Jim Cramer Response to White House

[DarrinS]

When I come to work each day, whether as a commentator for TheStreet.com or a host of Mad Money With Jim Cramer, I have only one thought in mind: helping people with their money.

I fight to help viewers and readers make and preserve capital. I fight for their 401(k)s, for their 529s and their IRAs. I fight for their annuities and for their life insurance policies. I fight for their profits, trading and investing. And in this horrible market, I fight to keep their losses to a minimum by having some good dividend-yielding stocks from different sectors, some bonds, some gold and some cash.

The lines are drawn pretty clearly: If you can help people make money to be able to retire, enjoy life, pay for college, pay down debt, etc., you are a "good guy," so to speak. If you take the other side of the trade, you are, well, let's say, a less favored fellow. And if you gun for the gigantic investor class that is out there that includes 90 million people in one form or another, whether it be 401(k)s or individual stocks or pension plans, then you are on my enemies list.

Now some, including Rush Limbaugh, would say I am on another enemies list: that of the White House. Limbaugh says there are only a handful of us on it, and if I am on it for defending all of the shareholders out there, then I am in good company. Limbaugh -- whom I do not know personally, but having been in radio myself, know professionally as a genius of the medium -- says, "They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight."

Limbaugh's dead right. I am a fight-not-flight guy, so I was on my hackles when I heard White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president on multiple venues, including the Today Show.

"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," Gibbs said about my point that President Obama's budget may be one of the great wealth destroyers of all time. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too."

Huh? Backup? Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.

The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have.

Gibbs went on to say, "If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience. No offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC, but the president has to look out for the broader economy and the broader population."

How much I wish it were true right now that stocks played less of a role in peoples' lives. But stocks, along with housing, are our principal forms of wealth in this country. Only the people who have lifetime tenure, insured solid pensions and rent homes but own no stocks personally are unaffected. Sure that's a lot of people, but believe me, they aspire to have homes and portfolios. If we only want to help those who have no wealth to destroy, we are not helping the majority of Americans; we are not helping the broader population.

You can argue, of course, that Obama inherited one of the worst hands in the world. I had been a relentless critic of the Bush administration's "stewardship" of the economy, calling repeatedly for changes to avert the disaster that I saw coming, although perhaps Gibbs hasn't seen my CNBC meltdown. Seemed pretty prescient to me.

I, like everyone else, have made less authoritative and wrong statements in the past, but that rant still stands as something that I am sure everyone in the Bush administrations' Treasury and Fed listened to. My calls to sell 20% of your stocks in September at Dow 11,000 and then all of your stock if you need the money for the next five years at Dow 10,000 in October, might have eluded Gibbs, too.

But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity that help eliminate the excess supply of homes.



more at --> http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house

[balli]

Yeah, because some screaming MSNBC asshole with a greed streak, soundboard and coke habit is just the best possible person to consult about the President's plan.

Jim Cramer's more or less an uncharged felon. A self-described market manipulator.

[ChumpDumper]

My calls to sell 20% of your stocks in September at Dow 11,000 and then all of your stock if you need the money for the next five years at Dow 10,000 in OctoberSo Cramer created his own panic. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

Cramer needs a lesson on correlation and causation.

[ChumpDumper]

Cramer is funny. The only people who ever made money off his tips were the people who already owned the stock and sold it the day after Jim told everyone to buy.

[MannyIsGod]

Let say for a minute Cramer is right. Lets say Obama provided a bad atmosphere. Is he really arguing that the atmosphere Obama creates is the true and final determination of how much those companies being traded on the stock market at worth? Such a bullshit argument that it doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of pressure.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree with the general tone that Cramer is a putz, and has to use loud noises and flashing lights to try to convince his audience, rather than sober analysis.

[DarrinS]

There are some really thoughtful responses in this thread.

[MannyIsGod]

boMqAHTDZbw

[LnGrrrR]

There are some really thoughtful responses in this thread.

We must be becoming Republicans.

[balli]

Welp... :lol

Oh, and if you want thoughtful responses, take a lesson from Winehole and post a thoughtful argument by a thoughtful person. We're only as good (or as bad) as the argument thrown at us. And Jim Cramer/Jim Cramer's track record is garbage.

[MannyIsGod]

Man - I wish I could play that video above for Cramer and ask him how he expects to carry any weight.

[balli]

Actually I think he publishes as James J. Cramer when he wants to be taken seriously. Not that he is. But anyways, I'm pretty sure he knows he's full of shit.

[Wild Cobra]

Another indication that nObama may go down as one of the worse p0residents in history.

