Well, that’s that. We’ve got to have a vote. Michelle wants a vote. The queen has spoken.
“These reforms deserve a vote in Congress,” she said, drawing loud applause from hundreds of Chicago’s business executives and civic leaders who were gathered at a luncheon to raise money for a new anti-violence initiative.
Obama spoke emotionally about attending the funeral in February of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old majorette who was shot in a city park not far from the Obamas’ Chicago house and just days after visiting Washington for President Obama’s inauguration ceremonies.
“As I visited with the Pendleton family at Hadiya’s funeral, I couldn’t get over how familiar they felt to me, because what I realized was Hadiya’s family was just like my family,” the first lady said. “Hadiya Pendleton was me, and I was her. But I got to grow up and go to Princeton and Harvard Law School and have a career and a family, and the most blessed life I could ever imagine. And Hadiya — well, we know that story.”
Hadiya Pendleton was “allegedly” killed by a guy on probation for a weapons charge and who could not legally possess a weapon. In Chicago. Home of the formerly strictest gun laws in the country. But at least these remarks came after the big taxpayer funded soul party at the White House.
Obama is politicking on the graves of dead children not really having any idea of what he speaks:
During several speeches, Obama has said 40 percent of all gun purchases were made without a background check.
But that number is nearly two decades old and comes from a poll with a relatively tiny sample size. Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, as well as The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” are calling out the president’s stat, saying his numbers on background checks need a background check of their own.
During a speech last week, Obama asked, “Why wouldn’t we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or her hand on a gun? Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? Why wouldn’t we do that?”
The oft-cited figure, it turns out, was pulled from a 1997 study done by the National Institute of Justice. In the study, researchers estimated about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed gun dealers. The conclusion was based on data from a 1994 survey of 2,568 households. Of those, only 251 people answered the question about where they got their guns.
PolitiFact tracked down the co-author of the study, Duke University professor Philip Cook, and asked him if he thought the 40 percent estimate is accurate.
“The answer is I have no idea,” Cook reportedly told PolitiFact. “This survey was done almost 20 years ago.”
And here’s a little known nugget:
I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.
Episodes like this have cause Jake Tapper to reflect:
“The gun debate is worth having,” Tapper noted, “but it might help the advocates of gun control if, in their advocacy for stricter measures, they seemed more familiar with what exactly they’re trying to ban.”
They don’t know what they’re talking about. What they’re proposing won’t help. It would not prevent another Newtown.
Their new laws won’t do squat but they do foment mistrust:
He conflates a failed background check with stopping a criminal from obtaining a gun. “Over the past 20 years,” Obama says, “background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.” That claim is based on two faulty assumptions: 1) that everyone who fails a background check is dangerous, which plainly is not true, given the ridiculously broad categories of people who are legally barred from buying firearms, and 2) that a criminal intent on obtaining a weapon will give up if he cannot get it over the counter at a gun store, rather than enlisting a straw buyer or turning to the gray or black market.
He falsely equates “assault weapons” with military guns. Obama inaccurately calls one of the guns used in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre an “assault rifle,” which is a military weapon capable of firing automatically. He calls the guns he wants to ban “weapons of war,” again implying that they fire continuously, when in fact they fire once per trigger pull, like any other semi-automatic firearm.
He says there is no logical connection between “universal background checks” and gun registration. “We’re not proposing a gun registration system,” Obama insists. “We’re proposing background checks for criminals.” But there is no way to enforce a background-check requirement for every gun transfer unless the government knows where the guns are. Federally licensed gun dealers are readily identified and can be required to keep sale records. Individual gun owners who might dare to sell their property without clearance from the government cannot be identified unless the government compiles a list of them. Hence Obama’s assurances amount to saying, “Don’t worry. We will make a big show of passing this new background-check mandate, but we won’t really enforce it.”
He pooh-poohs the idea that there could ever be anything adversarial about the relationship between Americans and their government:
You hear some of these quotes: “I need a gun to protect myself from the government.” “We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.”
Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. (Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.
