Nope, not an Onion headline. Kevin Hassett, co-author of Dow 36,000 -- which proffered exactly the sort of advice that you might reasonably infer from its title -- has now penned a column accusing Barack Obama of deliberately attempting to sabotage the economy.
It is no wonder that markets are imploding around us. Obama is giving us the War on Business.To review, Dow 36,000 came out in October, 1999, within months of the tippy-top peak of the tech bubble ... this is when stocks were as overvalued as at literally any time in American history, including the Roaring 20's -- and Hassett was telling you to double -- nay, triple-down on them! It would be hard to identify an individual who better embodied the phrase "irrational exuberance" -- well, maybe the Pets.com sock puppet -- or who destroyed more wealth with charlatanic financial advice.
Imagine that some hypothetical enemy state spent years preparing a “Manchurian Candidate” to destroy the U.S. economy once elected. What policies might that leader pursue?
He might discourage private capital from entering the financial sector by instructing his Treasury secretary to repeatedly promise a brilliant rescue plan, but never actually have one. Private firms, spooked by the thought of what government might do, would shy away from transactions altogether. If the secretary were smooth and played rope-a-dope long enough, the whole financial sector would be gone before voters could demand action.
And this guy thinks it's all some big conspiracy against him. Literally.
Wall Street needs to get its house in order. A big reason for the financial crisis is because of market failures -- the country had to endure the weight of two consecutive bubbles, first in tech stocks and then in housing. Another big reason is because the Fed kept interest rates much lower than they ought to have been. There were a number of reasons for that, but the fact that the NASDAQ would pitch a fit anytime that Greenspan or Bernanke wouldn't meet their expectations on perpetually low interest rates was probably one of them.
There appears to be no acknowledgment of any of this, no attempt whatsoever to come to grips with reality. Instead, all we get is denial and anger.
Nobody is going on CBNC and saying: "You know what, our bad. We had a lot of good and honest disagreements with the Bush administration's policy. We have a lot of good and honest disagreements with the Obama administration's policy. There are a lot of things we couldn't have anticipated. We were trying the best we could. But we also gave you a lot of bad advice. And that advice cost you a lot of money. And for that, we're sorry."
Why can't anyone on Wall Street man up and do that?
The worst news is that we appear to be in only the second of five stages of grieving -- and you can pretty much project the path the markets will take until the healing process completes itself.
1. Denial (Nov 2007 - Sept. 2008) : Markets surprisingly resilient in face of recessionary pressures.
2. Anger (Sept. 2008 - present): Wall Street throws tantrum; markets crash.
3. Bargaining (Summer 2009?): Bear market rally.
4. Depression (Fall-Winter 2009?): Dow gives back most of gains from rally (and then some, perhaps); sits near 15-year lows as volatility and volumes decrease.
5. Acceptance (2010?): Market finally capitulates; Dow rebounds to an historically sustainable valuation of perhaps 9,000 points.
Then again, if Hassett thinks that things are going to get even worse, there's probably no better time to get your money in than right now.
74 comments
Just be pedantic, it's the five stages of grieving. Denial is just the first step.
What the heck! Why don't I just take my money and gamble with it in Vegas. Those nit wits are guessing about everything in the first place.
Leave Kevin Hassett alone!!!!!
Also, look out for the new edition of their prescient book, Dow 3,600 now without that annoying extra "0."
Just to be pedantic-er, the five stages of grief aren't a sequence -- they tend to occur in that order but don't need to.
Just to be pedantic-est, doesn't grief always look misspelled?
Great find, this guy is nuts.
I think the "denial" comment is dead on, and hilarious. This thing started years ago, but was hastened and made much worse as Bush walked away from his role. I sometimes do not like Obama's comments, but there is no way he is starting a war on business or is the cause of this. It is scarily anti-American to argue this, and makes things worse and not better.
He sounds like a good Rush Limbaugh listener.
> there's probably no better time to get your money in than right now.
Except bank stocks. The request has been made to Congress to OK the FDIC borrowing up to $500 billion from the Treasury to cover insured deposits. That'd cover one hell of a FDIC stepping in, and stockholders usually get entirely wiped out when that happens.