[ChumpDumper]

He's got a long way to go to suck as badly as W.

[Wild Cobra]

He's got a long way to go to suck as badly as W.
President Bush will fair better in historical books as time goes by. President Obama is destroying the USA.

[ChumpDumper]

President Bush will fair better in historical books as time goes by.Nah, he will continue to suck, just like your spelling.
President Obama is destroying the USA.I'm really tired of this bullshit talk.

[balli]

lol at Cobra's retarded ass counting Jim Cramer as a presidential historian.

[Wild Cobra]

lol at Cobra's retarded ass counting Jim Cramer as a presidential historian.
I just shake my head in your interpretation being that stupid.

[TheProfessor]

boMqAHTDZbw
:lol Wow.

[balli]

I just shake my head in your interpretation being that stupid.

I shake my head at you taking Jim Cramer's analysis serious enough that you'd consider it an indication of Obama's historical worth.

[TheProfessor]

What's the deal with touting Cramer as some sort of expert on anything? He's been a useless blowhard for a long time. And the idea of one of the morons who saw nothing coming saying Obama's creating the adverse environment - STFU, you toadying Wall Street sycophant.

[clambake]

boMqAHTDZbw

thats crazy funny. i got to watch that show.

[balli]

Meh, I usually laugh when I see it, but beneath the humor I find the Daily Show to be about the single most depressing way to spend one's time.

[DarrinS]

What's the deal with touting Cramer as some sort of expert on anything? He's been a useless blowhard for a long time. And the idea of one of the morons who saw nothing coming saying Obama's creating the adverse environment - STFU, you toadying Wall Street sycophant.



Don't these type of people typically become Obama political appointees?

[balli]

Don't these type of people typically become Obama political appointees?

I can't believe the amount of ingratitude the right has for who Obama's put in his cabinet.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe Cramer is just pissed that he wasn't given an appointment.

[DarrinS]

Maybe Cramer is just pissed that he wasn't given an appointment.


Maybe.

[TheProfessor]

Don't these type of people typically become Obama political appointees?
I thought Sanjay Gupta withdrew his name from consideration...

[PixelPusher]

You should be buying things and accept that they're overvalued, but accept that they are gonna keep going higher - I know that sound irresponsible, but that's how you make the money...


boMqAHTDZbw

Daaaaaaaammmmn...that's a first class curbstomp!

[Wild Cobra]

I shake my head at you taking Jim Cramer's analysis serious enough that you'd consider it an indication of Obama's historical worth.
I don't consider Cramer words for my remarks. It's been Obvious for some time the democrats and Obama are ruining this nation.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Yeah, because some screaming MSNBC asshole with a greed streak, soundboard and coke habit...........uh King 'Bama once had that as i'm sure Cramer had.

[smeagol]

Wasn't Cramer the guy who was telling America to buy such and such a stock back when the dow was at 13,000 a year and a half ago?

Yep, he's the guy I go to when predictions are involved . . . :tu

[smeagol]

I don't consider Cramer words for my remarks. It's been Obvious for some time the democrats and Obama are ruining this nation.

The nation was ruined pre Obama.

You don't need to be to bright to understand the concept . . .

[LockBeard]

You motherfuckers are so fucking stupid.

You are so brainwashed into accepting this traitorous CHANGE that America is about to fall to, you cannot think logical on what is coming your way.

I pity every single fucking one of you. You will never understand, and those who do will always be above you laughing. So come up with your wity little comeback while I continue to pity and hang my head at how many dumb motherfuckers like yourself exist in this country.

I hope Obama gets the America he wants and you all suffer the consequences.


Seacrest, out.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Wasn't Cramer the guy who was telling America to buy such and such a stock back when the dow was at 13,000 a year and a half ago?
yeah......kinda like how barack said now is the time to buy stock just a couple of days ago.

[LockBeard]

One more thing...

If you Obama loser nuthuggers ever want to evolve and actually start figuring out the game before all of our short lifetimes cease to exist...actually stfu for a second and listen to the arguments Kramer is giving. You guys go straight to your Obama hit squad mentality where you bash on whoever is in Obama's scope instead of listening and using your little brains.

Kramer has been a life long democrat. He has contributed $100s of thousands of dollars to the democratic party. He voted for Obama.

He's just not as much of a loser kool-aid drinker like Manny and Bali. He understands how DANGEROUS this administration is by not using common fukin' sense.

Alright I'm done. I'm trying not to ever come back here but there are so many morons who just don't get it; while only 3 or 4 here try to educate you fools.

[clambake]

i thought you were leaving.

[balli]

So did I. GTFO.

