Market crash: are we there yet ?

[sck5]

social security is not included in the budget. At least not the one the President sends to Congress. If they want to pretend they are balancing it they tell you about something called the "unified" budget which offsets some of the deficit with whatever surplus SS racked up that year. Be careful when you listen to a politician talking about the budget to make sure which one they are talking about.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

How come those are mostly Japanese cars???

I saw an old man driving his Toyota today, with a rear special license plate that said "Pearl Harbor Survivor". Talk about ironic...lol

[danjarch]

The really sad part in all this is that the tarp funds are unconstitutional. Obama's latest move makes it un-questionable that it breaks the seperation of powers. Congress never debated or passed a law giving the fed the power to cover warenties. It also violates the 14th admendment since it does not cover all manufactorer in the same class and shape. But is anyone in the government going to challenge it. It's doubtful. Hopefuly someone will take the tarp bill to court.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

I don't recall anyone saying the law was fair, or even just, but to use your analogy, shouldn't it be Congress (the drug dealers) we go after instead of the private sector (the drug users)? During his days as a drug user, surely Obama gained some insight into how that works.

The point is though, whether fair or not, laws are laws. They are either upheld, or they are meaningless.

You can remove your Congress person every two years. That is the law. Yes, you should go after them if you don't like them. That happens to be a pretty good and fair law.

As too all laws being OK and black and white, no....not true IMHO. Most people AND politicians practice selective lawfulness. Part of being "free" is making those decisions as to which need "broken". This can mean you don't buckle your seat belt until you get to the end of the street (illegal, against the law), etc.

Laws are somewhat like locks. Some of them keep honest people honest. Then again, there are MANY laws that are just plain wrong and overbearing. There were in recent history laws against interracial marriage. I would not say they needed to be upheld "or else" the person was wrong. Same with hundreds of other laws.

Personally, I do nothing to intentionally break the law....but at the same time, I don't consult the statute books before I do anything.

I'm certain that Bush, Obama and all those guys learned a lot from coke, pot and drinking, but at the same time don't recall any of them (other than reportedly GW who was gotten off by his dad) getting caught like Rush.

Back to the thread topic - are we there yet? No one knows, that is for certain. At the same time, there is no doubt (ALL polls) that vastly more people are seeing a light at the end of the (still very long) tunnel. I am an eternal optimist, but at the same time I can count. With 50 trillion dollars worth of potential toxic assets still unreported (as to their real value), we still have no idea how much of our common wealth will need to be sucked away to fix the mistakes of a couple thousand Wall Streeters and Bankers. So far it is about 6-8 trillion in real estate value and another 10-20 trillion in stock market wealth. That ain't peanuts, fer sure.

[Bene505]

Interesting article at seekingalpha.com.

Congress Will Support Energy Policy As Long As It's Ineffective

It seems like a story out of “The Onion”–but it’s just CQ reporting very matter-of-factly on the Senate’s progress (or “regress”) today on the budget resolution (emphasis and some commentary added in square brackets):


Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., offered competing amendments addressing the impact any climate change legislation may have on electricity and other energy costs.

Republicans charge that Obama’s cap-and-trade plan would lead to higher consumer electric and fuel bills [as it's intended to do to reduce the consumption of carbon-intensive fuels] making it, in essence, a tax.

Administration officials acknowledge the plan would cause energy bills to rise [such that the policy would achieve its intended effect] and say that is why they propose dedicating $537 billion of the revenues raised by the sale of pollution credits to a middle-class tax cut [which would mitigate the burden on middle-class households without removing the proper price signals].

Thune offered an amendment stating that any energy legislation moving later this year should achieve its goals “without increasing gasoline or energy prices.” [i.e., should achieve its goals without being structured so as to achieve its goals!]

Boxer, chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, offered what she called a “supplement” that essentially allowed a variety of ways to offset price increases that might occur because of climate change legislation. Her amendment was adopted by a largely party-line vote of 54-43.

