Are Obama’s policies responsible for the stock market slide?
Every now and then, the stock market exhibits irrational exuberance or pessimism. But these days, the market’s long-term trend is not irrational. For the first time since the Depression, events have aligned to create the very real possibility of something previously impossible: that the United States could fundamentally transition toward a more European welfare-state model.
“The market” is simply millions of decision-makers buying or selling based on future expectations. And they recognize a perfect storm when they see one. First, take vast economic upheaval and pain demanding attention. Second, add a popular new president with the “Old Keynesian” belief that solutions lie in major government spending and growth (where modern Keynsian models demonstrate limited impact of spending). Third, add the highly rare occurrence that both legislative bodies are of the same mindset with each other and the president, and the even rarer ability to veto most opposition to pass a radical restructuring into law. Finally, add the fact that this theoretical restructuring is no longer theory: the first steps are already being taken.
I ask: why wouldn’t the markets seem subdued? It was entirely logical for share values to descend from their October 2007 high, once we realized that our financial system had the cancer of securitized “nonconforming” loans that could never be repaid. Just as it was entirely logical for 2008 markets to recognize that we would probably have a President Obama – with a more European bent — dealing with our economic illness come January 2009.
Unfortunately, the European philosophy accepts there will be a permanent hit to business and employment because of the higher taxes needed to pay for higher government spending. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s James Sherk pointed out in an interview, Europe has averaged a 60 percent higher unemployment rate than America, and on average European workers remain unemployed more than 12 months compared to three to four months for American workers.
Presidents and policymakers should never react to day-to-day stock market movements, maintaining a long-term focus instead. But a true long-term focus will look to the past and recognize that U.S. affluence has been based on encouraging U.S. business and rejecting the European model. Yes, the economy is sick and we are working the cancer out of our system. But we shouldn’t risk killing the patient in the process.
Are Obama’s policies responsible for the stock market slide?
Since the conservative Washington Times announced “the honeymoon’s over” the day before Barack Obama took office, I suppose it only makes sense that the GOP 2012 game plan is to blame the president for a market slide that began its descent a full year before he came into power. Is the president turning us into — quelle horreur! — Europeans? Let’s take a closer look at just how much of this is Obama’s faute (that’s “fault”, for those of you still speaking English).
We know he didn’t invent the housing bubble or the credit crisis, we know he didn’t oversee the massive deregulation, all leading to the first large bailout on That Other Guy’s watch, and we’re pretty sure that the collective global economic meltdown isn’t his fault either.
In fairness, Obama is still learning how to walk that wobbly line that forces him to both chastise big business while he solicits our support in the government aid that might save it. Yet any inference that the market began to falter in anticipation of an Obama presidency is way off base. That was around the same time Lehman Brothers failed, WaMu was rescued and it literally looked like every bank in the country could go under. (I suppose the market rally the week before the election came because people suddenly decided John McCain had it in the bag? Hardly.)
These are uncertain times; it’s an era where a Comedy Central comedian feels more credible to us than an MSNBC analyst, where the once mighty GOP now turns, for direction and inspiration, to Jonathan Krohn, a 14-year-old with a knack for public speaking. No wonder political panic is rampant on the right. “Socialist” hasn’t had much traction; I can hardly blame them for throwing “European” against the market research wall, hoping the slur will stick.
Americans aren’t terrified of turning into Europeans; they’re rightly concerned about a deepening recession that impacts their lives on a daily basis. They have no trouble remembering and cherishing our proud capitalist roots, but you know what else sticks in their mind? That the perfect storm of events that brought us to this point has little to do with the leader we’re hoping will bring us to shore.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
163 comments Add your comment
The Other Jack
March 20th, 2009
8:32 am
Well, of course it is not the democrat’s fault. Fault can only be laid at the feet of mean old Republicans. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over control of Congress in 2007, but nothing is their fault. How could it be their fault? They care about people.
it’s like Chris Dodd and AIG. Dodd didn’t know anything about the bill that he wrote. I believe that. Dodd is a democrat and all democrats are good honest people. He cares about you and he cares about me. it isn’t a power grab at all. Congress should have the ability to first, give billions to a company that was going to turn around and give those billions to 22 banks, 16 of which were foreign owned and didn’t have financial problems.
Then when the writers of the bill realize that it might be unpopular that the organization that they gave my grandchilden’s money to might give contracted bonuses to the mean old private citizens, they should do what they do and levy an unreasonable tax on private citizens because, as we all know, they really care about people and this is not a power grab.
I’m glad that they are passing laws that punish private citizens for things that the congress was responsible for. i think that sets a good precedent. That will teach people like mean old Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that freedom is only freedom if the wise and benevolent Congress decides it is freedom. That will show them.
Clean up your acts, Republicans. Get ready. THE PEOPLE’s PARTY IS IN CHARGE.
Get out of line and the man comes and he’ll take you away, hey you better stop children, what’s that sound? Everybody look at what’s going down.
It’s not about power. it’s about kindness and good and mean people better watch out.
Say or do the wrong thing, Here comes the tax man, just like it should be. It’s not a power grab, it’s justice and I couldn’t think of better people to hand out that justice as the people who are in Washington. After all, the head of America’s financial system forgot to pay his taxes and has never paid them, but he should be in charge of the tax system and now the banks.
It’s all about Hope. It’s all about Change.
The Other Jack
March 20th, 2009
9:11 am
Our good and benevolent president offers an open hand to Iran. Iran once again spits in his face, giving lots of power to the crazies in charge there. I’m just glad we have hope and change now. I’m glad that mean old GW Bush isn’t in charge any more. His policies suggested that the leadership in Iran are unreasonable people who cannot be dealt with.
Apparently Iran is not buying into the hope and change thing. Barbarians. Hey, maybe our fine Congress can levy a tax on somebody. That should make it all better and I know that we will all FEEEEEL much better about it. .
Casie Chyanne
March 20th, 2009
9:15 am
I wish the Republicans were still in charge. Nothing bad ever happened when we trusted them to just do there job.
Mara
March 20th, 2009
9:45 am
LOL! Well, maybe. This is how I see it. Most folks in the investor class are people with money, people who will most likely end up paying more taxes under the Obama administration. So they start cutting back and making fewer investments. They’re uncertain. Scared. They’re more cautious with investing so they’re spending less on stock. Because they’re buying fewer stock, brokerage houses don’t need as many brokers. Brokers get fired, markets go down, investors get more cautious. And repeat.
Companies have grown used to having a ‘pro-business, anti-labor’ government spending our money to help them make profit. Obama’s policies are shifting the tax burden away from labor and putting more on businesses and investors. These groups are uncertain on what the impact of those shifts will be so they’ve become more conservative with their future plans, more fiscally responsible, and less likely to take risks.