Couple comments
1. This is a perfect example of strawman of course this guys is nuts giving him a platform is stupid. Just make your argument no need to bring up the guy
2. Contradiction. I agree with you that the market is nowhere near recovering. However, this directly contradicts your recent post with the market factors. You were making the argument than that Obama wasn't to blame with the market being low. (I agree I don't think Presidents have that much power over the market) According to that data the market was overreacting. So which one is it overreacting or declining further. This is what happens when you let politics cloud your analysis. You can analyze politics and you can anlyze the stock market. Trying to do both at the same time doesn't work cloduing judgement on both topics.
You can do better
The loon who penned the book and the column was with the American Enterprise Institute. A truly wingnut enterprise that wanted all of our retirement money to be "invested" in a stock market and in real estate investments that could never go down.
Having followed the stock market since the 1960s, I believe that it is still slightly overvalued. A DJI at about 4500-5000 is a sustainable one. The DJI of 14,000 was just plain crazy.
STepper-
Market value is partially based on future growth, I still think the market has reason to be priced above historical norms based on world-wide business opportunity (e.g. much broader and more efficient markets than in the past) but that only holds if we don't go protectionist or the thing completely implodes.
Nova,
I think the market is probably undervalued, and is undervalued in part because of emotional reasons. I also think that, based on looking at the trajectory of P/E ratios in prior market crashes, there's a pretty good chance that it will become even more undervalued at some point in the next 3-30 months. I don't think it's a bad time to put money in; I'll probably throw a little bit more in myself once my book advance comes through. But there isn't any rush, and you can make an argument for trying to time the bottom.
"War on Business" - can we file that phrase along side "Criminalizing Politics"?
STepper, Fred:
I think 9,000 isn't too bad of a number myself. I don't think of that as overvalued, mainly because I think inflation has been undercalled for awhile.
There's a lot of political pressure to undercall inflation, as it makes GDP growth look bigger, and it shifts money away from entitlement programs that are indexed on the CPI.
Therefore, the value of the dollar today is probably quite a bit lower than the published inflation rates would have you believe. That justifies a higher number for the Dow than 5,000, if only because the value of the dollar has fallen so far.
Take a look at these two charts. The first is the S&P 500 scaled by the official CPI numbers. The second is the S&P 500 scaled by the alternate CPI for years 1982 onward.
http://dshort.com/charts/SP-Composite-regression-charts.html?SP-Composite-real-regression-to-trend
http://dshort.com/charts/SP-Composite-regression-charts.html?SP-Composite-real-regression-to-trend-alt-cpi
The gov't has been tweaking CPI quite a bit since the early 80s, leading to phantom "growth" and "jobless recoveries" and such. It also justified the low rates that the Fed held for so long (leading to the two big bubbles), since inflationary pressures were "defined away" in the ever shifting CPI definition.
It's like Felix Frankfurter wrote to FDR, referring to J.P. Morgan, "... the real enemy of capital is not Communism but capitalists and their retinue of scribes and lawyers."
Also the DJI is somewhat of a moving target as the list of stocks change. Even the industries that the stocks come from have changed over time. It was I think the early 70's when the first financial stock was added, and then only because a merger between a financial company and a tin can manufacturer that was already listed in the DJI.
Bank of America was a very recent addition, put in just in time to leave a crater-sized hold in the aggregate total.
This is a great time to be buying when you see stocks such as GE and Microsoft trading at 2 or 3 times earnings you have to buy. Who knows when they will be this cheap again.
@Jim: I think you need to qualify your recommendation in one way. If you have any cash you might be looking to buy. But a lot of people are not just underwater on their mortgages but barely treading water overall finncially and are looking for a raft to climb onto.
Anyone else seen the coalescing of MSM around the CATO talking points on how Obama is increasingly owning this debacle? I mean the spiraling economic numbers.
As for the market, I think it's headed for the low 4K's.
Nate,
Book advance? Congats! (Need a copy-editor? I have an M.A. in English and time to kill.)
Now, get Sean to put the On the Road series into book form.
The stock market isn't the end point, it is the barometer. Why is this so hard to understand? Whether or not the stock market will recover depends on expectations of future events.
Considering the policies being pursued by congress and the administration, expectations have been dropping. As it becomes clearer which of the wish list items is real, stocks will again react accordingly.
So, the stock market could rally well on the expectations that policies and results will be less bad than feared. But that would not constitute an endorsement of those policies.
Personally, I think we drag bottom for a while but don't go meaningfully lower because expectations are already discounting little short of economic disaster. The market will rally when there's any glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, whether it be a money-supply-induced bounce in the economy, or the prospect that the destructive tax and economic policies might be stopped dead in their tracks because even the congressional loyalists don't want to have to face the music at home in 2010.
