http://gamingtrend.com
July 25, 2014, 12:03:55 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: So... what do you think about the stock market today?  (Read 4646 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Larraque
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2392


View Profile
« on: October 06, 2008, 02:48:17 PM »

After months of consistent losses, the Dow Jones is at 9,854.51, which is -470.87 for the day. And the markets haven't even been open two hours yet.

The bailout bill has completely ruined investors confidence in the market. Mine as well.

I'm young (29) so I'm not that worried about my 401k - Not like I'll see that money any time soon,anyways; But I'm debating if it's worth stopping for the time being putting money into it. Or at least, not as much money into it. Instead, pay off some debts, and save the money for any potential job loss that may be coming.

(Just re-checked the index while finishing getting my thoughts together). 9,831 and -494.05 for the day.
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4689


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2008, 04:16:47 PM »

Quote
I'm young (29) so I'm not that worried about my 401k - Not like I'll see that money any time soon,anyways; But I'm debating if it's worth stopping for the time being putting money into it. Or at least, not as much money into it. Instead, pay off some debts, and save the money for any potential job loss that may be coming.
Why?  It's on sale.  While I wouldn't invest in individual stocks, good solid mutual funds are a safe bet, particularly now that you can get more for your money.
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1568


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2008, 05:27:02 PM »

Quote from: DragonFyre on October 06, 2008, 02:48:17 PM

Instead, pay off some debts, and save the money for any potential job loss that may be coming.

1 - don't stop putting money into your 401k - it's hard to get started again.  However, If you *need* to do this (and if there's a chance your job could be in jeopardy), it could be a good idea to reduce the amount you are putting into your 401k) and put some of that towards your more immediate safety blanket.  If you don't need to, then you'll most likely end up better off if you keep it up, and possibly contribute even more towards the 401k.  But it may take awhile.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3357



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2008, 05:28:18 PM »

Quote from: DragonFyre on October 06, 2008, 02:48:17 PM

The bailout bill has completely ruined investors confidence in the market. Mine as well

I'm not an investor, but it's my understanding that today's bloodbath is a reaction to financial crises in Europe, where leaders are scrambling to put together their own version of a bailout.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2008, 05:31:19 PM »

Quote from: Laner on October 06, 2008, 04:16:47 PM

Quote
I'm young (29) so I'm not that worried about my 401k - Not like I'll see that money any time soon,anyways; But I'm debating if it's worth stopping for the time being putting money into it. Or at least, not as much money into it. Instead, pay off some debts, and save the money for any potential job loss that may be coming.
Why?  It's on sale.  While I wouldn't invest in individual stocks, good solid mutual funds are a safe bet, particularly now that you can get more for your money.

Only if you believe the stock market will continue to rise.  Historically, it has.  I'm not so sure about the future.

A lot of money in the market is "Boomer" money.  These Boomers were born between 1945 and 1957 (mid: 1952), with a "shadow boom" until the early 1960s.  The first Boomers hit the full retirement age of 66 in 3 years, with the huge flux of them hitting it in about 10 years.  This is a large percentage of the stock holdings for individual investors.  With longer life expectancies and the "use it or lose it" mentality of the Boomer generation (as opposed to previous generations that were more apt to save than spend), there could be an outflow of funds as Boomers start selling stocks during their retirement years.  If this happens, and the gap is not filled by international investors, the historical market increases could curtail.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9834


My cocaine


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2008, 06:30:43 PM »

damn.  i pulled up a ticker when i opened this page and it dropped over 60 points by the time i posted this.
 
9,599.63   -725.75   (-7.03%)

and back up, slightly
9,610.70   -714.68   (-6.92%)

that bailout really helped didn't it :rolls eyes

any expectations for end of week?  should we gamble our pennies on this?
Logged

"It's like chess with big guns against aliens. Which isn't like chess at all when I think about it." - Jake Solomon
Larraque
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2392


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2008, 07:02:55 PM »

Quote from: Laner on October 06, 2008, 04:16:47 PM

Quote
I'm young (29) so I'm not that worried about my 401k - Not like I'll see that money any time soon,anyways; But I'm debating if it's worth stopping for the time being putting money into it. Or at least, not as much money into it. Instead, pay off some debts, and save the money for any potential job loss that may be coming.
Why?  It's on sale.  While I wouldn't invest in individual stocks, good solid mutual funds are a safe bet, particularly now that you can get more for your money.
I've heard this logic a lot, and I agree with it, but at the same time - I'm not going to see any of this money for another 35-40 years, when I finally retire. Right now, I'm putting $125 from each paycheque into my 401k. That's a lot. I'm thinking - cut it back to $25, have an extra $100/month for the right now. It would be a pretty immediate raise. However, I think this move makes me pay more in taxes.

