this is what you said in your OP in this thread: for the march 6 Brooks column, here is the entirety of his origninal thoughts (the rest of the column paraphrases WH spin-meisters): [rquoter]I didn’t finish these conversations feeling chastened exactly. The fact is, after years of economic growth, the White House still projects perpetual deficits of more than $500 billion a year. That’s way too much, especially with the boomers’ retirements looming. Moreover, Congress will likely pass the spending parts of the budget and kill the revenue parts, like the cap-and-trade energy tax and the limits on itemized deductions, thus producing much, much bigger deficits. Plus, I’m still convinced the administration is trying to do too much too fast and that the hasty planning and execution of these complex policies will lead to untold problems down the road. Nonetheless, the White House made a case that was sophisticated and fact-based. These people know how to lead a discussion and set a tone of friendly cooperation. I’m more optimistic that if Senate moderates can get their act together and come up with their own proactive plan, they can help shape a budget that allays their anxieties while meeting the president’s goals.[/rquoter] please highlight precisely where in the 3 paragraphs cites, Brooks makes the argument that "Hold on you idiots, he's not a socialist, these guys are really smart, and this plan might work." GIA
Congrats, basso, on finally figuring out that March 6 = March 6 and how to use the internet. Anyway, I get what this is going to devolve into, the rest of this thread is going to be you acting like a silly little beyatch trying to argue about whether or not Brooks is speaking in first person or speaking in third person, when I quote the part that says - holy sh-t, Obama and his team are not actual members of the communist party - which you purposefully omitted. Sorry, I've had enough suck from you to not need anymore. Why don't you just admit you made a mistake and move on, squatty.
the funny part is my father-in-law was named after alfred nobel, but they misspelled "nobel" as "noble." and Noble is now my son's middle name.
Thankfully, "investors" are not the people that Obama is trying to help. For the first time in almost a decade, there is a man in the White House more interested in Main Street than Wall Street.
Do you know what % of Americans own stock? Investors and "Main Street" are not mutually exclusive, brah
I find your response to be intellectually dishonest, but I never gave you credit for any intellect anyway and I have known for quite some time that you are dishonest, so I suppose your response is simply business as usual.
At the risk of defending Bigtexxx he is correct that the stock market and Main Street aren't as far apart as they seem. Because so much savings from things like 401K, pension funds, mutual funds and etc. are tied up in the stock market the falling stock market does have a very real impact on most of America.
I disagree. Many people have money in the stock market and have been affected, but most people who have money tied up in the market are not looking to use that money for a long time. The exceptions are my parents, who are now planning to work for a few extra years to shore up retirement accounts that have taken a massive hit. I agree that many people have seen some of their assets (that were all on paper anyway) shrivel, but I do not believe that most of them are truly feeling an impact. The people I know are continuing with their daily lives, going to work, putting food on the table, and giving Obama credit for doing everything he can to clean up the mess that was left to him.
Yes but Bigtexxx is refering to market movements, claiming the the market is responding to Obama. Even if we agree that the market is responding to Obama, that's only a select few people. Most people with their money in 401Ks aren't causing market movements.
