The Obama Bear Market

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Buffalo Roam, Mar 2, 2009.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,170
    How could clinton continue his "cuts" the military in 2003 bush was president?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931

    Typo, should read 1993, when the First Attack was made against the WTC, Clinton had already been alerted about Osmam.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

    September 11, 2003, 11:45 a.m.
    Clinton’s Loss?
    How the previous administration fumbled on bin Laden.

    Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist. His new book, Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror has just been released by Regnery. He spoke to NRO early today about the run-up to the war on terror.

    Richard Miniter:
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,170
    Sounds to me like he is just another hack trying to cover for bush's negligence. Clinton worked toward dealing with Osama. Bush was told to look out for him and ignored him.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    On the issue of economics and the stock markets, SAM has very easily demonstrated more knowledge and wisdom than you have Baron. And she is correct in her assesment of the DOW.

    In theory the DOW is supposed to be rational, according to Rational Markets Theory. In practice it is far from rational as humans are not always rational and clearly that is the case. There can be no other explanation for markets gyrating 200-300 points from day to day on essentially the same information.
     
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Really, Pres. Bush was in Office what 11 months, Clinton had 8 years, Osama was on the radar screen in 1993, and Clinton did nothing constructive about Obama in 8 years.

    Yes, grasshopper, covering for Bush?

    Now when did Osama make his first attack against the U.S.

    And Clinton was warned about Osama Bin Ladn when He took office, so again, Who screwed the pooch on this?

    8 years of screwing the pooch, and negligence, in respoding to Osama.

    06 November 1998

    TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

    United States District Court
    Southern District of New York

    Press Release (PDF format)

    Usama Bin-Laden Indictment (PDF format)

    Usama Bin-Laden, Muhammad Atef, et al. Indictment
    Introduction and Counts 1 thru 3 (PDF format)
    Counts 4 thru 238 (PDF format)

    New York -- A U.S. Federal Grand Jury in New York on Nov. 5 issued an
    indictment against Usama Bin Laden alleging that he and others engaged
    in a long-term conspiracy to attack U.S. facilities overseas and to
    kill American citizens.

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    - V-

    USAMA BIN LADEN,

    a/k/a "Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden,"

    a/k/a "Shaykh Usamah Bin-Laden,"

    a/k/a "Mujahid Shaykh,"

    a/k/a "Abu Abdallah,"

    a/k/a "Qa Qa,"

    Defendant

    COUNT ONE

    Conspiracy to Attack Defense Utilities of the United States

    The Grand Jury charges:

    Background: Al Qaeda

    1. At all relevant times from in or about 1989 until the date of the
    filing of this Indictment, an international terrorist group existed
    which was dedicated to opposing non-Islamic governments with force and
    violence. This organization grew out of the "mekhtab al Khidemat" (the
    "Services Office") organization which had maintained (and continues to
    maintain) offices in various parts of the world, including
    Afghanistan, Pakistan (particularly in Peshawar) and the United
    States, particularly at the Alkifah Refugee Center - in Brooklyn. From
    in or about 1989 until the present, the group called itself "Al Qaeda"
    ("the Base"). From 1989 until in or about 1991, the group was
    headquartered in Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan. In or about 1992,
    the leadership of Al Qaeda, including its "emir" (or prince) USAMA BIN
    LADEN the defendant, and its military command relocated to the Sudan.
    From in or about 1991 until the present, the group also called itself
    the "Islamic Army." The international terrorist group (hereafter
    referred to as "Al Qaeda") was headquartered in the Sudan from
    approximately 1992 until approximately 1996 but still maintained
    offices in various parts of the world. In 1996, USAMA BIN LADEN and Al
    Qaeda relocated to Afghanistan. At all relevant times, Al Qaeda was
    led by its "emir," USAMA BIN LADEN. Members of Al Qaeda pledged an
    oath of allegiance to USAMA BIN LADEN and Al Qaeda.


