If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Major business news site gets bored, decides to point out that Republicans are fiscally irresponsible and Democrats are better for the stock market   (bloomberg.com) divider line 52
    More: Unlikely, Democrats, human beings, President Ford, life better, equity investors, Ramesh Ponnuru  
•       •       •

1690 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Oct 2012 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-09 08:43:07 AM
An unlikely source of honesty, I take it the tag means?
 
2012-10-09 08:43:48 AM
I want you to look at Bush's budget, Libtard. I want you to marvel at how such a brilliant President could fund not only one, but TWO wars, without having to add anything to the budget.

Then Obama takes over, and the wars start costing us money. Thanks a lot, Fartbongo!

/I bet Rmoney could throw a third one on there without breaking a sweat.
 
2012-10-09 08:46:25 AM
I'm shocked to find that one of the authors worked for the current administration...
 
2012-10-09 08:47:52 AM

Alphax: An unlikely source of honesty, I take it the tag means?


Ah, I was confused by the tag for a moment, but that would make sense.
 
2012-10-09 08:48:52 AM

Alphax: An unlikely source of honesty, I take it the tag means?


How much would you trust anything named Bloomberg?
 
2012-10-09 08:49:07 AM
Democrats are good for all business, which is socialism. Republicans are good for business that deserve it which is capitalism.
 
2012-10-09 08:50:12 AM
If Romney wins, what stocks are best bets?

And maybe defense industry and maybe Finance before economy collapses again?
 
2012-10-09 08:50:50 AM

Alphax: An unlikely source of honesty, I take it the tag means?


Or more page hits.
 
2012-10-09 08:52:06 AM

xtragrind: I'm shocked to find that one of the authors worked for the current administration...


Care to point out the fallacy then?
 
2012-10-09 08:52:26 AM
None of these sh*twad republicans gave one crap about the debt until 2009. Up til then it was rootin shootin war time, heroes galore, and thank god for wall street.

I know one party has middle class interests in mind most of the time, and that one party sure as hell aint you, Derp Tard Tea Bag Republicans.
 
2012-10-09 08:54:07 AM
Looks like someone doesn't want to get invited to the company's next Christmas Party.
 
2012-10-09 08:59:12 AM
Anybody else expect Bloomberg to run for President in 2016?
 
2012-10-09 09:00:53 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Anybody else expect Bloomberg to run for President in 2016?


yes.
 
2012-10-09 09:01:48 AM

FlameDuck: If Romney wins, what stocks are best bets?



www.places-to-go.org.uk
 
2012-10-09 09:09:33 AM
Just goes to show you, no matter who wins businesses will keep getting their knobs polished by whoever is president.
 
2012-10-09 09:09:39 AM
This really isn't that unusual for Bloomberg.
 
2012-10-09 09:10:07 AM
farm9.staticflickr.com



farm9.staticflickr.com



farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-09 09:13:24 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-09 09:14:51 AM
"Tax and spend" makes more sense than "borrow from China and spend then biatch about how much money we owe the commie bastards"?
Get outta here!
 
2012-10-09 09:20:13 AM
It even works if you leave Hoover out.
 
2012-10-09 09:22:54 AM

Karac: "Tax and spend" makes more sense than "borrow from China and spend then biatch about how much money we owe the commie bastards"?
Get outta here!


I'm so tiredof this "borrow from china" scare tactic. We sell debt instruments. While we are technically "borrowing" china's money when they buy them, what we are really doing is SELLING them our debt. The debt has a term. It has a rate. China can't just come in and "call in our debt" and screw us. Who cares who owns it? Lots of people, companies, and countries own it. Its just a different address to send the maturity check to.
 
2012-10-09 09:24:24 AM
No shiat; however, Republicans are better at fooling the masses which is vital for keeping the hordes of Honey Boo Boo viewers in line.
 
2012-10-09 09:25:54 AM

CPennypacker: I'm so tiredof this "borrow from china" scare tactic.


Also China is buying a lot of the debt to fix their own exchange rate, it's not like they're buying up the debt to have some nefarious control over the US or something like that.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-09 09:32:20 AM

Vertdang: xtragrind: I'm shocked to find that one of the authors worked for the current administration...

Care to point out the fallacy then?


If they aren't pulling for Republicans then they are the enemy.
 
2012-10-09 09:33:27 AM

Karac: "Tax and spend" makes more sense than "borrow from China and spend then biatch about how much money we owe the commie bastards"?


