Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, March 11, 2010

Bloomberg: The political consensus may be that President Barack Obama's handling of the economy has been weak. The judgment of money in all its forms has been overwhelmingly positive, and that may be the more lasting appraisal. One year after U.S stocks hit their post-financial-crisis low on March 9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 Index has risen more than 68 percent, and it's up more than 41 percent since Obama took office. Credit spreads have narrowed. Commodity prices have surged. Housing prices have stabilized.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

TrueBlue

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Now all you have to do is superimpose a chart of Obama's approval rating on top of the S&P and see there's no association between the two.

Subs have to be made. You don't have time for this.

fudgepacker, giant steaming piles of Republican Base, teabagger, moosefart)

#3 | Posted by axe at 2010-03-10 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag very close to getting his nut

"If he was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the president."

Ironic that on a thread about the market voting in favor of a Democratic president, you see whines about how that would also occur under the Republican president.

All they did was throw money at the economy to prevent if from making the necessary corrections. Eventually the market will have its way.

When you hit rock bottom there is no place to go but up.

Ever hear of a dead cat bounce?


Subs have to be made. You don't have time for this.

#2 | Posted by jackass

How's your chow chip collection coming?

Partisan response so far on this (and other similar threads):

1. The stimulus won't work.
2. The stimulus might work, but only temporarily.
3. The stimulus might work, but it wasn't enough.
4. The stimulus might work, but it was too late.
5. The economy would have gone up anyway.
6. Some combination of 2., 3., 4., and/or 5.

Beyond any Monday morning quarterbacking, apparently Bloomberg doesn't agree.

When you hit rock bottom there is no place to go but up.
#8 | POSTED BY KBM

You only think the economy hit rock bottom.

Bloomberg is being a bit dense here.

There are no jobs and the stimulus is stimulating things like studies of monkeys on cocaine.

Glad to see the market go back up. Get some of the 401k's back in order for the folks.

"Bloomberg is being a bit dense here.

There are no jobs and the stimulus is stimulating things like studies of monkeys on cocaine.

Glad to see the market go back up. Get some of the 401k's back in order for the folks.
#13 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-03-10 11:41 PM"

The article both acknowledges and addresses the job situation.

To claim that there are no jobs and implying that the result of the stimulus is financing studies of monkeys on cocaine is such a simplistic summary of the economy as to be completely misleading, wrong, even 'dense'.

There are no jobs

Tell that to the 100,000 people who will lose their non-existent jobs come September.

www.huffingtonpost.com

Be Well.

This economy will survive despite Obama and his-whateverheisdoing.

The Democrat Party has just made a very serious mistake: they sent me a survey. You may be assured I filled it out with the greatest pleasure. The last section consisted of what we used to call in school an "essay question," in which the respondent was asked to express his views on President Obama and the Democratic Party. I quote to you in full my response:

"President Obama is a fraud, a charlatan, a liar, and a hypocrite. He imposed himself on the gullible American people with false promises and barefaced lies, and in his term of office has already done more harm than his odious predecessor, George Bush, was able to do in eight years. As for the Democrat Party, I consider it to be the party of liars, scoundrels, criminals, and would-be tyrants."

"Ironic that on a thread about the market voting in favor of a Democratic president, you see whines about how that would also occur under the Republican president."

Even more ironic is the fact Wall St was villified by the dems on a daily basis and a convenient excuse to defend Obama, today of course they are used as a compliment. Seems a bit fickle to me.

#16 - you showed 'em, you did. I bet the party is frightened that someone from the right used a string of taunts on a survey! You should have closed with, "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries." That woulda put 'em in their place.

"President Obama is a fraud, a charlatan, a liar, and a hypocrite. He imposed himself on the gullible American people with false promises and barefaced lies, and in his term of office has already done more harm than his odious predecessor, George Bush, was able to do in eight years. As for the Democrat Party, I consider it to be the party of liars, scoundrels, criminals, and would-be tyrants."

I see a lot of people complaining about Obama, but almost no one has and hard facts. Those that do take them out of context. If you have any, i would like some proof that Obama was worse than bush, and that you think the democratic party lies more than the republican. The democrats have failed, in that they were unable to do much when they had the chance. They will probably not have that opportunity for a while. The Republican, on the other hand have flip-flop and change their opinions to bash the democrats. Unfortunately the american people seem to stupid to realize this and take everything at face value.