GE is still at PE of 4.5 by the trailing earnings numbers. What forward PE will be is very much unknown, nobody yet trusts the CEO that everything is peachy-keen in their financing wing.
Microsoft's PE is nearly double that but a lot more solid and safer buy.
Evan: My hunch is that Nate will get excellent copy-editing from Penguin. What he probably most needs right now is copy.
What i would like to see from sean and brett is an on the road series of America's CURRENT depression.
I really do like Sean at the white house, but this economy is begging for decent photojournalism and and aa well written stories of how this is effecting all of us.
nate- nice of you to join us today.
Maybe it's just being a whiner, and maybe it's something more sinister. Maybe what's up here is a concerted effort to bring the economy down as far as possible, both to place blame on the Obama administration and to set themselves up to buy in at rock-bottom prices.
One thing I've learned from watching the RepubliCAN'T Party over the last decade is that they could care less about the price the country has to pay - so long as they can cling to power.
Regarding Nova_Middle_Man @ 9:00 am
I would like to invest in stocks.
I won't invest in stocks until I have some confidence that companies in general are finally over the whole idea of improving quarterly profits by any means at the risk of long term growth.
The market has turned into a casino. Worse yet it is an internet casino where we don't even know if behind the scenes the game we're gambling on is even being played. Sure. How 'bout a little internet roulette. You put your money down. Once I see that it has been deposited in my account I'll spin the wheel and tell you whether you won or not.
You can blame the President. You can blame the Fed. You can blame Kudlow or Cramer.
Right now I don't have confidence in the honesty of the market place.
Obama can run up deficits and hand out bailouts. I don't believe it helps or hurts as long as investors don't trust the people running the companies money will continue to flee the marketplace.
Every day we see the market going up or down in wild swings while gamblers make bets on short term swings.
Astonishingly the real casinos are hurting for business.
Here's my Something Good for the morning, yes it's an interview by CNBC. It's really long but if you make the time it's a great rundown.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/finance?ch=4043681&cl=12394536&lang=
Where does this sustainable 9000 level come from?
There is good reason to think the market will decline from its current P/E of 12 to a P/E of 7.5, as it has in previous recessions. That would put the DJI at 4000.
And the long term P/E is maybe 14, that would put the DJI at 7600 in today's dollars. Not 9000.
I think any analysis of the stock market is bound to be faulty unless there is a means of looking at the stock values without the overbearing influence of the funds used by IRAs, 401(k)s, and 403(b)s. The whole TARP amount was less than some of those funds managed. The slightly larger stimulus package is still smaller than the largest funds. As those trillions of fund dollars pour from one bucket (say the stock market) to another (say Treasuries and other bonds), the stock market can only drop. Without a solid estimate as to the percentage that those funds hold, we cannot project a bottom or fundamental price for any index.
There may not be a means to build a plan to rescue the financial institutions, the bond markets, and/or the stock market with that much money flowing around. Anytime that much money begins moving into someplace else, the markets left behind are going to deflate as the new markets are going to be unduly inflated.
As the government attempts to minimize the damage to one sector, the money will seek better opportunities elsewhere. Even ordering that much money out of the pool isn't going to help much. Where is it going to sit - the money market bench? How many trillions can it handle before it the whole currency exchange is distorted out of perspective? Does anyone have a notion of how little money would be left in the pool? If the mortgage-backed bonds, credit card-back bonds, and corporate bonds are any indication, not enough for a functioning economy.
Timmy Geithner.
Smooth.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
What the over/under on how fast Kevin Hasset appears on Fox News Channel - as a stock market expert no doubt.
This proves the average American is smarter than Tim Geithner, count me not surprised.
It doesn't matter that he was wrong about dow 36000. He is dean on Obama's "War on Business" and "War on Jobs."
There will be a cry that will ring out across this land that will crush this socialist administration.
Before the election, I remember some on the left being concerned about the amount of funding Obama was getting from Wall Street, and describing him as being too influenced by financiers.
Wait long enough, and all the conspiracy theories cancel each other out.
Last week I heard someone accusing Obama and his policies of being the direct cause of the market downturn. If that were the case, we would have seen it in the market before the election.
I compared the probability of a Democrat being elected (from the Iowa Electronic Markets 2008 Presidential Election) to the S&P500.
http://tinyurl.com/aq7hou
There is a -88.6% correlation. (100% is considered perfect correlation.)