And what is the stock market except risk? You’ve got as good a chance at hitting it big in Vegas as you do on Wall Street. Which is why, IMHO, gauging the health of the economy by the stock market is pretty rediculous. During the Bush administration, the stock market went up, up, up, as did debt. But real wages stayed stagnant. So for most people, the economy wasn’t all that great. For the average joe, the increase in the standard of living was fueled by credit cards, or mortgage refinance…not by actual wealth.
My buddy Michael is pretty investment savvy and he explained the new paradigm thusly “When the market is breaking records, brokerage firms are hiring hundreds of new brokers and taking risks and spending money like there is no tomorrow…get ready for the fall. When the market is so low it is hard to believe, brokerage firms are laying off brokers and adhering to spartan budgets…prepare for prosperity. President Obama’s programs are responsible. Responsible for a new era of prosperty with a twist. We are all going to get a share.”
Watta Load
March 20th, 2009
9:54 am
Shaunti, we know you are biased but don’t you think you might at least try for a little more credibility than just quoting something from the Heritage Foundation in every column.
yeah right…we were all rich and had full appreciation of our portfolios on January 19th.
Mara
March 20th, 2009
10:01 am
D*mn it! I spent fifteen minutes writing out a couple thoughts, which I posted before my 9:49. What happened to it? Is this a ‘glitch’ or are they censoring?
It was a darn good post and I am NOT happy >:-(
Mara
March 20th, 2009
10:18 am
Clean up your acts, Republicans. Get ready. THE PEOPLE’s PARTY IS IN CHARGE.
“Socialists! SOCIALISTS! EVERYwhere SOCIALISTS! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH…”
okay, so I mock…but it’s well deserved.
The Other Jack
March 20th, 2009
10:41 am
mara
Yesterday, the Congress of the United State of America passed a law that allowed them to target-tax a small group of private citizens in order to try and conceal the fact that that same Congress had given billions of dollars to a company and specifically said that the bonuses could and would be given. And you think it is about a Conservative screaming Socialism. This is hardly Socialism. this is pure, unadulterated fascism. it is a Congress that is completely out of control being ran by people who are only concerned about how much power they can achieve before their token president gets thrown under the bus.
You can laugh, you can mock all you want. if you are actually seeing what is going on and have nothing to say but to mock people who are concerned about it, there is nothing I can do about that. but please remember, the Democrats won’t be in charge forever, and the precedents they are now setting can and will be used by the Republicans against the democrats. i hope you are OK with all that.
Casie Chyanne
March 20th, 2009
11:00 am
Why is every body so mad? Dick Cheney said defecets don’t matter. Let the men keep there bonus money. They need it to be rich and rich people create jobs. Taxes kill jobs. All rich people deserve more money and no tax if you cant understand that your stupid.
The Other Jack
March 20th, 2009
11:02 am
Mara
BTW. You do know that Madolf gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNC. That money he stole from other people, but the DNC refuses to give the money back.
The corruption and horrible management that we have seen in the first 60 days is like nothing I have ever seen. Almost every American lost their life savings when the Democrats took over Congress and now the fascist are in total control. So exactly what will they need to do before you finally open your eyes and start to complain instead of mocking people who do complain?
Gandalf, the White!
March 20th, 2009
11:06 am
Europe is so 19th Century! Andi you are out of touch. Europeans suck donkey balls, they are losers. When the AJC goes paperless, I hope you get a chance to look for employment elsewhere.
Gandalf, the White!
March 20th, 2009
11:07 am
Stupid Democrats following a socialist leader! You’d think the people would be smart enough to follow the Party of Lincoln, but alas, they know the can vote for dole, so they do.
Casie Chyanne
March 20th, 2009
11:24 am
I want to vote for Dole again but was sorry to hear his erectal disfunctal acted up and he could not run this time. He is not as dead as Lincoln but close so almost as good and we need that more so as ever.
Lyrazel
March 20th, 2009
11:38 am
I am not very interested in who is to blame. I invested and I was happy. Dems and Reps can have a blame somebody mud wrestling event–but I am not tuning in.
One of the problems with stock ownership (and all investments) are the risks involved and so I say with absolute certainty that most people who had invested in the stock market (by choice, 401ks, by advice) never appreciated the risk involved. When it was good & high few people were listening to them who said stocks were risky vehicles–that a portfolio was supposed to include cash plus bonds but buying more stock was the way of the high. Thus stock prices kept going up but so many bought HIGH and had more risk because they had loans outstanding.
Part of the volatility of the market was so many investors trying to beat out the market and get whatever they could watching their stocks sink lower than the HIGH price they paid–investors sold in panic and nothing makes a fire sale like a plethora investors trying to recoup loss being pulverized by their bank loans and non-existent savings. Nothing is safe in a stock market. Investors beware.
Mara
March 20th, 2009
11:43 am
TOJ, the name is Madoff, Bernie MADOFF. It’s hard to take you seriously when it doesn’t appear as if you’ve done anything more than heard other people pronounce the name…
————-
Almost every American lost their life savings when the Democrats took over Congress
hyperbole again, TOJ? Hate to tell you, but most Americans had no “life savings” to lose! According to the Commerce Department, “the savings rate for all of 2006 was a negative 1 percent, meaning that not only did people spend all the money they earned but they also dipped into savings or increased borrowing to finance purchases. The 2006 figure was lower than a negative 0.4 percent in 2005 and was the poorest showing since a negative 1.5 percent savings rate in 1933 during the Great Depression.”
I can’t find the ‘07 and ‘08 numbers right now, but if we look at historic norms, we have to admit that we haven’t been handling our fiscal responsible very well for decades. The numbers for ‘05-’06 are particularly troubling…
“According to the BEA (Bereau of Economic Analysis), the national annual savings rate fell in 2005 to its lowest point since the Great Depression: negative 0.4 percent. Since then, it has continued to fall, registering at negative 1.6 percent in May 2006 and negative 1.5 percent in June.”
So, as you can see, when you make the charge that “Almost every American lost their savings” after the Democrats took over the Senate…well, you should be able to understand how hysterical it sounds.
————
But on one point, I have to agree with you. I don’t think that using legislation to address the issue with the IAG bonuses is right either. As angry as I am about them, it seems to me that it’s something Gaither should have dealt with BEFORE he asked them to insert the loophole into the bailout legislation. The weight of the government should not be used to force these workers to give up the money to which they are legally…even IF you or I find the manner of the payment infuriating. It isn’t right, I agree.
Mara
March 20th, 2009
11:45 am
AIG, not IAG. Sorry for the typo -
chuck
March 20th, 2009
12:05 pm
Good morning everybody.
I would not lay ALL of the blame at Obama’s feet, but I would put something over half of the blame there. He alone is responsible for the CONSTANT DRONING ON about the so-called “worst economt since the depression” and it is a TOTAL LIE. He and his handlers concocted this “crisis” SIMPLY BECAUSE IT ALLOWED THEM TO PASS ALMOST ANYTHING IN THE NAME OF STIMULUS. They therefore made things MUCH WORSE than they would have been.