One of the constraints on the federal government is the doctrine of enmuerated powers, which says every act of Congress must be justified by a specific constitutional grant of authority. Where is the clause that empowers Congress to say how many rounds you can put in a magazine or whether your rifle can have a barrel shroud? Furthermore, as Obama surely has heard by now, there is this thing called the Second Amendment, and it is hardly frivolous to argue than an arbitrary and capricious piece of legislation like the “assault weapon” ban Obama supports would violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet to Obama’s mind, anyone who makes such an argument is one of those “people who take absolute positions” and therefore can be safely ignored. After all, the government is us.
Sen. Mike Lee observes that background checks could lead to a national gun registry in the hands of the loathsome Eric Holder:
“Some of the proposals, like for example- universal background checks- would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights. One of the provisions we expect to see in the bill based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee- on which I sit- would allow the Attorney General of the United States (Eric Holder) to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns. Something my constituents in Utah are very concerned about, and understandably so,”
So give them the damn vote. Put democrats on the line. Let them out their necks on the line. 2014 is coming
Voting for the assault weapons ban poses the bigger immediate threat to vulnerable Democrats such as Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). The NRA would rip any centrist Democrats — or Republicans — who support the assault weapons ban.
“There will be ramifications for elected officials who support gun bans. Our position is unequivocal. We do not support gun bans as a matter of policy or effective way of controlling guns,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
Universal background checks won’t do a damn thing. They didn’t stop Jared Loughner, James Holmes or Seung Hui-Cho. They wouldn’t have stopped Adam Lanza.
Clarence Dupnik could have stopped Jared Loughner but he was friends with Loughner’s mom. The State of Virginia could have stopped Hui-Cho but it was too much of a hassle. James Holems’ shrink warned the cops to no avail.
Gang bangers are not going to register their weapons. They are not going to procure their ammunition certificates.
Crazies like Nancy Lanza won’t stop handing lethal weapons to their insane progeny.
So bring on the vote.
And every time there is another gun death, shove it up their asses. And come November 2014, remind voters how surrendering your Constitutional Rights accomplished nothing.
Fifteen people were stabbed at a Texas college the other day. No one demanded that knives be banned.
In 2010 more than 10,000 people lost their lives in alcohol-related driving accidents but no one demands that cars be banned.
It seems that guns are the only inanimate objects which are capable of being dangerous on their own.
Give them their damn vote. How sweet would it be to see Obama having to deal with an entire GOP Congress for the remainder of his regime?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@John: #47
You using a USA Today article to defend your position is like you complaining about someone using a Fox News article. USA Today is a very liberal newspaper, just like most of them.
It isn’t gun laws that deter gun crimes, it’s the ENFORCEMENT of those laws that helps deter crime. For example, if a crook knows they are going to do an ADDED 5 years for using a gun, they might decide not to use one. I’m guessing that if a study would be done to find out which states ENFORCE their gun laws, you will find that they are the ones with the lowest gun crimes.
I really liked this part of the article you linked to:
@Redteam: Give me your definition of natural born citizen and the SCOTUS definition. Then we’ll continue, Thanks
@Richard Wheeler: #48
2,000,000,000 rounds of hollow point ammo ordered, hundreds of heavily armored vehicles for different government agencies ordered, trying to keep guns out of our hands, spending more than we take in, trying to take your 401(k) money, teaching our kids that the Christian and Jewish religions are bad and that socialism is good, teaching our kids to call the police if they are punished by their parents or if their parents have guns, etc., etc., etc.
You must not be old enough to know that these are the same tactics Hitler, Mussolini, and others used to take control of a country. Remember the saying, “Those who do not learn from history, are bound to repeat it.”? Oh wait,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they don’t teach that stuff in school any more. A lot of high schoolers don’t know who Margaret Thatcher was. They don’t know that the USA is not a democracy.
How hot does the water in your pot have to be before you decide it’s too hot?
I have to guess you are working with the liberals to help turn MY country into a socialist state. Anyone who has all of the information you have, and still won’t even consider any possibility that obama and his socialist appointees aren’t concerned about keeping the USA a free country, are either working to destroy it, or are so naively loyal like the members of cults who have committed suicide when comets or other events happen.
@Smorgasbord: Your first paragraph is rampant paranoia and outright fabrications.
2nd pararaph with the far right meme comparing the POTUS to Hitler and Mussolini then misquotes–that’s “doomed to repeat it.”
