Best September in 70 years!

**Jarod** · 09-30-2010, 01:56 PM

The Stock Market has just seen its best September in 70 Years!

Hip Hip Hurray!

**BRUTALITOPS** · 09-30-2010, 02:04 PM

in what way? less murders? temperature?

**BRUTALITOPS** · 09-30-2010, 02:06 PM

oh the stock market.

Imagine having the best september after 70 years after the worst other 8 months. we still fail.

**Cancel7** · 09-30-2010, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jarod

The Stock Market has just seen its best September in 70 Years!

Hip Hip Hurray!

I don't believe the stock market reflects the reality of that many average americans. It's true that with 401k's, it helps, but plenty of Americans don't have them and plenty more can't access them for many years without huge penalities.

People are suffering right now and have been for along time.

Is it Obama's fault? No, it developed long before he became President, but he chickened out on dealing with aspects of it. The stimilus being too small and his awful HAMP program being two big ways. What is missing from this board, much like the MSM btw! is a critique of this administration from the left.

**Jarod** · 09-30-2010, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Darla

I don't believe the stock market reflects the reality of that many average americans. It's true that with 401k's, it helps, but plenty of Americans don't have them and plenty more can't access them for many years without huge penalities.

People are suffering right now and have been for along time.

Is it Obama's fault? No, it developed long before he became President, but he chickened out on dealing with aspects of it. The stimilus being too small and his awful HAMP program being two big ways. What is missing from this board, much like the MSM btw! is a critique of this administration from the left.

THe stock market is a leading indicator, meaning that it improves before other aspects of the economy.

Jobs for example are a lagging indicator.

**klaatu** · 09-30-2010, 02:17 PM

Dollar set for worst quarter since 2002, Fed eyed (remember.. this was the 9/11 recover period)

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/6657367.cms

"The domestic economy is seen slowing from now on, but a sharp slowdown is unlikely and stock prices will likely move to factor that in in advance and build on gains." Gold ticked lower but held within sight of a record high hit in the previous session, underpinned by continued U.S. dollar weakness. Spot gold eased 60 cents to $1,308.15 by 0630 GMT."

**Onceler** · 09-30-2010, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Darla

I don't believe the stock market reflects the reality of that many average americans. It's true that with 401k's, it helps, but plenty of Americans don't have them and plenty more can't access them for many years without huge penalities.

People are suffering right now and have been for along time.

Is it Obama's fault? No, it developed long before he became President, but he chickened out on dealing with aspects of it. The stimilus being too small and his awful HAMP program being two big ways. What is missing from this board, much like the MSM btw! is a critique of this administration from the left.

This is very true (the part about people suffering). No one is really feeling like it's a recovery right now; in terms of day-to-day lives, I would wager most are feeling like we're still in a fairly deep recession.

However, I also believe that the market HAS to do well as just a starting point for a higher level of re-hiring and new jobs, which is really what is needed to get us out of this. Most businesses, big & small, look to Wall Street for their own confidence to bring on new employees, and start really spending again.

As for Obama, you're right as far as the need for a bigger stimulus, but realistically, do you think he could have pushed that through? I think he basically got what he could.

**Cancel7** · 09-30-2010, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Jarod

THe stock market is a leading indicator, meaning that it improves before other aspects of the economy.

Jobs for example are a lagging indicator.

More should have been done. What righties and moderates and the entire MSM likes to forget is that Bush's own treasury secretary got on television and begged for TARP (yep, that happened on Bush's watch dixie, no matter what you learned in Glenn Beck's University) because according to both him and bush catastrophic and chaotic collapse was imminent.

Now, that complete collapse was avoided and Obama deserves his credit for that, but he never did anywhere enough to help the average person who was devastated in this crash.

They say, well he couldnt get it through the Congress. He never tried. He opened his negotiations at the lowest of what he was willing to accept...and the accepted lower.

It was pure stupidity, or mendacity. Considering his economic team I believe it was the latter.

**Cancel7** · 09-30-2010, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Onceler

This is very true (the part about people suffering). No one is really feeling like it's a recovery right now; in terms of day-to-day lives, I would wager most are feeling like we're still in a fairly deep recession.

However, I also believe that the market HAS to do well as just a starting point for a higher level of re-hiring and new jobs, which is really what is needed to get us out of this. Most businesses, big & small, look to Wall Street for their own confidence to bring on new employees, and start really spending again.

As for Obama, you're right as far as the need for a bigger stimulus, but realistically, do you think he could have pushed that through? I think he basically got what he could.

