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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7540668


(Some Guy)   The first term of President Obama - known for his opposition to business, bankers and Wall Street - was the third-best presidential first term ever for the stock markets   (creditseason.com) divider line 40
    More: Unlikely, President Obama, Wall Street, TD Ameritrade, bear markets, Bespoke Investment Group, marketing executives  
•       •       •

79 clicks; Favorite

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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-22 12:10:06 AM
Yeah, he talks against Wall street, but he has been in bed with Wall street from the start.  Evidence, not one banker went to jail.
 
2013-01-22 12:24:06 AM
twimg0-a.akamaihd.net
"Pump and dump, baby... pump and dump."
 
2013-01-22 12:31:59 AM
Yeah, uh... I like Obama, I really do.  But "opposition to bankers and Wall Street" is a bit of a stretch.  He's been pretty well owned by them, and they were his biggest donors.  I'd like to hope that now that he's gotten a second term, he can (should he be so inclined) work on some legislation to reign these farkers in some, but realistically he's probably going to need to think about a post-Presidency career, so he can't fully alienate them.
 
2013-01-22 12:53:40 AM

Osomatic: I'd like to hope that now that he's gotten a second term, he can (should he be so inclined) work on some legislation to reign these farkers in some, but realistically he's probably going to need to think about a post-Presidency career, so he can't fully alienate them.


Does using his $199,700-a-year presidential pension and book royalties to buy a nice house near the beach in Hawaii and then chilling out for the next 30-40 years constitute a "career?"  'Cos he could totally do that.

Not that he ever would, of course.
 
2013-01-22 01:22:45 AM
He'll be remembered as Carter, amirite?
 
2013-01-22 04:26:06 AM

dbirchall: Osomatic: I'd like to hope that now that he's gotten a second term, he can (should he be so inclined) work on some legislation to reign these farkers in some, but realistically he's probably going to need to think about a post-Presidency career, so he can't fully alienate them.

Does using his $199,700-a-year presidential pension and book royalties to buy a nice house near the beach in Hawaii and then chilling out for the next 30-40 years constitute a "career?"  'Cos he could totally do that.

Not that he ever would, of course.


He could but... I don't think that the sort of person who wants to be President is the sort of person who will just say "fark all fo this" and go live in a tropical paradise, far away from the seat of power.  It's what you and I would do, but not what he will, I'm guessing.  He'll still want to be... you know... in the game.
 
2013-01-22 07:39:33 AM

Osomatic: dbirchall: Osomatic: I'd like to hope that now that he's gotten a second term, he can (should he be so inclined) work on some legislation to reign these farkers in some, but realistically he's probably going to need to think about a post-Presidency career, so he can't fully alienate them.

Does using his $199,700-a-year presidential pension and book royalties to buy a nice house near the beach in Hawaii and then chilling out for the next 30-40 years constitute a "career?"  'Cos he could totally do that.

Not that he ever would, of course.

He could but... I don't think that the sort of person who wants to be President is the sort of person who will just say "fark all fo this" and go live in a tropical paradise, far away from the seat of power.  It's what you and I would do, but not what he will, I'm guessing.  He'll still want to be... you know... in the game.


Perhaps he could buy a ranch that has a lot of brush to clear.
 
2013-01-22 08:31:02 AM
Only if you believe right wing BS
 
2013-01-22 08:42:39 AM
Best Republican President EVER.
 
2013-01-22 08:50:04 AM
The first Obama term made me understand Wall Street traders and bankers far better than the financial crisis ever did.

Apparently, it wasn't enough for them that the president was pursuing policies that were grossly deferential to their interests...they also "needed" a president who would constantly stroke their egos.

Why the hell are those guys so farking insecure?
 
2013-01-22 09:13:21 AM

eraser8: The first Obama term made me understand Wall Street traders and bankers far better than the financial crisis ever did.

Apparently, it wasn't enough for them that the president was pursuing policies that were grossly deferential to their interests...they also "needed" a president who would constantly stroke their egos.

Why the hell are those guys so farking insecure?


Project much?
 
2013-01-22 09:14:46 AM

randomizetimer: Yeah, he talks against Wall street, but he has been in bed with Wall street from the start.  Evidence, not one banker went to jail.


But he hurt their feelings once, so he's opposed to Wall Street.
 
2013-01-22 09:19:02 AM

eraser8: The first Obama term made me understand Wall Street traders and bankers far better than the financial crisis ever did.

Apparently, it wasn't enough for them that the president was pursuing policies that were grossly deferential to their interests...they also "needed" a president who would constantly stroke their egos.

Why the hell are those guys so farking insecure?