    2. Al Qaeda opposed the United States for several reasons. First, the
    United States was regarded as "infidel" because it was not governed in
    a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of
    Islam. Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential
    support for other "infidel" governments and institutions, particularly
    the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel and
    the United Nations, which were regarded as enemies of the group.
    Third, Al Qaeda opposed the involvement of the United states armed
    forces in the Gulf War in 1991 and in Operation Restore Hope in
    Somalia in 1992 and 1993. In particular, Al Qaeda opposed the
    continued presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia (and
    elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) following the Gulf war.
    Fourth, Al Qaeda opposed the United States Government because of the
    arrest, conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to Al Qaeda
    or its affiliated terrorist groups, including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.


    3. Al Qaeda has functioned both on its own and through some of the
    terrorist organizations that have operated under its umbrella,
    including: the Islamic Group (also known as "al Gamaa Islamia" or
    simply "Gamaa't"), led by co-conspirator Sheik Oxar Abdal Rahman; the
    al Jihad group based in Egypt; the "Talah e Fatah" ("Vanguards of
    conquest") faction of al Jibad, which was also based in Egypt, Which
    faction was led by co-conspirator Ayman al Zawahiri ("al Jibad");
    Palestinian Islamic Jihad and a number of Jihad groups in other
    countries, including Egypt, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia,
    Eritrea, Kenya, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon,
    the Philippines, Tajikistan, Chechnya, Bangladesh, Kashmir and
    Azerbaijan. In February 1998, Al Qaeda joined forces with Gamaa't, Al
    Jihad, the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh and the "Jamaat ul Ulema e
    Pakistan" to issue a fatwah (an Islamic religious ruling) declaring
    war against American civilians worldwide under the banner of the
    "International Islamic Front for Jibad on the Jews and Crusaders."


    4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
    the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
    group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
    perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
    In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
    Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
    particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
    Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.


    5. Al Qaeda had a command and control structure which included a
    majlis al shura (or consultation council) which discussed and approved
    major undertakings, including terrorist operations.


    6. Al Qaeda also conducted internal investigations of its members and
    their associates in an effort to detect informants and killed those
    suspected of collaborating with enemies of Al Qaeda.


    7. From at least 1991 until the date of the filing of this Indictment,
    in the Sudan, Afghanistan and elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any
    particular state or district, USAMA BIN LADEN, a/k/a "Usamah
    Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden," a/k/a "Shaykh Usamah Bin-Laden," a/k/a
    "Mujahid Shaykh," a/k/a "Abu Abdallah," a/k/a "Qa Qa," the defendant,
    and a co-conspirator not named as a defendant herein (hereafter
    "Co-conspirator") who was first brought to and arrested in the
    Southern District of New York, and others known and unknown to the
    grand jury, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly combined conspired,
    confederated and agreed together and with each other to injure and
    destroy, and attempt to injure and destroy, national-defense material,
    national-defense premises and national-defense utilities of the United
    States with the intent to injure, interfere with and obstruct the
    national defense of the United states.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    And while you are checking voting records, check the voting records of the Republicans on those bills. You will find they voted for reducing the military as well. And it was 2 years before Republicans took control of Congress. Republcians and Democrats both voted to reduce the size of the military in the 90's because there was no reason to continue to fund a large military. At that time Obama was just a man who had not committed any crimes against The United States and did not warrant maintaining a large standing military capable of fighting WWIII. And you know it. You don't need a military capable of fighting the Soviet Union to fight a terrorist...another duh! With the possible exeption of the Army as they never have enough men or supplies to do anything.
     
  10. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    The markets are acting rationally to THE Obamas, just because they aren't supporting THE Obamas plan doesn't mean that they are not rational.
     
  11. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    It hasn't been representative of economic health in years, stocks may have had a good nominal run but since as far back as 2000 they've been in a bear market losing value when measured in other currencies and commodities. This bust has been a long time coming.
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
  13. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    ftfy.
     