Quote
1 - don't stop putting money into your 401k - it's hard to get started again.  However, If you *need* to do this (and if there's a chance your job could be in jeopardy), it could be a good idea to reduce the amount you are putting into your 401k) and put some of that towards your more immediate safety blanket.  If you don't need to, then you'll most likely end up better off if you keep it up, and possibly contribute even more towards the 401k.  But it may take awhile.

Exactly what I'm thinking. Right now, I'm due for a raise - I'm making a good deal less annually right now than I should be making, considering my experience - and need to start looking for a new job. Unfortunately, most if not all the jobs I see are contractor jobs and I've got a pretty secure job at the moment, despite the lower pay.

Checking now, 3pm eastern, stocks are a little bit back up to -684 on the day. I saw as low as -780 earlier. A lot of my concerns come from a lack of comprehension of what is going on. As I read earlier somewhere, it's difficult to discern the facts from the noise.

Quote
that bailout really helped didn't it :rolls eyes

I work in the same building as a local social security office, so I occasionally get to talk to someone working there while I smoke. I heard a fun story about someone coming in last week talking about the bailout, and how if it doesn't go through he won't get his 'ten million dollar bonus'. If someone were talking to me about how they were getting a ten million dollar bonus, in any way and shape related to the government bailout, I would give them a five million dollar punch in the face followed by a five million dollar trip to the dentist so they can get their teeth put back in.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 07:06:17 PM by DragonFyre » Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2008, 07:51:48 PM »

dragon depending on the interest on any of the debt youre going to be paying off, i highly suggest paying that down

even with the "sale" (which is still very risky in the near to medium term) youre not going to "make" a lot more money - and with the volatility that money could be gone in less than a day.  just think of it this way - are you going to find any investment in the near future that is going to have returns equal to the interest on your debt?  my guess... no

also keep in mind that every percentage chunk of money you lose, requires an even higher percentage gain just to get back to where you were - again i see the magnitudes on the losses being much higher than those on the gains - at least in the near term
Logged
Jeff
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3278



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2008, 08:43:31 PM »

The Dow made a strong comeback at the end. -300 for the day, dipping to -800 at one point.
Logged
Larraque
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2392


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2008, 08:44:51 PM »

Quote from: Doopri on October 06, 2008, 07:51:48 PM

dragon depending on the interest on any of the debt youre going to be paying off, i highly suggest paying that down

Like 5%. It's mostly just my student loan now. The interest rate is very low, but I'm sick of sending in payments every month. When my car is paid off in February, I'm hopefully going to start seeing that amount drop like a stone, but throwing an extra C-Note at it a month will help too.

Quote
The Dow made a strong comeback at the end. -300 for the day, dipping to -800 at one point.

I saw that. I totally don't understand the market. What changed in the last hour?
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1568


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2008, 08:53:48 PM »

Quote from: DragonFyre on October 06, 2008, 08:44:51 PM

I saw that. I totally don't understand the market. What changed in the last hour?

Prices were low enough that people saw some deals.  The macro pattern lately is up one day, down the next, so for daytraders DJ 30 stocks were a pretty solid buy at down ~700, when the market pattern is that it will be up ~3-500 tomorrow.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2008, 10:58:36 PM »

The problem with the bailout was the delay. This whole mess has less to do with money than it has to do with confidence. Nobody wants to loan money, so the credit markets freeze up. This makes everyone expect lower spending, which means the economy slows down due to businesses making less money. Businesses making less money means layoffs, which means more unemployed. It's a vicious cycle. And if the bailout had gone through swiftly and with confidence, it might not have turned things around, but it would at least have slowed down the hurting some.