I have been lambasted for posting this information in other forums. I don't care if you like it or not.
Facts are facts.
Obama's presidency is directly correlated to the decline in the stock market.
Y'know, Nate, you're being awfully hard on this guy just because he accidentally stuck an extra 0 in the title of his book...
I believe Kevin Hassett was McCain's chief economic adviser in the 2000 campaign. If he was not "the" top person, he was among McCain's most influential policy aides.
All you cool-aid drinkers on the left may have to add some vodka.
It appears that Obama is plunging in the polls:
"Thirty-two percent (32%) now Strongly Disapprove of the President’s performance, the highest level of disapproval measured to date. The rising negative is driven by Republicans, 58% of who Strongly Disapprove of Obama’s performance. Since Inauguration Day, Republican opposition has doubled.
These figures give Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +6, his lowest rating to date"
From Rasmussen.
What a shock......the obomamy collapses and Obama must take the blame. This is the most anti-business, anti-jobs administration since Jimmy Carter.
You better start wearing your sweaters indoors. Soon we will be hearing the "Malaise speech" revisited.
I'm always amazed that MSM keeps putting these nuts on - I mean, here's a guy that could not have been more wrong, and Bloomberg chooses to publish his piece?
For those who are interested, here is the link for the "Malaise Speech"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html
We are suffering the same malaise, but the left and Obama are still refusing to admit it. The only difference is that Carter had wrong ideas that were implemented incompetantly. On second thought, Obama is incompetant as well.
Soon and very soon, we are going to feel the pain...
Soon and very soon, we are going to feel the shame...
Right now, I have never felt so ashamed of my government on my lifetime. The American people will rise up and sleigh the facist policies of this reched boy king.
"Why can't anyone on Wall Street man up and do that?"
Warren Buffett did (See page 4 "...I did some dumb things....")
Jack-be-nimble:
1: Rasmussen has Obama at *only* +6 positive? My God, it sounds like the end of his presidency. He needs real numbers, like good ol' W had: -30, minimum. It gets even worse if you got to Gallup, where Obama's approval is at 62%, far out of whack with the healthy low-30s numbers of our last president.
2: ...the "Obamamy"? Really? I think that little bit of word-play got away from you there...
3: I certainly hope we do sleigh his fascist policies. Santa Clause really needs to take a firmer hand in our politics.
I think you've got a little too much vodka in your "cool-aid", but thanks for offering to pass it 'round.
Jack-be-nimble said: "On second thought, Obama is incompetant as well."
I find the misspelling of "incompetent" particularly delicious.
@Stephen, DanO:
You guys forgot "facist!" What is a facist policy, anyway? Facing the music? Facing reality? Facing the problem instead of looking the other way?
It isn't "fascist," at least.
Jack be nimble; Jack's a dick; Jack can sit on a candlestick.
This is brilliant. You can apply DABDA (what I call it and also a mnemonic) to anything. The Hillaryite grieving, the economy, etc...
Eric Hale:
A very nice correlation analysis, but it is missing something: correlation is not necessarily causation. Was the market going down because it looked more and more likely Obama was about to be elected, OR was Obama more and more likely to be elected because the market was going down, OR was the market going down and Obama's likelihood of being elected going up because of a third factor (worsening fundamentals of the economy.)
Republicans can't keep their narration straight. First, it wasn't Clinton who did well or Reagan or Bush Jr. that did poorly because the economy is reflective of the president of 4-8 years ago (number variable based on who the president was 4-8 years before and the current state of the economy.) Now, the economy is bad because of someone (Obama) who has been in office for a bit more than a month. So which is it?
Pete Kent is not Smarter than Obama (and that makes me very suspicious of him)
Putting aside Nate's typical Obama style ad hominem attack on yet another private citizen (like Democrat Jim Cramer, former trader Rick Santelli and radio host Rush Limbaugh), I came to much the same conclusion as Kevin Hassett did over the weekend: Obama must be trying to screw with the economy 'cause it isn’t so hard to see how bad his policies are and how they are systematically destroying the wealth of the nation.
It is pretty apparent that Obama has become anathema to the stock market, once the repository for the nation's retirement, pension and college savings. Just since he took office 20% of that value is gone, with more than a third of asset values erased since his election despite a brief post-election confidence rally.
Since then Obama has waged war on the investor class, as if he mistakenly believes they were some "other" when we all know they are us.
