Obama took office in November? Nobody tells me these things!!

Cute. Malkin has to come up with a phony timeframe, starting at election day, to make this claim. She further shows what an idiot she is by stating:

Now, imagine if President Bush had presided over a 2,000-point stock market tumble in the same time period -- during the first few months of his presidency.

Michelle and Kim think Obama took office on November 4th, and has been president for months.

You really are this stupid, aren't you? It can't possibly be an act.

Obama took office in November? Nobody tells me these things!!

Thanks for pointing out my mistype. I fixed it.

Thanks for pointing out my mistype. I fixed it.

You didn't mistype, you just copied Malkin's idiotic error. That's because you don't think, you regurgitate.

Thanks for pointing out my mistype. I fixed it.

Noted. If wizbang included email addresses for you guys, I woulda sent you a direct note instead of commenting.

You can't even read over your own 90-word post after you are called out on you regurgitation of mistakes:

Would they be if it had been a Republican who was presiding over such a staggering loss?

Obama presided over the loss in the stock market since November? Let's look at what he's really "presided" over:

January 20, 2009 - $7,949
February 17, 2009 (1:29 pm) - $7,571

Doesn't quite have the same impact, does it?

Nobody said Obama took office in November only that he won in November. Obama is now working on his first months in office. The point is that stock markets are generally speculative. Some may conclude that Obama getting elected hurt the stock markets market and if he was a Republican a great deal more of the MSM and liberals would be drawing that conclusion. It is hard to know with any decent amount of certainly how much influence a person getting elected has on a speculative market.
.

I recall when there was good economic news after the election, the MSM was telling us that was because of Obama's 'proposals' and his 'flawless transition'. His daily press conferences were deemed to be 'reassuring' and any jump in the Dow Jones was because of this 'reassurance'.

I think you made your point with your first comment, mantis.

But if you want to belabor the point then consider that the stock market is a reflection of forward looking decisions by millions of investors (that's not a novel concept).

That being the case, the RCP average shows obama breaking away

Lost the remainder of my sentence.

Obama broke away in early October, when the market was at this level.

In the stock market, prices over book are created value due to speculation. Created value is like created money and it tends to be inflationary to the economy. With the stock market's drop, that created money was pulled out of the economy, which makes money more valuable, and as we have seen, prices tend to drop. That makes room for the government to print an equivalent amount of money without causing inflation. They are just replacing the speculation losses of the stock market.

So who's really paying for the stimulus bill? It's people who have money and who would otherwise see the purchasing power of their money increase. It's a stealth tax on the rich, the retired, and anyone else who has savings or something left in their 401(k).

Libs react to the markets the way the react to the weather. Whatever is happening always proves their theory. Hot weather: global warming, cold weather: global climate change. Similarly...market is up: Obama is cool, market is down: Bush is to blame.

http://www.rightklik.net/

"Libs react to the markets the way they..."

When President Clinton was elected the first time, the market went up and a poor economy showed renewed signs of life. The MSM happily reported the good news as signs of optimism for the new President and his policies. Vice President Gore picked up on the good vibes and took credit for the good news. When conservatives reminded then Vice President-elect Gore that the new administration had not enacted one single new policy yet, he was unapologetic and proudly proclaimed that America had hope again. Of course, when Clinton announced new taxes and various economic indicators turned down (e.g. new orders for capital goods), the MSM virtually ignored those numbers.

Now, in all fairness, the stock market shows the confidence level for a select group of people about the economic climate as a whole. Only some of that economic climate is affected by public policy (at present). However, when we elect a new government, and Wall Street reacts with a huge stock price slide, it does mean that their confidence in our new Democratic overlords is pretty low.

But if you want to belabor the point then consider that the stock market is a reflection of forward looking decisions by millions of investors (that's not a novel concept).

True. So are you saying that the recession that started in 2007, the collapse of the housing bubble, the subsequent implosion of the banking sector, onset of deflation, sharp rise in unemployment, near collapse of the auto industry, etc., that all of that has not influenced the stock market, but rather the drop is a reflection of predictions of what President Obama would do when he took office?

And are you really saying that the big drop in early October 2008 was because Obama was pulling away in the polls, and not because of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, WaMu, and then almost AIG? Seriously? Please tell me you're not that stupid.

And are you really saying that the big drop in early October 2008 was because Obama was pulling away in the polls, and not because of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, WaMu, and then almost AIG? Seriously? Please tell me you're not that stupid.

I haven't said what caused the big drop in Oct 2008, but you did.

Are you saying it was the result of Lehman? Lehman didn't sneak up on anyone. Their insolvency was widely discussed all the way back to Bear Stearns in 2007 when they cratered some hedge funds. You think it was WaMu?....They were broke in 2007 and seeking a merger partner. Old news in October 2008. Same with AIG....their decline started when the MBS market blew up.

You ignore the fact that investors may have made decisions in October 2008 that have evrything to do with predicted fiscal policy and spending by the front runner...October 2008 is not the first time investors have been faced with that set of decision criteria.

Hw mn trllns f dllrs wr spnt slghtrng nncnt rqs nd mrcn sldrs?

h tht's rght, flks lv wrs. M bd.

The reaction of the leftists to the current state of the market is predicatable and I doubt any arguments are going to change their devout beliefs at this point.

However it will be tremendously amusing to read what Mantis has to say a year or two years from now.

RE: # 17 Some people understand that we were freeing innocent Iraqi's from slaughter, but ignorant people thought otherwise and voted for Obama.

But it is interesting to note that Obama and the rest of the Marxists spent more in the first couple weeks of power than the entire cost of the Iraq war.

Mantis, about this:

Michelle and Kim think Obama took office on November 4th, and has been president for months.

You really are this stupid, aren't you? It can't possibly be an act.

No, it's fairly obvious that Kim mistyped, and she's not stupid. She may be utterly wrong on nearly every issue, but that doesn't make her stupid. It just makes her somebody who disagrees with you. And it makes you a bit of an ass for insulting her.

(And probably makes me a bit of an ass, too, for ridiculing her, but I plead the smartass defense)

from the day Barack Obama won the election on November 4th to today, the Dow has dropped more than 2,000 points.

And over the same number of days prior to November 4, the Dow dropped 1977 points. Who "presided" over that drop?

Would they be if it had been a Republican who was presiding over such a staggering loss? I think we all know that answer to that.

Yes, we do. Because IT WAS.

This is classic Kim here. Is she doing it for the lolz?

It's really too bad President Obama couldn't figure out a way to jettison these two [Reid & Pelosi] who are poster children for everything that is wrong in Washington.

All stock markets are futures markets. The value of the stocks reflects the investor's belief in both dividends to earn as well as appreciated value anticipated from future growth. The big hits to the Dow came when Barack Hussein Obama beat out Hillary for the nomination, when he passed McCain, AND when he was coronated, AND when he signed the Generational Theft Act.

The Stock market has lost 50% of it's value because of Barack Hussein Obama and his policies. End of Story.

Well, how about

January 20, 2009 - 7,949
March 3, 2009 (12:28 pm) - 6,790

That is a slump of 1159 points in the 5 weeks since Obamessiah took over. The market slumps several times a day: right before Obama announces a policy and right after he reveals how idiotic, vapid and counterproductive his just announced policy is!

If the Obama continues to knock off 200 points a week we will hit 5000 in less than 9 weeks!

Welcome to Obama's war on prosperity!

Anyone who wants to blame George Bush for the Iraq War needs to take a look at some facts. Like the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998.

Also, the economic slump we are now experiencing was the result of the Democrats in Congress not heeding Republican warnings over the previous 10 year period.

In 1998, then President William Jefferson Clinton attempted to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The Republican Congress that had impeached him stood with him on this policy issue. The democrats resisted.

In 2001 President George Bush warned of the impending expenses to the American Tax Payer if Fannie and Freddie were not regulated. The Senate, then under Democratic Party Control due to the defection of Senator Jeffords, refused to act.

In 2004, Frustrated by a lack of leadership in the Demcoratic Party to even address this issue. Senator Chuck Hagel (R NE) wrote legislation to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The Legislation was voted down by every Democrat in the committee. With Republican Majorities in place the legislation did make it to the floor but was the victim of Katrina in 2005 and a filibuster in 2006. As the primary focus of both the media and the country still remained on the Iraq war, and Louisiana.

In 2007 The Democratic Party took over Both Houses and offered no leadership on this position at all. Not only did they refuse to negotiate with Republicans on the issue, they offered no legislation of their own. In hearing after hearing, federal regulators were very demonstrative of the shady accounting practices of Freddie and Fannie. No democrat even offered any legislation of their own to address the issue. To add insult to injury, they blamed the regulators of engaging in Republican Party extremism.

The Democratic Party is a Party of Traitors, in my opinion. To not act even though you are warned is an error in judgment. But to not act when people are in dire need of some form of leadership to address fannie and freddie, is inexcusable.