Welcome to the U.S.S.A
 

markets tanking on this historic moment and he has not even begin to govern.

IMO there will be a massive tax-selling season till the end of the year. The markets are toast.

I am writing you from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts

Yeah but all the nations of the world love us now!

Its still Bush's Fault....

kumbaya




















now bend over and kiss the rest of your ira goodbye

October job loss reports released today...

that puts it at just under 900,000 jobs loss just this year.

doesnt exactly instill confidence in the casinos, but you can blame the bolsheviks that will be camping in the whitehouse if that makes you feel better too.:hihi:

So it has nothing to do with recession or rising unemployement fears? You prob. should never invest in the stock market.

Thanks for your advice.:doh: You sound like the S&P rating agencies who downgraded the banks after their collapse.

The bad news about the economy is well known, yesterdays market move(over 5%) was directly connected to the election results and money managers reacting to tax and political realities. The value lost just yesterday nationwide was hundreds of billions. Selling will continue thru the end of the year to minimize the inevitable increase cap gains tax effects that will kick in 09. You will retire broke, markets will not recover in you lifetime... baby boomers are leaving the markets for good now and will not return and there are not as many of you to fill the void. You will end up receiving a gov't stipend that will cover enough for you to eek out a meager existence and taxing YOUR kids at 70% to fund your retirement. Enjoy your poverty and new Socialist agenda (and your new found hope).

No one will invest in america (small "a") anymore or want to risk their savings to start a small business with 50%+ total tax burden.

But we will negotiate with terrorists and the French will think we are nice people, that's all that really counts right?:yak6:

:rotf3:

Because McCain would have magically fixed it yesterday right?
The world would live in fear of us and send us all their money.
Some old dying white guy would make the turrrrrists skurred to come here.

Make your bunker yet?

No, I am not saying McCain was the silver bullet to cure all our economic problems. Out of all that ran for the office, Romney would have been the best economic choice to deal with that matter, but that is another matter.I do think McCain would be a better commander in chief, I think even most dems agree with that. Come on, what Military skills does Obama posses. I think your all drawn to him by is articulate and flowery speaking and equate that with experience and leadership skills.

Enough of this I have got to get back to filling out my welfare paperwork.

What Military skills did GWB, BC or Reagan possess. Hell what military skills does Romney possess?
I'll give you the fact that GHWB could have parachuted in and taken out Bin Laden, but the others couldn't....
Leadership is not just learned in the military

like it or not the abosolute FACT is that the market reacted to Obamas presidency adn went down. FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT
Im not all doom and gloom, but a fact is a FACT

see Joe's response on another thread on how a presidents "confidence" affects the economy.

You DO live in MA right?
You're INSANE.

Yup, you have a fundamental lack of knowledge of markets and thus you probably shouldn't invest as the article states stocks have fared better under Dem. admin.

Thanks but I'll retire with plenty of money, I'm highly educated and make plenty of $. Maybe we won't have to cry like little school girls when we get mad the French or other allies won't back us blindly.

Stocks erased all their gains from Tuesday’s rally — the biggest on a presidential Election Day in 24 years — as investors banked their profits and dealt with another round of bleak economic news, this time about businesses that compose nearly 90 percent of the economy.

Managing Globalization: Where Does Economic Growth Come From?
The Dow Jones industrial average tumbled 486.01 points on Wednesday after a daylong sell-off accelerated in the final hour, sending the index to 9,139.27, its lowest level in a week. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index fell 5.3 percent, or 52.98 points, to 952.77, and the Nasdaq composite index lost 5.5 percent, or 98.48 points, to 1,681.64.

On Wall Street, the selling began early after a report showed that activity in the nation’s service industries contracted in October, falling at the fastest rate since records began in 1997.

The index by the Institute for Supply Management dropped to 44.4, from 50.2 in September, on a scale where readings below 50 indicate contraction, the group said on Wednesday.

It was the latest in a string of discouraging data this week on the nation’s construction, manufacturing and service industries, crucial pillars of the American economy that have all suffered this fall.

“In short, horrible,” Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics said of the report. “But only to be expected in the wake of the equity plunge and the subsequent collapse in confidence. We don’t expect the headline to drop much more.”

All 30 stocks in the Dow declined, with financial shares faring worst. Shares of Bank of America, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch all fell more than 11 percent. The big insurers Ambac and MBIA posted deep losses for last quarter and their shares lost 41 percent and 22 percent, respectively.