As it stood though, it got put off long enough for people to start talking about the actual mechanics of the bailout and whether or not they would 'work', when in all reality those were less important than the existence of a bailout to begin with. The thing only works if it restores confidence, and if you wait long enough for people to doubt if it would work, then that confidence no longer exists, does it?

So in short, I say 'fuck you' to the republicans who voted en-mass against the bailout the first time and then put their mugs on TV and said they voted against it, not because of the impact it would have on the economy or the country, but because Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech when introducing the bill. Seriously? Fuck you.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3357



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2008, 11:35:54 PM »

Quote from: Crux on October 06, 2008, 10:58:36 PM

The problem with the bailout was the delay. This whole mess has less to do with money than it has to do with confidence.

Today's news had the feel of a full-scale global panic. Made our $700B bailout seem like a finger in the dike. All we can do is hope that rationality returns before the downward spiral becomes a whirlpool.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Gwar21
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 210


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2008, 01:22:01 AM »

Quote from: Crux on October 06, 2008, 10:58:36 PM

So in short, I say 'fuck you' to the republicans who voted en-mass against the bailout the first time and then put their mugs on TV and said they voted against it, not because of the impact it would have on the economy or the country, but because Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech when introducing the bill. Seriously? Fuck you.

Meh, it was a bipartisan failure, and it occurred because 90% of Congressional constituents didn't want it.  Frankly, with that much resistance from the public, I'm moderately surprised that even the second attempt passed, though maybe the resistance had faltered by then.  I know that everyone likes to blame Congress for everything, and maybe they deserve some of the blame here for not "leading" in the direction that Wall Street said they should, but I put most of the blame for that debacle on a public that was overwhelmingly cheering when the first bailout bill failed.
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3194


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2008, 02:11:17 AM »

Congress votes according to their constituents?! Tongue

Crux was right, the Republicans got on TV and said they didn't vote for it because of Pelosi's speech. Then they voted for it when they added a few billions worth of pork to it. Whether you agree with the bill or not, to me it shows what a joke our congress is.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2008, 02:22:42 AM »

Quote from: Lee on October 07, 2008, 02:11:17 AM

Crux was right, the Republicans got on TV and said they didn't vote for it because of Pelosi's speech.
They said they didn't vote for it for several reasons. They argued that Pelosi's speech certainly didn't help. In fact, it did not help.
Quote
Then they voted for it when they added a few billions worth of pork to it. Whether you agree with the bill or not, to me it shows what a joke our congress is.
You're calling raising the FDIC cap 'pork'?
Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5355


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2008, 02:56:31 AM »

Quote from: Lee on October 07, 2008, 02:11:17 AM

Congress votes according to their constituents?! Tongue

Crux was right, the Republicans got on TV and said they didn't vote for it because of Pelosi's speech. Then they voted for it when they added a few billions worth of pork to it. Whether you agree with the bill or not, to me it shows what a joke our congress is.

You do realize that more Republicans still voted no for the pork laden bill than voted yes, don't you?

Oh, and Cheeba, a partial list of the pork added to the bailout bill:

Quote
Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal credits.
Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption amount.
Sec. 103. Increase of AMT refundable credit amount for individuals with longterm unused credits for prior year minimum tax liability, etc.
Sec. 201. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 202. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.
Sec. 203. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.
Sec. 204. Additional standard deduction for real property taxes for nonitemizers.
Sec. 205. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes.
Sec. 206. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment companies.
Sec. 207. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of nonresidents not citizens.
Sec. 208. Qualified investment entities.
Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit.
Sec. 302. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 303. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 304. Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.
Sec. 305. Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant improvements; 15-year straight-line cost recovery for certain improvements to retail space.
Sec. 306. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 307. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions of property.
Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 310. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 311. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
Sec. 312. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 313. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 314. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 315. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations.
Sec. 316. Railroad track maintenance.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 318. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 319. Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.
Sec. 320. Extension of increased rehabilitation credit for structures in the Gulf Opportunity Zone.
Sec. 321. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 323. Enhanced charitable deductions for contributions of food inventory.
Sec. 324. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventory.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
Sec. 401. Permanent authority for undercover operations.
Sec. 402. Permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation.
Sec. 505. Certain farming business machinery and equipment treated as 5-year property.
Sec. 506. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's liability by tax return preparer.
Sec. 512. Mental health parity.
Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.
Sec. 602. Transfer to abandoned mine reclamation fund.
Sec. 702. Temporary tax relief for areas damaged by 2008 Midwestern severe storms, tornados, and flooding.
Sec. 703. Reporting requirements relating to disaster relief contributions.
Sec. 704. Temporary tax-exempt bond financing and low-income housing tax relief for areas damaged by Hurricane Ike.
Sec. 706. Losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 707. Expensing of Qualified Disaster Expenses.
Sec. 708. Net operating losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 709. Waiver of certain mortgage revenue bond requirements following federally declared disasters.
Sec. 710. Special depreciation allowance for qualified disaster property.
Sec. 711. Increased expensing for qualified disaster assistance property.
Sec. 712. Coordination with Heartland disaster relief.
Sec. 801. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax indifferent parties
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3194