Best is “MY country” Did you serve? Were you awarded a Navy Commendation Medal with Combat “V”?
You my friend are the late night cultist.
btw Aren’t you happy your 401K is up about 70% under current POTUS?
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
He must be living under a different POTUS. All of my sources of income and investments are way down under my current POTUS. The only things that are way up are my food bills, fuel bills, and health insurance.
@another vet: You must be a lousy investor.lol All 3 major stock indiciis are up over 70% since Jan 1 o9. As you know, all 3 are at all time highs. If you have a 401K I assure you it is up substantially in last 4 years.
@Richard Wheeler: I had another Obama man tell me the same line yesterday. What you are you implying is that if someone had a previous high of say $100,000 in a 401K it is now worth $170,000 under Obama. In reality what has happened is that the person first lost $40,000 and then gained it back which would equate to a 70% gain. Remember how low the markets were during Obama’s first year? They had nowhere to go but up. In reality, that person will have been treading water on Obama’s watch as opposed to actually gaining 70% as you try to imply. When I see a 70% gain OVER my previous best, then I will count it as a gain and not as making up for a loss.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia2000.html
@Richard Wheeler: #54
I joined the National Guard in 1963, before we were the Weekend Warriors. We met Tuesday nights. I was thinking about military service, and someone mentioned the Guard. I figured I could join it and see how it goes. Later on I could decide whether to go active or not.
When I joined, I didn’t know much about Vietnam. The Guard had a program to get people to join. They were very low at that time. If you joined for 6 years, you could serve active for the first 3 years, then go inactive for the next three, where you don’t attend the meetings, but if the unit is called up, you would go with them.
When Vietnam got going really strong, the drill time for the Guard was doubled to two weekends a month. At that time I had a job that had three outside workers, and two had to be on call for service problems. My having to have 24 weekends off, meant the other two guys would only get 14 weekends off a year, so I went inactive.
Since all I did was the Guard, and the only active duty I had was summer camp, I usually don’t stand up when I’m in a group of people, and someone asks for service members to stand up or raise their hand. I’ve seen too many documentaries, and heard too many war stories showing how much it cost for you and others to go “over there” to keep me free. This is one reason I want the military funded first.
I didn’t directly compare obama to Hitler and Mussolini. All I said was that I see the same things happening in America that led up to those people becoming dictators, and many others around the world, and it does scare me very much when I see things happening to the USA that started happening to other countries that are now some kind of dictatorship. I have lived through several of them.
That’s one way a person can USUALLY tell a liberal from a conservative. I say USUALLY, because some conservatives act the same way. You very seldom hear a conservative nitpick about minor things like not getting a quote EXACTLY right. I’m lousy at remembering names, dates, and sometimes an EXACT quote. I have started to wonder if I have a learning disability that has’t been diagnosed. The next time I see a doctor I will have to ask.
When obama got elected the first time, my IRA (former 401(k)) was earning me 16% at the time. A short time later, I had lost about 25% of it. I have about as much in it now as I did when obama got elected the first time. Only a liberal like you can figure that if it increases 70% from the lowest it was, and is now where it used to be, that is a good thing.
Using your logic, I’m guessing that you agree with obama when he submitted his budget that is much higher than last year’s budget, then lowered the amount of the increase, and calls it a cut. Do you consider it a cut? Hillary Clinton did the same thing years ago when the democrats wanted to increase Social Security payments a certain amount, and the republicans wanted to increase the amount by a little less. Are you old enough to remember her telling us the republicans wanted to CUT the amount the SS recipients were getting? Do you consider that a cut?
This reminds me of when my ex and I sold Amway products. At one meeting the man telling us stuff said that their food supplement is mostly natural, not the manmade stuff some others sell. He compared it to white bread. The wheat germ that has all of the nourishment in it is taken out and fed to cattle and other things. Manmade nutrients are added to the flower. This is the ENRICHED flour in the bread.
He then said that if someone gave him $100, and he gave them back $50, can they say they have been enriched? By your math you would.
@Richard Wheeler: Rich, I have no problem with what a natural born citizen is, apparently you are the one that doesn’t know the difference.
@Richard Wheeler: and of course the people that are on food stamps and welfare are really benefiting from all those high stock market indices, Right Rich, or is it the people with over $250,000 in income that is making the money off it?