[MannyIsGod]

yeah......kinda like how barack said now is the time to buy stock just a couple of days ago.

Buying at 7000 = Buying at 13,000? Interesting.

[MannyIsGod]

One more thing...

If you Obama loser nuthuggers ever want to evolve and actually start figuring out the game before all of our short lifetimes cease to exist...actually stfu for a second and listen to the arguments Kramer is giving. You guys go straight to your Obama hit squad mentality where you bash on whoever is in Obama's scope instead of listening and using your little brains.

Kramer has been a life long democrat. He has contributed $100s of thousands of dollars to the democratic party. He voted for Obama.

He's just not as much of a loser kool-aid drinker like Manny and Bali. He understands how DANGEROUS this administration is by not using common fukin' sense.

Alright I'm done. I'm trying not to ever come back here but there are so many morons who just don't get it; while only 3 or 4 here try to educate you fools.

Specifics?

[MannyIsGod]

Wasn't Cramer the guy who was telling America to buy such and such a stock back when the dow was at 13,000 a year and a half ago?

Yep, he's the guy I go to when predictions are involved . . . :tu

Watch the posted youtube. The quality sucks but its pretty damn sad how bad CNBC gets ripped by Comedy fucking Central.

[LnGrrrR]

You motherfuckers are so fucking stupid.

You are so brainwashed into accepting this traitorous CHANGE that America is about to fall to, you cannot think logical on what is coming your way.

I pity every single fucking one of you. You will never understand, and those who do will always be above you laughing. So come up with your wity little comeback while I continue to pity and hang my head at how many dumb motherfuckers like yourself exist in this country.

I hope Obama gets the America he wants and you all suffer the consequences.


Seacrest, out.

Do you know what the word "traitor" means? Or are you the type that call people who buy the wrong kind of peanut butter "traitors"?

[LnGrrrR]

Specifics?

I think he means that since Cramer is a democrat, we're not supposed to disagree with him. Or that he's magically free from bias. Or that he really just wants to help the little person on his show, and has no desire to help out corporations or even himself. Something like that.

[Crookshanks]

Well then - how about this article?

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow
A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American Capitalism
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).

Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.

Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.

As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.

Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.

The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.

The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.

A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.

The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.

Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.

New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government. And this is exactly what the libs want!!

From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.

Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.

On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.

[DarrinS]

^ article is obviously written by a racist, political hack.


His Elegance is beyond reproach.

[clambake]

why wasn't boskin around when the country needed him.

is it because of his party affiliation?

[MannyIsGod]

The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.

What price exactly did we pay?

[Winehole23]

^ article is obviously written by a racist, political hack. ^^^procatalepsis.

Preparing your adversary for an unfavorable reception by raising objections to your own argument (and answering them.) This is one of Hannity's faves. It renders everything totally plastic because it approaches ventriloquism.

It's a point of guile to characterize your adversary before he has had any chance to characterize himself. IMO much opinion about Obama falls into this category, like the article upstream. The author overrelies (like WH23) on emotive prose and propagates retarded memes like taking the *fact* that 50% of American will soon pay no income tax (unemployment hit 8.1% nationally today -- hello?) as a harbinger of permanent socialism.

As if that wasn't decided 75 years ago. We've been socialist the whole time, dude.

You just noticed?

[balli]

Racist, political hack, maybe not. Lying scumbag, yes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2213029/


War on the Rich?The bogus GOP claim that Obama is trying to bleed wealthy Americans.
To hear conservatives tell it, you'd think mobs of shiftless welfare moms were marauding through the streets of Greenwich and Palm Springs, lynching bankers and hedge-fund managers, stringing up shopkeepers, and herding lawyers into internment camps. President Obama and his budgeteers, they say, have declared war on the rich.

On Tuesday, Washington Post columnist (and former Bush speechwriter) Michael Gerson argued in an op-ed that "Obama chose a time of recession to propose a massive increase in progressivity—a 10-year, trillion-dollar haul from the rich, already being punished by the stock market collapse and the housing market decline." The plans are so radical, "there will not be enough wealthy people left to bleed." CNBC's Larry Kudlow wrote that "Obama is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds." Other segments on the financial news network warn of a tax on the rich, a war on the wealthy. My personal favorite was a piece from ABCNews.com, which had to be rewritten and reposted because the original was so poorly done. (The revised version isn't much better.) It quotes a dentist who is contemplating reducing "her income from her current $320,000 to under $250,000 by having her dental hygienist work fewer days and by treating fewer patients. [That way, she] would avoid paying higher taxes on the $70,000 that would be subject to increased taxation if Obama's proposal is signed into law."