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2008, 03:06:19 AM »

Whoops, ok, damn those democrats who changed their votes because of the pork!! smile

And what pr0ner said as far as the pork.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2008, 03:56:09 AM »

Yes I know a lot of pork was added to it. However, there were also changes unrelated to pork.
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2008, 11:56:20 AM »

Quote from: Gwar21 on October 07, 2008, 01:22:01 AM

Meh, it was a bipartisan failure, and it occurred because 90% of Congressional constituents didn't want it.

How was it a bipartisan failure when democrats voted overwhelmingly for it and republicans voted overwhelming against it?
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2008, 11:58:38 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on October 07, 2008, 02:22:42 AM

They said they didn't vote for it for several reasons. They argued that Pelosi's speech certainly didn't help. In fact, it did not help.

Dude I watched the entire press conference held by the republican leadership immediately following the vote. Not a single reason was given for voting against other than Pelosi's speech. Not one. They may have added more reasons later when they realized what a bunch of spiteful childish morons they sounded like, but that doesn't change the fact the best reason they could come up with was a partisan speech by Pelosi for voting against a financial rescue package for the economy.
Logged
Gwar21
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 210


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2008, 12:48:07 PM »

Quote from: Crux on October 07, 2008, 11:56:20 AM

Quote from: Gwar21 on October 07, 2008, 01:22:01 AM

Meh, it was a bipartisan failure, and it occurred because 90% of Congressional constituents didn't want it.

How was it a bipartisan failure when democrats voted overwhelmingly for it and republicans voted overwhelming against it?

Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it?  From what I've read, only 60% of Democrats voted for it.  That isn't an "overwhelming" majority, especially when they control the house.  Now, a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted against it, true, but I don't see any way how someone can point at one party and say this was all their fault (which, I know, the Republicans stupidly tried to do when spinning that Pelosi thing).  The 13 more votes needed to pass that thing could've come from either (or both) parties.
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2008, 02:04:23 PM »

Quote from: Gwar21 on October 07, 2008, 12:48:07 PM

Quote from: Crux on October 07, 2008, 11:56:20 AM

Quote from: Gwar21 on October 07, 2008, 01:22:01 AM

Meh, it was a bipartisan failure, and it occurred because 90% of Congressional constituents didn't want it.

How was it a bipartisan failure when democrats voted overwhelmingly for it and republicans voted overwhelming against it?

Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it?  From what I've read, only 60% of Democrats voted for it.  That isn't an "overwhelming" majority, especially when they control the house.  Now, a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted against it, true, but I don't see any way how someone can point at one party and say this was all their fault (which, I know, the Republicans stupidly tried to do when spinning that Pelosi thing).  The 13 more votes needed to pass that thing could've come from either (or both) parties.