“I think anytime you do see a rally like we’ve been having, there will always be a little bit of pullback when people wake up and see things like today’s headline number on nonmanufacturing activity, which was the lowest of all time,” Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan Chase, said. “If there’s data out, there’s going to be bad news out. That will tend to keep market enthusiasm a little bit contained.”

Earnings also disappointed at several major businesses, offering a bleak assessments of the current economy. GMAC, the finance company partly owned by General Motors, said that it lost $2.52 billion in the third quarter and that its mortgage unit, ResCap, was struggling to survive. Time Warner, the media and entertainment juggernaut, reported a higher-than-expected profit for the third quarter but lowered its outlook; its stock dropped 6.3 percent.

Crude oil prices dropped $5.23 a barrel to settle at $65.30.

The Treasury’s benchmark 10-year note rose 6/32, to 102 13/32. The yield, which moves in the opposite direction from the price, was at 3.70 percent, down from 3.72 percent late Tuesday.

Wall Street will now turn to Friday’s employment report from the Labor Department, which economists expect will show that 200,000 jobs were lost last month. A separate report released on Wednesday by Automatic Data Processing, a private group, showed that private companies cut an estimated 157,000 jobs in October, the most in almost six years.

The A.D.P. report is considered volatile by economists and has been a poor predictor of this year’s employment figures from the government. Still, investors can refer to it as a gauge for Friday’s more important data, and the news was not good. Layoffs spread from automakers, financial and housing-related companies to retailers and other services as the downturn deepened.

For investors seeking a silver lining, Wednesday’s market downturn seemed to indicate that Wall Street was once again reacting in predictable ways to negative news. For weeks, traders were in crisis mode, obsessing about arcane credit gauges like Ted spreads and credit-default swaps, and wondering about the outcome of the election. On the top of the wish list for investors was a return to stability.

“The market is starting to focus on normal things, like company fundamentals, earnings, macroeconomic data, employment, even market technicals like trend lines,” said Steve Sachs, director of trading at Rydex Investments. “After four or five weeks where none of that mattered, this is the first week we are thinking about that. Markets are moving in a more orderly way.”

For those curious about the connection between stock markets and presidential elections, Wednesday’s declines fit in with historical precedent. Since 1888, on average, stocks fell 0.5 percent from Monday to Wednesday of a presidential election week when the Democrats took the White House, according to Jeremy J. Siegel, a professor at the Wharton School. (A Republican victory brought an average return of 0.7 percent.) This week, stocks fell about 1.5 percent over the same period.

Over the full four-year term, stocks have historically fared better under Democratic administrations.

Stocks in Frankfurt, London and Paris all fell about 2 percent.

wall street went 'mavericky' :hihi:

Think of this from a business sense
If your a large company -
higher taxes - cha ching
more regulation - cha ching (this is what I do for a lving, do you know how much these new regulations cost companies to implement? Tens of millions)

Thats what the markets are reacting to.

markets have done well under Democratic Presidents because of 2 things -
1. War - war has always been fantastic for the markets and we have had most wars under Democratic presidents
2. The tech boom during the Clinton years.

The tech boom during the Clinton years affected far less people than post dotcoms rise did.

Alot were very unfortunate.
Some of us were VERY VERY fortunate. :hihi:

Timing of an economic business cycles and presidential terms is not accurate. For example, much of Clinton's so called success has NOTHING to do with what he did as president...It was Regan before him that created the huge growth in technology thru defense investment in R&D that lead to the computer revolution (amoung many other things)and that let to better efficiencies in business and higher productivity. I know cause I was there and participated in this. This took years to evolve and Clinton hand nothing to do with it. He was too busy getting BJ's and letting terrorists attack our country (ie USS Cole and First WTC attack) and not doing a GD thing about it.

:fury:

DAMN STRAIGHT!
HE SHOULD HAVE RAMBO'D OUT THERE AND BLOWN UP THAT BOAT!
THEN DRIVEN TO THE WTC AND RAMBO'D THOSE GUYS TOO!
HE KNEW!
HE KNEW!

KOOLAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID

RAMBONER :humpty:

:wall:He's been president elect for 2 days. and idiot republicans are already blaming him for the economic problems that started over a year ago. I think it's about time republicans start taking responsibility for screwing everything up over the last 8 years. but they won't. less taxes and regulation is what got us into this mess. it's also the republican plan for getting us out. you just can't reason with that kind of logic:wall:

sandman, do you realize that BUSH was in office during 9/11?


