My God... What a Shit of a Day on Wall Street 1,000 points for a few moments, recovery later

  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    May 06, 2010 9:24 PM GMT
    Wow, if I were a "floor trader".....
    Here a couple of weeks ago I was commenting to clients how calm and collected things had been.. then came Greece... at least there was partial recovery...


    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In one of the most gut-wrenching hours in Wall Street history, the Dow plunged almost 1,000 points Thursday, before recovering some, on a technical glitch in the trading of Procter & Gamble stock and fears about the European debt crisis spreading.

    The selling was exacerbated by the huge drop in Dow component Procter & Gamble (PG, Fortune 500). There may have been technical glitches which caused it to plunge 37% in minutes.

    Facebook Digg Twitter Buzz Up! Email Print Comment on this story

    Hot Stocks
    What's moving the markets
    Dow 30
    Widely held stocks
    P&G's slump was responsible for 172 of the 997.21 points that the Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) was down at the nadir, the biggest one-day point decline on an intraday basis in Dow Jones history.

    On the session, the Dow lost 348 points, or 3.2%, to 10,520.32. The Dow's biggest one-day point decline on a closing basis was Sept. 29, 2008, when it fell 777.68.

    The S&P 500 index (SPX) slipped 38 points, or 3.3%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) dropped 82 points, or 3.4%.

    "On the Dow we were down 400 to 800 points in five minutes, it was horrifying," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co.

    Beyond the P&G glitch, the selling pressure of the last few days has been more technical than fundamental, said Hogan. He said the market collapsed some major technical support levels and could be in for more selling Friday.

    All 30 Dow components slid, with oil components Chevron and Exxon Mobil, financial leader JPMorgan Chase and tech names Hewlett-Packard and IBM among the big losers. 3M, Boeing and United Technologies added to the weakness.

    Gold spiked above $1,200, the euro plunged to a more than 1-year low against the dollar and oil prices fell. Bond prices rallied, sending the corresponding yields lower as investors sought safety in government debt prices.

    The run from the euro and into the dollar and U.S. government debt was a classic flight to quality, said Ted Weisberg, NYSE floor trader, Seaport Securities.

    The CBOE Volatility (VIX) index, Wall Street's so-called fear gauge closed at 34.16, its highest finish since May 4, 2009. Earlier it had spiked as high as 40.70.

    European debt problems accelerate: Stocks have been sliding on and off for the last two weeks as investors mull the ramifications of the growing debt crisis in Europe.

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

    May 06, 2010 9:54 PM GMT
    Greece first

    Then Spain

    Then Portugal

    Next Italy

    United Kingdom after that.

    All countries have worrying amounts of debt and huge welfare commitments. That's why people are pulling their money out of these countries. Also, the banks have huge liabilities from loans to these countries.

    It's Lehman's all over again but on a country wide basis.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2010 10:32 PM GMT
    LOL ..... and all because a trader typed in a billion instead of a million on a P&G trade

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

    May 06, 2010 11:58 PM GMT
    JP, you're wonderful, but I hasten to remind you that Bush was *not* President of the European Union. Trust me, I was no fan either, but I think he has little to do with the sovereign debt crisis in the PIIGS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 12:00 AM GMT
    jprichva saidBushonomics are finally coming home to roost. Two wars, a couple of trillion dollars, but hey, according to Orrin Hatch, we didn't worry about paying for Medicare D and big tax cuts when a Republican was in office. Now that there's a Democrat, it's IRRESPONSIBLE.

    It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.



    Are you drunk? Also factor is 1 Trillion for the stimulus, a few trillion for future healthcare, billions for refi program that went belly up, cash for clunkers, historic rise in entitlements,etc. Last years annual deficit was a HISTORIC $1.4 TRILLION and this year per CBO is expected to be just as bad. Yes Bush raised the deficit but NOTHING like liberal/socialist Obama. The CBO projected Obama's spending to raise the deficit 9-10 TRILLION!!!!!!! Bush was bad enough and he only raised it half of that. Wake up and get out of la la land.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 12:08 AM GMT
    PAstud21 said
    jprichva saidBushonomics are finally coming home to roost. Two wars, a couple of trillion dollars, but hey, according to Orrin Hatch, we didn't worry about paying for Medicare D and big tax cuts when a Republican was in office. Now that there's a Democrat, it's IRRESPONSIBLE.

    It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.



    Are you drunk? Also factor is 1 Trillion for the stimulus, a few trillion for future healthcare, billions for refi program that went belly up, cash for clunkers, historic rise in entitlements,etc. Last years annual deficit was a HISTORIC $1.4 TRILLION and this year per CBO is expected to be just as bad. Yes Bush raised the deficit but NOTHING like liberal/socialist Obama. The CBO projected Obama's spending to raise the deficit 9-10 TRILLION!!!!!!! Bush was bad enough and he only raised it half of that. Wake up and get out of la la land.


    Government debt does not effect the market in that way, sorry. If so, Dow wouldn't have hit 10,000 again so soon into the recovery in the face of all of those commitments. I do think the European debt crisis will affect the market but the swings of this nature are nearly entirely psychololigcal.

    If you haven't noticed, the stock markets are basically one big casino. As such, they are ruled by emotion not reason. Add to that all the back-market maneuvers and shorting by hedge funds and you have a pretty easy group of horses to spook.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 12:12 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    PAstud21 said
    jprichva saidBushonomics are finally coming home to roost. Two wars, a couple of trillion dollars, but hey, according to Orrin Hatch, we didn't worry about paying for Medicare D and big tax cuts when a Republican was in office. Now that there's a Democrat, it's IRRESPONSIBLE.

    It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.



    Are you drunk? Also factor is 1 Trillion for the stimulus, a few trillion for future healthcare, billions for refi program that went belly up, cash for clunkers, historic rise in entitlements,etc. Last years annual deficit was a HISTORIC $1.4 TRILLION and this year per CBO is expected to be just as bad. Yes Bush raised the deficit but NOTHING like liberal/socialist Obama. The CBO projected Obama's spending to raise the deficit 9-10 TRILLION!!!!!!! Bush was bad enough and he only raised it half of that. Wake up and get out of la la land.


    Government debt does not effect the market in that way, sorry. If so, Dow wouldn't have hit 10,000 again so soon into the recovery in the face of all of those commitments. I do think the European debt crisis will affect the market but the swings of this nature are nearly entirely psychololigcal.

    If you haven't noticed, the stock markets are basically one big casino. As such, they are ruled by emotion not reason. Add to that all the back-market maneuvers and shorting by hedge funds and you have a pretty easy group of horses to spook.



    Excessive govt debt ABSOLUTELY has a negative effect on the stock market. Often with high debt comes tax hikes which will deter investment. This is common sense. Also we have a prime example with Greece and the effect on the stock market. Excessive debt is a driving force on many levels with investment and the performance of economies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 12:13 AM GMT
    jprichva saidPAStud,

    I've been reading your absurdities for weeks. You'd really benefit by not posting your hallucinations. Really. Step away from the keyboard.

    You'll thank me later.


    Prove what i replied to your post as factually wrong. Go for it. I dare you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 12:18 AM GMT
    Oh this is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even have the faintest idea of how credit markets rate a nation's ability to repay?

    Your lack of understanding of the process does not imply it is irrational, merely that you have your limits.

    Christian73 said
    PAstud21 said
    jprichva saidBushonomics are finally coming home to roost. Two wars, a couple of trillion dollars, but hey, according to Orrin Hatch, we didn't worry about paying for Medicare D and big tax cuts when a Republican was in office. Now that there's a Democrat, it's IRRESPONSIBLE.

    It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.



    Are you drunk? Also factor is 1 Trillion for the stimulus, a few trillion for future healthcare, billions for refi program that went belly up, cash for clunkers, historic rise in entitlements,etc. Last years annual deficit was a HISTORIC $1.4 TRILLION and this year per CBO is expected to be just as bad. Yes Bush raised the deficit but NOTHING like liberal/socialist Obama. The CBO projected Obama's spending to raise the deficit 9-10 TRILLION!!!!!!! Bush was bad enough and he only raised it half of that. Wake up and get out of la la land.


    Government debt does not effect the market in that way, sorry. If so, Dow wouldn't have hit 10,000 again so soon into the recovery in the face of all of those commitments. I do think the European debt crisis will affect the market but the swings of this nature are nearly entirely psychololigcal.

    If you haven't noticed, the stock markets are basically one big casino. As such, they are ruled by emotion not reason. Add to that all the back-market maneuvers and shorting by hedge funds and you have a pretty easy group of horses to spook.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 12:43 AM GMT
    jprichva saidBushonomics are finally coming home to roost. Two wars, a couple of trillion dollars, but hey, according to Orrin Hatch, we didn't worry about paying for Medicare D and big tax cuts when a Republican was in office. Now that there's a Democrat, it's IRRESPONSIBLE.

    It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.

    Having the selective memory pangs? icon_wink.gif Sorry, there have been plenty of conservatives at least who have long been voicing their discontent over Bush's spending - the Pork Busters being the predecessor movement to much of the Tea Partiers after all. And it was the pork busters who rallied to oust Trent Lott and fought against the Republican senators from Alaska with their bridge to nowhere.

    That said, as to why a lot more both conservatives and democrats think that the additional spending today is irresponsible? Here's the most updated graph of a previous Washington Post graph (and this doesn't even include the additional estimated deficits as a result of the recent health reform bill or the public pension short falls at the state and local levels who will undoubtedly be calling for bailouts):



    With "details" like this - I would tend to agree with you. It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 07, 2010 3:42 AM GMT
    Gee, we'd be in pretty good shape if not for the Republican's lies about weapons of mass destruction.
    We've allocated well over a trillion just on those silly wars.

    24lkjmb.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:15 AM GMT
    jprichva saidBushonomics are finally coming home to roost. Two wars, a couple of trillion dollars, but hey, according to Orrin Hatch, we didn't worry about paying for Medicare D and big tax cuts when a Republican was in office. Now that there's a Democrat, it's IRRESPONSIBLE.

    It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.



    They don't sleep.

    They're up all night planning and plotting and trying to come up with some new slick trick they can use to repackage their same old failed economic policies and to fool the American people into voting for them again.

    That's what the "tea party" BS is.
    Just another name for the Republican party and the same package of trickle-down lies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:28 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidHaving the selective memory pangs? icon_wink.gif Sorry, there have been plenty of conservatives at least who have long been voicing their discontent over Bush's spending - the Pork Busters being the predecessor movement to much of the Tea Partiers after all. And it was the pork busters who rallied to oust Trent Lott and fought against the Republican senators from Alaska with their bridge to nowhere.

    That said, as to why a lot more both conservatives and democrats think that the additional spending today is irresponsible? Here's the most updated graph of a previous Washington Post graph (and this doesn't even include the additional estimated deficits as a result of the recent health reform bill or the public pension short falls at the state and local levels who will undoubtedly be calling for bailouts):



    With "details" like this - I would tend to agree with you. It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.


    Too bad your little chart that you post like a broken record doesn't show where those deficits actually came from.

    12-16-09bud-rev2-17-10-f1.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:28 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidGee, we'd be in pretty good shape if not for the Republican's lies about weapons of mass destruction.
    We've allocated well over a trillion just on those silly wars.


    A trillion dollars over the course of 8 years+? Not sure if you looked at the values of the actual deficits which are several magnitudes larger, but even without these wars, you wouldn't be in good shape. Again - the graph for you -



    On average, over the next ten years, the CBO is predicting average deficits of $976 billion - and that was before the healthcare bill and any potential state/municipal employee pension bailouts (and total spending for wars will be just over $1 trillion). That is a crap load of additional borrowing the US is anticipated to have to do with war spending only a very small fraction of the overall spending - and quite clearly as your graph shows, only a small fraction of overall deficit spending.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:36 AM GMT
    ActiveAndFit said
    riddler78 saidHaving the selective memory pangs? icon_wink.gif Sorry, there have been plenty of conservatives at least who have long been voicing their discontent over Bush's spending - the Pork Busters being the predecessor movement to much of the Tea Partiers after all. And it was the pork busters who rallied to oust Trent Lott and fought against the Republican senators from Alaska with their bridge to nowhere.

    That said, as to why a lot more both conservatives and democrats think that the additional spending today is irresponsible? Here's the most updated graph of a previous Washington Post graph (and this doesn't even include the additional estimated deficits as a result of the recent health reform bill or the public pension short falls at the state and local levels who will undoubtedly be calling for bailouts):



    With "details" like this - I would tend to agree with you. It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.


    Too bad your little chart that you post like a broken record doesn't show where those deficits actually came from.

    12-16-09bud-rev2-17-10-f1.jpg


    Again - your graph assumes such fantasies as the non-expiry of the bush tax cuts which will clearly expire and also increased war spending which is already projected by both the CBO and the White House to fall - which frankly means those numbers are largely made up.

    To believe your graph, you'd have to believe that all the spending that Obama and Democrats have done (including all the bailouts and additional TARP spends which they are at least significantly responsible for) has done has done nothing to contribute to deficits (not to mention that you'd have to assume that under Bush, his genius was such that he "forced" a subsequent president to spend multiples of what he did). With the continued additional spends on such things as healthcare while the economy continues to deteriorate, your graph is absurdly unbelievable on its face.

    Nevertheless, let's even take it at its word and ignoring all the assumptions that it made which are in fact wrong, you're still left with massive deficits that this administration and congress have not dealt with which in the very least would be wholly irresponsible. Wouldn't it sort of like yelling that the bus is veering out of control while pushing on the accelerator with even more spending?

    Update - The more I think about it, the more crazy it is to take such a partisan angle it is. Do you agree that part of the reason why Greece is in crisis are its debt levels? If you agree, and recognize that with this deficit spending, the US will have substantially higher debt levels than Greece does now, why are you more concerned about trying to blame someone than trying to push the current US administration and congress to control spending?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:43 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Webster666 saidGee, we'd be in pretty good shape if not for the Republican's lies about weapons of mass destruction.
    We've allocated well over a trillion just on those silly wars.


    A trillion dollars over the course of 8 years+? Not sure if you looked at the values of the actual deficits which are several magnitudes larger, but even without these wars, you wouldn't be in good shape. Again - the graph for you -



    On average, over the next ten years, the CBO is predicting average deficits of $976 billion - and that was before the healthcare bill and any potential state/municipal employee pension bailouts (and total spending for wars will be just over $1 trillion). That is a crap load of additional borrowing the US is anticipated to have to do with war spending only a very small fraction of the overall spending - and quite clearly as your graph shows, only a small fraction of overall deficit spending.



    WRONG.

    The VAST MAJORITY of the National Debt is made up of BUSH mistakes.

    1.) The Bush wars, as noted above.
    2.) The Bush tax cuts
    3.) The Bush recession (referred to in the accompanying link as "economic downturn")

    http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/tea-party-contract-for-america-fiscal-suicide

    The link also highlights how DISASTEROUS it would be if the Repubaggers were able to make the god-awful Bush tax cuts permanent, the way they want to.

    AND - Obama has said very clearly that next year - after the threat of a double dip recession has passed - he will make deficit reduction his top priority.
    So, to suggest that the president is unconcerned by the National Debt, and has no intention of tackling it - is 100% FALSE.
    The deficit spending was forced upon him by the Bush recession he inherited, and the need to stimulate the economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:48 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    ActiveAndFit said
    riddler78 saidHaving the selective memory pangs? icon_wink.gif Sorry, there have been plenty of conservatives at least who have long been voicing their discontent over Bush's spending - the Pork Busters being the predecessor movement to much of the Tea Partiers after all. And it was the pork busters who rallied to oust Trent Lott and fought against the Republican senators from Alaska with their bridge to nowhere.

    That said, as to why a lot more both conservatives and democrats think that the additional spending today is irresponsible? Here's the most updated graph of a previous Washington Post graph (and this doesn't even include the additional estimated deficits as a result of the recent health reform bill or the public pension short falls at the state and local levels who will undoubtedly be calling for bailouts):



    With "details" like this - I would tend to agree with you. It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.


    Too bad your little chart that you post like a broken record doesn't show where those deficits actually came from.

    12-16-09bud-rev2-17-10-f1.jpg


    Again - your graph assumes such fantasies as the non-expiry of the bush tax cuts which will clearly expire ...
    Well if you aim your little nearsighted eyes at the bottom of the chart you will see that it is not my chart .. Just like the one you posted is not yours but from that conservative quackery site heritage.org. Other than that I will summarize what you wrote ..
    BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:49 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    riddler78 said
    Webster666 saidGee, we'd be in pretty good shape if not for the Republican's lies about weapons of mass destruction.
    We've allocated well over a trillion just on those silly wars.


    A trillion dollars over the course of 8 years+? Not sure if you looked at the values of the actual deficits which are several magnitudes larger, but even without these wars, you wouldn't be in good shape. Again - the graph for you -



    On average, over the next ten years, the CBO is predicting average deficits of $976 billion - and that was before the healthcare bill and any potential state/municipal employee pension bailouts (and total spending for wars will be just over $1 trillion). That is a crap load of additional borrowing the US is anticipated to have to do with war spending only a very small fraction of the overall spending - and quite clearly as your graph shows, only a small fraction of overall deficit spending.



    WRONG.

    The VAST MAJORITY of the National Debt is made up of BUSH mistakes.

    1.) The Bush wars, as noted above.
    2.) The Bush tax cuts
    3.) The Bush recession (referred to in the accompanying link as "economic downturn")

    http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/tea-party-contract-for-america-fiscal-suicide

    The link also highlights how DISASTEROUS it would be if the Repubaggers were able to make the god-awful Bush tax cuts permanent, the way they want to.


    Sorry to get in the way of your righteous indignation here but see my reply to A&A - I actually bothered to take the time one day to read the footnotes to that graph and the data presented which forms the basis for the link that you post and the graph that A&A posted - which you might want to do.

    But here's what I don't get as I noted in my little update blurb - "The more I think about it, the more crazy it is to take such a partisan angle it is. Do you agree that part of the reason why Greece is in crisis are its debt levels? If you agree, and recognize that with this deficit spending, the US will have substantially higher debt levels than Greece does now, why are you more concerned about trying to blame someone than trying to push the current US administration and congress to control spending?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:50 AM GMT
    Heritage.Org = guaranteed right-wing BS
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:52 AM GMT
    ActiveAndFit said
    riddler78 said
    ActiveAndFit said
    riddler78 saidHaving the selective memory pangs? icon_wink.gif Sorry, there have been plenty of conservatives at least who have long been voicing their discontent over Bush's spending - the Pork Busters being the predecessor movement to much of the Tea Partiers after all. And it was the pork busters who rallied to oust Trent Lott and fought against the Republican senators from Alaska with their bridge to nowhere.

    That said, as to why a lot more both conservatives and democrats think that the additional spending today is irresponsible? Here's the most updated graph of a previous Washington Post graph (and this doesn't even include the additional estimated deficits as a result of the recent health reform bill or the public pension short falls at the state and local levels who will undoubtedly be calling for bailouts):



    With "details" like this - I would tend to agree with you. It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.


    Too bad your little chart that you post like a broken record doesn't show where those deficits actually came from.

    12-16-09bud-rev2-17-10-f1.jpg


    Again - your graph assumes such fantasies as the non-expiry of the bush tax cuts which will clearly expire ...
    Well if you aim your little nearsighted eyes at the bottom of the chart you will see that it is not my chart .. Just like the one you posted is not yours but from that conservative quackery site heritage.org. Other than that I will summarize what you wrote ..
    BLAH, BLAH, BLAH


    Yeah details are a funny thing. If it makes you feel better, amend my comment to meaning the graph "you posted", not "your" graph, and the comment applies to the original report it came from if you've already forgotten and the significant problems with it are the same.

    As to the argument that was made that Obama will deal with the deficit, sorry, but the numbers as posted ARE his numbers (per the White House's own projected numbers).

    As for my posted graph being a Heritage graph, it's actually a Washington Post graph which pulled numbers from the White House and CBO numbers. Heritage simply updated it one year later. Even the Washington Post graph shows how horrible things were projected to be after the Obama Administration started allocating spending.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:56 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidHeritage.Org = guaranteed right-wing BS

    It's certainly your prerogative to simply dismiss a source. The problem is that I've taken the time to look into the data irrespective of source.

    By way of reminder the original Washington Post graph which was one year earlier that the Heritage Institute simply updated: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
    GR2009032100104.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 5:57 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    rickrick91 said
    riddler78 said
    Webster666 saidGee, we'd be in pretty good shape if not for the Republican's lies about weapons of mass destruction.
    We've allocated well over a trillion just on those silly wars.


    A trillion dollars over the course of 8 years+? Not sure if you looked at the values of the actual deficits which are several magnitudes larger, but even without these wars, you wouldn't be in good shape. Again - the graph for you -



    On average, over the next ten years, the CBO is predicting average deficits of $976 billion - and that was before the healthcare bill and any potential state/municipal employee pension bailouts (and total spending for wars will be just over $1 trillion). That is a crap load of additional borrowing the US is anticipated to have to do with war spending only a very small fraction of the overall spending - and quite clearly as your graph shows, only a small fraction of overall deficit spending.



    WRONG.

    The VAST MAJORITY of the National Debt is made up of BUSH mistakes.

    1.) The Bush wars, as noted above.
    2.) The Bush tax cuts
    3.) The Bush recession (referred to in the accompanying link as "economic downturn")

    http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/tea-party-contract-for-america-fiscal-suicide

    The link also highlights how DISASTEROUS it would be if the Repubaggers were able to make the god-awful Bush tax cuts permanent, the way they want to.


    Sorry to get in the way of your righteous indignation here but see my reply to A&A - I actually bothered to take the time one day to read the footnotes to that graph and the data presented which forms the basis for the link that you post and the graph that A&A posted - which you might want to do.

    But here's what I don't get as I noted in my little update blurb - "The more I think about it, the more crazy it is to take such a partisan angle it is. Do you agree that part of the reason why Greece is in crisis are its debt levels? If you agree, and recognize that with this deficit spending, the US will have substantially higher debt levels than Greece does now, why are you more concerned about trying to blame someone than trying to push the current US administration and congress to control spending?"



    Because we need to assign the blame to the party and the policies that are responsible for the mammoth mess made over the last decade, so we DO NOT allow the same party to get back in power and push the same failed polices right back in place so they can continue running the economy into the ground.
    We must learn from our mistakes to avoid repeating them.
    The Republicans and their economic policies FAILED EPICALLY.
    That fact must never be forgotten so we they are never allowed to slime America with their trickle down lies.
    If they want to return to power, they must come up with fresh new ideas that will help all Americans.
    Not the same old help the rich and maybe that will help everybody else BS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 6:02 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidBecause we need to assign the blame to the party and the policies that are responsible for the mammoth mess made over the last decade, so we DO NOT allow the same party to get back in power and push the same failed polices right back in place so they can continue running the economy into the ground.
    We must learn from our mistakes to avoid repeating them.
    The Republicans and their economic policies FAILED EPICALLY.
    That fact must never be forgotten so we they are never allowed to slime America with their trickle down lies.
    If they want to return to power, they must come up with fresh new ideas that will help all Americans.
    Not the same old help the rich and maybe that will help everybody else BS.


    Surely you can see the insanity of suggesting that because the other guy overspent a bit (by comparison) we have to start spending several times more? And that's not even beginning to debate where the US sits on the Laffer Curve.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2010 6:04 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    ActiveAndFit said
    riddler78 said
    ActiveAndFit said
    riddler78 saidHaving the selective memory pangs? icon_wink.gif Sorry, there have been plenty of conservatives at least who have long been voicing their discontent over Bush's spending - the Pork Busters being the predecessor movement to much of the Tea Partiers after all. And it was the pork busters who rallied to oust Trent Lott and fought against the Republican senators from Alaska with their bridge to nowhere.

    That said, as to why a lot more both conservatives and democrats think that the additional spending today is irresponsible? Here's the most updated graph of a previous Washington Post graph (and this doesn't even include the additional estimated deficits as a result of the recent health reform bill or the public pension short falls at the state and local levels who will undoubtedly be calling for bailouts):



    With "details" like this - I would tend to agree with you. It's a wonder these people can sleep at night.


    Too bad your little chart that you post like a broken record doesn't show where those deficits actually came from.

    12-16-09bud-rev2-17-10-f1.jpg


    Again - your graph assumes such fantasies as the non-expiry of the bush tax cuts which will clearly expire ...
    Well if you aim your little nearsighted eyes at the bottom of the chart you will see that it is not my chart .. Just like the one you posted is not yours but from that conservative quackery site heritage.org. Other than that I will summarize what you wrote ..
    BLAH, BLAH, BLAH


    Yeah details are a funny thing. If it makes you feel better, amend my comment to meaning the graph you posted, not your graph, and the comment applies to the original report it came from if you've already forgotten.

    As for it being a Heritage graph, it's actually a Washington Post graph which pulled numbers from the White House and CBO numbers. Heritage simply updated it one year later. Even the Washington Post graph shows how horrible things were projected to be after the Obama Administration started allocating spending.



    Re: the National Debt -
    Things were projected to be "horrible" before Obama ever even took office.
    The vast majority of the National Debt is made up of debt run up by presidents named Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr.
    And ALL OF THAT happened before Obama was ever even sworn in.
    Our debt problem in NOT new, NOT Obama's fault, and the Republicans are BY FAR more responsible than the Democrats.

    And if you haven't noticed those obvious facts by now in all of your research, then you have pro-Republican blinders permanently affixed to your head
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 07, 2010 6:04 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said

    Because we need to assign the blame to the party and the policies that are responsible for the mammoth mess made over the last decade, so we DO NOT allow the same party to get back in power and push the same failed polices right back in place so they can continue running the economy into the ground.
    We must learn from our mistakes to avoid repeating them.
    The Republicans and their economic policies FAILED EPICALLY.
    That fact must never be forgotten so we they are never allowed to slime America with their trickle down lies.
    If they want to return to power, they must come up with fresh new ideas that will help all Americans.
    Not the same old help the rich and maybe that will help everybody else BS.




    Y A W N!!!!!icon_rolleyes.gif