Mara, USUK, AW, you pride yourselves on being strong, proud, intelligent women. Let’s see if you can pass the combined INTEGRITY/GULLIBILITY Test. Do you HONESTLY believe that the so-called “stimulus bill” was JUST THAT? OR, do you believe that it is at least 30-40% a result of, as Rahm Emanuel put it, that you “never let a good crisis go to waste”?
If you say you believe the former then you are not as HONEST as you should be OR you are not as SMART as you claim to be.
Finally, THINK ABOUT IT, when did the largest drop in the market occur? The day after Obama’s speech promoting Geitner’s “brilliant plan” to save the financials…which BTW turned out to not exist.
Karl Rove wrote an interesting article that asks the question, “Is Obama Winging It?” and he brings up some points that could lead to that conclusion:
the (lack of) vetting of cabinet nominees
the loss of control of the stimulu package to congressional dems
the declaration that the stimulus would “save or create” 2.5 million, then three million, then 3.7 million, and then four million new jobs. ALL just numbers pulled out of a hat. (In fact at one point they claimed that the package would save or create seven and 3 eighths jobs.) Get it?…pulled out of a hat…get it? BTW, what happened to all of you out there who keep saying that you “can’t prove the negative?” How would you prove how many jobs are “saved” as a result of the plan? You could actually claim the entire number of jobs that exist at the time the economy recovers as being “saved by the plan”. Will any of you defend that?
doing away with so-caled enhanced interrogation of terrorists. (had to change his mind on that one.)
the promise to close Guantanamo Bay within a year
In the world of COMEDY, improvisation is fun and harmless. If a joke doesn’t work or a skit falls flat, nobody dies or loses their job. Improvising as PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, is a little different. I think SNL would call them the “not quite ready for prime time” politicians. Too bad things can’t be fixed by making pretty little fluffy speeches. If they could I would have voted for him myself.
Mara
March 20th, 2009
12:12 pm
TOJ – You do know that Madolf gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNC. That money he stole from other people, but the DNC refuses to give the money back.
actually, from what I could dig up, the money went to BOTH parties and the ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ wasn’t given to a single person OR in a single year. According to the Wall Street Journal “Mr. Madoff and his brother, sons and niece donated a total of $267,000 over the past decade to candidates, parties and political action committees…”
So that means that Madoff and his family gave maybe…$27K per year to politicians. Do you honestly think that money accounted for an spend five, six, seven years ago is going to be ‘given back’ by any group?! Be serious. Of the policians and groups that recieved contributions in the last election cycle, Chuck Shumer and Frank Lautenberg have chosen to give their Madoff contributions to charity. Didn’t see anything about anyone else…
Here’s a list of politicians who have received Madoff money – from Fox News
Democrats –
– Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey
– New York Sen. Hillary Clinton
– Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry
– New York Rep. Carol Maloney
– Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy
– New York Rep. Charles Rangel
– New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine
– New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg
– Former Missouri Sen. Dick Gephardt
– Former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley
– President Barack Obama.
Republicans -
– Former Texas Rep. Jack Fields
– Arizona Sen. John McCain
– Former N.Y. Rep. Vito Fossella
– Former Louisiana Rep. “Billy” Tauzin
– Former N.Y. Rep. Daniel Frisa
– Former N.Y. Sen. Alfonse D’Amato
Archie
March 20th, 2009
12:12 pm
I liked Lyrazel’s post earlier this morning. My response to the topic question is no,no, and no way. The stock market was definitely on it’s way down a full year before Obama took office plain and simple. Excessive greed and gouging are just a few of the things impacting the market. Shanti’s claim is quite weak since President Obama has only been in office since Jan 20th. Good rebuttal Andrea.
chuck
March 20th, 2009
12:12 pm
Mara it is GEITNER, Timothy GEITNER not Gaither.
chuck
March 20th, 2009
12:14 pm
just messing with you Mara
chuck
March 20th, 2009
12:15 pm
Actually, now that I think about it, I think it may be GEITHNER
Mara
March 20th, 2009
12:18 pm
Do you HONESTLY believe that the so-called “stimulus bill” was JUST THAT? OR, do you believe that it is at least 30-40% a result of, as Rahm Emanuel put it, that you “never let a good crisis go to waste”?–If you say you believe the former then you are not as HONEST as you should be OR you are not as SMART as you claim to be.
ah. So if I “honestly believe” something that YOU don’t, I’m obviously a stupid liar? mmmm-kay. No room for opinion, just dishonesty. No room for differing views on what ’stimulus’ means. Oh, no. Chuck KNOWS what I really think, and so he’ll know I’m lying if I disagree with him. Which, unless I’m stupid, I won’t.
Gee, thanks chuck. Way to start out a discussion…
Mara
March 20th, 2009
12:22 pm
chuck – Mara it is GEITNER, Timothy GEITNER not Gaither.
LOL! Touche!
American Woman
March 20th, 2009
12:59 pm
Chuck, thank you for your question about what we honestly believe about the stimulous bill. I think, however, that your question presumes too much. Even the most educated, experienced economic experts admit they cannot fully predict what/how/when the economy will turn around, and which factors will for certain and for shizzle work or not work. I don’t presume knowledge I don’t have.
If I interpret your question to mean do I believe that the new administration is TRYING to fix this crisis and prevent a 1930’s-type depression, my answer is “Yes, I believe they are trying.” If you mean do I believe there is no such thing as corruption in anyone affiliated with the Democratic Party, then “No, I don’t believe any group is free from corruption.” If you mean do I believe that taking steps to improve the job situation here in America is more worthy than paying billions of dollars to private contractors in a country halfway around the world, (some $32 billion of which I read is not accounted for in Iraq), then “Yes, I believe investing in initiatives here at home is a better idea.”
If you’re really asking if I am a gullible, trusting woman who’ll believe any horse hooey a man tells me because it sounds good, then my answer is, “Yes. I certainly was. There was a time when I really truly trusted the words and intentions of good, God-fearing, bible-preaching conservative-voting men.” I’d like to think I’ve wised up since then, but my 401K is in the toilet like everyone else’s, so….. no actual evidence there. Thanks for asking.
Mara
March 20th, 2009
1:02 pm
and this article should make everybody stop and think for a minute…
One A.I.G. executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared the consequences of identifying himself, said many workers felt demonized and betrayed. ‘‘It is as bad, if not worse, than McCarthyism,’’ he said, referring to Joseph McCarthy, the former U.S. senator who used indiscriminate, often unfounded, accusations to suppress opponents. Everyone has sacrificed the employees of A.I.G.’s financial products division, he said, ‘‘for their own political agenda.’’
The public’s anger, he said, ‘‘is coming from bad facts as a result of someone else’s agenda — or just bad facts, period.’’ Instead, he said, the so-called bonuses were in fact just payments that had been promised long ago to workers, including technical and administrative assistants.
