Biggest % Drop Post-Election in History

[Minstrel]

it affects the people that actually can influence the market: businesses and those with larger investments.

Interesting fact, though: Obama won a higher percentage of voters who make $250K or more.

So, do the people who will be most affected by "investor class" policies really think Obama is bad for the country?

 

[PapaG]

I wouldn't expect PapaG to be intelligent about these things, because he hasn't really shown any intelligence at all during the last 6 months while he's been bitching and complaining about anything not Republican. Not surprising that he's jumping all over this news as a chance to bash Obama as some sort of "I told you so" - as if John McCain winning would have had any different effect, with almost 70% of voters saying they trusted Obama on the economy more than they trusted McCain.

This is simply the continued volatility from a deep, bruising recession that isn't going away any time soon. I suggest you read the following from the Associated Press: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/122594372743120.xml&coll=7



-Pop

The Dems win majorities in 2006, and two years later we're in a recession. Imagine how much fun we'll have over the next two years!

 

[blazerboy30]

Interesting fact, though: Obama won a higher percentage of voters who make $250K or more.

So, do the people who will be most affected by "investor class" policies really think Obama is bad for the country?

One thing is absolutely certain: corporations and businesses don't get to vote.

Obama won a higher percentage of voters who make $250k or more. I wonder how that percentage would look if it could be applied to corporations or businesses.

Another thing to consider is many of the people that can affect the market don't fall into the conversation about Obama's $250k income threshold. These are people like Buffet, Gates, Brin, Page, Schmidt, etc, who don't make salaries. Their "income" in this sense can be well below $250k.

 

[SodaPopinski]

The Dems win majorities in 2006, and two years later we're in a recession. Imagine how much fun we'll have over the next two years!

I love how Conservatives trot out this fact (Democrat majority in Congress since 2006) from their "It's not our fault ... we didn't fuck it up ... really" manual. Yet they completely ignore the fact that the Republicans had control over both the executive and legislative branches for the previous six years. Not only that, the democratic "majority" in the Senate wasn't really an effective majority (it was 51-49, with Lieberman being the one of the 51), and Republicans still carried plenty of opportunity to find ways to kill bills before they were signed into law.

So while this may be a convenient way to avoid a mea culpa for the lack of action on any of this stuff between 2001-2006, it really doesn't carry any weight with those of us who know how the political system works.

So, PapaG, go to the next talking point from your manual. I'm eager to shoot that one down as well. Did you at least get a free oil change from Jiffy Lube or something when you ordered your manual from Rush Limbaugh's Web site?

-Pop

 

[Minstrel]

One thing is absolutely certain: corporations and businesses don't get to vote.

Sure enough, but do you think the largest share-holders in publicly traded corporations and businesses earn less than $250K?

These are people like Buffet, Gates, Brin, Page, Schmidt, etc, who don't make salaries. Their "income" in this sense can be well below $250k.

Are you sure dividends and such aren't considered income? My impression is that they were. Certainly, if you count dividends, all those people earn well over $250K/year.

In any case, many, many people in the investor class who both significantly affect the economy and are affected by the economy, like CEOs and bank presidents, earn well over $250K year in salary.

 

[PapaG]

I love how Conservatives trot out this fact (Democrat majority in Congress since 2006) from their "It's not our fault ... we didn't fuck it up ... really" manual. Yet they completely ignore the fact that the Republicans had control over both the executive and legislative branches for the previous six years. Not only that, the democratic "majority" in the Senate wasn't really an effective majority (it was 51-49, with Lieberman being the one of the 51), and Republicans still carried plenty of opportunity to find ways to kill bills before they were signed into law.

So while this may be a convenient way to avoid a mea culpa for the lack of action on any of this stuff between 2001-2006, it really doesn't carry any weight with those of us who know how the political system works.

So, PapaG, go to the next talking point from your manual. I'm eager to shoot that one down as well. Did you at least get a free oil change from Jiffy Lube or something when you ordered your manual from Rush Limbaugh's Web site?

-Pop

I love when people call me a "conservative". It really makes me want to pay attention to the drivel that will surely follow.

 

[blazerboy30]

Are you sure dividends and such aren't considered income? My impression is that they were. Certainly, if you count dividends, all those people earn well over $250K/year.