It's hard to overstate how absurd these claims are. First, let's talk about the "massive increase in progressivity" that Gerson deplores. It consists largely (but not exclusively) of returning marginal tax rates to their levels of 2001, before Gerson and the epically incompetent Bush administration of which he was a part got their hands on the reins of power. Obama wants to let marginal rates for families with taxable income (not total income, but taxable income) of more than $250,000 revert from 33 percent to 36 percent, and to let the top rate—currently 35 percent on family income above $357,000—revert to 39 percent. (Here are the current tax tables.) There's also talk of capping—not eliminating, but capping—deductions on charitable giving and mortgage interest.


Obama's proposals don't mean the government would steal every penny you make above the $250,000 threshold, or that making more than $250,000 would somehow subject all of your income to higher taxes. Rather, you'd pay 36 cents to the government in income taxes on every dollar over the threshold, rather than 33 cents.

Second, this return to 2001's tax rates was actually part of the Bush tax plan. The Republicans who controlled the White House and the Republicans who controlled the Congress earlier this decade decreed that all the tax cuts they passed would sunset in 2010. They put in this sunset provision to hide the long-term fiscal costs of the cuts. The Bush team and congressional supporters had seven years to manage fiscal affairs in such a way that they would be able to extend the tax cuts in 2010. But they screwed it up. Instead of controlling spending and aligning tax revenues with outlays, the Bush administration and its congressional allies ramped up spending massively—on two wars, on a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, on earmarks, etc. Oh, and along the way, they so miserably mismanaged oversight of Wall Street and the financial sector that it required the passage of a hugely expensive bailout. Even before the passage of the TARP, the prospect of extending all the Bush tax cuts was a nonstarter. Once Bush signed the $700 billion bailout measure into law, extending tax cuts was really a nonstarter. The national debt nearly doubled during the Bush years. So if you want to blame someone for raising taxes back to where they were in 2001, don't blame Obama. Blame Bush, his feckless Office of Management and Budget directors, his economic advisers, and congressional appropriators like Trent Lott and Tom DeLay.

Third, we know from recent experience that marginal tax rates of 36 percent and 39 percent aren't wealth killers. I was around in the 1990s, when tax rates were at that level, and when capital gains and dividend taxes were significantly higher than they are today. And I seem to remember that we had a stock market boom, a broad rise in incomes (with the wealthy benefitting handily), and strong economic growth.

Fourth, we also know from recent experience that lower marginal rates on income taxes, and lower rates on capital gains and dividends, aren't necessarily wealth producers. The Bush years, which had lower marginal rates and capital gains taxes, were a fiasco. In fact, if you tally up the vast destruction of wealth in the late Bush years—caused by foolish hedge funds, investment banks, and other financial services companies, it seems like the wealthy have in fact been waging war on one another.

Finally, there has been a near total absence of discussion of what higher rates will mean in the real world. Say you're a CNBC anchor, or a Washington Post columnist with a seat at the Council on Foreign Relations, or a dentist, and you managed to cobble together $350,000 a year in income. You're doing quite well. If you subtract deductions for state and property taxes, mortgage interest and charitable deductions, and other deductions, the amount on which tax rates are calculated might total $300,000. What would happen if the marginal rate on the portion of your income above $250,000 were to rise from 33 percent to 36 percent? Under the old regime, you'd pay $16,500 in federal taxes on that amount. Under the new one, you'd pay $18,000. The difference is $1,500 per year, or $4.10 per day. Obviously, the numbers rise as you make more. But is $4.10 a day bleeding the rich, a war on the wealthy, a killer of innovation and enterprise? That dentist eager to slash her income from $320,000 to $250,000 would avoid the pain of paying an extra $2,100 in federal taxes. But she'd also deprive herself of an additional $70,000 in income!

Can she, or we, really be that stupid?

[MannyIsGod]

The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined.

:lmao

Unfucking real. Yet economists agree the stimulus is too small. This is exactly what I mean about you fuckers twisting everything to your political gain. Its impossible to take people seriously when they parrot shit like this without acknowledging the current situation the country is in.

[balli]

No shit. David Brooks was dead-on when he called such "arguments" the politics of nihilism.

[RandomGuy]

We must be becoming Republicans.

oooh snap.

[RandomGuy]

I don't consider Cramer words for my remarks. It's been Obvious for some time the democrats and Obama are ruining this nation.

"for some time"

Jan 20th minus Mar 5th = 6 weeks.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/ohdramaimage.jpg

:lmao

Shine on you crazy diamond.

[RandomGuy]

Wasn't Cramer the guy who was telling America to buy such and such a stock back when the dow was at 13,000 a year and a half ago?

