stock market groupies: in 1996, when we had another debt ceiling issue, what did the refusal of congress (for 3 months?) to raise the ceiling amount "do" to the stock market?

  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 17, 2011 11:27 AM GMT
    did the dow jones numbers rise...fall...remain more or less the same?



    icon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2011 4:21 PM GMT
    More or less the same, in fact rose a little bit towards the end of 1995 when the gov't shut down.
    But then, there was no fears about a double dip recession either.
    noname1.jpg
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jul 17, 2011 5:22 PM GMT
    So is it safe to assume mch, that you are going to sell all of your market assets once the drop begins?

    I'd prefer you wait at least one week or so. Wait till the momentum provides more benefit -- for some.


    rnch saiddid the dow jones numbers rise...fall...remain more or less the same?



    icon_question.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 17, 2011 7:05 PM GMT
    I've heard that if they don't have an agreement by next weekend that it would be too late to hammer out a legislative action. So you'll know what's going to happen with the markets by the last week of July before the August 2nd deadline passes.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 17, 2011 8:00 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidThe difference today is that we have much much more debt than we did back then, so you can't look back to 1996 for guidance.


    The debt isn't the cause of the effect on the market. If it were, it would already show. The cause is whether the US defaults on the debt or not. The effect is yet to be seen because we have never defaulted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2011 8:12 PM GMT
    The deadline is bogus alarmism. We will not default. Checks will go out to granny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2011 9:56 PM GMT
    #1 rule in finance: The past does not predict the future

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 17, 2011 11:41 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    What is also in play here is whether our elected "public servants" in Washington DC will do anything meaningful to change the spending habits of the Federal government.


    Yeah, they sure do like to give it away to the few at the expense of many...

    taxes-vs-budgetcuts-final.jpg
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 17, 2011 11:52 PM GMT
    What is also in play here is whether our elected "public servants" in Washington DC will do anything meaningful to change the spending habits of the Federal government.

    They already tried .... when they attempted to stop the Give aways to the rich but the republicans said no ...... remember ?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 17, 2011 11:54 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said
    southbeach1500 said
    What is also in play here is whether our elected "public servants" in Washington DC will do anything meaningful to change the spending habits of the Federal government.


    Yeah, they sure do like to give it away to the few at the expense of many...


    In keeping with the spirit of this thread, my statement was non-partisan.


    Mine too! I'm a party to the truth.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2011 12:17 AM GMT
    theantijock saidIsn't it so funny when those have enough money to risk mock someone scared to lose what they have.

    Generosity of spirit truly touches the heart.


    If you can't afford the risk, you don't take it.

    Anyway, this is hardly a "crisis." The media loves to scream it's the end of the world. Carmageddon, LMAO.

    Chuck Schumer is introducing a bill in the senate to make airlines pay when your luggage is lost. Now that's a crisis... well, in a bourgeois sort of way...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2011 12:19 AM GMT
    Also, let's not forget what "the refusal of congress (for 3 months) to raise the ceiling amount" did to the Repub party's political fortunes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2011 12:59 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidAlso, let's not forget what "the refusal of congress (for 3 months) to raise the ceiling amount" did to the Repub party's political fortunes.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2011 1:19 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ said
    rickrick91 saidAlso, let's not forget what "the refusal of congress (for 3 months) to raise the ceiling amount" did to the Repub party's political fortunes.







    We actually agree that this debt ceiling BS has been overblown.
    After all, the debt ceiling has been repeatedly raised and we've never seen this kind of panic and fearmongering about it.

    The Repubs raised the debt ceiling multiple times during the Bush administration.
    In fact they raised the debt ceiling by 4 trillion dollars.

    It's been overblown this time for political reasons - BY THE REPUBS.
    Just look at their record when it comes to voting to raise the debt ceiling:
    http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1500-The-Republicans-Haven-t-Always-Been-Against-Raising-the-Debt-Ceiling
    It's clear that they're playing politics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2011 1:26 AM GMT


    2001. President Bush came into office promising a range of income tax cuts. He succeeded in getting a 10-year $1.35 trillion tax cut plan through Congress in 2001. It was the largest tax cut since 1981. Some key elements were:

    A reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent;
    An increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
    A phased-in reduction in estate taxes, and a one-year repeal in 2010;
    A big expansion of tax-favored retirement savings plans.


    So ALL Americans benefited from these policies, How exactly has this been detrimental to the "average" American's bottom line?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2011 1:28 AM GMT
    canuckguy19 said

    2001. President Bush came into office promising a range of income tax cuts. He succeeded in getting a 10-year $1.35 trillion tax cut plan through Congress in 2001. It was the largest tax cut since 1981. Some key elements were:

    A reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent;
    An increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
    A phased-in reduction in estate taxes, and a one-year repeal in 2010;
    A big expansion of tax-favored retirement savings plans.


    So ALL Americans benefited from these policies, How exactly has this been detrimental to the "average" American's bottom line?


    It hasn't. It's just made white Liberals hopping mad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2011 1:30 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    JackNWNJ said
    rickrick91 saidAlso, let's not forget what "the refusal of congress (for 3 months) to raise the ceiling amount" did to the Repub party's political fortunes.







    We actually agree that this debt ceiling BS has been overblown.
    After all, the debt ceiling has been repeatedly raised and we've never seen this kind of panic and fearmongering about it.

    The Repubs raised the debt ceiling multiple times during the Bush administration.
    In fact they raised the debt ceiling by 4 trillion dollars.

    It's been overblown this time for political reasons - BY THE REPUBS.
    Just look at their record when it comes to voting to raise the debt ceiling:
    http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1500-The-Republicans-Haven-t-Always-Been-Against-Raising-the-Debt-Ceiling
    It's clear that they're playing politics.


    It's not a matter of being for or against raising it. Both parties have taken both positions at various times.

    As Gillespie pointed out, it was that moron Geithner who kept drawing an imaginary line in the sand.