In any case, many, many people in the investor class who both significantly affect the economy and are affected by the economy, like CEOs and bank presidents, earn well over $250K year in salary.

The tax policy still isn't crystal clear to me, but I think you are asking if the $250k (it is actually $200k for individuals) applies to income, or earnings. This is one aspect I'm still not sure of.

However, dividends, capital gains etc are considered earnings, not income. I saw the numbers awhile ago (can't find it at the moment) that to be in the top 5% of incomes, one would have to make around this $200k threshold. To be in the top 5% of earnings, one would have to earn about $600k.

Since Obama keeps saying 5% of people will be over the income threshold, based on the data I mentioned above, I have to assume that he is talking income. If this is the case, then as I said, people like Buffet, Gates, Brin, Page etc, who don't have salaries, may not be affected as much.

 

[SodaPopinski]

I love when people call me a "conservative". It really makes me want to pay attention to the drivel that will surely follow.

Yeah - because it's become increasingly evident how liberal/moderate you are.

-Pop

 

[PapaG]

Yeah - because it's become increasingly evident how liberal/moderate you are.

-Pop

Linear...

 

[Minstrel]

The tax policy still isn't crystal clear to me, but I think you are asking if the $250k (it is actually $200k for individuals) applies to income, or earnings. This is one aspect I'm still not sure of.

However, dividends, capital gains etc are considered earnings, not income. I saw the numbers awhile ago (can't find it at the moment) that to be in the top 5% of incomes, one would have to make around this $200k threshold. To be in the top 5% of earnings, one would have to earn about $600k.

Since Obama keeps saying 5% of people will be over the income threshold, based on the data I mentioned above, I have to assume that he is talking income. If this is the case, then as I said, people like Buffet, Gates, Brin, Page etc, who don't have salaries, may not be affected as much.

A good and fair point. Ultimately, too, the very, very highest end of the economic scale (billionaires) may not be an accurate way to measure economic policy, as they are often unaffected, or very mildly affected, by things that may be life-changing to the the majority. Even if they voted for Obama (I don't know what percentage of them did), it may be for reasons other than the economy.

However, the > $250K crowd contains many people, like executives, who are very affected by the economy and by capital gains issues. Corporations may not appareciate Obama's policies, but it seems like a lot of the people who run them voted for Obama.

 

[PapaG]

-443.48 at close. Second consective drop of over 400 points since the election.

This of course, has absolutely nothing to do with a guy who has vowed to raise taxes on capital gains and on income winning and having the votes to enact his brand of socialism.

Get out of the market now, and find a way to protect your 401k, because your contributions to it will soon be taxed as well.

 

[Real]

It's baffled me as to why he would want to raise the capital gains tax when the stock market is in a free-fall. He's much smarter than that.

 

[WarriorFan]

find a way to protect your 401k, because your contributions to it will soon be taxed as well.

Is this an exaggeration? I hadn't heard about making contributions taxable. I guess it doesn't really matter, I putting most of my saving into a Roth 401k anyway.

 

[Shapecity]

The Dems win majorities in 2006, and two years later we're in a recession. Imagine how much fun we'll have over the next two years!

Why don't you short the market then?

 

[MARIS61]

The market is merely correcting itself, as is normal over time.

The smoke and mirrors can only support overvalued investments for so long.

The sooner it returns to reality, which will require a much bigger drop, the sooner we'll have a recovering economy.

 

[Denny Crane]

I love how Conservatives trot out this fact (Democrat majority in Congress since 2006) from their "It's not our fault ... we didn't fuck it up ... really" manual. Yet they completely ignore the fact that the Republicans had control over both the executive and legislative branches for the previous six years. Not only that, the democratic "majority" in the Senate wasn't really an effective majority (it was 51-49, with Lieberman being the one of the 51), and Republicans still carried plenty of opportunity to find ways to kill bills before they were signed into law.

So while this may be a convenient way to avoid a mea culpa for the lack of action on any of this stuff between 2001-2006, it really doesn't carry any weight with those of us who know how the political system works.

So, PapaG, go to the next talking point from your manual. I'm eager to shoot that one down as well. Did you at least get a free oil change from Jiffy Lube or something when you ordered your manual from Rush Limbaugh's Web site?

