Hard to believe but it's true and happening. The disconnect btw Wall Street and Main street is unbelievable. People are losing their jobs, living on their credit cards and there are no new jobs to start over. I don't know whether you guys are aware but Help Wanted sections are getting smaller and smaller whereever you live.
All economic indicators are bad, you name it, from GDP to jobless rate and initial claims to inventories to durable goods to budget deficits.. the only good ones are the surveys!, yes those Empire State, Phili, Michigan, etc. surveys... And the stockmarket.
This scammarket now became an indicator for the recovery, isn't that great. So, they (WS crooks + their media extensions, esp. CNBC) are saying "economy is recovering, buy equities". So they inflate the market, create a very dangereous bubble again and say, "Look economy is recovering, stock market is the proof" Gee, this is a kindergarten trick..
Jobless rate is skyrocketing and they dismiss that, people are unemployed, they say it's jobless recovery. Can you believe this low-IQ joke.. If people are unemployed, how are they going to spend money and recover the economy? US economy is 80% dependent on consumer spending and guess what: consumers are unemployed and have no money!
THis purely make-believe nonsense is going on for a while but it won't last, can't last, impossible. I am one of those fortune guys who has a decent job and salary + extra money to play in the market but even I know lotsa people around who's husband or wife lost their job recently and they're trying hard to make ends meet. THey sell one of their cars, cancel their vacation plans, etc.. let alone upgrading their electronic devices because it's old?.. give me a break..
Trillions were lost in 2000 bubble, they're going to make more to be lost this time around again. This pathetic game is coming to an end but I hope we won't end up in a great-great depression where everybody loses.
Your post has gotten many recommendations and for good reason. I just want to say one thing though about CNBC, while I agree with your comment about that program I have to say that I have noticed on numerous occasions recently that Mark Haines has questioned almost every guest that has come on the show and who have reported that things are getting better all around. You can see it in his eyes that he's not buying it and on at least two occasions that I have seen he has said "I hope you're right" in response to these self serving son af a bitches.
"McCain's willingness to compromise freedom of speech in order to increase the incumbents' natural advantage in elections didn't bother you?"
No, not in the least because the "freedom of speech" you're defending is based on an absured ruling by the Supreme Court that had ruled money equaled speech, which is about as UN Constitutional as you can get in a nation founded on the priciple that "All Men Are Created Equal".
If we are ALL truly equal, equating money to speech equates the rich as more equal than everyone else doesnt it?
That holds for individuals AND corporations.
"ALL of the Democrat candidates to push for massive expansion of domestic government doesn't give you pause?"
Nope, because they dont try to hide their intentions unlike EVERY Republican President has since Reagan.
They LIE about making government smaller, yet the size of the Federal government grew MORE under Reagan, Bush 1, and Dubya than any Democratic President since Roosevelt during WWII.
"Are you a socialist?"
Im likely more a traditional fiscal conservative in the oldest Republican sense than YOU ARE since you've been misled by the big money loving lifetime politicians into thinking money = Free Speech.
McCain's willingness to compromise freedom of speech in order to increase the incumbents' natural advantage in elections didn't bother you? Perhaps you favor speech codes? The open willingness of ALL of the Democrat candidates to push for massive expansion of domestic government doesn't give you pause? Are you a socialist? Or do you think "just a little bit more good government to fix a few things" is a good idea?
I have to admit that Bush's continuing failure to control the growth of government, even beyond domestic and foreign effects of the War on Terror, has got me steamed. But I'm quite certain ANY of the Democrats would be worse. MUCH worse.
" Wall Street can do incredibly well under a typically unscrupulous Democrat."
Historically, the markets perform better under Democratic administrations.
Which is just the opposite of how most Americans have been led to believe that Republican administrations are the biggest supporters of big business.
I really believe though, that Wallstreet sees Bush as the lessor evil.
They havent recieved the scrutiny most Americans wanted after the scandals of corruption, and they might fear a renewed push for regulations by a Democrat.
"And as you would prefer to keep Bush in for another term......."
No f'in way!
I want anyone but Bush in '04.
Preferrably someone that can reclaim and display the strength shown in 2000 by McCain who I voted for.
(Anyone except for Al Sharpton or Kuchinich, neither are electable for the obvious reasons they are idiots with no backbone.)
Okay. I erred regarding your meaning.
However, though Wall Street may think they'll be better off if Bush gets reelected, I think they're wrong. Wall Street can do incredibly well under a typically unscrupulous Democrat.
And as you would prefer to keep Bush in for another term, I am inclined the other way, probably for reasons that mirror yours.
>If you despise Left Wingers, then I am correct, right?<
Not necessarily. I belong to the Limited Government wing of conservatism. Is that "Right Wing?" Once upon a time it was "Centrism."
I despise so-called right wingers who want to massively expand government, just as I despise left wingers who want to do it. The difference is that ALL left wingers want to expand government. Most "conservatives" (right wingers?) who want to expand government lie about it.
"If you tell me you do NOT think Bush would be behind it, then I'd be more than happy to withdraw my remark."
No, I wasnt claiming Bush was behind it, I was thinking more along the lines that Wallstreet thinks they have more to gain by keeping him in charge than an unknown Democrat.
Like further personal tax cuts for the top 5%, more taxcuts for their corporate clients, and (most importantly) less potential regulations on how Wallstreet conducts its business of fleecing small shareholders by manipulation and deceit.
There are lots of reasons they would prefer to keep Bush in charge another term, I've barely scratched the surface in this post.
".... where do you get the idea I'm a right winger? Because I despise left wingers?"
If you despise Left Wingers, then I am correct, right?
One winged birds only fly in circles.
>Please point to any assertion in my previous post where I said the President was behind anything?<
Hmmm..?! Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that, and I erred in reading it into your remarks. If you tell me you do NOT think Bush would be behind it, then I'd be more than happy to withdraw my remark.
As to that crack about my supposed "Right Wing bias" .... where do you get the idea I'm a right winger? Because I despise left wingers?
Was thinking that they might want to set the stage for 2004 headlines "Markets up 30-50% since the beginning of the year." --coun5int on short memories of the electorate.
But you may be quite right. What if we experience a run up to 15,000 DOW, 6000 NAZ by fall 2004? Patient longs might have made back everything lost in 2000-2002.
"Your fantasy that the President has the kind of power that he can prevent the market from screwing his election chances is quite amusing."
Please point to any assertion in my previous post where I said the President was behind anything?
Try again WITHOUT looking through your Right Wing bias.