I prefer the Republicans' method of "Don't tax, but still spend anyway".
 
2012-10-09 09:38:03 AM

hugram: [farm9.staticflickr.com image 566x426]



[farm9.staticflickr.com image 589x311]



[farm9.staticflickr.com image 583x258]


Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 850x637]


Those numbers are straight from the pits of hell to convince me I don't need a [republican] savior.
 
2012-10-09 09:39:09 AM

CPennypacker: Karac: "Tax and spend" makes more sense than "borrow from China and spend then biatch about how much money we owe the commie bastards"?
Get outta here!

I'm so tiredof this "borrow from china" scare tactic. We sell debt instruments. While we are technically "borrowing" china's money when they buy them, what we are really doing is SELLING them our debt. The debt has a term. It has a rate. China can't just come in and "call in our debt" and screw us. Who cares who owns it? Lots of people, companies, and countries own it. Its just a different address to send the maturity check to.


when romney made his big bird china comment i was WTF? seems like the commentary since has focused on the tiny portion of the budget PBS is and the "borrow" part has been ignored.
 
2012-10-09 09:39:40 AM
So the top 10% get wealthier under democratic administrations and income disparity grows?

No wonder Obama got Homeland Security involved with the OWS protests...must have been his Wall Street overlords economic advisory team telling him what to do.
 
2012-10-09 09:41:58 AM

Giltric: So the top 10% get wealthier under democratic administrations and income disparity grows?

No wonder Obama got Homeland Security involved with the OWS protests...must have been his Wall Street overlords economic advisory team telling him what to do.


Some people would call this cognitive dissonance, but I disagree. Cognitive dissonance hurts you when it happens. These people are not pained by this kind of thinking. It isn't cognitive dissonance, its just stupidity.
 
2012-10-09 09:45:33 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 850x637]


Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?
 
2012-10-09 09:47:27 AM

Giltric: Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?


In 2010.
 
2012-10-09 09:49:59 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?

In 2010.


No, a couple days ago.
 
2012-10-09 09:52:22 AM

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?

In 2010.

No, a couple days ago.


God you're dense.
 
2012-10-09 09:52:22 AM

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 850x637]

Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?


So trickle down economics does not work? Got it. Now go on to freeperland and let them know about your findings.
 
2012-10-09 09:52:44 AM

Giltric: No, a couple days ago.


That 93% income gain for the top 1% happened in 2010.
 
2012-10-09 09:56:25 AM

thurstonxhowell: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?

In 2010.

No, a couple days ago.

God you're dense.


Wolff's Law.
 
2012-10-09 09:57:07 AM

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?

In 2010.

No, a couple days ago.


Ha, HAHAHAHA oh my that was funny. Seriously.

Reminded me of this exchange:

New Zealand model Nicky Watson, croakily: I've been looking for my lost dog for days. I've been all over the area day and night, calling, 'Cricket, Cricket,' trying to find my poor Cricket.

Interviewer: You're hoarse.

Nicky Watson: No, my chihuahua.
 
2012-10-09 10:00:38 AM
Unlikely? I guess subby never met Michael Bloomberg.
 
2012-10-09 10:03:59 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: No, a couple days ago.

That 93% income gain for the top 1% happened in 2010.


i.crackedcdn.com
 
2012-10-09 10:05:52 AM

CPennypacker: Giltric: So the top 10% get wealthier under democratic administrations and income disparity grows?

No wonder Obama got Homeland Security involved with the OWS protests...must have been his Wall Street overlords economic advisory team telling him what to do.

Some people would call this cognitive dissonance, but I disagree. Cognitive dissonance hurts you when it happens. These people are not pained by this kind of thinking. It isn't cognitive dissonance, its just stupidity.


And bad math. The chart shows that the income gain of the top 5% was just slightly less than the working class under democrats. And not by enough to make up for the disparity going the other way under republicans.
 
2012-10-09 10:06:21 AM
It kinda makes sense. Obama's a pro-corporate right of center president. Pretty much perfect for Wall St. Plus, if you put Romney in, the tea party will likely be embiggened enough to bring the US to another credit downgrade.
 
2012-10-09 10:18:19 AM

Deneb81: CPennypacker: Giltric: So the top 10% get wealthier under democratic administrations and income disparity grows?

No wonder Obama got Homeland Security involved with the OWS protests...must have been his Wall Street overlords economic advisory team telling him what to do.