-Pop

I love how Democrats ignore reality. I can't think of a time when Democrats had the absolute control of congress you seem to think is necessary and that times were good for people or got good for people after enacting their policies.

The flaw in your reasoning is that those of us who know how the political system works know things would be even worse if the Dems had their way.

 

[julius]

I love how Democrats ignore reality. I can't think of a time when Democrats had the absolute control of congress you seem to think is necessary and that times were good for people or got good for people after enacting their policies.

The flaw in your reasoning is that those of us who know how the political system works know things would be even worse if the Dems had their way.

Things didn't exactly turn out great when the Republicans had had their way.

 

[Denny Crane]

Things didn't exactly turn out great when the Republicans had had their way.

The troubles of Fannie and Freddie and the required $1T in bailout spending is entirely the fault of the Democrats.

 

[julius]

The troubles of Fannie and Freddie and the required $1T in bailout spending is entirely the fault of the Democrats.

Entirely? Why is it reality doesn't agree with you? And things weren't going too great before F&F blew up. You going to blame that "entirely" on the Democrats?

 

[Denny Crane]

Entirely? Why is it reality doesn't agree with you? And things weren't going too great before F&F blew up. You going to blame that "entirely" on the Democrats?

Dunno what you're talking about. Gasoline was $2.50/gallon (or less) before the Dems took over congress. The Dow was pushing 14000. Home foreclosures are way up since they took over, as well.

Bush pushed for Fannie/Freddie reform in 2003, Democrats threatened to filibuster it because they felt it would keep poorer people from owning homes. Republicans pushed for bills in 2005 and 2006, and the result was the same.

 

[julius]

Dunno what you're talking about. Gasoline was $2.50/gallon (or less) before the Dems took over congress. The Dow was pushing 14000. Home foreclosures are way up since they took over, as well.

Although I suspect you're trying to make a point that it's not the Republicans fault (all by their selves), I'm not saying it is.

Bush pushed for Fannie/Freddie reform in 2003, Democrats threatened to filibuster it because they felt it would keep poorer people from owning homes. Republicans pushed for bills in 2005 and 2006, and the result was the same.

Fannie and Freddie aren't the biggest issue here. They're just an easy target.

Both sides are at fault, but to act as though this was because of less than 2 years of Democratic control (of which, a 51-49 edge isn't exactly a big deal) seems to be sour grapes here.

It's not my fault your guy lost in the election.

 

[Denny Crane]

Although I suspect you're trying to make a point that it's not the Republicans fault (all by their selves), I'm not saying it is.

Nancy and her clan fixed everything in the first 100 hours! I bet you forgot about that.

Fannie and Freddie aren't the biggest issue here. They're just an easy target.

Both sides are at fault, but to act as though this was because of less than 2 years of Democratic control (of which, a 51-49 edge isn't exactly a big deal) seems to be sour grapes here.

Can you name anything the Democrats have passed or tried to pass since taking over congress?

It's not my fault your guy lost in the election.

My guy did lose. Ron Paul.

 

[julius]

Can you name anything the Democrats have passed or tried to pass since taking over congress?

that's kind of my point. They didn't do jack. But to act as though Republicans are guilt free is pretty idiotic.

 

[Denny Crane]

that's kind of my point. They didn't do jack. But to act as though Republicans are guilt free is pretty idiotic.

Doing something about Fannie and Freddie two years ago, when there was amble warning their books were cooked and they were vulnerable to exactly what happened is exactly what they should have done. Why didn't they? (Hint: look at the campaign donations involved from those two companies)

If there's any guilt on the Republicans' part in this, it's for not raising bloody hell over it, though the Democrats would have pointed to their current "solvency" as proof there was nothing wrong.

 

[Dumpy]

The stock market is up today! Wait--what does this mean? I'm totally confused. Someone, help me out here.

 

[barfo]

The stock market is up today! Wait--what does this mean? I'm totally confused. Someone, help me out here.

Clearly, the market is reacting to the news that Huckabee and Jindal are campaigning in Iowa.

barfo

 

[ABM]

Clearly, the market is reacting to the news that Huckabee and Jindal are campaigning in Iowa.

barfo

As well it should be!