Technical and administrative assistants? IT drones and gofers? Should they have to be afraid just because they took a well-paying job with what a company that, as it turned out, profitted from unscrupulous investments? Should they really? Evidently there have been threats of violence in addition to the incidents of hostility.
Mara
March 20th, 2009
1:04 pm
AW, kudo’s on that second paragraph!
Scalia
March 20th, 2009
1:12 pm
Thank you, Chuck. I can appreciate somebody that doesn’t come in being sarcastic and not seeing that there is a shared blame. I am willing to give TOJ a hundred dollars if he can say something negative about the Republican Party. Not once in the past two years since he has been on here has he. Democrats this, democrats that.
Chuck, good points.
Gandalf, the White!
March 20th, 2009
1:12 pm
Good thing for Barry there are a lot of stupid people left out there! His ratings are falling, he needs a big win! Maybe he’ll do good on his Barrackatology? HEHE What an ASSHAT he is! His FUGLY FIRST LADY met with Alicia Keys and it’s news! He talks to the Iranian people? WTF? He is such an idiot, I pray we last out his administration! Can’t God take him and JC home?
Mara
March 20th, 2009
1:15 pm
Hi Scalia.
chuck
March 20th, 2009
1:42 pm
Mara, to me the only opinions that amount to much are the economists who have ROUNDLY CRITICIZED the spendulus plan. Here are just a few examples out of TONS I found. So if the “experts” agree that much of the bill has ZERO EFFECT on the economy, that kind of clinches it.
Martin Feldstein: The Stimulus Package is Not about Long-Term Growth
Russell Roberts: There’s little any economic doctor can do to move our $14 trillion organism of an economy in the next few months.
Wang added that Republicans should continue to whittle-away at minor stimulus package items that don’t address the economy directly, such as sex education / family planning funds, anti-smoking and HIV prevention programs
Harvard economist Robert Barro looked at the multiplier effect of World War II military spending — supposedly the Mother of All Stimulus Plans and found that “wartime production siphoned off resources from other economic uses — there was a dampener, rather than a multiplier.” Barro prefers eliminating the corporate income tax to massive government spending.
An initial CBO analysis found that a mere $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending, just 7 percent, would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64 percent of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011.
Economist John Taylor thinks it better to let the Federal Reserve deal with the short-term problems in the economy, while fiscal policy should attend to long-term issues: “In the current context of the U.S. economy, it seems best to let fiscal policy have its main countercyclical impact through the automatic stabilizer … It seems hard to improve on this performance with a more active discretionary fiscal policy, and an activist discretionary fiscal policy might even make the job of monetary authorities more difficult.
American Woman
March 20th, 2009
2:29 pm
“…to me the only opinions that amount to much are the economists who have ROUNDLY CRITICIZED the spendulus plan. Here are just a few examples out of TONS I found.
That’s funny. I googled “stimulus plan praise” and “stimulus package praise” and found TONS of reports in favor of it. Hmm. Who knew?
I guess that proves that people will believe only what they want to believe, and that differing opinions don’t matter. That’s an excellent point, Chuck. I think the ladies can justifiably shut down the blog for good now. Thanks for sharing.
chuck
March 20th, 2009
2:37 pm
Hey Scalia, Thanks. There is certainly enough blame to go around on all sides. The first $700 billion under Bush WAS JUST AS BAD AS THE TRILLION OBAMA IS SPENDING.
I don’t believe I’m being too cynical taking Emanuel at he word about trying to pass an agenda while there is a “crisis”. I also can’t imagine that anyone could honestly look at the stimulus bill and recognize that if over 60% of the money is not even being spent this year, it isn’t going to do much to stimulate the economy.
chuck
March 20th, 2009
2:44 pm
AW, that’s really funny. I googled that just now and there were lots of hits showing “praise for the stimulus package”. To call them “reports” is just a little bit disengenuous.
NONE that I saw were economists. IN FACT, all of the ones that were listed on the first 2 pages WERE THE GROUPS GETTING THE FREAKIN’ MONEY.
Not exactly the same thing.
American Woman
March 20th, 2009
2:53 pm
Chuck, thanks again for the enlightenment. You make excellent points. I’m reminded of the story of the starfish on the beach.
The Starfish Story by Loren Eisley
One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed
a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean. Approaching the boy, he asked, “What are you doing?” The youth replied, “Throwing starfish back into the ocean. The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them back, they’ll die.” “Son,” the man said, “don’t you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish? You can’t make a difference!” After listening politely, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it back into the surf. Then, smiling at the man, he said… “I made a difference for that one.”
So Chuck, in addition to whining about how irretrievably screw-ed we all are because more of us decided to vote for choice D instead of choice R last November, what are YOU doing to make it all better?
jovan
March 20th, 2009
3:41 pm
The blame for this mess lies squarely at the feet of the Republican Party. No one else. Bush and his cronies sold this country out in the four years that they had an absolute majority in Washington. The Dems tried to fix this in 2007-2008. But no. Bush vetoed just about everything the Dems did. All the while nothing was done between 2003 and 2006 with the out-of-control spending on the illegal war in Iraq.
Anyone who blames the Democrats for this are beyond stupid.
The Other Jack
March 20th, 2009
5:17 pm
Scalia
I actually say bad things about the Republican Party, but considering that most of the liberals here would never ever say anything bad about ANY Democrat, I didn’t think that was any sort of litmus test. Or is this just another test that is only for conservatives?
And here’s a clue: The Democrats are in charge of everything, now. EVERYTHING. Would you rather me talk about Rush Limbaugh? Do I have your permission to talk about my government and what I don’t like? Haven’t you guys whined for years that complaining is patriotic? Is it my fault that I support the Party who’s big sin was to make bad guys think they are drowning, but you support a party who is destroying the economic backbone of this country?
I am, however disappointed in your response. I have known you to do the unlikely and respond to what is said instead of turning this into an episode of the Tara Banks show and talk about the person who said it. At least you understand what you are up against. How can anyone defend a Congress targeting a few individuals for taking money from their own employee, adhering to a contracted deal that the very same Congress drafted? It’s good that you didn’t even try.
But there are lots of things going on right now that should be scaring the hell out of you, that is unless you are just too dumb to look around.
Bruno
March 20th, 2009
10:42 pm
So, let me see….Left-wing, anti-corporation, anti-wealthy, pro-labor union candidate runs on a platform of increased governmental spending/involvement, increased capital gains taxes, and soon-to-be government-mandated health insurance for businesses, and the stock market tanks after he gets elected. What a shock.
Bruno
March 20th, 2009
11:10 pm
Continuing from last week….
10. In a sharp break with normal presidential protocol, Obama decides to appear on a late-night talk show, in which he proceeds to insult handicapped people.
11. In a sharp break with standard presidential neutrality regarding sporting events, Obama publicly fills out his NCAA basketball bracket, openly roots for NC, admonishing them that they better not screw it up and lose. What a jerk. In response, Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski suggests that Obama should focus more on the economy and less on making Final Four picks.
