But but but but but nevermind that stuff! OBAMA IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY GUN!!!!!!!! <sarcasm off>

_________________
Hugh Millen = CBJ minus the cool beard

The Dow is not an airtight indicator of anything. We'll need to see the size of the corresponding market correction before we make any judgments.

http://www.moneynews.com/Outbrain/billi ... ODE=FE8A-1

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

Honestly, right now the dow is scary high. It is likely due for a correction within the next year. I just hope it's not as much of a correction as it has been in the recent past.

Some said a correction was in order a year ago. It hasn't happened. Gold is going through a correction, finally. There's too many positive factors right now for a correction to be imminent.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I didn't say imminent, but I think there will be a rather strong correction by the end of the year. I hope it's not a serious downturn like we had a few years back, but I believe it will see a pretty strong correction before the end of the year. If I had controllable investments, I'd be careful where I put them. Personally, most my retirement money is not within my control, so I can only hope for the best.

It's important to diversify right now. If you don't have control of your investments I hope that whoever does have control isn't gambling on one investment/type.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Nah, the company I work for is a small family run company. They aren't big risk takers. We get reports each year telling us the status of the funds and where we each personally stand in it. It's only really had one year that had a poor yield, and that was the huge crash in 2008 (I think that was the year without looking it up). Otherwise, between monies contributed and investment growth, it grows at about 15 - 18% each year.

GDP dropped to 1.8 in the fourth quarter of 2012. Historical trends show that when the GDP drops below 2, we have a recession the following year (as if we ever left the last one).

I would agree that a recession is coming, but not like the one we experienced 07-09. I believe that things were so low in that time period that the fact that we avoided a depression was the "boom".

The recession that is coming either later this year or early next year won't be as significant and to the average person won't be much of anything.

As long as Obama and the administration don't freak out during this next one will mean that our next boom should be quite a bit better.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] It is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. (taken from Wikipedia)



Obama's socialism is working, but most Americans are finding it very difficult to either find a job, or pay their bills.

First of all Obama is not implementing any sort of socialism (I'm sure the OP knows that and was just using that word for fun). What I'd like to know is why anyone would think Obama's presidency has anything to do with any sort of recovery. We're still policing the middle east, passing stimulus', implementing federal programs/laws, increasing regulations, and maintaining the same tax structure. If you want to say that Obama's presidency is getting us out of this mess, then you have to admit that Bush's presidency didn't get us into this mess, because everything is more or less the same.

_________________

I read that article but I didn't see any clues as to why our country would be worse off if a republican were in charge. In fact it's funny you say that considering that the president we have right now is more like GWB than any other president we've ever had in the history of the United States.

Just because there are similarities between Presidents (I think Reagan was a lot like Jimmy Carter too) doesn't mean that they are the same. Both Presidents rampantly running up the deficit doesn't mean their policy is the same.

Obama has done far more in attempts to intervene and prevent a future crisis like we saw in 09 in the way of regulations. There may be policies leftover from the Bush presidency that continue today but that's like comparing NFL players by what color there eyes are.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

It wasn't Democrats who slashed taxes and started arguably frivolous and unnecessary wars on the credit card. It wasn't Democrats who refused to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, but rather pay full retail on everything.

Republican strategy since the 90s and Gingrich has been simply to purposely insure the failure of every aspect of government possible, in order to deregulate, and put everything in private hands for profit. It'd be much worse, and with no relief in sight, because letting any taxes go up would be so far off the table as to be unthinkable.

Regardless of the party line, Republicans always spend more irresponsibly than Democrats. It's uncanny how people keep believing them about spending when time and time again Republicans outspend Democrats in terms of vs. revenues.

_________________

So Obama prevented another crisis like the one we had in 09? Well I doubt that so far. In the future, who knows what will happen. But that's not what we are talking about. He linked an article that talked about a surplus (we're still spending way more than we're taking in)...a surplus that happened despite no tax hikes (other than the SS rollback). A surplus that happened because of an increase in revenue. Now i'm not saying that a republican would do better, but simply that I see no evidence that things would really be that much different at this point if a different party was in office. Obama has shown he likes to go to war like republicans and spend like republicans so far, so that's the main reason I have a hard time agreeing with his statement that we would be worse off under republican leadership.

Seahawker's back with his liberal drivel again.

His entire quote talks about how great it is that Obama is projected to have the smallest deficit year since well, since he took office. Why is he able to tout this while still spending over 800 billion dollars of monies we don't have? Well, because he's been spending at an unprecedented rate that added nearly 6 TRILLION dollars to the deficit since he took office. Now that his deficit numbers are getting back in line to Bush's (which were WAY too high to begin with), you see praise for Obama. This is the biggest load of whitewash I've seen in awhile on this board. Good Job Seahawker.

No, you guys just like to forget how wantonly your Republican presidents spend and then slash taxes. They spend by far more irresponsibly and you can find conservative sites to justify it, but fact is they have created the mess.

The fact is:



You guys remember Reagan as an entirely different guy than he actually was, so why it surprises me that you consistently characterize Obama incorrectly eludes me. Maybe because somehow it seems to me slightly easier to see how one can make a hero out of someone they either never lived during the time he was president, or something that was so long ago can be easy to think of more fondly than it deserves, or somewhat differently than it was.

_________________

Seahawker, that quote right there makes me very suspicious. Why, you ask? Because I'm a mindless Republican shill to your eyes? No; because inflation has absolutely nothing to do with percentages. A 10% increase in spending is 10% regardless of when it happened. The raw value changes for inflation, but percentages do not. That's part of the beauty of percentages; most of the time, they're useful for normalizing things. What was (as an example) a 10% raise 50 years ago is not mysteriously a 17% raise now, for instance. It really makes me question the whole thing.

That being said, it's also ignorant to look at the raw percentage of spending without taking the overall state of the economy into account. A 25% increase in spending during a very healthy and fast-growing economical climate in our country is more fiscally responsible and conservative than a 15% raise in a horrible flat-lined-or-dwindling economy.

You can only directly compare percentage of spending increases between presidents if the economies had the same rate of growth, or lack thereof, during their terms; and since that is never the case between presidents for obvious reasons, it's a moot discussion.

I mean, really, look at your personal finances. If you increase your personal spending by 10% and you are getting 15% raises at your job every year, that's cool. If you're increasing personal spending by 10% each year while getting 3% "standard of living" raises every year, you're going to start accruing debt and it's irresponsible; yet it's the same percentage in each case that you're increasing spending by.

Frankly, crediting Obama for this is asinine, all things considered. We're building up so much debt that we may not pay it off for decades; and the sad thing is, we could pay it off in very short order if we really wanted to, as a country.

Spending should rise and fall with the economy, in many (but not all) sectors of the government.