Whatever drives them to be demons of finance also makes them incredibly insecure. They *have* to be the best, amazing, and everyone has to know it, or they go crazy.
 
2013-01-22 09:28:43 AM
Holy crap, when are these articles going to quit. They are beyond rediculous. It was coincidence that Obama started his term so soon after the flash crash, which it was already climbing out of regardless of who was president at the time. EVEN THEN, it was the Fed pooring billions of dollars a day into the markets by buying back worthless bonds that gave bankers money to invest in the stock market.
 
2013-01-22 09:29:08 AM

Osomatic: dbirchall: Osomatic: I'd like to hope that now that he's gotten a second term, he can (should he be so inclined) work on some legislation to reign these farkers in some, but realistically he's probably going to need to think about a post-Presidency career, so he can't fully alienate them.

Does using his $199,700-a-year presidential pension and book royalties to buy a nice house near the beach in Hawaii and then chilling out for the next 30-40 years constitute a "career?"  'Cos he could totally do that.

Not that he ever would, of course.

He could but... I don't think that the sort of person who wants to be President is the sort of person who will just say "fark all fo this" and go live in a tropical paradise, far away from the seat of power.  It's what you and I would do, but not what he will, I'm guessing.  He'll still want to be... you know... in the game.


You never know. He could come down with a bad case of agoraphobia and spend all his time painting.

/Just waiting for G.W. To go full Howard Hughes on us.
 
2013-01-22 09:32:16 AM
funny how when you loan money to the banking sector in the form of stimulus interest free and they in turn loan this money to the public at interest, its good fo' bidness.

2nd stimulus: PAY OFF OUR STUDENT LOANS instead of CUPPING WALL STREETS BALLS if you want to help the middle class.
 
2013-01-22 09:33:22 AM
Massive inflation woudl do that.
 
2013-01-22 09:35:58 AM

Father_Jack: funny how when you loan money to the banking sector in the form of stimulus interest free and they in turn loan this money to the public at interest, its good fo' bidness.

2nd stimulus: PAY OFF OUR STUDENT LOANS instead of CUPPING WALL STREETS BALLS if you want to help the middle class.


Why should the government pay off anyone's student loans?
 
2013-01-22 09:38:33 AM

Waldo Pepper: Father_Jack: funny how when you loan money to the banking sector in the form of stimulus interest free and they in turn loan this money to the public at interest, its good fo' bidness.

2nd stimulus: PAY OFF OUR STUDENT LOANS instead of CUPPING WALL STREETS BALLS if you want to help the middle class.

Why should the government pay off anyone's student loans?


Why should the government bail out anyone?
 
2013-01-22 09:42:03 AM
No, you don't understand. Wall Street prospered despite Obama. If we didn't didn't have such godlike titans of industry leading us we'd see the true magnitude of the disaster.

They need another pay raise.
 
2013-01-22 09:44:38 AM

Waldo Pepper: Father_Jack: funny how when you loan money to the banking sector in the form of stimulus interest free and they in turn loan this money to the public at interest, its good fo' bidness.

2nd stimulus: PAY OFF OUR STUDENT LOANS instead of CUPPING WALL STREETS BALLS if you want to help the middle class.

Why should the government pay off anyone's student loans?


because you don't want a large amount of young people who don't have hope? because it gets people lined against walls and shot. and it's a good investment.
 
2013-01-22 09:49:18 AM
Is this a follow-up or a repeat of the first two stock market recovery threads?
 
2013-01-22 09:53:13 AM
I wonder why Farkers keep greenlighting headlines like this, as if speculators doing well is some sort of good thing.

Most people I know are struggling, and it's because the government AND private sector have devoted a staggering portion of their resources to propping up investors. If you work for a living, we're still mired in the worst economy since the Great Depression. It just doesn't show up in the numbers because the markets have completely de-coupled from everything that would make it an indicator of general prosperity.
 
2013-01-22 09:58:48 AM

Waldo Pepper: Father_Jack: funny how when you loan money to the banking sector in the form of stimulus interest free and they in turn loan this money to the public at interest, its good fo' bidness.

2nd stimulus: PAY OFF OUR STUDENT LOANS instead of CUPPING WALL STREETS BALLS if you want to help the middle class.

Why should the government pay off anyone's student loans?


Da theory goes like this:

Generations of americans in the past did not have huge amounts of student debt. Either education was affordable, as it was properly financed through taxes, accessible through scholarships/grants and the GI bill, or frankly wasn't needed for a middle class existence.