Yep, he's the guy I go to when predictions are involved . . . :tu

Cramer isn't actually all that bad as far as investing advice goes.

I have some fair respect for him. He is, of course, not always right, but will always admit when he is wrong.

It is kind of painful for me to see Obama's administration and Kramer go back and forth in this kind of rather petty crap.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd like to see what the author is talking about when he says that Obama is planning a "drawdown". Facts would be nice.

[balli]

^ article is obviously written by a racist, political hack.

Oh. And after a little research it turns out he's a former economic advisor to G. H. dubya and an executive director at Exxon Mobil. Just amazingly impartial credentials.

[DarrinS]

Cramer isn't actually all that bad as far as investing advice goes.

I have some fair respect for him. He is, of course, not always right, but will always admit when he is wrong.

It is kind of painful for me to see Obama's administration and Kramer go back and forth in this kind of rather petty crap.


Wow, you didn't automatically try to smear him. That's admirable. He has had a LOT of good advice in the past, however, a lot of financial gurus were wrong in the past 9 months or so.

[RandomGuy]

Racist, political hack, maybe not. Lying scumbag, yes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2213029/

Very good points.

The conservative response:

But, but, but "Trickle down!"

:rolleyes

The only real coldly objective look that economists ever took at the Bush tax cuts said that they had virtually no real affect one way or the other on the overall economy.

So now reversing something that arguably not only didn't help us, but probably hurt us in the long run is the end of the world?

We will have to pay down our national debt at some point, and if you think this modest proposal is the end of the world, start prepping the hari kari mats, cause you ain't seen nothing like what is coming about ten to fifteen years down the road, when the real effects of the debt we are taking on today start being felt at a time when Social Security gets really strained.

[DarrinS]

Oh. And after a little research it turns out he's a former economic advisor to G. H. dubya and an executive director at Exxon Mobil. Just amazingly impartial credentials.


You've just pointed out that he's a political hack. I love when you guys prove my point for me.

[Winehole23]

:lmao

Unfucking real. Yet economists agree the stimulus is too small. This is exactly what I mean about you fuckers twisting everything to your political gain. Its impossible to take people seriously when they parrot shit like this without acknowledging the current situation the country is in.In fairness, you can agree about the danger and disagree about the medicine. That said, I hate the parrot shit too. Don't people digest what they read, or do they just regurgitate like babies?

Even if you agree tax cuts are a bad idea, you can disagree that the current emergency trumps fiscal prudence.

For me this is the kernel (via RG): should we try to prevent the first domino from falling? I am basically skeptical that this can be accomplished at all. I think it will be even more costly if we fail, a very good argument against IMO.

But I can also see the moxie behind the idea that we should not fail to attempt a *critical save.*

If it doesn't work, it was gonna suck anyway. If it does, we can refocus on the inflation thing and start reflating the food/fuel bubble.

[RandomGuy]

Wow, you didn't automatically try to smear him.

C'mon man, you know me better. :lol

Yikes. Lunch hour is almost up.

[balli]

I love when you guys prove my point for me.
As if that point wasn't sarcastic?

[DarrinS]

In fairness, you can agree about the danger and disagree about the medicine.

Even if you agree tax cuts are a bad idea, you can disagree that the current emergency trumps fiscal prudence.

For me this is the kernel (via RG): should we try to prevent the first domino from falling? I am basically skeptical that this can be accomplished at all. I think it will be even more costly if we fail, a very good argument against IMO.

But I can also see the moxie behind the idea that we should not fail to attempt a *critical save.*

If it doesn't work, it was gonna suck anyway. If it does, we can refocus on the inflation thing and start reflating the food/fuel bubble.



My thing is this: Why not focus on the most immediate problem at hand? Is this really the time to start taxing the hell out of carbon and restructuring our health care system? I think those are problems that can be addressed after we stop the economy from hemmoraging.

Sometimes, when you take on too much, you end up doing everything half-assed, when you could focus on one particular issue and do a good job. Some might say this was part of the problems we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Winehole23]

My thing is this: Why not focus on the most immediate problem at hand? Is this really the time to start taxing the hell out of carbon and restructuring our health care system? I think those are problems that can be addressed after we stop the economy from hemmoraging.

Sometimes, when you take on too much, you end up doing everything half-assed, when you could focus on one particular issue and do a good job. Some might say this was part of the problems we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan.Nobody ever accused Obama of not being ambitious. He has eight years max to fulfill all his political ambitions.

Did you not believe Obama would actually try to enact his campaign promises about health care and the environment, once elected? This disappoints you?