His war against the banks is legendary given his contemptuous treatment of these institutions and his VP's threat to throw their CEOs in "the Brig". Heck, that’s straight talk worthy of John McCain, but are words never before uttered by a sitting US President, least of all one presiding over a collapsing economy being lead down by a lack of confidence in the financial sector. Way to go, Barrack, and build things back up!
Don’t he know better?
Consider the more general war he has waged on business. Threatening to increases taxes, further burden with them higher labor costs (for health care), while making it easier for them to unionize. He has gone back on his promise to give a $3,000 tax credit for each new hire and has generally talked down the economy where based on his policies and his rhetoric only a foolhardy businessman would be willing to expand his business and increase employment. This is even true in more robust sectors of the economy like health care where ownership and management understand that his government takeover of healthcare will be done at the cost of lower reimbursement, making them unwilling to grow and expand.
So everyone in the private sector sits on the sidelines and waits. Trembling even with terror as to what this political colossus we call Obama will wrought with his power and majesty.
If Obama wanted to rally the markets to sail back up to pre-election day level she could do it in one brilliant stroke. He could create the conditions whereby business would be willing to stick its head up above the foxhole and begin to invest again in new plants and new jobs.
What does he need to do?
Make the Bush tax cuts permanent!
Obama could simply say, "I recognize that the threat of higher taxes in the face of the present economic uncertainly is creating a drag on economic activity and is suppressing confidence in the reality of the recovery I know is coming. For that reason today I am calling on Congress to make the Bush income and capital gains tax cuts permanent."
He could even signal that once the recovery is underway -- hopefully by 2011, he and Congress can revisit the revenue situation and then make a determination to raise taxes as necessary and appropriate, but in the meantime there is no reason to leave the depressing overhang of tax hikes out there suppressing growth and keeping us from moving forward.
Oh, and he might just stop bashing the banks, and business and the rich all the time. He is going to need their cooperation if he is going to turn things around.
Or maybe he is planning on reworking things according to a new paradigm for America: Socialism.
And all of this destruction of wealth and leveling of the economic playing field and warfare on the private sector is in fact intended as this Kevin Hassett fellow seems to think it is.
Right now, Obama, who is very smart seems to only be acting dumb. I'd place my bet that Hassett is right and that Nate, once again, is a wanker!
(You can now follow me on Twitter –PeteKent01)
You know, Pete, I will never understand exactly what twisted brain part a supposed free market thinker must have to rail against unions.
Unions are exactly what free marketers crave; aren't they? Fellows band together, create a monopoly on labor for an industry, and hold the companies hostage for an average of 3% more pay?
Why would you want to regulate such blatantly obvious economic opportunism? Oh, I get it. As long as the regulation cuts against workers, you like it. As long as bailouts put free money in the pockets of corporations, Republicans like it. But the minute that free market forces threaten the wealth of the corporation and its investors; as soon as monopolistic power cuts against them, they call foul.
Republicans are hypocrites; perfectly willing to let companies gouge customers and fuck over employees any which way they can, but big crybabies when they need labor and can't get it without paying a living wage.
Republicans like you are just idiots, screaming for your right to be fucked over by the rich. Dumbass.
The mantra continues: tax cuts solve everything. At times, watching Republicans talking about tax cuts seems like watching Billy Mays (or one of the Billy Mays' dubs on YouTube) talking about some new product. Just like those products, tax cuts are advertised as doing seemingly everything. Also, just like those products, they don't do as much as advertised and usually makes someone who is already rich even more so. Want to see what I mean? Try watching the dub of Billy Mays' Mighty Putty and replace words "Mighty Putty" with the words "tax cut".
Yes, sometimes tax cuts may be necessary, but many Republicans are trying to sell us that tax cuts are necessary at all times and in all situations.
@zappa:
Republicans can't keep their narration straight.
Oh, they got it straight: It just ain't their fault, no how, no way, not ever.
:-)
(You are right, btw, I am just being sarcastic.)
@zappa:
Oh, and I forgot: Anything good that ever happens was always the result of tax cuts or deregulation, no matter who was in office, or how long ago those things happened. Right?
The question isn't whether they got their story straight, my question is how they can tell this story with a straight face!
Zappa and Tony C:
Now is not the time to elimnate secret ballots in unions elections much the way it is not the time to raise taxes.
