The left and its buddies in media will come up with anything. As long as it diverts any blame from this administration.

The problems with the stock market and its volitility is beyond Obama’s administration. That has been going on for a few years. The important point is that some regulation of the industry is necessary. Are the conservatives who dislike Obama in favor of that? If not. Why?

Chocolatemilk05 – your comment is beyond ridiculous, and its extremely obvious you have absolutely NO clue what you’re talking about. Please finish your prune juice and go take a nap.

European banks don’t want to lend to each other. Stop loss orders were executed and doom ensues.

@valkyrie101

Typical hope and changers. Let’s have the government control the fair value of securities!

Badr,
Oh, no, we have no problem with the fair value, it is the fair losses we do not like. We hope to limit those, and to create a (more) even playing field, by simple tinkering with an imperfect system, through regulation. If all the money in the system is ending up in the hands of just a few people, then the government must tax that income appropriately if it is to have the funds to perform its Constitutionally required duties. No libertarian can argue against that notion.

You are cynical about regulation, but even devoted libertarians must admit, and embrace, that the U.S. Constitution grants both explicit and implicit powers to the Federal government. By Constitution, therefore, the U.S. Federal government must maintain itself. Without tax revenue, the Federal government would need to engage in private enterprise to raise operating capital, which is commonly known, somewhat ironically, as “socialism”. There is no libertarian notion that suggests that the Federal government does not have important duties that must be paid for by taxes. For the libertarian, therefore, less regulation does not mean no regulation. And “less taxes” is another way of saying whatever taxes are necessary to pay for the Federal government’s performance of its Constitutionally required duties. And even for the libertarian, as he pledges to balance his budget, faced with deficits upon what the government must do by Constitutional mandate, taxes are the only way to raise operating capital.

There must be high taxes on those earning obscene salaries, not because they are obscene, but because that is where, by far, that the majority of income, which makes up our GNP, is based. Its nothing personal against rich people, but the highest tax brackets are for the billionaires. Why should that bother them, it is only fair.

(holding fingers in ears) LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP!!!!111 It’s all OBAMA’S fault!!!!!!!!11 LALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!!!!!111

What in the world are you talking about? Greece is literally on fire, the DOW has almost doubled since March 2009, there’s bound to be a big correction as there always have been.

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2010/05/06/there-had-to-be-a-second-trader-on-the-grassy-knoll-perhaps Here is some real analysis anyhow.

I actually saw that Barron’s recently had a cover on P+G trying to grow 10% or something over the next few years. It was kind of suspicious and low and behold today, it was one of today’s biggest temporary victims… Maybe someone in P+G knows something, but they couldn’t keep their secret thanks to all of the stop loss orders.

If you want to see a real crash wait until the US government runs out of money, just like Greece. Quite revealing to see how this situation has played out in Greece. The Leftists there kept on spending borrowed money until absolutely no one would lend them any more. And when they finally went broke, they started rioting because there was no more borrowed money to spend. If you think that the U.S. Left is any smarter in financial matters, you are kidding yourself. They will keep on spending until every last penny is gone — or until the voters step in to stop them.

You are right felixw, they are already crazy enough in Chicago, imagine the city once everyone loses their jobs.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/05/06/why-the-media-ignored-the-nashville-flood.aspx

Wall street blinks while Tennessee drowned. Mediaite hates country music.

Hey dumbbutts. We had a surplus under Clinton. Where were the useless trolls when Bush reversed it in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy, a war that didn’t need to fought, and a wall street bailout deemed necessary by both parties to save the economy?

Answer: Useless trolls were still being useless trolls.

So felix, Mr. Spendingless, specifically, what are you cutting?

Valkyrie, I think a trillion less on “stimulus” and a trillion less on Obamacare and a trillion less on pork would make a nice start.

Let me (once again) remind you of the difference in spending between when the Democrats control Congress and when the Republicans control Congress.

http://www.renewamerica.com/images/columns/bowyer030319.gif

As this chart shows, the Republicans run a surplus when they control the House budgeting process, while the entire U.S. debt can be attributed to periods when the Democrats have controlled the House budgeting process. Go ahead and gripe, Lefties, but those are the actual numbers.

As a matter of philosophy, the liberal theory does not condemn some deficit spending. Do you buy a car or house in full? Even pretty stable financial people would not. Growth requires stimulous, and the progressive theory is that growth is powered to some degree by government spending which is viewed as an investment.

valkyrie101?

By what divine right does the government have the power to take money from Ralph Smith so they can give it to Irving Baker?

And, do you realize that a teacher’s salary in NJ is obscenely high compared to what someone planting rice in Cambodia earns? Whose definition of “earned too much” do we use?

Rich,
Its simple. There is a finite amount of income. Most of it, 90%, is earned by 10% of the people. Obviously, the government’s share, what it needs in order to pay the bills incurred by fullfilling its Constitutionally required duties, must therefore be paid primarily as taxes by the wage earners who earn most of the money. Not to worry, no one will be caused to be poor, just less wealthy.

The problem, valkyrie, really starts when those receiving more from the government then they pay in outnumber those who are doing the paying. There are too many people like you who never consider the consequences of that. When producers are punished for producing, they stop producing. Do you understand that?

Also, you keep talking about government Constitutionally required duties. Where do stimulus monies and corporate bail outs fit into that. What part of the Constitution requires that? What part of the Constitution requires, or even allows, the government to take money from one person and give it to another?

By the way, you forget to answer my question about whose definition of “earned too much” do we use.

Yup, just like in Cuba, North Korea, Russia, or Greece.

Rich,
So when a billionaire loses half a billion dollars a year in taxes he will no longer be motivated to make his billion dollars? No profit in that? Well we know he will be motivated to not pay taxes, that’s for sure. Perhaps he will just move his corporation to Antigua to avoid taxes, or move his inocme entirely outside the U.S.

Imagine an economic system with 100 participants. Everyone works hard, but one guy earns 99% of the income. Does that sound healthy to you? You will want to keep that productive system in place because at least one person is happy and satisfied? Perhaps that person should get a crown, too.

Rich,

Here is the First legal document referencing the intention of at least some of our forefathers. The Mayflower Compact,

“In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.”

“…as shall be thought most…” is another way of saying by majority rule, or democracy (under God, to be sure). And to what ends? For the general good of the colony [or nation].

It was not Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington or any of those fellows that toasted America with Democracy. It was the Pilgrims. And they had no intention of creating a culture where a handful of people owned everything.

If you think it was a “typo”, you probably also believe that Obummer truly wanted “change” and “transparency”.

It was DELIBERATE! The “short sellers” manipulated the market on purpose after they “shorted” it. Look who made a lot of money and see who their “friends” are and you’ll see the evidence. (though I tend to not believe the SEC really cares to do a real job any more).

No, I think they will look real close. Too much attention. The scammers are probably trying to sell their ill gotten gains short right now, hoping to slip away, eek out a margin. :-)

When they are gambling – with YOUR – money..??.. Whose to care..??
I hope that this’ll “SINK the Ship!”..!!

Valkyrie, you are kidding yourself if you think that that it’s smart for the US to fund its entitlements by borrowing more money each year from China. There are several ways for that story to end, all of them unhappy.

OK, then what triggered the drop over the previous 3 days?

felix,
It was not the government that sold our country to China, it was the corporations. And the corporations made lots of money doing that. Now, the government must collect its share from the corporations. And that is how you fund it.

Valkyrie, the US government has borrowed around two trillion dollars from China, and need to borrow more each year to fund entitlements. US corporations have borrowed nothing from China. China can’t collect anything from corporate America, but the US government’s borrowings are so large that they may never be able to pay off the debt.

2 trillion? Less than the cost of the wars our nation has been prosecuting on behalf of the world. Face it, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it was not funding the “entitlements” (whatever those are) that is the problem, it is war. And conservatives oh so much like that big military budget, and that tough neo-Con talk. Then, after we are at war, they say, snidely, look at those big deficits.