I realized i will probably be rapped by most of the people on this forum for my above comment. Go Ahead.

Amazingly, no one mentioned this article on Morning Joe, at least while I was watching. Has anyone heard it mentioned on Fox News???

The economy is starting to rebound; however, people are going to be hurting for a while. Home prices will remain stagnent and access to credit will remain tight for a good while. With that said, conservatives predicting a republican WH takover in 2012 had better hold off on that projection. If the dow is above 12,000 points, unemployment is below 8%, and the housing market has completely settled by 2012, Obama's numbers will turn around. It will resemble what happened with Reagan in his first term. It will also resemble Clinton's first term where the repubs took over the legislative branch and we were on even keel.

"we were on even keel."

Oh yes, the era of $70,000,000 politically motivated investigations and every other partisan attack possible. Hey, why not just shut down the government?

Clinton's first term where the repubs took over the legislative branch and we were on even keel.

Oh god how I long for those days. I had high hopes for the last 2 years of Bush when a dem legislature could have kept him under control but for whatever reason they decided to rubber stamp him just as the republicans had. I want to see a good solid hunk of gridlock. Or at least an oposition party strong enough to force the president to keep at least pretend to follow the constitution.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-11 09:46 AM | Reply | Flag

I thought this thread was about economics?

Hey, why not just shut down the government?

Danni now that would be a dream ...

I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
On Holiday

Ok I'm back from dream land

Unfortunately the american people seem to stupid to realize this and take everything at face value.

#19 | Posted by NotMyRealName at 2010-03-11 09:25 AM |

Hence giving the majorities to Pelosi and Reid after the 2006 election.

Unfortunately the american people seem to stupid to realize this and take everything at face value.

Like 'death panels' and 'government takeover of health care', "Obama's gonna hand the country to terrorists', and on DR right now the panties-in-a-wad over sports fishing (they think granny's gonna be arrested for fishing in the family pond because some right wing idiot says so in an opinion piece about a water use plan that hasn't even been released and has nothing to do with sports fishing. LOL)

#28...

AU is upset because of deflections used by the right, yet somehow he can't see past his brown nose that his retort is deflecting? I guess what he was responding to hit close to home.

Give it a rest Mr. "I blew George W Bush's Nose When He Was In Office and the GOP Could Do No Wrong" OC

What 'hit me' is the right wing hypocrisy, and in your case always, a double standard.

Tell that to the 100,000 people who will lose their non-existent jobs come September.

www.huffingtonpost.com

Be Well.

#15 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-03-11 07:22 AM

Are we expected to subsidize them into perpetuity? Seems like the stimulus just kicked the can down the road.

#30...

Now you are deflecting to me accusing you of deflecting?

BTW, according to you, you only bring up Bush when some rightwinger says something idiotic about Obama. What gives?

Too bad the positive change in the financials was predicated on more government debt...

...when Obama's record setting deficit spending stops, so will the markets performance.

www.google.com

Actual unemployment hanging around 18%, more people loosing their jobs every week, and you say things are getting better? What is realy happening is wall street is taking profits from many people's retirement accounts. Most 401s have not increased in value even when people are still pouring money into them. Ya, life has been great for the last year.

"Most 401s have not increased in value even when people are still pouring money into them."

Mine is way up, it is not far now from where it was before the crash.

you have to register to read the article ill bet no one one on this thread has actually read the article, so who gives a shit what the headline says...

sure he has bailed them out as much as they wanted.

just like bush.
/>

... loosing their jobs ...
#33 | Posted by Sniper

Seriously, does ANYBODY know how to properly spell "losing" on the internets???

I know it's petty, but this drives me NUTS.

"you have to register to read the article ill bet no one one on this thread has actually read the article, so who gives a shit what the headline says..."

I don't know how but when it was on the back page you could read it without registering and I did.
So there!

Corporations are now effectively "going to Las Vegas," with our pensions. It's no longer about buying stocks, but investing has now expanded into junk bonds, commodity futures, and foreign stocks, too. More importantly, companies may soon use public pension fund revenue that they're exposing to increasing risk to rescue failing banks and with FDIC blessing.

The FDIC should NOT be looking at retirement money as a safety net for failed lenders!

What this plan is really about is having the FDIC bail out not banks but corporations who incur losses by making risky investments with your retirement money. Once again, it's "score one for the corporations!" Public pension funds become an extra layer of padding for fortune 500s in a financially cold climate, and it's the powerless individual, not the corporation, who is taking the risk.

Somebody seems to have gotten it backwards, AGAIN. The banks are supposed to bail us out in an emergency and not the other way around.

Thomas Jefferson said it best two hundred years ago: "if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their prosperity until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

Excerpted from Jayne Stahl @ Counterpunch

Thomas Jefferson said it best two hundred years ago: "if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their prosperity until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

----------

end the corporate person.

anything less is meaningless posturing.

"Thomas Jefferson said it best two hundred years ago: "

Only problem is, he didn't say it.

Can we please stop propagating the fake Jefferson quote about "PRIVATE BANKS"?
www.dailypaul.com

"you have to register to read the article ill bet no one one on this thread has actually read the article, so who gives a shit what the headline says...
#35 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2010-03-11 12:25 PM"

And you would lose that bet.

Meanwhile, I don't know why it requires a registration now as it didn't when first linked (on 3-10-10) and this thread was posted on the Back Page. Possibly it's because it was a new article yesterday and it's an old/archived article today.

Mine is way up, it is not far now from where it was before the crash.

#34 | Posted by danni

Do you realize what you just said? You have been dumping money in it for the last 2 years and it is still below the value it was 2 years ago. Isn't that what I said in my post?

This quotation is often cited as being in an 1802 letter to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, and/or "later published in The Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill (1809)."

The first part of the quotation ("If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered") has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson's writings, to Albert Gallatin or otherwise. It is identified in Respectfully Quoted as spurious, and the editor further points out that the words "inflation" and "deflation" did not come into use until 1864 and 1920, respectively.[3]

The second part of the quotation ("I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...") may well be a paraphrase of a statement Jefferson made in a letter to John Taylor in 1816. He wrote, "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."[4]

The third part of this quotation ("The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs") may be a misquotation of Jefferson's comment to John Wayles Eppes, "Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs." [5]

Lastly, we have not found a record of any publication called The Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill. There was certainly debate over the recharter of the National Bank leading up to its expiration in 1811, but a search of Congressional documents of that period yields none of the verbiage discussed above.

See this article's Discussion page for further insight into the formation and use of the latter portion of this quotation.

-------

still applies even if the direct quote isn't quite right.

"Do you realize what you just said? You have been dumping money in it for the last 2 years and it is still below the value it was 2 years ago. Isn't that what I said in my post?"

Except that neither I nor my employer have not put one cent into it, it has regained it's value through the investments in it.

dan, so......... you are still behind where you were 2 years ago. That's great!!!!!!!

Where are all the profits that wall street has taken in the past 2 years???? Not in your pocket!!!!!!

money.cnn.com

portfolios have been increasing.

mine has done pretty well.

Has anyone heard it mentioned on Fox News???

#20 | Posted by danni

What a riot from a partisan hack.

It's copyrighted and nobody is cc ing it!

Great article as usual nut! I though tthe exact same thing when I saw the headline!

Now the gov is attacking "Too big to fail". HAHAHA!

What is 'too' big. Assets, net worth, number of employees? Sen Dodd was lecturing today, railing against CDO's mainly blaming them for the crisis. Not ONE WORD about the gov run fannie mae and freddie mac.

I know quick lets turn everything over to those fine supervisors!!!!!!!

Another headline hit today, that Citi and JPM were behind the failure of LEH.

But the gov had turned around and used JPM to assume many failed institutions...making them even bigger too big to fail!

Do what we say, not what we do. Ron Paul was having a field day laughing at Dodd's lunacy/hypocrisy....

what a joke this is.....ha ha ha ha...

check this out...
www.google.com

Budget deficit sets record in February!!!!!!!!

Spend... spend... spend.... econmy stronger my ass...

#52 | Posted by libslayer

Oh shit. "Libslayer" is back. Libs are trembling in fear. lol

Through the first five months of this budget year, net interest payments totaled $86.5 billion, up 15.3 percent from a year ago.

This is strong to u lib tards?????

Null, you man Obama is making it easy for me.... ha ha ha...

Your man is making bush look cheap with his spending..... what up with that?

Obamee couldn't mannage a wendy's.....