[RandomGuy]

In fairness, you can agree about the danger and disagree about the medicine. [/B]That said, I hate the parrot shit too. Don't people digest what they read, or do they just regurgitate like babies?

Even if you agree tax cuts are a bad idea, you can disagree that the current emergency trumps fiscal prudence.

For me this is the kernel (via RG): should we try to prevent the first domino from falling? I am basically skeptical that this can be accomplished at all. I think it will be even more costly if we fail, a very good argument against IMO.

But I can also see the moxie behind the idea that we should not fail to attempt a *critical save.*

If it doesn't work, it was gonna suck anyway. If it does, we can refocus on the inflation thing and start reflating the food/fuel bubble.

This is about as intractable of a problem as we have seen in our lifetimes, for me at least.

If one were to hand me the keys to the kingdom and tell me find a solution to this mess, I would be hard pressed to really figure out a decent solution, and that says a lot. We can only hope that Obama, whatever your opinion of the man, is up to the task.

Hopefully his case study of Lincoln's style of leadership will pay some dividends. If it does, one could expect to see some interesting repercussions in management philosophy. Lincoln pulling the nation out of the Civil War and Obama pulling us out of (whatever this crisis will end up being called historically) using Lincoln's management style would seem to point to such a management style's eficacy.

Either way, despite the protestations of Kramer, or WC, or whomever, the next 8 years will not be the end of the USA.

We will muddle along as we always have, more or less.

[RandomGuy]

My thing is this: Why not focus on the most immediate problem at hand? Is this really the time to start taxing the hell out of carbon and restructuring our health care system? I think those are problems that can be addressed after we stop the economy from hemmoraging.


Unless of course, doing those two things would help end the current crisis.

Then it would be imperitive to do so, would it not?

There is a case to be made that going green and improving the health care system would do so.

We spend fully 1/10th of our GDP on health care now, if memory serves, and energy policy is probably just as important, especially given that we are probably at the end of cheap oil as we know it.

If we as a nation can start spending 10% less on health care, and 10% more on other things that provide jobs, would that not be a way to stem job loss?

[Winehole23]

We will muddle along as we always have, more or less.I agree. Let's hope we can muddle through somehow, instead of declaring the end of the Republic at every turn.

[DarrinS]

Unless of course, doing those two things would help end the current crisis.

Then it would be imperitive to do so, would it not?

There is a case to be made that going green and improving the health care system would do so.




Investors appear to be less idealistic than you.

[baseline bum]

boMqAHTDZbw


One more thing...

If you Obama loser nuthuggers ever want to evolve and actually start figuring out the game before all of our short lifetimes cease to exist...actually stfu for a second and listen to the arguments Kramer is giving. You guys go straight to your Obama hit squad mentality where you bash on whoever is in Obama's scope instead of listening and using your little brains.

Kramer has been a life long democrat. He has contributed $100s of thousands of dollars to the democratic party. He voted for Obama.

He's just not as much of a loser kool-aid drinker like Manny and Bali. He understands how DANGEROUS this administration is by not using common fukin' sense.

Alright I'm done. I'm trying not to ever come back here but there are so many morons who just don't get it; while only 3 or 4 here try to educate you fools.

:violin

[MannyIsGod]

Investors appear to be less idealistic than you.

Investors always know whats best. Thats why so many of them didn't just lose a shitload of money over the past year.

[RandomGuy]

Investors appear to be less idealistic than you.

Please provide the data that supports the assertion that recent stock market declines are primarily due to Obama policy proposals.

The assertion that investors appear to like unicorns is just as supported by available data.

Perhaps you know of some direct causal link that I don't...?

I think conservatives are giving into their collective confirmation bias on this one.

That's ok, I guess, but if you want it that way, then you MUST give credit to Obama when the markets start going up again.

I won't hold my breath on that one.

[RandomGuy]

Investors always know whats best. Thats why so many of them didn't just lose a shitload of money over the past year.

"Buying mortgage backed securities is a GREAT idea, who do I have to throw my money at to get some of that action?"

[RandomGuy]

"Buying mortgage backed securities is a GREAT idea, who do I have to throw my money at to get some of that action?"

"Buying stocks on margin is a great idea, where can I borrow some money in order to jump into the market?"

[RandomGuy]

"Buying stocks on margin is a great idea, where can I borrow some money in order to jump into the market?"

"Hey I think I can sell some credit default swaps, and make a ton of money, who wants in on the action?"

[RandomGuy]

"Hey I think I can sell some credit default swaps, and make a ton of money, who wants in on the action?"

"That Bernie Madoff guy is a genius, here is a few million."

