Anyway, From 2 months ago: 'OBAMA: I saved the stock market'
What a crazy thread title!!!
It is un-fucking-believable how stupid vittard is.
What a crazy thread title!!!
It is un-fucking-believable how stupid vittard is.
Your base is suffereing
well, I guess some may not know how bad they have it, but the democratic base (read the Pauls) have suffered every year under Obama
and they're the people he says he's helping, go figure
Oh of course it is...unless that is you think CBS news is right wing conspiracy stuff too....which one's it gonna be dickface? You are such a useless drone of left wing hackiness you should take a shower after every lie you spread..but you actually believe them. Good fucking grief.
Maybe Slick Willie was lying about his? The timing was impeccable.
By Jake Miller CBS News July 31, 2014, 4:33 PM
Bill Clinton: "I could have killed" Osama bin Laden
Getty Images
The day before the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, former President Bill Clinton told a group of businessmen in Australia that he "could have killed" the man behind those attacks, Osama bin Laden, in 1998, but he decided against launching a strike out of concern for civilian casualties.
It's a startling and tragic bit of irony that remained hidden until Wednesday, when Michael Kroger, the former head of the Liberal Party in Australia, released the audio during an interview on Sky News. Mr. Clinton knew he was being recorded, but the audio was never released because Kroger said he'd forgotten about it until last week.
Clinton was speaking to Kroger and about 30 other businessmen in Melbourne for a paid gig on September 10, 2001, when he was asked about international terrorism.
Play Video 60 Minutes Presents: Killing bin Laden
"I'm just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden - he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him - and I nearly got him once," said Clinton, who'd departed the White House earlier that year. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn't do it."
The 9/11 Commission Report, released in the aftermath of the attacks, documented the proposed December 1998 strike on Kandahar, noting that the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised the president against launching cruise missiles at bin Laden and his associates. Officials were concerned about residual damage, including the roughly 200 to 300 civilians who could have been killed by such a strike.
Roughly five months before that strike was aborted, though, the U.S. did launch airstrikes at terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that officials alleged was helping al Qaeda build chemical weapons. Those attacks were justified as retaliation for the bombings at U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya earlier that month.
They did not incapacitate al Qaeda, though, as the terror group went on to execute the deadliest terrorist attack in American history on September 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.
Bin Laden eluded U.S. authorities for years in the wake of those attacks, but he was eventually killed in 2011 in Pakistan by U.S. Special Forces.
© 2014 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
It’s foolish to blame Obama for stock-market woes By Rick Newman
It’s Obama’s fault.
Expect to hear that a lot during the next 15 months as Republican presidential hopefuls blame everything imaginable on the president whose party they want to bounce from the White House.
Recent turmoil in the stock market, for instance, is Obama’s fault, according to Republicans Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Chris Christie and others. Trump, for instance, said of China, “they’ll bring us down. We have nobody that has a clue.” Then he said President Obama should cancel the upcoming state dinner with Chinese president Xi Jinping and give him a double Big Mac instead. Walker argued that “We need to see some backbone from President Obama on U.S.-China relations." And Christie said the stock-market sell-off resulted from “a history of failed policies by this president.”
Obama certainly has some policy liabilities (exhibit A might be his vow to take decisive action in Syria, which never happened), but if you blame Obama for the 9% drop in stocks during the last week, then you’re basically saying Obama is responsible for what happens in the stock market. And if you’re saying that, then you have to give him credit for the huge gains in stock values that have occurred during his presidency.
By that standard, Obama has been a genius and his China policy has worked wonders. Since the day Obama took office, for instance, the S&P 500 stock index has risen by about 125%, or roughly 20% per year. The smartest hedge fund managers don’t get returns that high. The only thing Obama didn’t do is open a trading account for every American and give them a complimentary $10,000 starter fund.
Better to acknowledge that the president—any president, of any party—has little influence over the stock market, or even over the broad direction of the economy. Sure, presidents can talk up the economy and try to convince consumers and investors everything is great. They can also enact laws and policies that trigger growth, if they can get Congress to go along (which Obama pretty much can’t). But the Federal Reserve has much more influence over the direction of markets than the president does, and even the Fed can short-circuit reality only so long. Sooner or later, financial markets always reach equilibrium levels that will be as satisfying or ugly as underlying fundamentals, regardless of presidential policies.