Over the past 20 years or so, we've seen this change quite a bit. College degrees used to be "reserved for the elite" and upper classes, now as the working class has basically dried up and blown away since the manufacturing base has been priced out of existence, a HS degree is not enough to get a job at the local teamsters, GM plant, electrician union, or whatever that was from the 40s thru 80s or so enough for a decent life in most of the US. These jobs are still around but are far fewer in number, meaning more and more people have to persue advanced degrees.

College tuition has skyrocketed over the last decade thanks to budget cut on top of budget cut is pricing the middle class out of being able to afford it. It is still in reach, but only if you leverage yourself to the eyeballs for it. (the average cost of a year of Univeristy of California tuition/room n board is 4x what it was when i was there in the mid 90s)

So, when students today finish college, generally speaking, they have much greater levels of debt than they did a generation ago. And instead of starting their economic lives, buying homes, cars, starting investment portfolios and GROWING their wealth, instead they are having to pay back loans which they borrowed which previous generations did not need to borrow. This lowers spending in the local economies, lowers saving rates, and makes it harder for the middle class to stay middle class since they can never, ever, get out of student debt through bankruptcy or other means available to other loan choices.

Now I know, borrowing 45k for a Liberal Arts Degree in Underwater Basket Weaving Latino Art Femist Studies is not exactly a good investment, and people who over borrow are dumbasses. Sure, with you. But im not talking about them, specifically, rather the greater macro trend, which is factual: students have much higher rates of student debt than before, and this keeps them from spending money or starting nest eggs until much later. This has an effect on their ability to save for retirement down the road, own homes, become part of the American dream, remain middle class in the event of an emergency, and put their own kids through school.

The argument that im trying to present is: if the govt "is trying to help mainstreet as well as wall street" with what we're loosely calling "bail outs", lets see some comprehensive student loan reform. Loan forgiveness after x years of payments, fund universities better so tuition rates go down and the costs of education are not forced solely onto the student (sort of like how higher education is basically everywhere but the US: you have the test scores you can study, and it don't matta how much yo daddy make), and not give today's students the devil's choice of "no degree (and thus very limited career prospects) or huge amounts of debt. Your choice."
 
2013-01-22 09:59:21 AM

dragonchild: Most people I know are struggling, and it's because the government AND private sector have devoted a staggering portion of their resources to propping up investors. If you work for a living, we're still mired in the worst economy since the Great Depression.


This.  Although I must say the pittance two of my three jobs throw into so-called "retirement plans" has been earning interest quite nicely.  Now I just need to wait for the compound interest to really add up.  I hope I don't need to retire before I'm about 250.
 
2013-01-22 10:02:33 AM

Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.


Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?
 
2013-01-22 10:28:58 AM

SuperT: Waldo Pepper: Father_Jack: funny how when you loan money to the banking sector in the form of stimulus interest free and they in turn loan this money to the public at interest, its good fo' bidness.

2nd stimulus: PAY OFF OUR STUDENT LOANS instead of CUPPING WALL STREETS BALLS if you want to help the middle class.

Why should the government pay off anyone's student loans?

because you don't want a large amount of young people who don't have hope? because it gets people lined against walls and shot. and it's a good investment.


I'll be glad to line those whiny students up against the wall.
 
2013-01-22 10:29:56 AM

Sgt Otter: Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.

Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?


It's only at 2% for people who don't use energy or eat food.
 
2013-01-22 10:36:11 AM

Sgt Otter: Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.

Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?


Please, Republicans aren't fooled by things like "numbers" or "math" or "evidence".  They know how it is.  We've experienced massive inflation, Obama has ceased all offshore drilling, there're massive numbers of illegal immigrants voting, and Benghazi is a scandal.

So he's talking out the same orifice the other blinkered GOP sycophants talk out of.
 
2013-01-22 10:46:04 AM

DrPainMD: Sgt Otter: Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.

Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?

It's only at 2% for people who don't use energy or eat food.


No, it's 2% even for those people.  And food and energy prices experienced an initial steep increase in price but not massive inflation over the course of four or even eight years.
 
2013-01-22 03:02:52 PM

vygramul: DrPainMD: Sgt Otter: Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.

Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?

It's only at 2% for people who don't use energy or eat food.

No, it's 2% even for those people.  And food and energy prices experienced an initial steep increase in price but not massive inflation over the course of four or even eight years.


Food and energy prices have risen way more than 2% per year over the last several years. Waaaay more.
 
2013-01-22 07:33:26 PM

DrPainMD: vygramul: DrPainMD: Sgt Otter: Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.

Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?

It's only at 2% for people who don't use energy or eat food.

No, it's 2% even for those people.  And food and energy prices experienced an initial steep increase in price but not massive inflation over the course of four or even eight years.

Food and energy prices have risen way more than 2% per year over the last several years. Waaaay more.