@another vet:A.V and Smorg It’s really pretty simple $100,000 Jan 09 with Dow at 8500 goes to $75,000 in spring 09 with Dow at 6700. With Dow currently at 14,800 portfolio originally worth in Jan09 $100,000 now worth about $175,000. Nasdaq and SandP track similarly. Markets are up over 70% from Jan 09. More than doubled from 09 low.
Redteam Supreme Court disagrees with what you THINK you know is definition of “natural born citizen” In fact large majority of people disagree with you, but you’re kinda used to being odd man out it would seem. No question the rich are getting richer with the market boom. What’s new?
@Richard Wheeler: And how much was the $100,000 worth before the Dow going to 6700? Using your analogy, when the Dow was at 14,000 the $100,000 would have been worth closer to $170,000 just like it would be now. You are leaving out that important part of the equation to make it look like a real gain as opposed to just making money back on a loss.
@another vet: As I said, the Dow was approx 8500 on Inauguration Day 09.
It is now approx 14,800. Do the math. Dow had not been 14,00o since mid Bush 2nd term. Clearly Dow as well as Nasdaq and SandP UP 70% +since BHO took office That’s a Fact.
@Richard Wheeler: It’s also a fact that most people haven’t made 70% on their previous high for their investments as you seem to have implied in your initial post. Most are merely regaining what they had lost. The ones who initially invested in 2009 may have made 70% on their investment but given the unemployment situation then and other aspects of the economy that have gone unmentioned, they would represent the minority of investors. The Dow’s high on Bush was 25% higher than what it was under Clinton and I’m sure the Dow’s high under Clinton was at least 25% higher than what it was under Bush I. In order for it to be 25% higher under Obama than Bush, it would have to end up close to 18,000 before he leaves office. Given the mess in Europe and the impact Obamacare will have on our economy, that will be quite a challenge.
@Richard Wheeler:
No, Rich, the Supreme Court does not disagree with me. All pertinent rulings support my definition. You might want to read up yourself instead of just taking other Progressives word for it.
The Stock market is the only economic event that is ‘up’, everything thing else is down. The stock market only helps the rich get richer, it doesn’t help unemployment at all.
@Redteam: #59
Great answer. If you didn’t answer him, I was going to, but not as brilliantly as you did.
@Richard Wheeler: #61
Let me see if I have this right. I will use $100,000 as an example, with a 10% return. I was averaging 16% when obama got elected. The first year I would have made $10,000. Add that to the $100,000 and that makes $110,000. Year 2 would add $11,000. Year 3 would add $12,100. Year 4 would add $13,310. After 4 years, that would put the amount at $146,410.
You can’t loose something you didn’t have, so I didn’t loose the extra $46,410, I just didn’t get it. Please explain to me how starting out with $100,000, and having $100,000 four years later is a plus. I guess liberals figure if they have anything left, that is a plus. Conservatives are’t so easily satisfied.
@Richard Wheeler: #53
I don’t know much about the markets, and how they work, but evidently, printing $85,000,000,000 per month helps the market. I have learned from history that the more of something there is, the less it is worth. Please explain to me how printing $1,020,000,000,000 per year is going to help the economy.
Here’s how much money the Treasury is printing each year.
http://www.dailycognition.com/index.php/2009/03/25/what-1-trillion-dollars-looks-like-in-dollar-bills.html
@another vet: You sure like to complicate stuff. The previous high of 14,200 was under “W” The markets are up 70% under Obama. That’s the topic—final answer Smorg –$IOO,OOO invested in the SandP 500 INDEX FUND in Jan o9, without your obviously over priced broker’s commish, would be worth over $170,000 today—-A FACT
R.T NO U.S COURT has ruled POTUS is not a natural born citizen. You and your friends like Orly Taitz can keep on trying. Good luck with that.
@Richard Wheeler: The topic is you told smorg that his 401K is up 70% under Obama implying that everyone is up 70% under Obama and that is plain wrong. No one I know who has investments in whatever is up 70% over their previous high. They are all gaining money back they lost. Perhaps you are up 70% over your high investment but rest assured, most of us aren’t. Yes the markets are up the last few years but again, they had nowhere else to go but up after they bottomed out on his watch. If you were making $20 an hour before Obama took office and then saw your wages go down to $10 an hour when he took office and then 5 years later saw your wages go back up to $20 an hour, would you say you were making $10 more an hour under Obama or that you went back up to where you were previously?
@another vet: I agree .You try picking your own individual stocks or trust in a broker you may do worse than 70% up. You keep talking about their previous high. WHY–We are talking about Jan o9– We are talking about investment in INDEX FUNDS–do you know what they are? This is really very simple.Why do you choose to complicate this?
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler: I’m not debating that the markets are up since January 2009. That’s a historical fact. What I’m debating is that just because the markets are up doesn’t mean that everyone is better off than what they ever were. You told smorg that his 401K was up 70% because that’s how much the markets have gone up. He clearly stated that is not the case as it is with a lot of people. It’s a blanket statement that doesn’t apply to everyone or probably even most. They are merely back to where they started if that. Most of the people I know are either worse off now or no better off than what they were 5 years ago. That is what matters most to people, not what the indexes are.
@another vet: Not my fault if they are not in no load index funds—Smorg’s got a broker who’s gotta pay his own mortgage.I’ve been there
Your example $20 “W” 2006 (dow 14,200) goes to $13 dec.o8(dow 8,500) Now worth $21(dow 14.800)
It is up OVER 70% UNDER BHO—CAVEAT invested in major index fund—no broker no commish.
Primary reason most people worse off R.E down 35-40% 06-2011–Small favor–it’s up about 20% in last 18 months.
BTW Unemployment rate at 7.7% is only about 1% higher than when “W” finished up. Not acceptable but moving in the right direction.
Now now, rich… if you wanna be picking dates convenient to praise the Oval Office occupant… using the performance range of about five years… then you should also consider the five years under Bush where the market closed after the third largest drop in history – when it opened on Sept 17th after the Sept 11th attacks. It then hit it’s high of 14,167 in Oct 2007, just before the Chinese sell off and the 19th anniversary of Black Monday.
That’s a 62.9% increase. However Bush and Paulson didn’t start injecting taxpayer stimulus cash until after 2008.
Both Bush and Obama experienced essentially similar policies via the Fed Reserve… low rates for too long, creating the bubble atmosphere. However by today’s standards, the lower rates following the Sept 11th generated economic hiccup are unbearably high compared to today. The average Fannie 30 yr rate in Aug 2001 was 6.95% for a 30 yr. They didn’t start dropping to under that until Feb 2002 at 6.89%. From that month, until Obama’s inauguration, the rates stayed in the 5-6% ranges. A rate that any buyer today would vehemently reject in indignation.
In Obama’s 4th month in office, the rates dropped to the 4% range. It bounced between the 4 to low 5%s until Nov 2011, when the “recovery that wasn’t” became the excuse to drop them into the 3% range. Fannie Mae avg rates haven’t hit 4% since.
Needless to say, the economic cake was iced with free and easy money, allowing the DJIA to rack up the numbers with ease. However the icing for Bush’s cake – his 62.9% increase from Sept 11th until Oct 2007 – wasn’t spread nearly as thick as Obama’s. The Obama gains are dancing at rates so dangerously low as to make backing out of this perpetual QE heart stopping. When the rates start moving back up, everyone from 2008 on, and most especially in the past 4 years, are going to be the new toxic assets. And I don’t even want to think about the bond bubble and the Treasury public debt. No doubt why Bernanke isn’t in a hurry to raise the rates.
What I’m trying to say is your spewing a ton of BS here. I’m happy the market is doing well, and hopefully people are withdrawing their gains and using them in less of a risky instrument. Like stuffing their mattress or buying sustainable goods. :0) But you can’t pick arbitrary dates and assume that the DJIA under Obama so all fired wonderful. The 60-70% percentage gains after various precipitous drops aren’t all that unusual. What is unusual are the drastic measures. The amount of free money afforded to the banks for zip-nada-nuttin’, is nigh on impossible to safely reverse. Obama tripled down on what was done following Sept 11th…. then fueled it by injecting taxpayer stimulus cash as well.
It boils down to this… the market is responding to central bank welfare policies under both administrations, tho via different methods and thresholds. None of it, however, is sustainable. And when the bottom drops out, it will make both 1929’s Black Tuesday and the 2008 financial institution collapse look like mild recessions.
Oh yes…. and real estate is not up “20%” save in a few backyards. Your own included. California is the not center of the nation, nor indicative of what’s happening around most of the country. False statement, unless you’re talking to your next door neighbor.
@Richard Wheeler:
You are correct, therefore no one has ruled that he is a natural born citizen, or that he is not a natural born citizen. Until that happens, the Supreme court will not rule either way.
I just believe that we should abide by the US Constitution.
@Richard Wheeler: I made good bucks in the market under Bush but I didn’t tell everyone else that they made good money under him because not everyone did. Had you not told smorg that HIS 401K increased 70% under Obama, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
How much of the drop in the unemployment is due to people giving up looking for work? Are those jobs being created paying the same or less? Is personal income up or down? Are people paying more or less for food and gas? That’s what matters to most folks. Let’s see what happens next year when people have to start shelling out more than a few grand for health insurance. I wonder how many have figured that into their budget. It’s way too early to be jumping up and down. We are still in very uncertain times, economically and otherwise.
@another vet: I’ll bet RW is not up at all in the stock market, people on welfare and food stamps don’t invest in the stock market.
@Richard Wheeler: Real unemployment rate is nearer 13%. The folks that dropped out of looking for work, they still are unemployed, BHO just doesn’t think they are important enough to count.
@Redteam: I seriously doubt RW is on welfare or food stamps. Him and I have had numerous debates here before. He’s a die hard Obama supporter and I’m not. The only other person who made similar claims to me about being up so well in the stock market under Obama was someone who was gaining what he lost. He made the statement to put a feather in Obama’s cap not knowing that his best friend and market buddy told me that he was just gaining what he had lost and in reality hadn’t made money. That’s not to say that Rich is in the same boat. He may very well have made 70%. All it takes is one good investment.
You are definitely right about the unemployment rate being a joke. In addition to the 13%, the jobs being created aren’t exactly the types that provide enough income to live comfortably off of. Hopefully this is just a blip and not a long term trend.
@MataHarley: The subject was Smorgs 401k from bho inaug to present.Nothing more. Invested in S&P 500 or Nasdaq index fund in Jan o9 and held it would be up over 70%.This is not nuclear science.
The R,E, market in “my back yard” is up 20% in last 18 months.
Spewing B.S. you say.I’m simply stating what HAS happened in these markets. B,S. would be claiming with any certainty what WILL happen.
@Richard Wheeler, you’re a bit skewed on how the conversation went, and with whom. You asked Smorg if he was happy that his 401K was up 70% under Obama… ergo, you are the one who set the selective and arbitrary start/end dates of investment gains or losses… as if this were an Obama personal accomplishment.
It was then @another vet who engaged you in multiple replies (Smorg only making one comment reply to that). another vet pointed out that his investments weren’t up 70%. Because, as he points out in reality, coming from the losses of both fall 2007 and 2008, the only investors who would be enjoying that pure profit was if they bought in on Obama’s inauguration day.
But then, even that figure isn’t correct, because the market was 8077 on Jan 23, 2009 (close enough to Inaugural for rock’n’roll). Two months later, Mar 6, it dropped to 6626. So first there was approx 18% loss which had to be made up before you can again say you are gaining… even under Obama. Using your theory, Obama’s “70% gain” from Inauguration Day to the figure you were using then translates to only a 52% gain for that imaginary investor.
To the point, the person who decided to frame losses and gains only from Obama’s presence in the WH, to now, was you… and even then, technically you were not correct. So if you want to create those type of parameters as some sort of shining moment, then you have to compare similar parameters with other WH occupants. You can’t’ diss analogies that you, yourself, created as the criteria.
Nice talking points, but the majority of people vested were so prior to the second coming of the political god, temporarily occupying the people’s house. Ergo they saw no such profit structure. Pure BS simply due to it’s narrow focus confined to the minimal (if any) people who decided to go in to the market for the first time on Inauguration Day 2009. Simply the silliest of blather, rich. Just how many people do you think took advantage of that 70%-which-is-really-52% gains by getting in the market for the first time, on the day Obama was installed in office?
But if the idea was to glorify the economy and market performance under Obama, I’m surprised you didn’t use the start date of Mar’s 6600s number to bolster your point. Oh wait a minute… you *did*. LOL
Perhaps had you added that “my backyard” caveat when you made your original statement, it would have been a more honest statement. But that’s not what you said. To reiterate:
That’s a small favor only in your ‘hood, rich. You can’t throw these figures out as a national trend. For example in my backyard, our values are down the 30-35% from the peak. But there is no 20% comeback around here. And I’m sure that everyone has a different story for their own backyard as well.
You should qualify what you say as being your personal situation, instead of representing it as a national trend.
So what you’re now saying… when you remove your own “obama only” brackets… is that investors are up $1 from Bush highs to Obama’s highs. Big whoop, eh? :0) With all the public debt added, and free giveaway money to the financials, one would think that’s a pretty piss poor performance for the money.
I’d say you just made another vet’s point that it’s entirely possible that his particular investments are not up more than 5%… depending upon his portfolio. (leaving aside any potential broker fees, or perhaps down 5% including a 10% broker fee)
@MataHarley: Using your inaug day djia number of 8077 and today’s 14860 Dow is actually up 83.9%—thanks! I’m fine with using W numbers but that was not original discussion.
BTW I DID NOT use the 3/2009 6600 as a point of ref.PLS ACK.—Thanks–good to see you back.
@MataHarley: Again a basic misinterpretation I am talking ONLY about increase in value from INAUGURATION DAY TO TODAY—- based on percentage move delineated in #83 we’re looking at around 80% You can say these dates are cherry picked but the numbers and percentages are real.
I’m assuming you understand the index funds referenced. If the investment is otherwise results could be dramatically different.
Agree re. your R.E. ASSESSMENT
The “original discussion” was a hypothetical of your own creation. It was you who refused a similar analogy using the Bush five years. This is like saying you will only discuss your own apple pie recipe as being an award winner, and not discuss another recipe.
Again, some imaginary person who goes into the market on 2008 Inauguration Day first had to go down 18% before going up. So you are still wrong that the person’s investment would be up 83.9%. They first had to take a loss of 18%, so their gains would be 65.9%. It remains a pathetically irrelevant and narrow focused debate based on criteria that you, alone, get to define while rejecting parallel analogies.
ADDED: Never mind… I’ll correct my own error here on the percent gain. I keep going back to your mention of the 6700 in the earlier. duh… LOL END ADDED
And it’s still not worth the financial repercussions of the monetary policies that have been stretched to the extreme by this admin and his continued appointees. You know, it’s interesting that the lib/prog party members are those that like to complain about the disappearing middle class, yet their hero has done more to widen that gap than prior admins.
@MataHarley: Mata This is really quite simple. PLS use increase/original to get % gain from inauguration day 2009 until today 4/15. March o9 lows not relevant to this calculation. Thanks
SEMPER FI
Yes, rich… I already corrected myself in my comment above with the “ADDED”. It still remains a pathetic and irrelevant debate since it applies to virtually no one. So why don’t you go back to your other comment that shows a $1 gain from Bush highs to Obama highs. Far more relevant for the majority of market participants vested before the idiot economist in the WH took office.
@MataHarley: Thanks Mata—my intent is not to canonize BHO or denigrate W–simply to suggest to doom and gloomers it’s possible the world isn’t coming to an end—the sun will rise tomorrow. At least here in So. Cal.—carpe diem
Of course the economic world won’t come to end as long as the central banks and taxpayers can afford to pay the market’s way with risk free investing. But eventually, as the ol’ saying goes, you run out of other people’s money. And this is especially true with aging demographics that are not confined only to the US. The smaller the labor for, the less revenue all nation states will have to keep the market a’float.
So you might say that doom and gloom isn’t coming tomorrow. But there is little way for any of this to be sustainable. Just another bubble by the bozos in charge.
@another vet:
LOL, it doesn’t matter to me if he’s a deadbeat or not, most of O’s supporters are, that’s why they’re supporters. but if he can call me a birther, which I’m not, then I can call him a deadbeat.
@Redteam: People who get free cell phones so they turn out to vote are deadbeats? Come on. They are highly informed voters who are voting their conscious : )
@MataHarley: You are pretty close. My main investment went up no where near the 70% claimed but then again it never went down that much either. Ironically it was actually higher when the markets weren’t as high as they are today. Not everyone gains and loses the same which is why making blanket statements about how well everyone is doing or not doing with investments is an opinion and not a fact.
You do make good points of how the foundation of this recovery is very weak. Back in the 90’s when everyone seemed to be hyping how great the economy was doing I told people it was going to come crashing down for the same reason- a weak foundation which in that case was people buying stuff they couldn’t afford namely houses. I was figuring it was going to crash a lot sooner than it did like around ’30-’04.
I understand there may be terrorist attacks in Boston going on now.
@Redteam: “Most of BHO’S supporters are deadbeats” Statements like that are why you birthers er constitutionalists are doing so well at the polls.
Put down your musket long enough to explain why YOU believe BHO is ineligible to be POTUS—-also Rubio. Pls be specific.
@another vet: If anyone had been on top of what was going on, the damage could have been much less severe. When it appeared the Dim was gonna get elected, I moved all my IRA funds into a bond fund. Never went down, made interest at about 4-5% throughout the downturn.. When it became clear the market had turned, moved it back into better yield. Never did lose, always went upward. Just have to watch the politics and move money accordingly.
@Redteam: Agree bond fund a good safe place as interest rates came down. When was it “clear” to you the market had turned and why? Obama was firmly entrenched as the DOW ROSE 83% from his inauguration through today.
@Richard Wheeler: Obama has helped the stock market (rich people) because they know with what’s going on, nothing else is going to improve and nothing but instincts are required in the markets. When the market was going up and crossed over the 10 and 11 K marks, it was a safe bet. The economy will remain in the tank until O is out of office and someone gets in that is interested in the country headed somewhere other than socialism. I think most people would like to be self supportive, but as long as you can live better off the government than you can by doing an honest day’s work, you will live off the government. As long as all you hear from O is higher gas/energy prices, better ‘environment’, more amnesty, nothing is going to improve. Even welfare and health care (the two main things socialists promise) are headed downward now. That can’t last, it’s just a sign that the middle class has been tapped out (rich people will never be tapped out, they know how and where to keep their money). When the middle class gets fed up with supporting the socialists, the worm will turn.
@Redteam: “Rich people know with what’s going on,nothing else is going to improve and nothing but INSTINCTS are required in the markets.” Gibberish.
How bout a response to my #93
@Richard Wheeler:
The constitution requires that one of the conditions to be president is to be a natural born citizen. Obama is not one and neither is Rubio. Any persons that do not fulfill the constitutional requirements are not eligible. Can it be any simpler? The constitution names three types of citizens, 1. citizens 2 natural born citizens 3 naturalized citizens. Care to define them?
@Richard Wheeler: Gibberish. really, you would know being an O admirer, that’s all you hear.
By the way, as of today, funds are back into bonds. Good thing I get 4 free transfers per month
@Redteam: I’ve asked you twice previously to define natural born citizen and explain why YOU believe Obama and Rubio are not constitutionally qualified to be POTUS—–crickets what’s the problem?
@Richard Wheeler:
Your question is:
“why YOU believe Obama and Rubio are not constitutionally qualified to be POTUS—”
This is what the constitution says:
Neither Obama or Rubio meet those qualifications, that’s why they are not eligible.
Why do you think it is not necessary for a person to meet those requirements to be president? If you think Article 2 in not important, how about the 2nd Amendment?
Talking about not answering questions, I asked this one:
“The constitution names three types of citizens, 1. citizens 2 natural born citizens 3 naturalized citizens. Care to define them? ” Would you tell me how you would define each of those?
@Redteam: They both meet all of those requirements.Are you stuck on the definition of a natural born citizen since you continually refuse to give me your definition?
I believe a natural born citizen is one who is entitled to citizenship by birth or at birth by being born in the U.S. and under it’s jurisdiction. Definition of citizen and naturalized citizen quite obvious.
Now I ask for the Third time to Specifically tell us why you and your sidekicks like my wacky fellow Californian Orly Taitz (the lawyer who is making a career of gettin his case thrown out of court) believe BHO and Rubio not qualified? Thanks