Unions can only be strong and thrive when business is in the same condition. Card check is bad law in any and all events and is anti-worker and anti-democratic.
The funny thing about tax cuts is that throughout history they have worked to lift us out of economic doldrums. Deficit spending only causes infaltion and consternation in the fiancial markets absent the conditons for robust growth which of course do not exist right now.
You cand efent Obama all you want, but until he reverses course, embraces Amercian business as the economic engine of the people and agrees not to raise taxzes we will have only a recovery in the governemnt sector, the economy will not recover more broadly and the GOP will return to power in a big way wiping away six years of Democratic electoral progress.
I know many of you would like to believe otherwise, but facts and the priciples of economics are stubborn things.
@PK:
You don't follow any principles of economics, dumbo. Unions would follow the principles of economics: Come to an agreement with the employer or you both go out of business. Why regulate it? Why not let self-interest rule both of them? Why insist on some obstacle at this point that has proven to aid the corporations more than the workers? Why play favorites? Why not let the damn market settle it?
Let 'em unionize, and let the unions and the corporations come to their own compromise to benefit both of them. If the corporations don't like it, let them walk away from the table and fold up their company, that'll teach the unions. If the unions don't like it, let them go without jobs.
Your "principles" are that corporations should be allowed to enslave workers and workers shouldn't be allowed to do the one obvious thing that prevents exploitation; agreeing to negotiate as a block instead of as individuals.
Pete Kent,
There are two problems the Republicans have. (1) Keynesian policies are the only ones that have demonstrated large employment growth over sustained periods of time. With rising unemployment, the public cares about finding work. They would prefer to have work that will allow them to pay their bills.
(2) Bush (ii) tried a tax cut to spur the economy back onto course. It failed! Good old Paulson pulled out the big guns to perk up the banks, those failed! Bernanke pulled a few failures out of his hat too. Given the breadth and complexity of this recession, the Republican ideas have failed.
A new course is needed. Buffett has a long track record when it comes to complaining about problems the market faces years before they emerge as problems. He is now concerned with US Treasuries and government spending. So, perhaps we need a different direction other than Right, Left, and failure.
FDR talked about aggressively experimenting. Tax cuts have already failed. If spending increases don't work, we need something new. If you don't have something different, go out and find it!
Blah, blah, balh, call me "dumbo" and behave like an ass, Tony C!
Why not allow a secret ballot?
Too afraid that without the union goons putting pressure on the workers they might not exercise their "free choice".
EFCA: More Owellina Doublespeak brought to you by America's Stalinist Party!
3 states;
You have the history allw rong>
Think of the Reagan propserity which in some sense ran up to the present.
Your wrote: "Bush (ii) tried a tax cut to spur the economy back onto course"
George Bush's much maligned tax cut produced 52 months of solid employment growth until the polices of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd finally ground the economy to a halt.
Keynes was discredited years ago! It is pathetic that Obama is now propping him up like some weird re-mix of Weekend at Bernies!
Pete:
I see. The blind clinging to tax cuts and the perfection of the American business is the only way to get the economy working again. After all, look how well that worked in the last eight years.
The biggest deficit spending has been done under Republican administrations. Republicans don't even have the excuse of a Democratic Congress pushing spending down the Republicans' throats (given that the first six years of out of control spending in the Bush years were under a Republican Congress.) Not that the excuse was a valid one in the first place (a simple look at budgets put forth by the last three Republican presidents and the competing budgets put forth by the reviled Democratic congresses show little if any difference between the two parties.) If there was any difference between the two, Democrats wanted us to actually pay for the spending to keep deficits under control, Republicans wanted to cut taxes and hope we were on the "have our cake and eat it too" side of the Laffer Curve. Even then, deficit spending is not necessarily bad. It is irresponsible using it in times of relative plenty, but has some merit during recessions. Then again, some Republicans want the federal government to be made and be seen as powerless in situations where it could have some positive effect. It's a battle between "tax us to spend on us" Democrats and "borrow from our kids and spend on us" Republicans.
Pete:
Pointing to the Bush's job creation record is not the way to go. Even with the the "solid growth", the annual rate of growth through 2007 was only 0.7%, the second worst rate behind only Hoover. Moreover, the incomes from those jobs didn't keep up with the incomes of the top ten percent of incomes. Between 2001 and 2009, the lowest 90% of wage earners had a decrease in incomes of nearly a whole percent. The top 10%, on the other hand, had an increase in income of 15%. Under Bush, parts of the economy looked better, but the middle and lower classes were complaining that they weren't seeing any improvement (many were saying it was getting worse.) Several Republicans accused them of whining (one Republican congressman comes to mind.) Looking at this and other data indicates that the complaints were valid.
