Ownership of the Economy?

[ford nut]

Are you contributing to the conversation or just trolling?
Do you think the stock market is reflect the confidence of business in Obama's policies?

Contributing by getting Foxpaws to smile.

I though she might need one after the righties have taken turns trying to beat her down.
I like that she is here...she is good entertainment.

I doubt that lack of confidence in Obama's policies is the main reason why the market is were its at right now.

 

[fossten]

Heck, I've made money in the market in the last 6 months... And my guy is really, really good...

Plus, what good is gold? You are looking at a antiquated monetary symbol too... All your gold is only as good as what it can buy. If you are hungry, a cow is going to be worth ever so much more than a whole pile of gold...

Did I say 'gold?'

Straw man.

 

[foxpaws]

I disagree. It would appear that you've never returned from a chemically altered planed.

Planet Chemically Altered? A nice place to visit perhaps, but, as a sustainable lifestyle, I don’t think so. I still think it isn’t nice that your side doesn’t share

I wouldn't blame Obama for the unemployment figure today or the GDP, but you should be able to acknowledge that Wall Street is dynamic and can react very quickly to things he's doing.

So, don’t you think that before Obama got into office it was mostly reacting to the news of the day. Which was bad economic news, not Obama might be doing this news… Current events do more to shape the market than anything. Wall Street certainly isn’t too well known lately for looking 3 months in advance. Heck, if they look 3 days in advance any more it is a miracle.

And that was Bush and Bush alone?
Did Obama vote for it? Perhaps you were unaware of this, but he did.

Bush/Paulson created it, and created an urgency to get it passed – and yes the congress including Obama voted it in. But, how that 350 billion has been handed out up until now has been at Paulson’s discretion. Congress or Obama’s hands aren’t clean in getting TARP passed, but the only dirty hands regarding how most of it has been spent up until now are Paulson’s and Bush’s.

But, your finance guy... would he be the same guy who sells the stuff for a living? When did he tell you to get out of the market?

In September… And I don’t pay… I had lost a tiny bit from May to September (but he has made it all back and then some in the last 6 months).

Personally, I won't even consider jumping in until 5k. And if someone doesn't pull the E-brake on Obama and Pelosi soon, I might just wait until 2000.

So you saw the CBS thing? It is a gamble, the stock market. Why people close to retirement had their money in it I will never know. People had been lured into the idea that it was ‘safe’ I guess.

 

[foxpaws]

Did I say 'gold?'

Straw man.

Nope - sorry, I assumed... But I would imagine you won't tell me what 'precious' metals you are hoarding in your basement next to the ammo.

 

[fossten]

In September… And I don’t pay…

LOL...yes you do! You may not pay up front loads, but you DEFINITELY pay back end management fees.

So many 'self educated' stock investors...I want to quote P.T. Barnum right now.

 

[fossten]

Nope - sorry, I assumed... But I would imagine you won't tell me what 'precious' metals you are hoarding in your basement next to the ammo.

Basement? Who said basement?

Straw man.

 

[foxpaws]

LOL...yes you do! You may not pay up front loads, but you DEFINITELY pay back end management fees.

Some, I am only in a couple of funds, otherwise I am in individual stocks. And, heck if their service is good - you don't mind paying for the back end...

 

[Calabrio]

Contributing by getting Foxpaws to smile.

You should send her a nude picture of yourself.

I doubt that lack of confidence in Obama's policies is the main reason why the market is were its at right now.

There are a lot of reasons why the markets have fallen and been falling.
So you don't think the market is responding to things that he's doing- like public statements or policies he's supporting and passing through the Congress?


And if you'd like to help foxpaws, thoughtfully join the discussion.

 

[ford nut]

You should send her a nude picture of yourself.

Nope....don't need that kind of trouble at home.
Plus she has plenty of boy toys already.

There are a lot of reasons why the markets have fallen and been falling.
So you don't think the market is responding to things that he's doing- like public statements or policies he's supporting and passing through the Congress?

Like you said....There are a lot of reasons why the markets have been falling.
Obama has little to do with it, no matter who was in office they would have a mess to deal with.

And if you'd like to help foxpaws, thoughtfully join the discussion.

She needs no "help" from me...she does fine on her own.

 

[shagdrum]

I never blame the incoming president for the economy for the first year, or longer.

So, what is the point of the president-elect in commenting publicly on the economy at all? Bush was clearly aimming at influencing public perception when he did it. Obama was clearly doing the same. In fact, if I remember correctly, Obama was actually holding press conferences on it.

There is no other reason to comment on the economy other then to steer, shape and change public perception on the economy.

 

[luxuryrules]

There is no other reason to comment on the economy other then to steer, shape and change public perception on the economy.

.... you mean aside from playing the political game of trying to make himself look good because of what he wanted to do with the economy? Or attempting to restore the public's confidence in it? You can, and I expect you to, point out that he failed miserably on both counts, but were I a politician in his shoes I would have held similar press confrences for the express purpose of telling people how I was going to fix things. The markets may have reacted, sure, but the intent behind the press conferences was less to do that than they were simple political posturing.

 

[shagdrum]

.... you mean aside from playing the political game of trying to make himself look good because of what he wanted to do with the economy? Or attempting to restore the public's confidence in it? You can, and I expect you to, point out that he failed miserably on both counts, but were I a politician in his shoes I would have held similar press confrences for the express purpose of telling people how I was going to fix things. The markets may have reacted, sure, but the intent behind the press conferences was less to do that than they were simple political posturing.