(CNN) -- The White House declassified and released Saturday the daily intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush a month before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The declassified intelligence report said the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings."


:claps:Good Job Mr Bush:claps:

Jim what should I put down on line 38a? The instructions were 59 pages for a 2 page application :fury: :wid:

pssst- the WTC was bombed during Clinton's term. :rolleyes:

The first attack was in 1993.

Put down the bong and pick up the help wanted ads. Every post you make is more immature and ill-informed than the last. You seriously seem to have some issues. What's wrong, did a Republican steal your girl?

Nah, his job.

That would explain why he's all gung ho for raising taxes. Since deadbeats don't pay taxes, it won't affect him.

Jimmy, you seem to be a lighning rod around here. You may be the first person on this site to be prominently mentioned in 2 peoples' signatures. Congratulations!

The Germans??...ahh leave him alone he's on a roll. :hihi:

Lets examine the top 1% taxpayers again to see if they have any incentive to keep making money and if they are losing 50%. Attached is the full summary of all tax returns filed in calender year 2006 published by the IRS - the last data available.

There are 1,357,192 taxpayers in the top 1% of richest taxpayers. They had adjusted gross income of 1.791 Trillion dollars of income. Yes trillion. The average income reported on each of the top 1% returns was $1,320,289. for the year.

The average tax rate ( tax paid as a percent of income) on those 1% returns was 22.79% So the guys make an average of $1,320,289 and paid 22.79% in taxes. See the chart -those are the facts. Yes they pay 40% of total taxes paid but each loses around a quarter of their money to the feds.

So I can't really feel that the 1% people are being destroyed by taxes, that they have no incentive to make any money and if they have to pay 25.98% of their $1,320,289 under Obama's plan that the USA will come to an end.

So lets not panic here.

Doesnt bother me. I love being labeled by liberals. I've shared my background before, I am not a republican, Im in an inter-racial marriage, little mixed kiddies, lived, by my own choice in San Francisco for 6 years, been to more gay/lesbian weddings than anyone on this board, and (as of today!) I am a succesful leader in the financial industry. I have been more places in this country than your average American and my thoughts and beliefs are my own, not something I get from Rove, Repubs or any talking heads.

so what's worse? letting it happen the first time or letting happen after it's already happened once AND you were warned it was going to happen. you people have got to be the most narrow minded, ignorent bunch of jackasses on the planet. not only do you not have a clue what your talking about, but you are also proud of it. I don't know what's worse. republican hypocrisy know no bounds. all I can say is I feel sorry for you, and the rest of you idiots in the jackass club. and fishbones, how is a clip out of a CNN story immature and ill-informed. oh sorry, your right, it was't a fox news story. so it never happened

Wow, that would have to be one heck of a "small business" to be in the top 1%. Do you think landscapers, liquor store owners, contractors, etc...fall into that 1% catergory? The taxes for real small businesses are still an impediment to many small business owners. Also, you are leaving out things like unemployment taxes, real estate taxes, and payroll taxes. Maybe it's not too bad in CT, but in RI it's almost impossible to own and operate a small business profitably.

just for chuckles, how old are you and what do you do for a living?

I didn't say that clip was immature and ill-informed, I said that you were. You posted a story that had nothing to do with the topic at hand but it furthered your agenda (ill-informed).

Then, you call all of us idiots and jackasses. Well I can only speak for myself, and I'm no idiot. I have been called a jackass by a lot of people, so I won't argue that point with you. It's the comments where you make blanket statements like those that show your immaturity.

Even the super-Libs on this site won't stick up for you. Maybe you're trying to come on a little strong, or maybe you're just an angry peson who sits at home blaming everyone else for your lack of success or happiness. In that case, don't feel bad for me. I'll be fine. In fact, I'll even continue paying my taxes so you can afford to by your weed.

which you wont have to worry about if you have less than an ounce thanks to my vote!

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman about Pres Clinton
He was too busy getting BJ's and letting terrorists attack our country (ie USS Cole and First WTC attack) and not doing a GD thing about it.


So I make the point that it happened to Bush too after he was warned. and I'm immature and ill-informed? I know the WTC was bombed while Clinton was in office. But is it fair to point that out and not the fact that it happened again on Bush's watch? or let me guess. 9/11 was bush's fault? If your going to fault CLinton for the attacks in 93' why is it ill-informed to assume we can blame bush for 9/11?