  14. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Now joe there you go again:

    Congressional secessions are for 2 years,

    The 102 Congress was controlled by the Democrats:

    House
    Democratic Party 270 62.1% Republican Party 164 37.7%
    Independent 1 0.2%
    Total 435

    Senate
    Democratic Party 56 --> 57 Republican Party 44 --> 43

    The 103 Congress was controlled by the Democrats:
    Democratic Party 258 59.3% Republican Party 176 40.6%
    Independent 1 0.2%

    The 103 Congress was controlled by the Democrats:
    Democratic Party 258 59.3% Republican Party 176 40.6%
    Independent 1 0.2%

    Senate
    Democratic Party 57 Republican Party 43

    The Congress meets in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

    The term Congress is also used to refer to a particular meeting of the national legislature, reckoned according to the terms of representatives. Therefore, a "Congress" covers two years. The current 111th Congress met on January 6, 2009.

    The Democrats controlled the Congress for the first 4 years of the Clinton Presidency, and that is when Clinton and the Democrats cut the Military in the Peace Dividend.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Like Japan, the US military should be disbanded and they should not be permitted to rebuild it.
     
  16. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Now that's a little extreme. A major reduction in military with the myriad bases around the world closed and all the troops brought him however is something I'm happy to be on board with.

    Now, I don't follow lefty sites so hopefully a lefty here can tell me: are there any liberals asking why is Obama fighting two ME wars when the country is bankrupt? Is the justification the idea of stimulus and that having a military demand in the form of war will help us get out of the economic slump?
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    You're asking me to define the logic of US foreign policy? I can find more logic in a Bollywood flick.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Maybe its the ultimate suicide mission. After all, empires go to Afghanistan to die.
     
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,170
    one middle eastern war aphganistan is part of asia proper.
     
  19. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    It's official. The market has dropped 20% in the brief time Obama has been in office. That qualifies this as a Bear Market, and since he's the man in charge, it's the Obama Bear Market.
    President Barack Obama now has the distinction of presiding over his own bear market.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 20 percent since Inauguration Day, the fastest drop under a newly elected president in at least 90 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The gauge has lost 53 percent from its October 2007 record of 14,164.53, slipping 4.1 percent to 6,594.44 yesterday.

    More than $1.6 trillion has been erased from U.S. equities since Jan. 20 as mounting bank losses and rising unemployment convinced investors the recession is getting worse.

    “It’s the Obama bear market
    ,” said Dan Veru, who helps oversee $2.8 billion at Palisade Capital Management in Fort Lee, New Jersey. “We don’t know what the rules are in so many different areas the government is touching.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGJ_.gr_awkY
    Interestingly, this breaks the trend whereby the market generally goes up when a Democrat takes office. There were 2 notable exceptions in the past 100 years: Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson.
    The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

    Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

    Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.

    As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.

    The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.

    Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.

    New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.

    From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.

    On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html
     
  20. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Hurray for THE Obama!!!!!, He now has His legacy, and in only 20 days.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,559
    Meh. Obama could hardly be expected to stop the global financial crisis, which started long before he became President, which he has been for only 50 days or so.

    Why didn't you complain about the Bush policies of deregulation of financial markets, tax cuts for the rich, savings banks being allowed to invest as investment banks, mortgage providers being allowed to sign up people for sub-prime mortgages etc. etc.?

    I assume it's because Bush was a Republican, and therefore could do no wrong.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,403
    Did you expect a different result if McCain had been elected instead of Obama?

    The legacy was created by Bush and inherited by Obama and will probably be inherited by the next few leaders of your country as well. So I guess that cheer should really read "Hurray for Bush".
     
  23. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Dam James, Bush could do not wrong? :roflmao:by your measure He could do no right.

    If you care to look

    It was the Democrats who blocked the regulation, here is a example of their protection and in their own words:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8

    At a 2004 hearing, see Democrat after Democrat covering up to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (their Cash Cows) from suggested regulations by Republicans, to prevent what is happening in 2008, the destroying our economy.Remember back in July 2008, when Rep. Barney Frank told the Boston Globe that the mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were "not in danger of going under." And that, "their prospects going forward are very solid." A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. Luke 6:45. If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit: We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil: Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse: My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood. Proverbs 1:11-16. Behold, the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy; To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine. Psalm 33:18,19. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9,10. The Making of a Zombie or Politician - http://www.youtube.com/watch?
     

Share This Page