This is a lesson China seems to be learning as government efforts to prop up the rigged stock markets of Shanghai and Shenzen fail repeatedly. China's communist government created incentives for Chinese investors to buy stocks, which now looks a bit like a Ponzi scheme as buyers bail and the government tries to keep them from selling. This isn’t U.S. policy, it’s Chinese policy, and one America probably couldn’t talk them out of under any circumstances. China is prideful and stubborn, and it can behave in ways that make no sense to free marketers longer than anybody would like.
China is the current catalyst for the turmoil in financial markets, but this may only be because markets were fragile—and U.S. stocks possibly overbought—with something likely to crack the eggshell. It just turned out to be China. Investors are now resetting their expectations and factoring in slower growth in China than assumed until recently: 4% or 5% annually, say, down from 7% or so. How could Obama have let this happen?
When the manic behavior ends, investors will realize that China’s economy is much more dependent on the United States than the other way around. We’re their biggest customer, buying much of what they make. China is a big global consumer of raw materials, but they don’t buy much of what we make here in the U.S. (And yes, we still do make some stuff here.) The health of the Chinese economy matters here, and everywhere, but it would take a real rout in Asia to cause lasting harm here. The wobbles we’re feeling now are there because the whole world is interconnected and money flows like water. The president can't change that.
Republican candidates may not care about the details because they’re trying to get the attention of base voters who don’t like Obama anyway. Luckily for them, there’s more than one villain to pin the blame on when markets stumble. The Federal Reserve is about to raise interest rates, and that, too, is beginning to unnerve investors, even though the Fed has done more to stimulate the recovery we're in than any other body. Obama and the Fed: They caused this problem together. You heard it here first.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.
It’s Obama’s fault.
Expect to hear that a lot during the next 15 months as Republican presidential hopefuls blame everything imaginable on the president whose party they want to bounce from the White House.
Recent turmoil in the stock market, for instance, is Obama’s fault, according to Republicans Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Chris Christie and others. Trump, for instance, said of China, “they’ll bring us down. We have nobody that has a clue.” Then he said President Obama should cancel the upcoming state dinner with Chinese president Xi Jinping and give him a double Big Mac instead. Walker argued that “We need to see some backbone from President Obama on U.S.-China relations." And Christie said the stock-market sell-off resulted from “a history of failed policies by this president.”
Obama certainly has some policy liabilities (exhibit A might be his vow to take decisive action in Syria, which never happened), but if you blame Obama for the 9% drop in stocks during the last week, then you’re basically saying Obama is responsible for what happens in the stock market. And if you’re saying that, then you have to give him credit for the huge gains in stock values that have occurred during his presidency.
By that standard, Obama has been a genius and his China policy has worked wonders. Since the day Obama took office, for instance, the S&P 500 stock index has risen by about 125%, or roughly 20% per year. The smartest hedge fund managers don’t get returns that high. The only thing Obama didn’t do is open a trading account for every American and give them a complimentary $10,000 starter fund.
Better to acknowledge that the president—any president, of any party—has little influence over the stock market, or even over the broad direction of the economy. Sure, presidents can talk up the economy and try to convince consumers and investors everything is great. They can also enact laws and policies that trigger growth, if they can get Congress to go along (which Obama pretty much can’t). But the Federal Reserve has much more influence over the direction of markets than the president does, and even the Fed can short-circuit reality only so long. Sooner or later, financial markets always reach equilibrium levels that will be as satisfying or ugly as underlying fundamentals, regardless of presidential policies.
This is a lesson China seems to be learning as government efforts to prop up the rigged stock markets of Shanghai and Shenzen fail repeatedly. China's communist government created incentives for Chinese investors to buy stocks, which now looks a bit like a Ponzi scheme as buyers bail and the government tries to keep them from selling. This isn’t U.S. policy, it’s Chinese policy, and one America probably couldn’t talk them out of under any circumstances. China is prideful and stubborn, and it can behave in ways that make no sense to free marketers longer than anybody would like.
China is the current catalyst for the turmoil in financial markets, but this may only be because markets were fragile—and U.S. stocks possibly overbought—with something likely to crack the eggshell. It just turned out to be China. Investors are now resetting their expectations and factoring in slower growth in China than assumed until recently: 4% or 5% annually, say, down from 7% or so. How could Obama have let this happen?
When the manic behavior ends, investors will realize that China’s economy is much more dependent on the United States than the other way around. We’re their biggest customer, buying much of what they make. China is a big global consumer of raw materials, but they don’t buy much of what we make here in the U.S. (And yes, we still do make some stuff here.) The health of the Chinese economy matters here, and everywhere, but it would take a real rout in Asia to cause lasting harm here. The wobbles we’re feeling now are there because the whole world is interconnected and money flows like water. The president can't change that.