And, more seriously,
12. With Obama’s blessing, the Democratically led Congress creates special tax laws to punish specific individuals who the Dems don’t think deserve legal, contractually-obtained compensation payments from their employer. So much for the sanctity of legal contracts.
Thanks again to all my insulters last week. I understand your reluctance to discuss the issues themself, since it’s your guy who is running the country into the ground and making a mockery of the presidency.
ByteMe
March 21st, 2009
5:31 am
The DOW peaked in October 2007 at over 14,000. The same week it peaked, FOX Business Channel went on the air. Since then, the DOW has dropped 50%. Coincidence or causation?
Or perhaps Bushies want to blame Bush for the market tanking in the first 60 days Bush was in office (the NASDAQ’s last gasp was early March 2001 and then it went off a cliff and lost 80%). No? You don’t? No kidding.
Start with a random set of 30 stocks picked to somehow represent the entire universe of hundreds of thousands of companies (big and small) and then using that as a stand-in for how a president is doing is foolish. Might as well go with the Super Bowl winner’s conference for determining whether the market is going to go up or down.
It’s coincidence, not causation.
The Other Jack
March 21st, 2009
7:57 am
ByteMe
Yea. That’s right. A pro-capitalistic financial network goes on the air the same year that complete financial idiots take over Congress. So the same people that believed in Hope and Change now blame the financial network for the crash.
It wouldn’t be so pathetic that you are trying to rationalize this madness, but the really pathetic thing is that you don’t have the spine to come on here under a name that others would recognize you. Of course considering the ignorant garbage you are claiming, I wouldn’t put my name on it either.
Dodd and others are trying to blame the AIG mess on Obama. Now what was it I was saying about the racist Dixiecrats throwing Obama under the bus? Expect to see what happened to Carter, happen to Obama. His only hope is that the Republicans take back over Congress in 2010. Isn’t it nice that his only hope is also our only hope.
Idiot-Start with a random set of 30 stocks picked to somehow represent the entire universe of hundreds of thousands of companies
Well, Einstein. Be my guest. Pick another 30. Se if you can find one that isn’t tanking. Why people as dumb as you are allowed to vote is what is wrong with this country.
The Other Jack
March 21st, 2009
8:28 am
Bruno
Don’t expect much discussion about the issues. This is a nightmare for liberals. How can anyone rationalize what is happening? The only thing they can possibly say is: Give them time. It will work. The Congressional Budget Office just released a report that destroys any hope that their power grabbing plan will ever help anyone.
So the slimy democrats try to turn the anger toward AIG after the attempt to divert to Rush Limbaugh failed. I don’t have a single liberal friend that will even discuss it. So much for Hope.
We could be giddy at the abject failure of the democrats, but we can’t because their failure is our failure. Of course they are not failing. The largest power shift in the history of mankind is well on it’s way.
Ben
March 21st, 2009
10:54 am
I love the deregulation canard. How can you say the Bush administration deregulated the industry when regulatory codes more than doubled in number of pages since 2000?
What I know to be the truth is that our deficit is quadrupling under Obama, and very little of that money is helping stimulate the economy, but instead is aimed at increased government control over every aspect of our lives.
Just wait till Congress decides whatever group you belong to makes too much money. Then they’ll put a 90% tax on it. This AIG thing is such a great distraction for them, we shouldn’t care about $165 million in private contracts when Obama is flushing TRILLIONS down the toilet,
Bruno
March 21st, 2009
2:02 pm
“Don’t expect much discussion about the issues.”
The change in tone coming from the left-leaning posters IS pretty amazing, TOJ. All of a sudden, the Bush-bashers who previously were experts on everything from national security to Constitutional Law are now claiming that simple economic issues are way beyond the grasp of mere humans, such that any criticism of Obama and the Democrats is completely invalid. But, hey, I did appreciate the story about starfishes.
What is maddening to me is that the big-government/socialistic path being taken by the current administration has been proven to be a loser time and again, but we’re supposed to somehow believe that this time will be different?? I didn’t like a lot of things that Bush did, but in the end it all added up to small potatoes. The debt being accrued right now and the fundamental changes being made to the relationship between government and private companies will likely impact us for several generations.
The Other Jack
March 22nd, 2009
6:41 am
Bruno
People are not buying it, and Obama will be thrown under the bus just like Jimmy Carter was. His only hope is to have Congrtess flip in 2010. that saved Clinton and the economy did pretty well under a Republican Congress and a Democratic President.
The discussion here is nice and friendly which is good, but no one wants to yalk about what the Congress is doing.
ByteMe
March 22nd, 2009
9:23 am
Poor Jack. If it doesn’t match his ideology, it must be stupid. Poor poor Jack. And resorting to name calling is the tipoff that you have no debating skills.
Wasn’t rationalizing the “madness” at all, but pointing out the stupidity of trying to equate what the financial markets are doing in response to lower earnings and reduced dividends from corporations with the president who has been in office less than 60 days and had little of his agenda enacted or even discussed. It’s COINCIDENCE, not causation. Anyone trying to create causation is sniffing glue in their spare time.
It’s really easy enough to find stocks that have gone up in this environment. I’m holding a few right now. Let me make it easy on you: WMT is higher now than in October 2007. Not much higher, but the largest retailer in the world is doing better than many other stocks. Oh, ok, you need another. Look at NYSE: GAT. I happen to like this one a lot, because it pays a high dividend, their profits are protected by government fiat, AND is higher than when I bought it.
Oh, and you don’t like my handle, huh? Think I’m somehow “hiding” behind it. Well… ByteMe, little boy.
The Other Jack
March 22nd, 2009
10:18 am
ByteMe
So you have given me the earthshaking news that Walmart has appreciated while the rest of the stock market crashed. Thanks a lot. It appears you have had your television on during the last year. Congratulations. LOL!! So it must be OK that the federal Government has launched a lynch mob against private citizens to turn attentions away from their power grab because Walmart has thrived in this horrible economy.
Here’s a clue, Einstein. The Congress, the real financial instigators, have been under the control of the Democrats since 2007. Now what were you saying about 60 days? Oh, you mean the last 60 days when that insane Congress had no controlling power, the last 60 days when $19,000 from each American household was spent and the state of Georgia is fourth from the bottom of the states that will get that $19,000 from each Georgia household? You are calling someone a little boy and you are throwing tantrums while we are being robbed blind, but you are apparently too frggin’ stupid to see it.
You had no interest in debating anyone. Your name says it all. You can’t debate on a rational level so you have no other choice but to post as a hysterical little twit. Well you certainly accomplished that. Call me a little boy all you want while preaching at me for calling you names. It’s not like your opinion means anything.