[MannyIsGod]

"That Bernie Madoff guy is a genius, here is a few million."

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Investors always know whats best.

Here's the kicker:

The market does know more than we do, because it is the collective sum of what WE know. That is the defintion of efficient markets. (basic finance/economics theory)

The problem conservatives have in making the case that the markets are ONLY dropping because of what Obama is doing is that there is waaaay more going on at any one time than what the government is doing.

The US governement, compared to the world economy total is rather small, for all of its current spending.

That would imply that whatever Obama does is, by the very definition of efficient markets, far outweighed by whatever else is going on, unless he takes governerment action to extremes far beyond the relatively modest (yes, that's right, I said modest) actions he has proposed.

Anyone who DOES say that the market's reactions are completely due to Obama's actions are simply demonstrating that they don't understand one of the more basic principles of finance.

[RandomGuy]

Further:

Part of the definition of GDP is that it includes government spending (it is the term "G" in the equation that economists use to calculate GDP)

If we double our government's spending, and the total economy STILL shrinks at a 7% annual rate, what does that suggest about what is happening in the rest of the economy?

Fucking ouch is right.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh I agree completely. I think its a bullshit political ploy. Thats all.

In truth I don't really care. Its a marginalized group of people who continue to marginalize themselves.

[RandomGuy]

Oh I agree completely. I think its a bullshit political ploy. Thats all.

In truth I don't really care. Its a marginalized group of people who continue to marginalize themselves.

Yup. Anybody with some common sense or isn't blinded by their own confirmation bias can see it is exactly that.

As I pointed out, the beauty of it is that when the market recovers, as it will eventually, Obama supporters will get to use that exact schtick against them, and claim all the credit. If conservatives criticise this linking, they will be forced to eat their words on this issue.

Conservatives are essentially, yet again, handing a weapon to beat them about the head with to their enemies, and the sad part is that many of them don't have the sense to realize it.

[LnGrrrR]

Yup. Anybody with some common sense or isn't blinded by their own confirmation bias can see it is exactly that.

As I pointed out, the beauty of it is that when the market recovers, as it will eventually, Obama supporters will get to use that exact schtick against them, and claim all the credit. If conservatives criticise this linking, they will be forced to eat their words on this issue.

Conservatives are essentially, yet again, handing a weapon to beat them about the head with to their enemies, and the sad part is that many of them don't have the sense to realize it.

Only if you assume that conservatives in the future will develop logical consistency/coherency.

[doobs]

incestuous amplification

[balli]

Only if you assume that conservatives in the future will develop logical consistency/coherency.

Yeah, you can call a pack of screaming, shit-hurling monkeys, a pack of screaming, shit-hurling monkeys... but at the end of the day, they're still going to be a pack of screaming, shit-hurling monkeys. Albeit powerless ones.

[101A]

Republicans and Conservatives ARE Marginialized.

They are powerless; can do NOTHING to stop the Liberals and their agenda.

Congratulations.

If all you are, then, is trumpeters and mouthpieces singing in unison with the powers that be, bully for you; long live the king and all that. But what's the point of continuing to kick the Republicans (and Democrats apparently who dare speak ill of Obama?) It's not like they pose a threat.

Damn you people sound a LOT like the giddy defenders of Bush did not so long ago (and at one point I was included in THAT lot, so I know from where I speak)

[balli]

Damn you people sound a LOT like the giddy defenders of Bush did not so long ago
Good. I hope it feels as shitty for you as it did for us.


And the difference being that Bush (and his supporters) have proven to be absolute failures. We on the other hand have only proven to be something Rush hopes will fail.

[Winehole23]

. But what's the point of continuing to kick the Republicans (and Democrats apparently who dare speak ill of Obama?) It's not like they pose a threat. People enjoy it. Payback is a bitch.


Damn you people sound a LOT like the giddy defenders of Bush did not so long ago (and at one point I was included in THAT lot, so I know from where I speak)Payback is a bitch, isn't it?

Characterizing policy differences as a lack of patriotism sucked then. It still does.

[balli]

But what's the point of continuing to kick the Republicans (and Democrats apparently who dare speak ill of Obama?)
Well, we are on a message board and I doubt the Cramer op-ed was posted so that we wouldn't argue over it's merits. And as it's/he is meritless, it only makes sense that we'd say so, no?

[Winehole23]

And as it's/he is meritless, it only makes sense that we'd say so, no?Meme: Dems are malevolent, mean and consumed with anger.

Why continue to kick the poor, poor Republicans while they're down? Isn't it enough for you that they're almost completely irrelevant? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Republicans and Conservatives ARE Marginialized.