Republican candidates may not care about the details because they’re trying to get the attention of base voters who don’t like Obama anyway. Luckily for them, there’s more than one villain to pin the blame on when markets stumble. The Federal Reserve is about to raise interest rates, and that, too, is beginning to unnerve investors, even though the Fed has done more to stimulate the recovery we're in than any other body. Obama and the Fed: They caused this problem together. You heard it here first.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.
Vit is no Goebbels. Goebbels knew he was a lying fucking scumbag. Now that might be your opinion of Vit that he's the lowest of the low. But there's really no comparison here. Yes Vit is a nudge. But he's not Satan. And Vit, even when he's wrong which is a fair amount, believes what he's saying.
We have one correction in 6 years and everyone loses their minds. Actual growth is up 2.5%, disposable income is ip 4%+, the housing market has recovered, and gas prices are down. I think the market will be just fine and actually start to grow again next year. This isn't a crash, it's a correction, a big one, but that can be expected after QE 12&3 and no correction in 6 years. No QE 4 is actually a good sign that things are starting to getting healthy again.
This isn't Obama's fault, corrections are a part of the cycle.
This isn't Obama's fault, corrections are a part of the cycle.
Most of the issues are long-term systemic issues that need a paradigm shift to fix.
There are some good things going on. We're in a better place than we were 7 years ago but cutting rates to 0 is going to have adverse effects on asset price inflation, I don't think we can just look at that as a positive sign the recovery is healthy.
No QE4 isn't confirmed yet, neither is interest rates rising this year. The volatility of the last few days already has fed officials giving forward guidance saying maybe we're not going to raise rates yet.
Tough to make a market prediction without knowing what the fed is going to do but if they let rates go up and don't do QE, I don't see the market growing next year especially with the global issues.
Wouldn't increasing interest rates be a good sign that things are getting back to normal though?
Exactly and on Thursday Yellen said we may be doing that soon and the market went from up 1% to down 1% in a few hours. Then Friday was ugly, Monday was ugly. Today had a rally but the NY fed official Dudley said we may have to holdoff on raising rates now. I'm saying if they do begin to raise rates, I'm not sure how the market/economy can digest that given how dependent it has been on 0% policy.
I'm with you things aren't as bad as some say but it is definitely an interesting time.
The Fed has propped up the market for a long time. Can they continue to so forever? Theoretically I suppose they can. However realistically the cat got to come out and shit sometime.
Things are getting better is relative. The economy has been stagnant for so long that the slightest improvement gets everyone’s hopes up. 2% GDP isn’t going to make it.
I’m not a financial wizard by any stretch of imagination but leaving the rate at zero tells me the economy still sucks.
Yeah "corrections part of the cycle" has almost been built into American's minds.
What isn't being mentioned is the corrections are getting more volatile and violent when they're being caused by Gov't or initiatives to create malinvstment rather than consumers and investors making objective decisions, even if they're ultimately incorrect in their analysis.
'00 Tech bubble was a fine correction, it was mostly contained to 1 sector and because of excess and expectations overshooting reality. A lot of good companies and technologies came out of the growth in that period. This is how bubbles are supposed to work. Really the economy didn't even get that bad until 9-11 happened, which was an entirely different issue.
'08 Housing or now with the Gov't, nothing innovative is really coming out of it. It's just moving numbers on a software application. The froth is just in overvalued assets rather than people trying to predict what the next game changing company is.
What isn't being mentioned is the corrections are getting more volatile and violent when they're being caused by Gov't or initiatives to create malinvstment rather than consumers and investors making objective decisions, even if they're ultimately incorrect in their analysis.
'00 Tech bubble was a fine correction, it was mostly contained to 1 sector and because of excess and expectations overshooting reality. A lot of good companies and technologies came out of the growth in that period. This is how bubbles are supposed to work. Really the economy didn't even get that bad until 9-11 happened, which was an entirely different issue.
'08 Housing or now with the Gov't, nothing innovative is really coming out of it. It's just moving numbers on a software application. The froth is just in overvalued assets rather than people trying to predict what the next game changing company is.
Exactly. At this point it's hard to tell how much of the rise in asset prices is due to central bank manipulation and how much of the rise is due to an actual improvement in the fundamentals of the economy. There's no doubt that some of the run up is natural, corporate profits are up and we've had a real recovery from 2008. It's just a matter of what's natural and what's not.