The Thune amendment was then adopted by 89-8.

“Senator Thune’s amendment doesn’t go far enough,” Boxer said. “We believe that revenues from a climate bill, should we pass one, and I certainly hope we will, would be used to offset any kind of an increase in electricity and gasoline prices [again, removing any kind of effectiveness in the climate policy], and we would have the revenues from a cap-and-trade system to do just that.”

Thune said Boxer’s amendment was an attempt to give Democrats political cover.

“Don’t believe for a minute” that the tax rebates in Boxer’s proposal “would go back to consumers,” he said.


That’s so sad that it’s funny–or so funny that it’s sad…

[Bene505]

And Japan gets it right!

Japan's new stimulus. Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso formally ordered another stimulus package to try and jolt the country's economy back to life. The new package is expected to include at least ¥10T ($102.8B) in spending and tax cuts. Japan appears to be experiencing its deepest slump since WWII.

Aso Sets Stimulus Spending Goals - WSJ.com

At least they will have TAX CUTS in there. Very good!

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by sailhog

Here are some statistics for you guys who don't think the economy is all that bad. I'm a cocaine salesman here on Hilton Head Island, and the following are my year-over-year sales:

Hilton Head Elementary: cocaine sales down 40%
Hilton Head Pre-school: cocaine sales down 50%
Mother of the Bloody Virgin Conservatory: cocaine sales down 60%
Your-a-putz Synogogue of HIlton Head: cocaine sales down 50%

I'm really high right now, and I'm FREAKING OUT, MAN! I"M FREAKING OUT!

Hog, there was at one time a threat by some South American countries to include illegal drug production and distribution into their GDP numbers because they are such significant sources of income - it was because of the way the IMF rules on different things, for whatever reason at the time including drugs would have meant much better rates or something because it proved the countries were financially solvent. I don't remember the details.

[PBzeer]

windy- I was thinking this morning about your post on China and buying our debt. And the more I thought about it, the more I think we don't have to worry about it. The Chinese have always taken a much more long range view than westerners. And I think they see in this, the eventual downfall of the US under a mountain of debt. Mountain, nay, mountain range.

As long as the US believes China will keep buying our debt, they'll keep offering it. And with the proposed deficits soaring, there will be plenty of it to offer.

[SailorGregS]

The bottom line is, we are at or near bottom. Regardless of the mess the US is in, they will recover.

If you haven't been buying great equities at these very low prices, you probably should. At least start buying Canadian bank stocks, regardless of where you live.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

Ok Trop, how's this ...

1929 - 3.2% / 2007 - 4.7% (u3) / 2007 - ?? (u6)
1930 - 8.7% / 2008 - 7.2% (u3) / 2008 - 13.5% (u6)
1931 - 15.9% / 2009 - 8.1% (u3) / 2009 - 14.8% (u6)
1932 - 23.6% / 2010 - ?? (u3) / 2010 - ?? (u6)
1933 - 24.9% / 2011 - ?? (u3) / 2011 - ?? (u6)
1934 - 21.7% / 2012 - ?? (u3) / 2012 - ?? (u6)

I can put the u3 and u6 numbers in every month. I haven't seen anything yet that claims that the G.depression numbers were u6-like. CD wants other recessions added in too, but you guys would be causing me too much work.

Another month, another employment report - updating our table again ..

1929 - 3.2% / 2007 - 4.7% (u3) / 2007 - 8.3 (u6)
1930 - 8.7% / 2008 - 7.2% (u3) / 2008 - 13.5% (u6)
1931 - 15.9% / 2009 - 8.5% (u3) / 2009 - 15.6% (u6)
1932 - 23.6% / 2010 - ?? (u3) / 2010 - ?? (u6)
1933 - 24.9% / 2011 - ?? (u3) / 2011 - ?? (u6)
1934 - 21.7% / 2012 - ?? (u3) / 2012 - ?? (u6)

Source: Unemployment soars to 8.5 percent; 13M now jobless