They are powerless; can do NOTHING to stop the Liberals and their agenda.

Congratulations.

If all you are, then, is trumpeters and mouthpieces singing in unison with the powers that be, bully for you; long live the king and all that. But what's the point of continuing to kick the Republicans (and Democrats apparently who dare speak ill of Obama?) It's not like they pose a threat.

Damn you people sound a LOT like the giddy defenders of Bush did not so long ago (and at one point I was included in THAT lot, so I know from where I speak)Why do you hate America?

[MannyIsGod]

Why do you hate America?

:lmao

I think 101 wants us to say Cramer has a point (when he doesn't) just so we don't sound like him with Bush? Thats funny. There are lots of good reasons to not be completely happy with things Obama and his administration are doing. A Roubini article was posted a few days ago and you could post the Krugman article from 2 days ago as good examples.

But I'm not going to support a stupid fucking loud mouthed asshole who got things wrong so recently just because it makes you feel better.

[Ignignokt]

^^^procatalepsis.

Preparing your adversary for an unfavorable reception by raising objections to your own argument (and answering them.) This is one of Hannity's faves. It renders everything totally plastic because it approaches ventriloquism.

It's a point of guile to characterize your adversary before he has had any chance to characterize himself. IMO much opinion about Obama falls into this category, like the article upstream. The author overrelies (like WH23) on emotive prose and propagates retarded memes like taking the *fact* that 50% of American will soon pay no income tax (unemployment hit 8.1% nationally today -- hello?) as a harbinger of permanent socialism.


Thanks Winehole for pointing out conservative debate tactics. Because you're so vehement to point out faults on both sides.

[Ignignokt]

So what's wrong about Cramer?

When Bush raised deficit spending, all of you were against it, now that obama raises it, it's totally fine.

[balli]

So what's wrong about Cramer?

When Bush raised deficit spending, all of you were against it, now that obama raises it, it's totally fine.

Both of those issues have already been addressed in this thread.

[PixelPusher]

The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.

What price exactly did we pay?

Not having as many troops as neocons would have liked when they decide to indulge in some military adventurism.

[Winehole23]

Thanks Winehole for pointing out conservative debate tactics. Because you're so vehement to point out faults on both sides.There's no such thing: rhetorical tropes aren't proprietary. :rollin

Look, Iggy. I try to be fair, but because I feel more let down by conservatives, they get more of my spleen. I actually believe in some of their ideology (personal freedom, minimal government, constitutionalism) and they always fuck me. With the Dems it's never a surprise, always bigger and better. But every single Republican President in my lifetime lied about what they were doing. So fuck em. I'll pick on em all I want.

[ChumpDumper]

So what's wrong about Cramer?

When Bush raised deficit spending, all of you were against it, now that obama raises it, it's totally fine.Following a Keynesian model, deficit spending is exactly what should be done now, just as cutting spending and raising taxes should be done once the economy recovers.

We'll see if it works.

[LnGrrrR]

Following a Keynesian model, deficit spending is exactly what should be done now, just as cutting spending and raising taxes should be done once the economy recovers.

We'll see if it works.

Pfft stop using liberal logic! If plan A works now, it should work now and forever, and we should never need another plan!

[Ignignokt]

There's no such thing: rhetorical tropes aren't proprietary. :rollin

Look, Iggy. I try to be fair, but because I feel more let down by conservatives, they get more of my spleen. I actually believe in some of their ideology (personal freedom, minimal government, constitutionalism) and they always fuck me. With the Dems it's never a surprise, always bigger and better. But every single Republican President in my lifetime lied about what they were doing. So fuck em. I'll pick on em all I want.

What? It's like i wasn't being sarcastic or anything.

[Ignignokt]

Following a Keynesian model, deficit spending is exactly what should be done now, just as cutting spending and raising taxes should be done once the economy recovers.

We'll see if it works.


I understand that Obama is keynesian. But if Keynesian polices are meant to get us out of depression, then the former (cutting spending and raising taxes) will seem to keep us mediocre just above recession levels. (the clinton years being an aberration, raising taxes and cutting spending helped only because of the sudden tech bubble).

Anyway, i agree the govt should do some to help. I just think more in terms of conservative ideals. The investor class needs to have more spending power along with the govt implementing some jobs programs in dire circumstances.

Increasing the deficit will only seem to devalue the dollar, and alienate foreign investment, which this plan is neither helpful nor too overtly disctructive to the economy, it almost akin to drinking water to alleviate a stomach ache.

I mean if this president is supposed to be a cut above the previous, then he should raise expectations instead of lowering them you'd think.