Some people would call this cognitive dissonance, but I disagree. Cognitive dissonance hurts you when it happens. These people are not pained by this kind of thinking. It isn't cognitive dissonance, its just stupidity.

And bad math. The chart shows that the income gain of the top 5% was just slightly less than the working class under democrats. And not by enough to make up for the disparity going the other way under republicans.


Which chart?

The markets are owned by the top 10% of the wealth in this country. They hold something like 90% of all stocks.
When people are using the markets as a measure of success it doesn't really tell you how main street is doing but is a good indicator of the rich getting richer.

How many working stiffs does it take to equal a 5% gain in a top 1%ers or 10%ers income?

One 1%ers income increased by 10's of millions or even 100's of millions while the working stiff has an extra 25$ in their check when you use the 5% increase metric.
 
2012-10-09 10:20:27 AM

LesterB: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?

In 2010.

No, a couple days ago.

Ha, HAHAHAHA oh my that was funny. Seriously.

Reminded me of this exchange:

New Zealand model Nicky Watson, croakily: I've been looking for my lost dog for days. I've been all over the area day and night, calling, 'Cricket, Cricket,' trying to find my poor Cricket.

Interviewer: You're hoarse.

Nicky Watson: No, my chihuahua.


Yeah, that was too funny. I saw it comming but didn't know if it would really happen. Reminds me of this joke:

Guy walks in to a bar with a giraffe and the giraffe lays down. The bartender screams: "You can't leave that lyin' in here." The guy replies: "That's not a lion, it's a giraffe!"
 
2012-10-09 10:45:57 AM

thurstonxhowell: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?

In 2010.

No, a couple days ago.

God you're dense.



That was awesome.
 
2012-10-09 10:57:06 AM
One of the most interesting points from that article was only briefly touched on at the end, where she mentions that Republicans usually favor existing business versus entrants to the market. I think that is really a very salient point. For all the rhetoric about "small business" and "free markets," it seems to me that the Republicans only believe the market can produce already existing products and if you suggest moving away from them (or at least the ones contributing to the GOP) that somehow that is socialism.

This seems to be an especially dangerous mindset to be in today. As globalization and communication really gets underway, we are going to need forward thinking economic strategy to compete. Relying on existing business models and historic sectors of the economy may prove deficient. This is especially true of emerging technologies which have not yet achieved returns to scale, but which may prove highly lucrative a decade from now.
 
2012-10-09 11:22:56 AM

Mercutio74: It kinda makes sense. Obama's a pro-corporate right of center president. Pretty much perfect for Wall St. Plus, if you put Romney in, the tea party will likely be embiggened enough to bring the US to another credit downgrade.


No way. If you put Romney in the Tea Party will raise the debt ceiling without so much as blinking.
 
2012-10-09 11:50:30 AM

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Didn't you make a claim the other day that 93% of the income gains went to the top 1% in the CBO/Bush tax cuts thread?

In 2010.

No, a couple days ago.


i236.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-09 12:07:49 PM

WhyteRaven74: CPennypacker: I'm so tiredof this "borrow from china" scare tactic.

Also China is buying a lot of the debt to fix their own exchange rate, it's not like they're buying up the debt to have some nefarious control over the US or something like that.


File that under T. For "Things I figured out in like Fourth Grade" Anyone who is still swayed by that shiat lacks the intellectual curiosity to ever understand how something like that might impact their day-to-day, and will instead vote for whoever will keep their daughter from having an abortion.
 
2012-10-09 01:05:43 PM

Citrate1007: No shiat; however, Republicans are better at fooling the masses which is vital for keeping the hordes of Honey Boo Boo viewers in line.


They aren't fooling anyone; they don't have to. The teatards KNOW they are screwing themselves financially, but they don't mind the sacrifice because of Jesus. They also know that rich people are rich because they are simply better, and that rules are different for Rulers than they are for Citizens, and they believe that's they way it should be.

The non-Teatards have to listen to the teatards, but they get to take all their money, so they just plug in their Ipod and go on about with their day and ignore the yammering..
 
2012-10-09 04:54:37 PM

hugram: [farm9.staticflickr.com image 566x426]
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 589x311]
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 583x258]


So the third best president evar for the Dow, and the second-best president evar for the S&P 500 and NASDAQ, is a socialist communist muslim Kenyan who's owned by fat cat capitalists, or something like that?
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report