That "political posturing" is pointless unless it is aimed at shaping and steering public perception. Weather that means bringing down pubilc perception to a realistic level, restoring confidence, whatever, it is all aimed at steering public perception. Pointing out how you are going to fix the economy in that context is only a means to that end of shaping public perception on the economy.

 

[luxuryrules]

I typed up an answer, but I think I misunderstood you. We appear to be on the same page here. I had thought you were making a point that he was trying to shape the economy, but I see now you were simply indicating he tried to influence public perception of the economy. Good distinction.

I do think you're underestimating how much he's doing simply working the people to maintain good poll numbers - but that kind of allegation is true of any politician.

 

[shagdrum]

I typed up an answer, but I think I misunderstood you. We appear to be on the same page here. I had thought you were making a point that he was trying to shape the economy, but I see now you were simply indicating he tried to influence public perception of the economy. Good distinction.

I do think you're underestimating how much he's doing simply working the people to maintain good poll numbers - but that kind of allegation is true of any politician.

You can't underestimate the effect of public perception on the economy. In economics and politics, the old adage that "perception is reality" is very true on so many levels. That is how most short term economic effects take place.

The eventual reduction in demand for gas toward the end of last summer and throughout the winter is a prime example of that perception of fuel shortages having an effect on the market. Demand actually went from outpacing supply to dropping far below supply levels.

There is a distinction between actually shaping the economy and influencing public perception, but there is also a huge overlap. Influencing public perception cannot reverse overall growth or shrinkage in the economy as a whole, but it can magnify a trend one way or the other.

 

[Calabrio]

Obama - February 2, 2008...
"I will be held accountable. I have got four years," the president said. "I think a year from now people are going to see that we are starting to make some progress, but there is still going to be some pain out there. If I do not have this [economic recovery] done in three years, then there is going to be a one-term proposition ."​

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-02-02-voa38.cfm

I think Obama has taken ownership of the economy. He has taken decisive action. There will be one person/party to blame if this goes wrong. The Republicans have seen to that. However the Dems and the president are NOT acknowledging that the decisions they are making, the signals they are projecting, and the statements they are making are making this bad situation worse. Because the solutions that are now in place will take time to work.

Carter's recession, which started in Jan, 1980 and sort of cycled up to July 1980 and then cycled back down in July 1981 and then back to November 1982 was 31 months long (sort of a little break in the middle - but most economist's label the entire time period as the 'Carter' recession)- about 13 months under the Carter administration, and 18 under Reagan.

Reagan took 18 months. I think Obama can do it in less time -

And I don't expect Obama to say now, or in the near future, that his policies and his plans are not going to work. That is ridiculous, I wouldn't expect him to say that the actions that he has taken are wrong for at least 18 months. It takes time to improve economies, but apparently the conservatives on this site have forgotten this little fact.

Flashback.

 

[fossten]

Flashback.

 

[Calabrio]

DNC chair: 'We own the economy'
By: Molly Ball
June 15, 2011 11:35 AM EDT

Democrats are ready to take responsibility for the state of the economy and they deserve credit for putting it on the right track, the party’s chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said on Wednesday.

“We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery, not go back to the policies of the past under the Bush administration that put us in the ditch in the first place,” Wasserman Schultz told Mike Allen at POLITICO’s ‘Playbook Breakfast.’

The economy, she said, “has turned around” since President Obama took office, with steady job growth evident even if the pace leaves something to be desired.

Republicans have ridiculed Democrats’ claims of economic success in the wake of disappointing jobs numbers and an uptick in the unemployment rate.

Wasserman Schultz said Democrats aren’t in need of a new story to tell about the economy because they’ve put the right policies in place. “I don’t think it’s about what we say, it’s about what we do.”

She said Democrats’ actions demonstrate their commitment to the middle class while Republicans’ do not. Though she commended several individual Republicans by name — including her home state colleague, Rep. Daniel Webster — Wasserman Schultz said the party’s leadership in the house is beholden to an extreme faction.

“Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House right now seems to have been strangled by the tea party,” she said. “The tail seems to be wagging the dog right now.”

Republicans, she said, know better but lack courage. “They know how to do it the right way, they know how to compromise, they just can’t seem to break their fear of what the ramifications would be from the tea party right-wing fringe if they listened to what their inner self tells them to do.”

As the 2012 presidential race intensifies, Wasserman Schultz took shots at the Republican field, calling it a “collection of deeply flawed candidates.”

She singled out former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, whose economic plan she criticized; former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who she said will have to explain his past support for an individual health-care mandate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whom she described as inconsistent.

“Mitt Romney’s problem is that Mitt Romney has to have a debate with himself about who he is,” she said.

But Wasserman Schultz came to the defense of two potential GOP rivals, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying it is unfair for the media to portray them as pitted against each other simply because they are both women.

“Even though I don’t agree with either Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann on virtually anything,” she said, to laughter from the audience, “I do think the unique scrutiny … because of their gender” and “highlighting the potential conflict between them” is a product of the media’s desire for juicy storylines. “I think it’s inappropriate.”

Arguing strongly for increasing representation of women in elected office, she said that while progress has been made, “The good ol’ boys’ system is alive and well.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E71D0AD3-45F7-42D0-AB74-3A5D5F2DD81B

Of course, this media has forgotten this statement only a month after it was made.

A lot has taken place since this thread was originally created and I think most of us have learned an awful lot over the past two years as well.