Feel free to post the data.  But first, define "waaaay more".
 
2013-01-23 02:26:59 AM

vygramul: DrPainMD: vygramul: DrPainMD: Sgt Otter: Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.

Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?

It's only at 2% for people who don't use energy or eat food.

No, it's 2% even for those people.  And food and energy prices experienced an initial steep increase in price but not massive inflation over the course of four or even eight years.

Food and energy prices have risen way more than 2% per year over the last several years. Waaaay more.

Feel free to post the data.  But first, define "waaaay more".


Do you really need data to see that YOUR grocery and energy costs have gone up? Really? Don't you keep track of your spending? Does your bank not issue statements on your checking account?
 
2013-01-23 03:11:47 AM

DrPainMD: vygramul: DrPainMD: vygramul: DrPainMD: Sgt Otter: Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.

Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?

It's only at 2% for people who don't use energy or eat food.

No, it's 2% even for those people.  And food and energy prices experienced an initial steep increase in price but not massive inflation over the course of four or even eight years.

Food and energy prices have risen way more than 2% per year over the last several years. Waaaay more.

Feel free to post the data.  But first, define "waaaay more".

Do you really need data to see that YOUR grocery and energy costs have gone up? Really? Don't you keep track of your spending? Does your bank not issue statements on your checking account?


Data is not the plural of anecdote.
 
2013-01-23 05:08:11 AM

vygramul: DrPainMD: vygramul: DrPainMD: vygramul: DrPainMD: Sgt Otter: Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.

Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?

It's only at 2% for people who don't use energy or eat food.

No, it's 2% even for those people.  And food and energy prices experienced an initial steep increase in price but not massive inflation over the course of four or even eight years.

Food and energy prices have risen way more than 2% per year over the last several years. Waaaay more.

Feel free to post the data.  But first, define "waaaay more".

Do you really need data to see that YOUR grocery and energy costs have gone up? Really? Don't you keep track of your spending? Does your bank not issue statements on your checking account?

Data is not the plural of anecdote.


A) You seem to be able to type "wrong" and post slogans, but can you state your case?
2) Stores and gas stations don't set a different price for me than for the rest of the public, so it's not like the prices I pay are a unique data point.
iii) Intelligent debate requires the person who asserts a premise to provide proof. That would be Sgt Otter, in this case. Since you took over his position, that task would fall to you.

But, since you ask, the Congressional Research Service, in their October 12, 2012 report on food price inflation, says, "U.S. food price inflation increased at a rate of 4% in 2007 and at 5.5% in 2008-the highest since 1990 and well above the general inflation rate of 3.8%." From that same report is a graph made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since 2008, the food inflation rate has hovered around the 4% mark, or double the stated 2%.
farm9.staticflickr.com

The USDA 18-month forecast estimates food inflation to continue to be 3-4%.

And, if you really need a graph to tell you that energy prices are going up, here it is, courtesy of the CPI energy segment.

farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-01-23 09:58:13 AM

DrPainMD: vygramul: DrPainMD: vygramul: DrPainMD: vygramul: DrPainMD: Sgt Otter: Lerxst2k: Massive inflation woudl do that.

Inflation hasn't been above 4% since 2008. It's currently around 2%. What the hell are you talking about?

It's only at 2% for people who don't use energy or eat food.

No, it's 2% even for those people.  And food and energy prices experienced an initial steep increase in price but not massive inflation over the course of four or even eight years.

Food and energy prices have risen way more than 2% per year over the last several years. Waaaay more.

Feel free to post the data.  But first, define "waaaay more".

Do you really need data to see that YOUR grocery and energy costs have gone up? Really? Don't you keep track of your spending? Does your bank not issue statements on your checking account?

Data is not the plural of anecdote.

A) You seem to be able to type "wrong" and post slogans, but can you state your case?
2) Stores and gas stations don't set a different price for me than for the rest of the public, so it's not like the prices I pay are a unique data point.
iii) Intelligent debate requires the person who asserts a premise to provide proof. That would be Sgt Otter, in this case. Since you took over his position, that task would fall to you.

But, since you ask, the Congressional Research Service, in their October 12, 2012 report on food price inflation, says, "U.S. food price inflation increased at a rate of 4% in 2007 and at 5.5% in 2008-the highest since 1990 and well above the general inflation rate of 3.8%." From that same report is a graph made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since 2008, the food inflation rate has hovered around the 4% mark, or double the stated 2%.
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 750x562]

The USDA 18-month forecast estimates food inflation to continue to be 3-4%.

And, if you really need a graph to tell you that energy prices are going up, here it is, courtesy of the CPI energy segment.

