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.
Ahhh, the S&P 500 is pretty much where it was when Bush left, lower for the year, pretty much disputes all of the "Stock market increases due to Obama" threads started here, dont it?
So you are not going to honestly own that your original statement was false?
So you are not going to honestly own that your original statement was false?
Game-playing, huh?
I think I confirmed that I mis-spoke on the Marketwatch story (which of course I didnt write), are you going to be honest that Obama had NOTHING to do with the stock market increase that we had recently?
If he did have something to do with the increase, then of course he holds responsibilty for the fall over the last week.
If he didnt have anything to do with the increase, then Bush didnt have anything to do with the decrease..
Which do you prefer? What argument will liberals take today on the topic?
Bush has been out of office for more than five months, and the market is lower than when he left. Will Democrats continue to blame Bush, or will they now come to their senses and play partisan over the fact that the president does not control the market?
I think you need an econ and history class. Probably several of them.
I think you need an econ and history class. Probably several of them.
Really? I note you didnt dispute anything with FACTS, other than your pretend fantasy land that presidents control the market or are you now claiming that Obama is to blame for the current drop?
I think I confirmed that I mis-spoke on the Marketwatch story (which of course I didnt write), are you going to be honest that Obama had NOTHING to do with the stock market increase that we had recently?
If he did have something to do with the increase, then of course he holds responsibilty for the fall over the last week.
If he didnt have anything to do with the increase, then Bush didnt have anything to do with the decrease..
Which do you prefer? What argument will liberals take today on the topic?
What argument will I take today on the topic? Hmmm, think, think, think!
It's coming to me....., yep, by George I think I've got it! Presidents are never 100% responsible for what happens on the stock market, and they're hardly ever 0% responsible. The stock market is a peculiar animal, a gambling device, really, and as such is strikingly unpredictable. But it's not just a gamble, it's also an investment. So it demands a certain level of optimism, a confidence in the future, not just in a specific company, but in the economy as well. Economic stability and growth is entwined with political stability. And the political stability of a country is largely dependent on the actions of its leaders. So, President Bush played some part in the economic downturns, but he certainly wasn't 100% responsible. And in the five months that he's been in office, President Obama has played some part in the roller coaster in the markets that we've seen thus far. Your either/or scenario is not a reality-based proposition.
What argument will I take today on the topic? Hmmm, think, think, think!
It's coming to me....., yep, by George I think I've got it! Presidents are never 100% responsible for what happens on the stock market, and they're hardly ever 0% responsible. The stock market is a peculiar animal, a gambling device, really, and as such is strikingly unpredictable. But it's not just a gamble, it's also an investment. So it demands a certain level of optimism, a confidence in the future, not just in a specific company, but in the economy as well. Economic stability and growth is entwined with political stability. And the political stability of a country is largely dependent on the actions of its leaders. So, President Bush played some part in the economic downturns, but he certainly wasn't 100% responsible. And in the five months that he's been in office, President Obama has played some part in the roller coaster in the markets that we've seen thus far. Your either/or scenario is not a reality-based proposition.
Thats a lot of talk to come to "Obama to blame for the fall".. That would have been so much quicker to say..
I note how this thread is not being joined by all of those liberals who jumped in to credit Obama when the market was going up...
Really? I note you didnt dispute anything with FACTS, other than your pretend fantasy land that presidents control the market or are you now claiming that Obama is to blame for the current drop?
The numbers are what they are. What's to dispute? It's your hypothesis that is ignorant.
The numbers are what they are. What's to dispute? It's your hypothesis that is ignorant.
No more ignorant than how many threads we had to read about how great Obama was and about how Obama was causing the economic recover when the stock market was going down.
My "hypothesis", is simply a recap of the liberal "hypothesis" when the market was going up, but in reverse.. After all, if Obama is to credit for the market going up, then obviously, he is to blame when it goes down.. right?
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.
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.