The Democrats brought the % of their people they needed to pass the bill. The Republicans brought almost the inverse of that number. If you can't see that as a failure on the part of one party to step up then you really need to take the partisan goggles off.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2008, 02:44:45 PM »

Quote from: Gwar21 on October 07, 2008, 12:48:07 PM

Now, a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted against it, true, but I don't see any way how someone can point at one party and say this was all their fault
Apparently you've not been here at this forum long. If a Democrat drove to most of these people's houses and dropped a turd in their living rooms, it would be the Republicans' fault.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2008, 02:50:06 PM »

Quote from: Crux on October 07, 2008, 02:04:23 PM

If you can't see that as a failure on the part of one party to step up then you really need to take the partisan goggles off.
Unbelievable. *95* Democrats voted against it, but it's all the Republicans' fault. And you say he's partisan. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2008, 03:04:52 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on October 07, 2008, 02:50:06 PM

Unbelievable. *95* Democrats voted against it, but it's all the Republicans' fault. And you say he's partisan. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

Is there fault on both sides?  Yes.

Can the majority of that be attributed to one party?  Yes.  In this case, the majority of the fault lies with the Republicans - if you assume that the bill should have been passed.

So the question is: How lopsided must the fault be before it's not a "bipartisan" failure, but a "Republican" or "Democrat" failure? 

As usual, your intellectual dishonesty is on display with your feeble one-liners and lack of any real contribution to the discussion.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Toe
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1493


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2008, 03:17:01 PM »

What bugs me the most about the whole mess is how both sides went pork-wild because they knew it was gonna get passed. Disgusting.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2008, 03:42:08 PM »

Quote from: Toe on October 07, 2008, 03:17:01 PM

What bugs me the most about the whole mess is how both sides went pork-wild because they knew it was gonna get passed. Disgusting.

100% agree.  I was against the first bill, but this second is sickening.  It's like open war on fiscal responsibility.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2008, 03:54:33 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on October 07, 2008, 03:04:52 PM

Is there fault on both sides?  Yes.
The difference between us is I would have stopped right there and not blathered on about the following unimportant crap.
Quote
Can the majority of that be attributed to one party?  Yes.  In this case, the majority of the fault lies with the Republicans - if you assume that the bill should have been passed.
Yeah if you want, attribute 58% of the blame to Republicans and 42% of the blame to Democrats. If you really want to argue and scream over 16% then that's your choice. Personally I, and I bet the vast, vast majority of people, don't care about 16%.
Quote
So the question is: How lopsided must the fault be before it's not a "bipartisan" failure, but a "Republican" or "Democrat" failure?
Depends on the person, obviously. To me it'd probably be 75%/25%. I wouldn't think anyone in their right mind would say a 16% difference is partisan.

I'm not even going to bother responding to your constant whining about me personally, btw. If you can't post without getting personal, perhaps you shouldn't post.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2008, 04:15:09 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on October 07, 2008, 03:54:33 PM

Depends on the person, obviously. To me it'd probably be 75%/25%. I wouldn't think anyone in their right mind would say a 16% difference is partisan.

All the polls demonstrate that the majority of the American public holds Republicans responsible for the economic crisis - clearly the blame has been laid at their feet.

Additionally, the failure of the first attempt to pass the bailout bill is directly attributable to the actions of rank-and-file house Republicans and John McCain's campaign.

Quote
McCain also spoke in the starkly personal terms of a presidential candidate in trouble: "You all put me on the hook for $700 billion," he told his colleagues, according to an aide familiar with the lunch."

Quote
Boehner was blunt. The plan Paulson laid out would not win the support of the vast majority of House Republicans. It had been improved on the edges, with an oversight board and caps on the compensation of participating executives. But it had to be changed at the core. He did not mention the insurance alternative, but Democrats did. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, pressed Boehner hard, asking him if he really intended to scrap the deal and start again.

No, Boehner replied, he just wanted his members to have a voice. Obama then jumped in to turn the question on his rival: "What do you think of the [insurance] plan, John?" he asked repeatedly. McCain did not answer.

Country first.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2008, 05:18:57 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on October 07, 2008, 04:15:09 PM

All the polls demonstrate that the majority of the American public holds Republicans responsible for the economic crisis - clearly the blame has been laid at their feet.
The majority of the American public voted for President Bush's 2nd term. Are you going to argue they were right?
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2008, 05:27:51 PM »

Ah, the ol' razzle-dazzle play.  I fail to see how your response is meaningful in the context of this conversation.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2008, 05:42:49 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on October 07, 2008, 05:27:51 PM

I fail to see how your response is meaningful in the context of this conversation.
The American public's opinion of where to place blame for the economic crisis is meaningful, but the record of the American public's decision-making is not? Huh.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: October 07, 2008, 05:52:12 PM »

Oh, I see.  Let's see if I can paraphrase what you're suggesting:

"The general public was wrong about this one thing, so they're probably wrong about this one other thing too."

