Shady

Cramer’s S.O.S.: Obama, Save Our Stocks CNBC

Hmm, considering Rumsfeld had been Defense Secretary for 6 months at that point, are you blaming him for missing money over the previous couple of years? Huh? That being said, massive fiscal irresponsible doesn't condone even more and greater fiscal irresponsiblity, nor does it condone destructive economic policies like large income tax hikes, large capital gains tax hikes, the expansion of the welfare state, the removal of deducting interest on mortgages, and the removal of deducting charitable donations during a time of deep recession. Yep, because Obama has taken the baton of irresponsible spending, and has ran with it, with even greater waste and irresponsiblity. Yeah, you'd probably like that, fascist.

Jim Cramer: “This is the greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president” Link U.S. rescue efforts may risk double-dip recession "The stuttering attempts to repair the banking and lending mechanisms so far by the new administration suggests that by late 2010, the specter of a second dip into recession will be looming large," said Merrill Lynch economist Sheryl King. Reuters As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem. What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest. The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011. WSJ But he gives good speeches! I just hope that I still have a job by the time the next Presidential election comes around. This Jimmy Carter/Lyndon Johnson wannabe needs to be as far from economic power as possible. And it must be obvious to all, that President Obama has absolutely no clue when it comes to how the economy works, and how private sector business thrives. And teaching constitutional law, and working as a "community organizer" isn't how one gets the needed knowledge and experience.

It may not be socialism, but it's definitely bad economics. Top income brackets ARE taxed, heavily. The top 5% of wage earners in America pay 60% of the taxes. How much more is their "fair share" suppose to be to you? 80%? 100%?

Because Robert Gibbs and the White House, decided to increase his profile, for whatever reason, by attacking him by name at nationally televised daily White House press breifings. That kind of stuff gets in the news. And now it seems the strategy is to attack the messenger, and not the message. Because they can't. Truth to power.

Or, maybe, you're the one who's wrong? That people, much smarter than you, with access to a greater amount of information, and responsible for the lives of hundreds of millions of people, may know something that you don't. Try to accept the possibility. In any case, that's not considered an official apology, so your name cannot be removed from the list at this time. Please try again. For whatever reason, it may be disappointing to you, but it doesn't mean it isn't the correct action to take. Like I said above, consider the possibility, that people much smarter than you, with access to a greater amount of information, and the responsibility of hundreds of millions of lives, may in fact know something that you don't. And I'm also sorry, your response does not qualify as an official apology, so your name cannot be removed from the list at this time. Nope, no kidding from me. All I did was review an existing topic thread to locate the offending individuals. As for your critique of Bush and now Obama, please reference my answer above. Also, your response doesn't qualify as an apology either. So your name cannot be removed from the list. Please try again. Sorry, you haven't yet been deemed worthy enough to make the list. Perhaps sometime in the future.

Not all of them did. And if you want to blame somebody, blame Congress for not attaching any rules to the way the bailout money was suppose to be used. You can't give someone $20 dollars no strings attached, and then complain about the way they spend the money.

Of course. Rick Santelli used his super secret psychic abilities to deduce the Obama housing plan 6 months in advance, and then plan accordingly. Also, I think Santelli had something to do with 9/11, and the Kennedy assassination.

That's simply not true. Taking income tax rates from 70% to 28% isn't growing government.

Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011 President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals. 1) On people making more than $250,000. $338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire $179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction $118 billion - capital gains tax hike Total: $636 billion/10 years 2) Businesses: $17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes $24 billion - tax carried-interest as income $5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine" $61 billion - repeal LIFO $210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform $4 billion - information reporting for rental payments $5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas $3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs $62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants $49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties $13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies $1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers $882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit LInk Yikes! Also, the new $3.5 trillion dollar budget, which contains a near $2 trillion dollar deficit, has as it's title, "A New Era Of Responsibility." I kid you not. I couldn't make this stuff up and still be believed. Here's the pdf from the White House website. A New Era Of Responsibility

You're right. Except soon, it'll be borrow-and-print-and-spend, to eventually just print-and-spend.

This has nothing to do with Jindal, or Palin, or anyone else. We're talking about Lyndon Baines Obama's speech to Congress, and his massive tax and spend policies. Bobby Jindal can't raise your taxes. Bobby Jindal can't spend you into oblivion. If you're talking about a filibuster proof majority, you're wrong, or you're lying. Take your pick. Nope, your assessment of Obama is anything but hasty. He wants to raise taxes by $300+ billion dollars in the middle of a deep recession, and he's just tabled an almost $4 trillion dollar budget, after already spending $2 trillion dollars in the past month. His ridiculous spending has pretty much numbed the public to the words billion and trillion. While at the same time, having the nerve to host a "fiscal responsibility" summit at the White House this week.