Pete, I could do what you are doing all day and find some numbers that support almost anything I want to show. A few bits and pieces of economic data do indicate that the Bush presidency was an economic success. Further digging into the numbers, looking past the surface, shows otherwise.
@PK:
Oh I see, the corporations are just trying to protect the poor workers from some fantasy strong arming tactic, so they can use a real strong-arm tactic of threatening jobs, threatening health-care, firing people for any cause including trying to organize, and otherwise acting like mini-dictators with a captive population that has to respect their authority and agree to insane working conditions or get booted out.
You were right about one thing, Pete, you aren't dumbo. That elephant is too lovable; while you are just hatefully stupid and selfish.
Peer pressure is part of the free market, right? The day somebody proves card-check is being abused is the day the abuser should be prosecuted; in the meantime, corporations run roughshod over employees and ruin lives in the name of decamillion dollar salaries for CEO's that didn't start the company, don't own even 1% of the stock, and spend their days pondering how to decorate their offices, how to get work cheaper from oversears, or insisting that division managers get 5% more work out of 5% less people every year in perpetuity.
You and all Republicans are a cancer.
Oops, a slight mistake with the income values: change 2009 to 2006. The income numbers are completely encompassed by the Bush and Republican-controlled Congress years.
Today's Obamany is an abomination. This the most anti small business, anti jobs president since Carter. If we weren't in a recession we would have stagflation of Carter. Instead we have the high unemployment of Europe and F. Roosevelt. I am not looking forward to the 12% unemployment we will see with Obama.
It is only a matter of time before the nation sweeps the wretched party of facist socialism in a tidal wave of epic proportion. Hold on tight, it is coming soon. It is time for the Republican minority to begin impeachment hearings on the rat-boy king as well.
Obama lied.....jobs died
Obama lied.....pork is fried.
Obama lied....children died
Obama lied.....business died
Obama lied....retirement died
Man, does this site need a better class of troll. You sad lot aren't even entertaining.
So the 538 stock advice is to put all my money in the market right now and then sell it in the Summer?
eTrade here I come! ;-)
Two things:
1) Haven't we learned not to feed the trolls?
2) While I appreciate that Nate was using the "five stages of grief" mostly as a rhetorical device, I'd like to point out that from the perspective of modern clinical psychology they are a myth. They were initially suggestions for what someone might go through as they confront the emotional fall-out of significant loss. For those actually interested you can check out this general overview of where we've come since Elizabeth Kubler-Ross first suggested the five stages in 1969 here:
http://www.grief.net/Articles/Myth%20of%20Stages.pdf
Think of it a little like Freud's theory of personality development. While the work was seminal and profoundly important for developing one of the first coherent theories on the subject, the truth of the matter has benefited from the past half century or so of investigation. Unless you are one of the people who still believes that the better part of your personality can largely be defined by how you felt the first time you pooped. Same idea basically applies to grief: it's a lot more complicated than simple early theories suggest.
Evan Nelson:
You're an M.A. in English- ALL YOU HAVE is time to kill!
I would like to take this opportunity to mention I'm pursuing a degree in English/Comp Lit as well, so keep your pants on.