Obama one year ago: "I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term....." blaaa haaa haaa haaa haaaa haaaaa..... thats some funny shit right now.... I don't care who you are...

Obama and Bernanke are playing a Bush and Greenspan game----they're kicking the can further down the road.

Look no further than the events in Greece going on

#34 | Posted by danni

Do you realize what you just said? You have been dumping money in it for the last 2 years and it is still below the value it was 2 years ago. Isn't that what I said in my post?

#43 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-03-11 03:48 PM
Gotta say it s l o w l y danni is a tard.

"It's copyrighted and nobody is cc ing it!"

A copyright doesn't prevent anyone from mentioning it and, AS IT SAYS IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF, if a Republican administration was in office right now we'd be hearing it trumpeted on every news cast ESPECIALLY Faux News. I noticed Morning Joe still ignores it too, I just think it is funny that idiots like DAVETHEWAVE doesn't even get it that the corporate news media doesn't want to report good news about the economy with this President and this Congress.

"Gotta say it s l o w l y danni is a tard."

Gotta say it....777 is too stupid to scroll a little farther down the thread before he puts both of his smelly feet in his big mouth.

A copyright doesn't prevent anyone from mentioning it and, AS IT SAYS IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF, if a Republican administration was in office right now we'd be hearing it trumpeted on every news cast ESPECIALLY Faux News. I noticed Morning Joe still ignores it too, I just think it is funny that idiots like DAVETHEWAVE doesn't even get it that the corporate news media doesn't want to report good news about the economy with this President and this Congress.

#62 | Posted by danni

I don't understand how anyone who is extremely critical of how Bush (along with Greenspan) handled the economy the way they did can now give kudoes to Obama when he (and Bernanke) are handling the economy the same way but in a more extreme manner.

#64

That's because Keynesian economics 101, the albeit counter-intuitive spending one's way out of a recession, just what Hil or McCain or any other Pres would have also done...... escapes you.

#65

in other words, I am a partisan shill and I reserve the right to move the goalposts at will.

-Corky

That's because Keynesian economics 101, the albeit counter-intuitive spending one's way out of a recession, just what Hil or McCain or any other Pres would have also done...... escapes you.

#65 | Posted by Corky

Oh, then you must have supported Bush etal---if not, then how do you ESCAPE your hypocrisy.

Bush was busy creating the huge deficit with trillions in tax cuts for the rich and preemptive wars put not on budget but on our children's credit card.

That's the difference in the type of spending.

Bush was spending us into recession, Obama is investing the money needed to get us out.

As I said, counter-intuitive perhaps, but much of economics is.

#66 | Posted by eberly

I see Beverly is as confused as the other denizens of Glenbeckistan.

Corky,

just because you wallow in partinship doesn't mean you can stick that label to me.

I have never......NEVER watched or spent more than 2 minutes listening to Glen Beck.

Furthermore, please enlighten all of us with anything I have ever posted with would reveal that I agree with him

the floor is yours......

Bush was busy creating the huge deficit with trillions in tax cuts for the rich and preemptive wars put not on budget but on our children's credit card.

That's the difference in the type of spending.

Bush was spending us into recession, Obama is investing the money needed to get us out.

As I said, counter-intuitive perhaps, but much of economics is.

#68 | Posted by Corky

Cork, you've got to work on your contradictions--and know your history.

First, you say that Bush got us into deficits by cutting taxes and through war spending---you get an A on that---let's see, Obama continues to spend big bucks on war. We still have the tax cuts---so there isn't a difference on that point and so you get an E on that statement.

Now let's look at the statement that Bush was spending us into a recession---when Bush inherited the WH the economy was slipping into recession and that's why he cut taxes and increased spending along with Greenspan cutting interest rates---in other words he spent to avoid a deeper recession just as Obama did---you call bush's spending "spending" and Obama's spending "investment"----you get a mark of E on this one

You've got to be kidding me---please tell me you aren't serious and know you painted yourself into a corner and are now trying to extricate yourself.

The market is up...

...because the prospects for Obamacare is down.

Ditto for Cap & Trade.

-We still have the tax cuts---

No,. the Bush tax cuts are being allowed to end..... an option now because THEY WERE PASSED UNDER RECONCILIATION.

---in other words he spent to avoid a deeper recession just as Obama did

Holy Horseshit. Do they loosen the straps on your tight white jacket to let you type such imaginative rubbish?