One more thing that stood out for me in LBO's speech from tuesday. When he claimed that "wealth has been transfered to the wealthy." Since when did people keeping more of their own money equal a transfer of wealth? A transfer of wealth from whom?

Try to stay on topic. I was merely making some observations regarding Lyndon Baines Obama's speech to Congress. That being said, tax cuts never forced people to buy homes they couldn't afford, and tax cuts never forced banks to make loans to people who wouldn't otherwise qualify under the guise of "affordable housing", and tax cuts certainly never led a certain political party to claim others were exaggerating the mortgage problems back in 2003, when reforms were sought of Freddie and Fannie.

Exactly. Lyndon Baines Obama has been in campaign mode since his inauguration. And he and Geithner have inspired zero confidence in the economy and the marekt. So much so, that it's down more than 2000 points. And now, his big plan to propel America into a new era of economic prosperity, is raising taxes, during a recession, and massive, never-before-seen government spending.

Obama's turning out to be a complete disaster, and his speech on tuesday was LBJ's "Great Society" all over again. Free healthcare for everybody, free education, including college and university, curing cancer, etc, etc, etc. While at the same time claiming to balance the budget. Obama's "Utopian Society" will work about as well as it did for Lyndon Johnson, but cost 10 times more.

Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s Action State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time. In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limting the power of the federal government. Link You'd think a former constitutional professor would have a full grasp of the 10th Amendment, but apparently not.

Excellent. Your name has been officially removed from the list.

More material which is sure to cause Cheney a good laugh or two. Obama defends Bush-era secrets President Obama’s administration is moving aggressively to protect what the government insists are “state secrets” from a Bush-era wiretapping program. Justice Department lawyers filed an emergency motion Friday with a federal appeals court in an effort to block a lower court’s order that the government must show lawyers for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation a copy of a document indicating that the group’s communications were being intercepted. The document has been the subject of a running legal battle since the papers were accidentally sent to attorneys for the group in 2004 and subsequently retrieved. “Disclosure of the material at issue here would cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security and result in irreparable injury to the United States,” the Justice Department wrote. It said information about the surveillance program is considered “Top Secret — Sensitive Compartmented Information.” Link Again, I applaud Obama for understanding the threats, and understanding the importance of keeping these types of programs in place. And I expect a sincere apology from various members of the forum, who viciously and unfairly attacked President Bush over the past several years. After the proper apology is issued, I will remove the offender's name from the list. If your name does not appear on the list, I've deemed your contributions as not significant enough to be included. If your name does appear on the list, feel honored that I took the time to include you. American Woman BC chick Black Dog BubberMiley charter.rights daniel Drea eyeball GostHacked guyser Higgly jdobbin KeyStone Liam Moonlight Graham msj PoliticalCitizen punked Riverwind stevoh Topaz WIP

Mr. Santelli is a true American Hero. YouTube Speaking truth to power!

No it's not, and you're absolutely right. I actually applaud Obama's decision on this, and on air strikes in Afghanistan/Pakistan. They're right, and they're necessary. I just wish he hadn't politicized them so much during the campaign, but I understand that politics can be rough.

And Guantanamo meets Geneva Convention standards Reporting from Washington -- The Pentagon has concluded that the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay meets the standards for humane treatment of detainees established in the Geneva Convention accords. The report, which has not officially been released, "has been completed and will be delivered to the White House in accordance with the president's executive order," said a Pentagon spokesman, Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon. Link And yet all of the former Bush critics in this forum remain silent. Their silence speaks volumes.

Please Sir, answer the question. I asked you a question. It's a very simple question. Do you agree with Barney Frank and the Democrats, that Republicans were exaggerating the problems with the mortgage industry? Look at the Dow Jones, look at the weekly jobless claims, look at the unemployment rate, and look at all the homes in foreclosure. Now once again Sir. Let all of us in the forum know whether or not you think Republicans exaggerated the problems with the mortgage industry? Please.

Republicans were the only ones offering any solutions to the problem. Democrats wouldn't even acknowledge a problem existed! A clear path to passing legislation would be 60 votes in the Senate. Republicans never had a filibuster proof majority. It was withdrawn 2 years after it was proposed because Democrats refused any new regulations on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Remember, they refused to even accept that a problem existed! Keep spinning. September 2003 "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis" "The more people exaggerate these problems, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing"-- Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee So, the question remains. Do you agree with Barney Frank, and the Democrats in the House and the Senate? That Republicans were exaggerating the problems with the mortgage industry? And do you agree with Barney Frank and the Democrats in the House and Senate, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not facing any kind of financial crisis?

Even under your scenario, Republicans at least recognized there was a problem. Democrats refused to even accept that idea. They stuck their collective heads in the sand. And unfortunately for you, it's indisputable, no matter how hard you try. 'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina