DescentBB

Down 300 points,, Below 13,000.....Election....... Obama ...... HRM

I imagine that happens at every election or maybe I'm wrong. Seems like any investor would wait until knowing for sure who was gonna be POTUS.

flip wrote:I imagine that happens at every election or maybe I'm wrong. Seems like any investor would wait until knowing for sure who was gonna be POTUS.

most of them, Flip. Today was actually a bit of a reaction to Obama sealing the deal, although most of us had long since factored that one in. Healthcare, banking sectors dropped, since it is now obvious that Dodd-Frank and Obamacare will be fully enacted.
Main issue today was the European prospect of a double-dip recession in the Euro-zone and Greece(as usual) dithering about fiscal restraint.

Greece, coming to a town near you.

woodchip, the errors in your analogy are so numerous, and have been refuted by reality so many times as to be laughable.
So, I just will laugh.....

16 trillion and climbing

woodchip wrote:16 trillion and climbing

but, with the preferred world currency, safest bond issuance, high compliance with taxation payments and a far more diverse economic base.
Apples to oranges.

Thats the spirit comrade, screw the deficit. We are so diverse that a couple more zero's are meaningless.

not what I'm saying. The deficit IS worrisome, but nothing that won't become far more minimal as the economy picks up. The caveat, which Obama has clearly stated, is that we have to build an economy that is strong for the long-term, which will take some doing on everyone's part, and some financial kick ins by people like me, who can afford to do so.

Well a real deficit reduction plan revolves around one word...budgets. All the other things other than a strong economy are window dressing.

and back to the original topic......IMHO, this morning was a buying opportunity for certain financials, and large cap industrials as well.

can we have financial kick-in's by people that don't give anything and just take

you do know this country is in serious trouble when the people that take are able to outvote the people that Give dont you?? and we are currently at 47% of the people taking and 53% of the people giving

how long do you think it will be before the people that take out-vote your Grand-kids ability to Give? you might be gone. but they wont be, and that day is coming FAST,

CUDA wrote:can we have financial kick-in's by people that don't give anything and just take

since the only people that truly fall into that category are those who are absolutely destitute and those that live off welfare to the rich, I'd answer no to one and yes to the other.

you do know this country is in serious trouble when the people that take are able to outvote the people that Give dont you?? and we are currently at 47% of the people taking and 53% of the people giving

as I've pointed out, with hard facts, far too many times for an intelligent man to grasp, those percentages are a LIE. I am not going to bother responding to such nonsense after this post at all. Continue to buy the bull★■◆● all you wish, CUDA, but with fees, excise taxes, local taxes and payroll taxes, you claim is ludicrous.

how long do you think it will be before the people that take out-vote your Grand-kids ability to Give? you might be gone. but they wont be, and that day is coming FAST,

equally ridiculous

and hence what it truly wrong with society. accountability. it's bull★■◆● to say people are so destitute that they cannot give. it's a lie, you know it's a lie. STOP MAKING EXCUSES

it might be difficult, it might not be easy. but you can still do it. STOP MAKING EXCUSES

if you don't have money then give of your time. STOP MAKING EXCUSES.

15% of the population is not employed right now there has to be a TON of people with no jobs that can volunteer. STOP MAKING EXCUSES

if you have extra then give. VOLUNTARILY it's the right thing to do. STOP MAKING EXCUSES

if you don't have a lot, then give. VOLUNTARILY. it's the right thing to do. STOP MAKING EXCUSES

Here's a though. Take those destitute people on the public dole and send them to work the agricultural fields at no charge to the farm owners.. The farm owners can then pay the govt what they were paying the illegals as a way of compensation. So much win here..

woodchip wrote:Take those destitute people on the public dole and send them to work the agricultural fields...

Yeah, because taking people away from their families and friends and "sending them" (not sure what you mean by that, sounds like forced labor) to work on farms instead of allowing them the freedom to fix their life is a great idea. </sarcasm> You know, not everyone on public aid uses it permanently. Some people just need help for a few months or years to get through a rough spot, often because of illness or injury.