I do think he could have Onceler, but from what I have read Summers didn't even present the higher estimates of what was needed to the President. That is what I mean by his economic team. Very bad choice. If he had started at 1.5 trillion, Snowe and the other one in Main would have had to negotiate down from there. That was the mistake and it was part a political consideration (Rahm is said to not have wanted anything that hit the 1 trillion number considered) and part that Summers is an arrogant bastard and he was wrong, but he would not even present dissenting opinions to the PResidet because of course, Summers can't be wrong.

**Onceler** · 09-30-2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Darla

I do think he could have Onceler, but from what I have read Summers didn't even present the higher estimates of what was needed to the President. That is what I mean by his economic team. Very bad choice. If he had started at 1.5 trillion, Snowe and the other one in Main would have had to negotiate down from there. That was the mistake and it was part a political consideration (Rahm is said to not have wanted anything that hit the 1 trillion number considered) and part that Summers is an arrogant bastard and he was wrong, but he would not even present dissenting opinions to the PResidet because of course, Summers can't be wrong.

I understand the political consideration. The success of legislation like this is so reliant upon marketing, and I get the psychological threshold of $1 Trillion that Rahm was probably trying to avoid.

But yeah, you're probably right overall; had they just started high, they probably could have ended up $2-300 billion higher than they did, which would have made a big difference at this point.

**Cancel7** · 09-30-2010, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Onceler

I understand the political consideration. The success of legislation like this is so reliant upon marketing, and I get the psychological threshold of $1 Trillion that Rahm was probably trying to avoid.

But yeah, you're probably right overall; had they just started high, they probably could have ended up $2-300 billion higher than they did, which would have made a big difference at this point.

You know who called all of this right at the beginning don't you Onceler? Including what the righties would do. Krugman. I know that he sweats a lot and everything...but the longer that goes since I met him and with reading him every day, the less I remember that part.

**Onceler** · 09-30-2010, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Darla

You know who called all of this right at the beginning don't you Onceler? Including what the righties would do. Krugman. I know that he sweats a lot and everything...but the longer that goes since I met him and with reading him every day, the less I remember that part.

When I see or read him now, I always involuntarily think "sweat."

He was right, and I remember him saying from the get go that it needed to be much bigger than it was. He bugs me, though; way too full of himself since the Nobel...

**Cancel7** · 09-30-2010, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Onceler

When I see or read him now, I always involuntarily think "sweat."

He was right, and I remember him saying from the get go that it needed to be much bigger than it was. He bugs me, though; way too full of himself since the Nobel...

LOL One of my best friends, also a man, thinks pretty much word for word what you wrote about him. I can see what you mean though.

**Socrtease** · 09-30-2010, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Darla

I don't believe the stock market reflects the reality of that many average americans. It's true that with 401k's, it helps, but plenty of Americans don't have them and plenty more can't access them for many years without huge penalities.

People are suffering right now and have been for along time.

Is it Obama's fault? No, it developed long before he became President, but he chickened out on dealing with aspects of it. The stimilus being too small and his awful HAMP program being two big ways. What is missing from this board, much like the MSM btw! is a critique of this administration from the left.

It is because the left supported him so strongly. They thought they were going to get a real left wing tax the rich and give to the poor kind of guy. They didn't. THey got someone that is not sure what the hell he is. I am sorry I voted for him. He could have gotten a great deal done but he squandered it and will most likely pay for it in 2 more years and then we will get another jesus freak in the whitehouse who says god talks to him and told him to invade someother country thus squandering our blook and riches again.

**Cancel7** · 09-30-2010, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Socrtease

It is because the left supported him so strongly. They thought they were going to get a real left wing tax the rich and give to the poor kind of guy. They didn't. THey got someone that is not sure what the hell he is. I am sorry I voted for him. He could have gotten a great deal done but he squandered it and will most likely pay for it in 2 more years and then we will get another jesus freak in the whitehouse who says god talks to him and told him to invade someother country thus squandering our blook and riches again.

Well, I'm not sorry I voted for him, and I always thought he was more conservative on domestic policy than Hillary Clinton was. I voted for him because he voted for banning cluster bombs in civilian areas and Hillary voted against the ban, and guess what? Now that he is in the position to do something about it we are still using cluster bombs, so this just went to show me that some of the wackier left (most of whom I don't get along with btw) were right when they said that American foreign policy and it doesn't matter who is in office, and that I was dreaming, and America is an imperalist...and so on and so on and so.

But I will still take him any day over a Republican and twice on Sunday.

I believe he'll be relected. If I'm wrong, and anyone other than Romney (the only apparently sane national R with Presidential asperations I know of right now) is the R nominee, then yeah, we will be done for.