Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-21-2015, 06:17 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,384,355 times
Reputation: 17261

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
It is to the majority of Americans with a 401k.
Thats about 50% of those working, and the median amount is not that large. The majority of Americans are not worried about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2015, 06:22 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,827,388 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Thats about 50% of those working, and the median amount is not that large. The majority of Americans are not worried about it.
It is not the majority of Americans you have to worry about, it is the majority of voters. Seeing as the voting public leans older than average and the largest portion of an individual's wealth besides a home resides in retirement, I think you are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 06:44 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,384,355 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
It is not the majority of Americans you have to worry about, it is the majority of voters. Seeing as the voting public leans older than average and the largest portion of an individual's wealth besides a home resides in retirement, I think you are wrong.
Ahhh moving the goal posts from "the majority of americans" to "majority of voters" Got it.

That being said, you do have a valid point. who will voters blame? The....republican led congress.....or the president that has little effect on the economy?

Or.....will they view the rich who have profited immensely from this, and are richer then any time in our history. This could be the best news ever for a candidate like Bernie sanders....especially if he faced someone like Trump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,860 posts, read 24,359,728 times
Reputation: 32978
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
You obviously don't know much about the stock market.

Corrections are healthy and normal. This is barely a correction, we could still see another 5% decline and it would be fine, nothing close to a meltdown. However, if the markets drop 50% then yes it could hurt Democrats and would be considered a meltdown, but 5-10% from all time highs is nothing, it just shows you don't know anything about the stock market.
With the stock market you never quite know, but the reports I have watched see this as an overdue correction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,317 posts, read 26,236,916 times
Reputation: 15654
Sounds like the same GOP wishful thinking from back in 2009, this isn't about US policy it's about China, oil prices and commodities.

Tune in next month
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 07:06 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,827,388 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Ahhh moving the goal posts from "the majority of americans" to "majority of voters" Got it.

That being said, you do have a valid point. who will voters blame? The....republican led congress.....or the president that has little effect on the economy?

Or.....will they view the rich who have profited immensely from this, and are richer then any time in our history. This could be the best news ever for a candidate like Bernie sanders....especially if he faced someone like Trump.
The rich will not be profiting if the market crashes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 07:35 PM
Status: "everybody getting reported now.." (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
The Democrats seem to be the only ones that pretended to believe that the economy had recovered in an effort to prop up a President that became a lame duck just a few months into this second term. So yes, I'd say this hurts their chances.
1. A Recovery has a set definition, whether you believe it was strong or not is irrelevant to the fact that we were in one.

2. A President is by definition a "Lame duck" once he can not run for re election again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 07:43 PM
 
498 posts, read 543,737 times
Reputation: 883
So is the Fed still talking about raising interest rates? That would take another 2000 points off the market and push the economy over the edge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 07:44 PM
 
498 posts, read 543,737 times
Reputation: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Sounds like the same GOP wishful thinking from back in 2009, this isn't about US policy it's about China, oil prices and commodities.

Tune in next month

Oil prices and commodities will still be down by the time the election hits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 07:46 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,384,355 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
The rich will not be profiting if the market crashes.
OK lets discuss this, because in a way you are both right and wrong.

Their % of the total wealth in the country goes up. Their total wealth might drop-but thats because it was fictional in many ways. They lose 20% of their net gains in the last year. but everyone else has either stayed the same, or lost.

Theirs a reason that the top .1% has seen their % of wealth go up. They have the capital to profit when the crash recovers, whereas those without sufficient capital recover slower.

A good comparison here is the guy making a upper middle class income in 2009, loses his job, and then loses his house. In order to survive he loses half of his 401K that already lost half its value in the crash. IE his loses are the house, the major source of income, and 75% of his investments.

The guy at the top loses 1/2 his stocks.

The recovery hits. Who is doing better? Who buys the guys house he lost? And resells it at a profit. Housing ownership is lower then normal right now...and rents are higher....

Crashes and recoveries are great for those at the top to gain control of a greater % of the wealth. Not so great for everyone else. That make sense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top