I agree with CUDA on volunteering. I've been on public aid before and I regularly volunteer for a few local organizations that give to the poor because I know what it's like to struggle. However, some people really are too destitute to give. Living in extreme poverty is more than a full time job. It's a constant battle just to have food and shelter, let alone deal with the problems that got you there in the first place -- most likely illness, injury, or social aberration. I don't know the last time you were on public aid, but you don't get much to live on and it's a much harder life than going to work 9-5 at a decent job.

vision wrote:I agree with CUDA on volunteering. I've been on public aid before and I regularly volunteer for a few local organizations that give to the poor because I know what it's like to struggle. However, some people really are too destitute to give. Living in extreme poverty is more than a full time job. It's a constant battle just to have food and shelter, let alone deal with the problems that got you there in the first place -- most likely illness, injury, or social aberration. I don't know the last time you were on public aid, but you don't get much to live on and it's a much harder life than going to work 9-5 at a decent job.

there are exceptions to every rule. my point is that it should not be the GENERAL rule..

I've been in the same boat. at one time over an 8 year period I worked 6 days a week and 4 nights a week and didn't take a vacation for 5 years, yet I still found time to volunteer, I worked in my Church and in the community doing service on the weekend (planting tree's and the likes..

how bad do people want something.

CUDA wrote:how bad do people want something.

I agree, but there is another aspect to this that goes a little beyond how bad someone wants something. Its no secret that people born into certain social-economic situations tend to stay in them. Some of this has to do with psychology, some with opportunity. I'm sure you can agree there are many well off people who seem to have skated by in life and have no real ambitions (and sometimes seem like complete idiots). Likewise, there are plenty of people in poor conditions who are very bright and work their asses off, but still can't break into the middle-class for example. Some people who want to be successful can't (or likely can't) because they have never been exposed to success or the tools successful people have, like a good upbringing and a properly focused education. And finally, some people are just unlucky. I have a hard time looking at a poor person and saying "you did this to yourself."

Ideally, poor neighborhoods and even entire counties would somehow self-organize and improve their living conditions. We can see some of this with inner-city initiatives and community efforts to grow local produce and whatnot. But as a society we should probably do more. Not only should the people on public aid do more to help themselves, but so should those not on public aid (because they really need our help). We need to be less selfish and lift up our neighbors. We can complain about how are taxes are spent, or we can actually do some work to solve the problem and remove the need for public funding.

CUDA wrote:Down 300 points,, Below 13,000.....Election....... Obama ...... HRM

Heh! The Plutocrats acting like 2 year old brats and throwing a temper tantrum because their inside guy, who would've greased their petulant little skids, DIDN'T WIN. Kinda tells you something doesn't it?

The great thing about Capitalism is that all these guys are greedy and self serving. They don't seem to have a coordinated group think to work en masse. After one group of them sells off their stocks, another greedy group will then pile in in a buying frenzy just to make a profit.

I’d be happy if “poor” people would just mow their lawns and teach their children some respect.

I'd be happy if rich people got out and mowed their own lawns.

callmeslick wrote:and back to the original topic......IMHO, this morning was a buying opportunity for certain financials, and large cap industrials as well.

tunnelcat wrote:After one group of them sells off their stocks, another greedy group will then pile in in a buying frenzy just to make a profit.

Don’t worry slick…she wasn’t talking about you…

Capitalists abhor doing anything that stinks of Socialism, like working together towards a common good.

tunnelcat wrote:Capitalists abhor doing anything that stinks of Socialism, like working together towards a common good.

and socialists abhor doing anything that resembles work

And Capitalists are so anti-government, they'd rather use it to their own benefit instead of maybe helping out the whole country instead. Neither system in the extreme is good by itself, but few seem want to entertain the idea of blending ideas and principles for the benefit of all. They'd rather build their little forts and wage war to further their own rigid principles. Kinda pointless isn't it?

tunnelcat wrote:Capitalists abhor doing anything that stinks of Socialism, like working together towards a common good.

What a silly generalization. Working together toward a common good is not somehow socialism. People worked together at the inception of this country, and throughout it's early days. The real question is, what really is "common good"? Sometimes people try to dress up bull★■◆● agendas as "working together towards a common good". That way people that are too simple to deal in anything but buzz-phrases and shallow concepts will eat it up hook, line, and sinker... I'm a capitalist, and I'm all for the common good, but I'm also a thinker and I'll have a thing or two to say about what is indeed "good".

Spidey wrote:I’d be happy if “poor” people would just mow their lawns and teach their children some respect.

I'm pretty sure a lot of 'poor' people would be happy to have a lawn to mow, and the idea that the poor don't teach their children respect at a greater rate than more well-off parents is ludicrous.

Well, first off…that’s why poor was in quotes.

There are lower class people, and there are poor people…I have much respect for poor people, and very little for lower class people. (if you understand the distinction I’m making here)

And, I doubt you have any real idea what it is like to live in a “poor” area…I do.

uhhh...upper class kids are just as dickish (probably even more so) than lower class.

they both have their moments and both have the sense of entitlement. upper class kids get it from their parents. lower class kids get it from the government.

Anyway I wasn’t making a comparison, I was responding to CUDA’s idea that everyone should contribute to the society, I work and pay taxes to provide services to other people…at the very least…you can pick up a broom and sweep the sidewalk.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Capitalists abhor doing anything that stinks of Socialism, like working together towards a common good.

What a silly generalization. Working together toward a common good is not somehow socialism. People worked together at the inception of this country, and throughout it's early days. The real question is, what really is "common good"? Sometimes people try to dress up **** agendas as "working together towards a common good". That way people that are too simple to deal in anything but buzz-phrases and shallow concepts will eat it up hook, line, and sinker... I'm a capitalist, and I'm all for the common good, but I'm also a thinker and I'll have a thing or two to say about what is indeed "good".

The common good is when things are done or built for the good of a society, as a whole, that private enterprise would not find profitable or viable to do on it's own.

That's kinda vague. How about at least 2 examples?

Rural electrification.

Bridges, roads.

My only problem here is when people (tc) mistake government programs that are really just designed as services for pay, as socialism, a “political” concept.

Police, fire and the military are examples of the prior, and rural electrification is a true example of socialism.

People refuse to give a system the litmus test…

To be socialism a system must be in place to provide fairness and equality, not simply provide a very efficient way to provide services.

I have always maintained the idea that things done best by government should be done by government, and things done best by the private sector, should be left to the private sector.

But let’s stop confusing simple service systems designed to provide efficiency, for socialism, just to make it look better.

Spidey wrote:Rural electrification.

Bridges, roads.

not according to the President. he says that those are integral in building business. that sounds like capitalism

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Rural electrification.

Bridges, roads.

not according to the President. he says that those are integral in building business. that sounds like capitalism

it IS capitalism, with government support for core infrastructure. That was EXACTLY what Obama was trying to state. Sorta funny was the lame attempts by the Romney camp and the Obama-hard-on contingent to twist that meaning. On Tuesday past, most people got the true gist......

American's have yet to move to the 21'st century, that's all I can say. We came from small, recent beginnings and even 100 years ago, our foundations began to crumble. Take Carnegie and Rockefeller for instance. They in all reality were able to undermine our foundations just by forcing Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act." You want my gas, sign." "You want my steel, sign." That changed the rules and parameters drastically, but I imagine only men of vision could see from afar. Even then, the need for social safety nets was recognized, because these guys were determined to rule at all costs. Now, concessions have to be made and if anyone thinks there is actually a level playing field, they are willfully blind to our circumstances.

what, about not having a central bank regulating currency flow, is a 21st century concept. Not having such is sort of an 18th century notion, don't you think?

That's not where I was going.