I'm not sure that holds up to robust statistical analysis.

I provided a link to an article that explained the behind-the-scenes maneuvering for the President's bailout bill.  The house Republican leaders had promised to deliver a certain number of votes.  They failed to deliver those votes - both due to their own incompetence (as they over-promised), and due to McCain's triangulating and refusal to commit to proposing any solution.   In this case, the general public's perception is accurate.

When considering the impact on the election, it doesn't matter whether or not they've got it right.
Logged
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9834


My cocaine


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: October 07, 2008, 05:55:56 PM »

now we are going to buy short term debt.  i am sure it will help out the 4th quarters of many retailers who are relying on loans to stock up.  

the market rebounded for a bit, but it's back down again.  currently 9,680.40   -275.10   (-2.76%)

up next, BoA.  earnings expected to be down.  their stock price has dropped by almost 20%.  not degraded yet, but it's on the horizon.
Logged

"It's like chess with big guns against aliens. Which isn't like chess at all when I think about it." - Jake Solomon
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: October 07, 2008, 06:05:58 PM »

Quote
Among Democrats, 140 supported the bill and 95 voted against. Support among Republicans, who had revolted against an earlier iteration of the bill last week, was at the low end of what was expected by the House Republican leadership, with 65 in favor and 133 against.

Math is fun, Cheeba. 59.5% of Democrats voted FOR the bill. 67% of Republicans voted AGAINST the bill. Your 16% is a fudged number and you know it. The simple truth of it is that the Democrats held up their end of the deal, and the Republicans did not. You can talk all you want, but you're so full of partisan bullshit you can't smell the dump the Republicans already took in your living room.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: October 07, 2008, 06:12:51 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on October 07, 2008, 05:52:12 PM

Oh, I see.  Let's see if I can paraphrase what you're suggesting:

"The general public was wrong about this one thing, so they're probably wrong about this one other thing too."
Nope. You almost had it too. Good try. "The general public was wrong (in your view) about this one thing, so that shows they are sometimes wrong about things. Therefore, how can you trust that they are right about this?"
Quote
When considering the impact on the election, it doesn't matter whether or not they've got it right.
This is true. But then why are you arguing that they have it right this time?
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: October 07, 2008, 06:17:41 PM »

Quote from: Crux on October 07, 2008, 06:05:58 PM

Math is fun, Cheeba. 59.5% of Democrats voted FOR the bill. 67% of Republicans voted AGAINST the bill. Your 16% is a fudged number and you know it. The simple truth of it is that the Democrats held up their end of the deal, and the Republicans did not. You can talk all you want, but you're so full of partisan bullshit you can't smell the dump the Republicans already took in your living room.

Fudged?  No.  It's "new math".
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: October 07, 2008, 06:20:53 PM »

Yes, math is fun. And it's not new math, it's accurate math. Clearly, the people who voted against the bill are the ones to blame for it not passing, no?

Of those who voted against the bill, 58% are Republicans, 42% are Democrats <-- that statement is necessarily true, no matter what kind of argument you have (well except I didn't account for the independent, but who's counting).
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: October 07, 2008, 06:27:07 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on October 07, 2008, 06:20:53 PM

Yes, math is fun. And it's not new math, it's accurate math. Clearly, the people who voted against the bill are the ones to blame for it not passing, no?

Of those who voted against the bill, 58% are Republicans, 42% are Democrats <-- that statement is necessarily true, no matter what kind of argument you have (well except I didn't account for the independent, but who's counting).

Except that's an intellectually dishonest way to look at it. The truth of it is that the Democrats voted in a clear majority to pass the bill. The Republicans voted in an overwhelmingly clear majority against it. It failed because the Republican party couldn't even bring 50% of their people to the table to vote for the bill. They didn't even get close to 50%. We both know it, so why do you keep pretending like it somehow wasn't their fault?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.207 seconds with 104 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.061s, 4q)