Gale
March 22nd, 2009
10:47 am
Sunday test
Gale
March 22nd, 2009
10:51 am
Ah, either the problem is fixed or my work computer is blackballed for giving negative feedback about the new format. Never call someone’s baby ugly. Just say’n
Caveman
March 22nd, 2009
11:53 am
It’s simply amazing that Cons that are desparately trying to claim the stock market only went down since Obama was elected were the same ones that blamed the slide in stock prices in 2001 (after Bush was in office) on Clinton.
So, let me try and get this logic straight:
If you’re a Republican, you can’t blamed for anything that happens in the first year of your presidency, it’s alway the fault of a preceding Democratic president. Even if you have to go back 30 years to blame a Democrat, it’s OK.
If you’re a Democratic president, everything that happens on your watch is your fault. Even things that happened long before you were elected are your fault, not the cumulative result of decades of “anything goes” deregulation.
That pretty much it?
The Other Jack
March 22nd, 2009
12:00 pm
Gale
Apparently, the AJC has hired a company that does blogs. Look up at the address. I’m pretty sure that most of the posts arre not actively monitored.
The Other Jack
March 22nd, 2009
12:07 pm
Caveman
So you believe that the economy is set by the actions of the president. I see.
It’s about Congress. The problems we are now having began in 2007. Can you tell me what happened to the power structure in Washington in 2007? Election? Pelosi? Reid? 300 investigations in the first 100 days? Any of that ring a bell? It’s about Congress.
Obama and Congress now have free run. If you don’t have a problem with what they are doing, there’s nothing I can do about that. But get your facts right. Bush is gone and a Democratic Congress has been in charge since 2007. Got it?
ByteMe
March 22nd, 2009
12:46 pm
Poor Jack*ss: If my opinion means so little, why did you bother to engage me? Why do you bother to flood this blog with meaningless comments? You’re as bad as the Whiner over on Wooten’s blog… lots to say, none of it matters to anyone but you. Poor you.
And your post of 12:07 says everything about your ability to reason on a rational level. You really think this started in 2007???!? What kind of crap is that? Why is it that real economists were worried back in 2006 that we were in a housing and credit bubble and that the CDS market was a huge unknown that was going to blow up? If it doesn’t match your ideology, it doesn’t exist for you, I guess. “It’s all the Democrats’ fault!” is your repeated lament, as though if you keep repeating it and looking for evidence of it — while ignoring any evidence to the contrary — that you are somehow “right”.
Except you’re not. You’re just a Poor Jack*ss who’s a blog commenter. Must really suck to be you.
The Other Jack
March 22nd, 2009
2:37 pm
BM-Poor Jack*ss: If my opinion means so little, why did you bother to engage me?
Other people read this other than you. Where you aware of that?
BM-Why do you bother to flood this blog with meaningless comments?
I’m sure they mean little to you. I hope you are having a good day. You seem very bitter and out of control, today. You haven’t hit your spouse, have you?
BM-You’re as bad as the Whiner over on Wooten’s blog… lots to say, none of it matters to anyone but you. Poor you.
So how many blogs are you visiting? That could account for a lot of that anger. Why don’t you do your loves ones a favor and take a long walk iin the sunshine. Be careful not to step in front of a bus.
BM-And your post of 12:07 says everything about your ability to reason on a rational level. You really think this started in 2007???!? What kind of crap is that?
Congress controls the economy. The leaders in Congress control Congress. The Democrats are the leaders in Congress and have been since 2007. I don’t think it could be any clearer.
BM-Why is it that real economists were worried back in 2006 that we were in a housing and credit bubble and that the CDS market was a huge unknown that was going to blow up?
That was in 2006. What year is this? How many years do they get to fix it? So far it has been a disaster. But you really just need to calm down, so why don’t you leave that to people who can think a little past that anger.
BM- If it doesn’t match your ideology, it doesn’t exist for you, I guess. “It’s all the Democrats’ fault!” is your repeated lament, as though if you keep repeating it and looking for evidence of it — while ignoring any evidence to the contrary — that you are somehow “right”. Except you’re not. You’re just a Poor Jack*ss who’s a blog commenter. Must really suck to be you.
Wow. It really must suck to be anyone within a city block of you. You really need to get that anger under control. I didn’t make you vote for Obama. It’s not my fault that you now look like a complete fool. Calm down, Pal. Take a walk in the sun. It will be over in 2010 when the Republicans take over and you won’t look like a fool anymore. But stay away from all these blogs. You just aren’t smart enough to compete and I understand how that must make you very angry. .
ByteMe
March 22nd, 2009
3:53 pm
Jack*ss says: “Congress controls the economy?”
Wow. Just wow. Must really suck to be that dumb and not know it. Congress has trouble controlling their own sex organs. You give them way too much credit… or blame.
Oh, and your faith that the Republicans will take over in 2010 is going to be truly tested. They used to do “opposition” really well, now they can’t even get that right.
The Other Jack
March 22nd, 2009
7:54 pm
ByteMe
Whatever you say, pal. Just as long as you calm down. Your spouse deserves much better.
deborahinAthens
March 23rd, 2009
7:09 am
The market is reflecting the reality of the fundamentals of the companies that trade on the exchanges. Banks that had been very profitable overnight lost billions of dollars, so their prices dropped like a stone. Citigroup dropped from 58 (2007) to .97 earlier this year. Citigroup is one of the Dow Industrial stocks, so its drop caused the index to drop. The Dow Industrial Index is “the Market”. As the fallout from the subprime lending mess, the collateralized debt obligations, etc., etc., rippled out, companies like Lennar (homebuilder), Home Depot, Countrywide dropped like stones. Obama had nothing to do with it. Now, let’s look at what might have caused the problems with the banks, and the massive company, AIG. In the late nineties, with a Republican majority in Congress, Senator Phil Gramm, late one night inserted the verbiage into a bill that repealed Glass-Stegall. I’m not sure about the correct spelling, you can look it up. Glass-Stegall prevented banks, insurance companies and investment banks to do any other sort of business other than what they specifically were supposed to do. No mixing of business. This was what enabled AIG to be able to create the “financial service products” that brought them down. Now, you can blame all you want, but, bottom-line, Clinton, who was President at the time, didn’t have enough pull in Congress to override a veto for this little gem of legislation. So, he didn’t try. I suspect that most people in Congress didn’t read the bill, or if they did, they thought, in their peculiar Republican mindset of “all deregulation is good, all government is bad” that this was a great idea since it would eliminate the largest roadblock to banks, insurance companies, and investment banks playing in each others’ playpen. What we need to do now is stop blaming and figure out how to get out of this mess. We don’t need to re-regulate, necessarily, but we do need to have the regulatory agencies to do their jobs. The SEC needs to grow up and do what it is supposed to do. The FDIC needs to watch the banks like the hawk that it is supposed to be, not sit back and watch things devolve to this point. Figure out how to value these “toxic assets” so that banks won’t continue to drop like flies. If you don’t have a good idea how to do this, then shut up and get out of the way of the people that inherited this mess.
The Other Jack
March 23rd, 2009
8:27 am
deborahinAthens
There were lots of small changes made over the years that made it possible for the problems to occur. the problem with your logic is simple: There hasn’t been a Republican majority in Congress since 2007. In 2007, the economy began to downturn and the things that this Democratically controlled congress has has done has further destroyed our economy, not fix it. It is now simply a power grab with the slimy congress doing everything they can to divert attention from that power grab. Just look at the AIG mess. The democrats OK’d the bonuses and then siced the mobs on the private citizens at AIG. You do understand that no matter how incompetent a Congressmen is, he is set for life when he loses his seat, don’t you? Let’s send the lynch mobs after the Congressmen.
Obama is being thrown under the bus by the racist Dixiecrats. I am pretty sure that there were promises made to Hillary and people like KKK Robert Byrd are laughing their butts off. They will all still be in Congress with MUCH more power and Obama will join the ranks of Jimmy Carter as one of our worst presidents. He is laughing his butt off on 60 minutes. He looks like a fool.
Gale
March 23rd, 2009
8:41 am
deborahinAthens: I love a rational voice. When we all realize how fruitless it is to focus on placing blame and instead focus on solving problems, we will get out of the mess a lot faster. The stock market is risky by definition. Values go up and down and that is how it works. When I think back to how I might have moved my investments to something more secure before it all fell down, the stocks I would have chosen as safe were those that tumbled the farthest.
I hope most of the posters enjoyed a lovely weekend, unlike -apparently, The Other Jack and ByteMe. That bitter bit was a terrible way to spend the lovely weather, guys.
Gale
March 23rd, 2009
8:46 am
Oh, TOJ, I figured the blogs were run by a service. They look like all the other generic blogs out there. I guess ajc outsourced the geek jobs needed to run the blogs. I wanted to comment on last week’s topic and tried half a dozen times. This topic is fairly inane, IMO. I do hope you got out into the great weather this weekend.
Gale
March 23rd, 2009
8:47 am
Gandalf, I was not able to say so last week, but I like your Dragon party at least as much as the standard two.
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
9:28 am
Gale, the Dragon Party would have fun fixing the world!
Archie
March 23rd, 2009
9:43 am
“This topic is fairly inane, IMO.” I agree Gale. I did walk a little on Sunday.
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
10:12 am
Barry said he bowled like a Special Olympian, I think that would leave a bad taste in the mouth of any Special Olympian. He’s shows his true elitist attitude only infrequently, but you need use his screw ups to see through him for what he is. His wife is fugly inside and out, so he has no one to talk to, but Allah. His talking to the Iranian people shows his ineptness and naivety. He’s a conceited fool, and we are stuck with him. Gosh Dangit!
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
10:16 am
The biggest problem facing the Dragon party is that during a debate, if Barry would come off with that smug attitude he gave McCain and cut me off, I would calmly leave my podium, walk over to him, {BITCH} slap him then return to my podium and look over at him and say, “don’t do that again son, you don’t want to [piss] me off”, then calmly continue my point. People don’t seem to like that aproach….
Gale
March 23rd, 2009
10:52 am
Interesting debate style, Gandalf. It would be interesting to actually see that some day. Can you imagine an angry tussle on stage after a round of political insults?
Gale
March 23rd, 2009
10:57 am
The Dragon Party had one specific platform that twitched my feminist roots. You would draft all young men. I would draft all young people. The only exception would be those with impairements that restrict them from independent living. I would require service to qualify to vote nad prohibit political indoctrination of the conscripts. I would make pregnacy grounds for dishonarable discharge for both parents, which of course, would void their right to vote. They could redeem that right by some other service to the country; teaching, perhaps.
TakeNote
March 23rd, 2009
11:09 am
Bush vetoed just about everything the Dems did
Take note, all who think Congress(Pelosi and Reid) controlled anything during 2007-2008.
and like to keep blaming the Democratically-controlled Congress during those years for not quickly fixing 6 plus years of gross GOP mismanagement.
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
11:42 am
Gale the draft all young men was a comprimise with the neo right wing faction of the Dragon Party. I wanted to draft everyone, but the whole preggers thing was a pain. You have a eloquent solution, thought the teacher thing kinda scares me as political indoctrination is what the NEA seems to be doing to my children. If we can get the NEA out of the schools and take 75% of the administrators and use them for target practive, then I am all for it. (it can be paintballs if anyone is upset about taking the admins away!)
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
11:43 am
Take Note, take note, your a pround new member of the dumbassi tribe!
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
11:44 am
you’re.. we need dumbass check on this blog!
All the children are beautiful!
March 23rd, 2009
11:55 am
President Obama hates special needs children so much that the stimulus package contains an additional $12.2 Billion in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
IDEA is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.
Infants and toddlers with disabilities (birth-2) and their families receive early intervention services under IDEA Part C. Children and youth (ages 3-21) receive special education and related services under IDEA Part B.
The State of Georgia is slated to receive an additional $310 million in IDEA funds on top of the previously allotted $300 million. The result of the much-maligned stimulus package is that “our world’s most precious and unique people” will actually get funding for their special-needs education, except in States like Alaska where Republican governors are turning down portions of the money.
If Obama REALLY cared about the special needs children, he’d keep his big mouth shut and do nothing to help them. Talk is all that matters to the special needs children of Republicans, and he should honor that.
TakeNote
March 23rd, 2009
12:21 pm
you’re.. we need dumbass check on this blog!
Ain’t dat da truth.
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
12:31 pm
So, we are in a economic recession, and spending $12.2 Billion on special needs children is going to stimulate what part of the economy? Another stupid liberal “it feels good” move! Dumb dumb dumb…. 12.2 billion should be spent on offshore drilling.
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
12:33 pm
Take Note “isn’t that the truth?” Are you too stupid to use english? Maybe you can’t recognize when you use it incorrectly? Maybe you can hook up with the eldest of 8th graders “who turned 16 the summer before high school?” He equal need to take not that he is a dumbassi tribesman.
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
12:34 pm
equally needs…
TakeNote
March 23rd, 2009
12:46 pm
Just trying to be ignorant, like you. ehehehehehehahahahah
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
12:51 pm
you don’t need to try! eheheheheheheh
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
12:52 pm
TakeNote you seem to be aliberal. TakeNote, you have a defect. TakeNote your brain malfunctions. TakeNote you have a mental disorder. But I take pity on you!
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
12:53 pm
hehehehehehe
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
12:53 pm
Gale
March 23rd, 2009
12:57 pm
Point well taken on the teachers, Gandalf. I’m an outsider so I can’t speak to what is going on in schools beyond what my partner’s sister tells us. The ‘teach to the test’ attitude is ruining quality education. And who decides what is on the test anyway? Good teachers dare not go outside the plan because their students may not score well on the standard test. Who cares if they learn how to think? I don’t know if NEA is responsible, but I do know that good teachers are priceless and bad teachers should be fired.
I’ve thought that a full draft was the way to go for a long time. But pregnant soldiers cannot fight. The problem currently is there is no strong consequence for irresponsible behavior.