牙醫,植牙,假牙|矯正|牙周病,牙醫診所、植牙,紋身,刺青,TATTOO,皮膚科,痘痘,雷射、脈衝光、除斑,洗包包|洗鞋子|清洗包包,中醫,糖尿病,飛梭雷射,肉毒桿菌,玻尿酸,痘痘,脈衝光,醫美,醫學美容,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,網路行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,關鍵字行銷、seo,關鍵字廣告,網路行銷,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,自然排序,部落格行銷,網路行銷,網路爆紅。
不動産
合宿 免許
網頁設計
ショッピング枠 現金化
クレジットカード 現金化
キャッシング
治験
フロント 仕事
幼児教室
名刺
看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,網頁設計,網站設計,網頁設計,網站設計,网页设计,网站设计,网站设计,网页设计
花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮旅遊|花蓮民宿|花蓮美食|花蓮旅遊|花蓮黃頁網路電話簿|花蓮入口網|花蓮民宿黃頁
花蓮旅遊|花蓮美食|花蓮飯店|花蓮住宿|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿|花蓮|花蓮|
花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮旅遊|花蓮美食|花蓮住宿|花蓮飯店|花蓮旅館|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿推薦|花蓮民宿市區|花蓮民宿王|花蓮民宿網|花蓮民宿資訊網|花蓮民宿悠遊網|花蓮民宿交流網|花蓮海景民宿|花蓮海邊民宿|花蓮海岸民宿|花蓮旅遊民宿|花蓮|花蓮旅遊|花蓮廣告|花蓮民宿|花蓮房屋|花蓮汽車旅館|花蓮派報|花蓮飯店|花蓮派報|花蓮旅館|花蓮美食|花蓮餐廳|花蓮小吃|花蓮名產|花蓮工作|花蓮新聞|花蓮租車|花蓮入口網|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊景點|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊景點|花蓮民宿|花蓮旅遊|花蓮房仲|花蓮旅遊景點|花蓮美食|花蓮餐廳|花蓮小吃|花蓮名產|花蓮縣長|花蓮租車旅遊網|花蓮行易旅遊資訊網|
SEO対策 (or come grinding engine optimization) is to rewrite the web page to appear higher in search results for a particular search engine. Its technology. Also known as search engine optimization. The English "Search Engine Optimization" to take initial measures which are known as the SEO. Search engine optimization has become a target, Google often. The foreign (especially American) by the high market share in Google. In Japan, Yahoo! For many users of the search, Yahoo! Is focused search measures.
SEO対策SEO, SEO対策のための深い理解
主婦 お金 借りる 主婦 お金 借りる 主婦 お金 借りる 主婦 お金 借りる 主婦 お金 借りる 主婦 お金 借りる
大阪 デリヘル
仙台 デリヘル
仙台 デリヘル
仙台 デリヘル
家族葬
滋賀 賃貸
アダルト SEO
被リンク
茶道具 買取
絵画 買取
レザー
革小物
クレジットカード 現金化
現金化
ショッピング枠 現金化
クレジットカード 現金化
現金化
ショッピング枠 現金化
キャッシング
大阪 賃貸
中古車 販売
ルームウェア
大阪 マンション
賃貸マンション 神戸
中古 ゴルフクラブ
クールビズ
フィットネスクラブ
大阪府 司法書士
クレジット 申し込み
ベビードール
矯正歯科 東京
ホワイトニング 東京
大阪 ラブホテル
リサイクルショップ
不動産
カードローン
投資 信託
下着
即日 キャッシング
三井住友銀行
神戸市 中央区 税理士
FX
消費者金融
ローン
引越し
生命保険
ジェルネイル
人材派遣
ネット証券
アフィリエイト
格安航空券
ウィークリーマンション
レンタカー
SEO
オフィス家具
合宿免許
ペット用品
高速バス
デリヘル
キャバクラ
派遣
コラーゲン
化粧品
インテリア
ウェディング
結婚相談
投資物件
留学
貸事務所 大阪
経営コンサルティング
工芸品
高級品
自動車保険
ホテヘル
レストランウェディング
バイク買取
運転免許
ベビーカー
外反母趾
圧力鍋
腕時計
フェラガモ
デリヘル
キャバクラ
セレブ
プラセンタ
カルシウム
青汁
ブルーベリー
家具
脱毛クリーム
除毛クリーム
コスト削減 大阪
弁護士 大阪
車買取 大阪
バイク買取 大阪
エステ 大阪
リフォーム 大阪
大阪 歯科
派遣 大阪
アルバイト 大阪
転職 大阪
大阪 住宅
大阪 専門学校
グルメ 大阪
ホテル 大阪
一戸建て 大阪
大阪 宿泊
大阪 マンション
デリヘル 大阪
印刷 大阪
不動産 大阪
賃貸 大阪
ブライダル 大阪
リサイクル
アダルト SEO
賃貸
SEO 大阪
イベント コンパニオン 大阪
転職 大阪
大阪 ラブホ
ペット ショップ 大阪
豆腐
京都 不動産
運転免許 合宿
ヘアアイロン
ダイエット
ダイエット
デリヘル
キャバクラ
シャンパン
老人ホーム
精力剤
大阪 ラブホテル
ブランド品 買取
ワイン
京都 不動産
ペット
リサイクルショップ
歯科求人
結婚式場
バイク便
動物病院
美容整形外科
エルメス
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment