinton had a hand in deregulation and other factors that played a large part in this whole mess.

Contrary to your argument and articles Bush called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae many times over from 2001-2008
and the Demos ignored the warnings so what is their excuse?

I'm not going to deny that Bush wanted reform, and he was probably right about that. Good for him, seems he got at least one thing right. Still doesn't absolve him and the Pubs from their stake in this mess.

[03cavPA]

Look, it goes much farther back. Here's a thought: let's just substitute the words "federal government" whenever we use the words "bush", "clinton", "reagan", et al, to assign blame for our economic ills. The Republican party hasn't looked like "Republicans" for a long time now. To me, they're just a slightly different flavor of Democrat. It's basically the illusion of a 2-party system.

Let's not forget the contribution of "the American consumer", who bought into this in the first place. How anyone in their right mind thought we could sustain that level of "growth" in the economy is beyond me. Any fool knows you can't continuously spend more than you make without having it bite you dead square in the fanny eventually.

At this point, partisanship (if it's even real) is only going to postpone the inevitable if it even slows it down at all, but rubber stamping this stuff is not good, either. Some of us may not like it when the "opposition" throws up a roadblock or two, but some of this legislation needs to be slowed down and examined.

In the end, it gets passed anyway and we all suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, paying for these bills will probably put us under, maybe even for good.

If we think the govt needs to take care of us, even those who will not take care of themselves, then they'll have to take all of our money and spend it for us. If you think the US govt knows how to spend your money better than you do, then I guess you deserve this.

Rome is burning, guys. The Circus Maximus is on Capitol Hill.

[BNaylor]

Every time Obama opens his mouth the stock market continues its downward spiral. Obviously his quasi State of the Union speech or coming out party yesterday evening did not help or have anyone fooled. The Dow finished up the day at 7270.89, down -80.05 (-1.09%) after a roller coaster ride and dipping to a low of 7114.30 before rebounding somewhat thanks to Mr. Bernanke. It would have been worse if Fed Chairman Bernanke didn't weigh-in and reassure investors. The bottom line is Obama's B.S. speech had no impact except to drive the market down today.....again. Inspirational and brings hope my rear end. This man is nothing but a train wreck. Obviously, there is ZERO confidence in him from Wall Street to Main Street.

Source: Liberal rag LA Times
Stocks rebound on Bernanke's economic assessment

February 25, 2009
Reporting from New York -- Soothing words from Federal Reserve chief Ben S. Bernanke helped the stock market rebound Tuesday from a plunge to 11-year lows, but investors worried that the rally could be only a short-lived bounce.

By telling Congress that policymakers did not plan to nationalize banks, Bernanke relieved at least temporarily a swirling fear that the government could assume control of major institutions.

Link to Article

It is no surprise even liberal commentators like MSNBC's Chris Matthews of Hardball are having their doubts. "Chris Matthews Calls the Dow Jones Obama's Scorecard"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kn3a2Cd-ZQ


Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid if you believe otherwise.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Every time Obama opens his mouth the stock market continues its downward spiral.

Someone has been listening to Sean Hannity!

[drunken monkey]

If any one person can make a speech about plans on what we need to do that can immediately reverse global trends and recession, then I will give all my life savings to him.

It doesn't matter who was/is the President and what the speech was about, nothing is going to change the simple fact that the markets are going to go down for the next year.

I also find it rather perplexing.
On the one hand, you say you are against the bail out plans. That suggests you prefer to see the companies and banks simple fail and go out of existence. That in turn would have a devastating effect on the Dow Jones. Is this a case of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't?

On a slightly related note, I saw the last half hour of that speech on our news channels here and the one thing stands out most in my mind, is that lady in the green behind Obama who seemed to want to be the first to stand up and applaud. The rest of it is just the usual stuff we see whenever a political leader addresses the parties.