[farm9.staticflickr.com image ...


good work. i think we can say you effectively "moded" those "biatches".
 
2013-01-23 11:01:15 AM

DrPainMD: A) You seem to be able to type "wrong" and post slogans, but can you state your case?


Slogans?

2) Stores and gas stations don't set a different price for me than for the rest of the public, so it's not like the prices I pay are a unique data point.

Prices can, however, be regional. We're talking about national inflation rates. If you want to say your local inflation is higher than normal, that's possible. For example, Wisconsin is predicted to have 2% food inflation in the coming year. I didn't trot that out because we're not talking about a particular locality, but a national trend.

iii) Intelligent debate requires the person who asserts a premise to provide proof. That would be Sgt Otter, in this case. Since you took over his position, that task would fall to you.

The one making the assertion does have to provide proof. Otter said inflation was 2%. You didn't dispute Otter's statement, you said food and energy prices were way over 2% for years. You were therefore required to post proof.

But, since you ask, the Congressional Research Service, in their October 12, 2012 report on food price inflation, says, "U.S. food price inflation increased at a rate of 4% in 2007 and at 5.5% in 2008-the highest since 1990 and well above the general inflation rate of 3.8%." From that same report is a graph made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since 2008, the food inflation rate has hovered around the 4% mark, or double the stated 2%.

So you see the graph show an initial spike in 2008, like I said, and food prices mirror inflation for 2009 and 2010, and then go back to 4% in 2011, and that's proof of the assertion, "Food and energy prices have risen way more than 2% per year over the last several years. Waaaay more"?

2009 and 2010, that graph shows food prices are EXACTLY the same as inflation.

It also shows an almost -20% DEFLATION in energy prices in the same period ('09-'10). Energy prices are fluctuating wildly, but that wasn't your assertion, now, was it?
 
2013-01-23 01:13:11 PM

vygramul: The one making the assertion does have to provide proof. Otter said inflation was 2%. You didn't dispute Otter's statement, you said food and energy prices were way over 2% for years. You were therefore required to post proof.


[quizical_dog.jpg]

So you see the graph show an initial spike in 2008, like I said, and food prices mirror inflation for 2009 and 2010, and then go back to 4% in 2011, and that's proof of the assertion, "Food and energy prices have risen way more than 2% per year over the last several years. Waaaay more"?

2009 and 2010, that graph shows food prices are EXACTLY the same as inflation.


Six of the last nine years show food inflation greater than overall inflation, and current food inflation is double the overall inflation rate, so you won? That's quite a stretch.

It also shows an almost -20% DEFLATION in energy prices in the same period ('09-'10). Energy prices are fluctuating wildly, but that wasn't your assertion, now, was it?

Between late 2007 and late 2012 (the period covered by the graph) energy inflation has averaged 8% per year. Again, that's way over the overall inflation rate. They are projecting 14% in the near future. Which means you win again? Really? Really?

I've proven everything I've said, and disputed the original claim and everything that you've said, but I guess you're right... you win.
 
2013-01-23 03:08:05 PM

DrPainMD: Between late 2007 and late 2012 (the period covered by the graph) energy inflation has averaged 8% per year. Again, that's way over the overall inflation rate. They are projecting 14% in the near future. Which means you win again? Really? Really?

I've proven everything I've said, and disputed the original claim and everything that you've said, but I guess you're right... you win.


You said "every year".  It's not.  You were wrong.

And you're concentrating on energy because food was, until very recently, exactly what I said: an initial spike followed by following inflation.

Energy has fluctuated and could be down 15% again by the end of 2014.

You painted a false picture.

And, of course, still ignores that inflation is not the price of one sector, but a general rise in prices, and that rate is 2% for everyone.

Take an econ class.  Take one from your favorite Austrian economist.  You'll be embarrassed looking back on this.
 
2013-01-23 04:16:16 PM

vygramul: DrPainMD: Between late 2007 and late 2012 (the period covered by the graph) energy inflation has averaged 8% per year. Again, that's way over the overall inflation rate. They are projecting 14% in the near future. Which means you win again? Really? Really?

I've proven everything I've said, and disputed the original claim and everything that you've said, but I guess you're right... you win.

You said "every year".  It's not.  You were wrong.

And you're concentrating on energy because food was, until very recently, exactly what I said: an initial spike followed by following inflation.

Energy has fluctuated and could be down 15% again by the end of 2014.

You painted a false picture.

And, of course, still ignores that inflation is not the price of one sector, but a general rise in prices, and that rate is 2% for everyone.

Take an econ class.  Take one from your favorite Austrian economist.  You'll be embarrassed looking back on this.


Sigh...
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report