ByteMe
March 23rd, 2009
1:21 pm
Gale, actually, I had a fine weekend, except for not having access to my kitchen while they repair the floor. Both days were truly wonderful and much of it was spent outside, and who could argue with that?
Oh, as for your desire for “rational” debate, that doesn’t happen often in unmoderated blog comments. Truly a strange experience, some of the people you “meet” out here.
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
1:47 pm
Teachers, for the most part want to teach, parents for the most part, could give a fly flip what happens in school. I go over every class with my boys every night, to find what propoganda they are dishing out. You know when school starts all the supplies they request go into the Commie Locker? That’s what kills me. I spend $100 bucks for supplies and the illegals in class, who don’t bring anything, use it! Make me want to buy a bus company and bus them all back to Mexico!
Gale
March 23rd, 2009
2:42 pm
That sucks, Gandalf! I understand that some kids may lack school supplies. But it is the responsibility of the school system to deal with that, not for your kids to have to share their supplies. It sounds like they expect a certain number of kids to need supplies and so elevate the supplies for kids whose parents will buy stuff because they will “spread the wealth”. Grrrr… I don’t like it.
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
2:52 pm
but that is the reality in 2009 gwinnett county. They got mad when I put my sons name on EVERYTHING I bought last year!
Gandalf, the White!
March 23rd, 2009
2:54 pm
They actual called me for a meeting,
Gosh where they in for a suprise!
Gale
March 23rd, 2009
3:20 pm
Way to go, Gandalf! It is one thing for the school board to decide to provide supplies for students who do not have supplies. It is quite another thing to take them from one student to give to another without the parent’s knowledge or permission. What earthly reason is there for any parent to buy supplies if the “state” will just give them to your kid for free? That solution is inappropriate. Now, I understand that some families, citizens or legal immigrants, may be in dire straits and cannot afford supplies. Send that issue to the school board to provide for those students. If the parents are illegals, the kid should not be admitted to class in the first place. I am sorry if that offends anyone. But illegals do not get free services, except a bus ticket back home. This is as bad as the practice of random locker searches in schools. We have basic rights in our Constitution. If we allow them to be trampled in the schools without cries of outrage, how do we expect those students to grow up with any real sense of what American is all about?
AW
March 23rd, 2009
4:22 pm
Which basic Constitutional rights have ever been upheld in schools, and since when?
kp
March 23rd, 2009
10:42 pm
To all the children are beautiful
That is certainly a very worthy cause. You paint a broad brush however in assuming that since an Alaska Govenor turned down a protion of the “stimulus” money they obviously are not funding any program on the sort that you tout. Again, do not misintrepet me – your cause is a very diserving one. Your comments regarding a “republican” senator however make your other comments null and void – you disagree with all republicans period.
The Other Jack
March 24th, 2009
6:28 am
Gale
I had a great weekend. I gues USinUK is in the states now. Now what did I do with that creamy peanut butter?
Eric
March 24th, 2009
7:34 am
No, Obama is turning out to be very conservative and supportive of Wall Street and the rich who run it. What a disappointment for those of us on the left!
Mara
March 24th, 2009
7:48 am
from the book of What the H*ll?! –
As if the Garden State didn’t have enough troubles, lawmakers in Trenton are prepared to level one of the foundations of the state economy: the Brazilian.
The state Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling is moving toward a ban on genital waxing altogether after two women reported being injured in their quest for a smooth bikini line.
Both women were hospitalized for infections following so-called “Brazilian” bikini waxes; one of the women has filed a lawsuit, according to Jeff Lamm, a spokesman for New Jersey’s Division of Consumer Affairs, which oversees the cosmetology board.
Technically, genital waxing has never been allowed — only the face, neck, abdomen, legs and arms are permitted — but because bare-it-all “Brazilians” weren’t specifically banned, state regulators haven’t enforced the law.
“The genital area is not part of the abdomen or legs as some might assume,” Lamm said.
“Perhaps not, Mr. Lamm, but what do you say to the thousands of cosmetologists who are about to become criminals overnight? And what do you say to the millions of New Jersey women who will be forced to live with unwanted hair? And what of the state’s jobs and economy? Will New Jersey next ruin pivotal wealth producers like the orange body spray sector, or neon underbody manufacturers, because of a few industrial accidents?”
“Perhaps Brazilians from trained cosmetologists pose a slight risk, but what of the dangers of unlicensed waxing, sure to occur when the demand is driven underground?”
“Spa owner Linda Orsuto, who owns 800 West Salon & Spa in Cherry Hill, estimates that most of 1,800 bikini waxes performed at her business last year were Brazilian-style. “It’s huge,” she said, adding that her customers don’t think their bikini lines are anyone’s business but their own. “It’s just not right.” She said many customers would likely travel across state lines to get it and some might even try to wax themselves.
————————————————————————
and you all thought that we didn’t have enough to worry about…
Lyrazel
March 24th, 2009
8:25 am
Mara! What they found out and do not really WANT to publish is how many men in weightlifting competition also get Brazilian waxes!
O! So many men! So much hair! I am thinking of a new career!!!!
Mara
March 24th, 2009
9:19 am
Lyrazel – I am thinking of a new career!!!!
eeewwww! Yeah, somebody’s got to do it…but ripping the hair off butts and genitalia just doesn’t sound like a lot of fun to me
and speaking of men getting waxed…the article said that “only the face, neck, abdomen, legs and arms are permitted” so why isn’t back hair included in the ban?
Gandalf, the White!
March 24th, 2009
10:13 am
I might just open a brazilian wax palor exclusively for woman. To think a woman would actually pay me to wax her there! That’s insane!
Lyrazel
March 24th, 2009
11:42 am
Was recently looking at a men’s backhair shaver. Its shaped like a ruler and pet lint brush. Gentlemen rake their backs with it.
My husband cowered–and hid when I was laughing on my new career—saying:
Stubble!!!
O yes! Beauty is cruel.
JustaJew
March 24th, 2009
1:01 pm
how do we expect those students to grow up with any real sense of what American is all about?
Hey Gale, children, above al others, already know exactly what America is about because America is really about childish things now. 1.) It’s all about me and mine! 2.) HE DID IT!!! NOT ME!!!!
Those two positions pretty much sum up what America is about today….
Gale
March 24th, 2009
1:02 pm
Lyrazel, I hate stubble. I can’t understand why most women don’t prefer beards on men.
Gale
March 24th, 2009
1:18 pm
JustaJew, That is so sad, but true in many sectors. We don’t provides a lot of examples of responsibile behavior and accountability. If we did, those executives of failing companies who took/are taking bonuses, would instead refuse them and appologize to the many people their risky actions effected. I long to see one American executive publicly say he is sorry for the mess he helped to create and he is resigning because of his part. It is not in our cultural base apparently. Do parents even teach their children to fess up to thier mistakes anymore?