When did GW even, ever claim to spending money to get us out of a recession?

He didn't. He admitted it was for his base, "the Haves"..... and, "now, watch this swing...."

No,. the Bush tax cuts are being allowed to end.....

They're still there.

---in other words he spent to avoid a deeper recession just as Obama did

When did GW even, ever claim to spending money to get us out of a recession?

The Republican congress spent money like a faucet (which you and others so adroitly have pointed out on numerous occasions)

Corky, keep digging that hole deeper and deeper---you're like a fly caught in the spider's web---

-The Republican congress spent money like a faucet

Not to get us out of any recession as you claim.

I apologize. When your mental health pro is back, drop us another post.

v
-The Republican congress spent money like a faucet

Not to get us out of any recession as you claim.

I apologize. When your mental health pro is back, drop us another post.

#76 | Posted by Corky

Keep flapping your wings---the spider is licking his lips---he especially enjoys the taste of hypocrites &/or the misinformed.

Well, then. How about a link to substantiate your claim that, " ... he spent to avoid a deeper recession just as Obama did".

I won't hold my breath.

Well, then. How about a link to substantiate your claim that, " ... he spent to avoid a deeper recession just as Obama did".

I won't hold my breath.

#78 | Posted by Corky

Duh, ever hear of the veto---what did Bush ever veto?

"When did GW even, ever claim to spending money to get us out of a recession?"

ER...how about when they mailed us all $300 checks??

-what did Bush ever veto?

Non-responsive.

You should put the shovel down now.

what did Bush ever veto?

Non-responsive.

You should put the shovel down now.

#81 | Posted by Corky

You wouldn't want me to---I was about to use it to take care of the spider about to devour you.

So, no link to objective evidence to support your asinine claim?

That really surprises me... no, really....

So, no link to objective evidence to support your asinine claim?

That really surprises me... no, really....

#83 | Posted by Corky

Here's the deal, Cork; now get ready for an educational moment which is going to happen for you (won't charge tuition)---Bush didn't have to announce to the nation about the spending plans since we didn't have a crisis to the extent we had when Obama entered the WH when credit markets seized up---Bush cut tax rates and let spending run amok by the lack of vetoing and spending on the war while Greenspan dropped rates almost to zero---you think Bush would have gone to the American people and announced: "We have a ponzi scheme we want to keep going and so we're going to spend like drunken sailors (no insult to drunken sailors intended)". Get it?---I know it may be difficult----just let me know in the future when you want a clairvoyant moment again.

-let me know in the future when you want a clairvoyant moment again.

roflmfao!!

Mother Matsop, Clairvoyant Readings Only Fiddy Cents!

How very convenient for you, to be able to manufacture your own facts and pull them directly out of your ass.

Must save lots of time and gas.

How very convenient for you, to be able to manufacture your own facts and pull them directly out of your ass.

Must save lots of time and gas.

#85 | Posted by Corky

So, Corky, what info in post #84 wasn't fact:

1---Greenspan dropped interest rates to almost zero

2---Bush rachetted spending up through the Iraq war and lack of use of the veto pen---thus allowing congress to spend huge amounts

3---Bush cut tax rates.

Careful, now, Cork, you're about ready to get caught again in your web of deceit.

None of which had diddly to do with, " ... he spent to avoid a deeper recession just as Obama did".

Which is a made-up excuse for you typing before thinking.

None of which had diddly to do with, " ... he spent to avoid a deeper recession just as Obama did".

#87 | Posted by Corky

Cork, you're struggling---"he spent"---you and others of your brood have been critical of Bush for all the spending he did in the Iraq War---exhibit A---that's spending. Exhibit B---the president has the ultimate responsibility for spending as it relates to bills passed by congress--he has a choice---either sign them or veto them---guess what, Bush signed everything coming across his desk---that's called spending and he okayed it---you and others of your brood have been been critical of all this spending---my case rests---give it up, Cork, you're dead meat on this--education over.

" ... he spent to avoid a deeper recession just as Obama did".

Pity-ful. Just pity-ful.

Danni you are a WHACK JOB.

It wasn't on any news services, but you harp on Fox? WTF are you thinking. You are out of your mind.

Tell us why isn't it on MSNBC!

Oh the outrage.

The Hug

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable