Mr. Obama's Speech = Stack Market Drop?

Read Rogers response, I think he said it better than anyone I've ever seen...

 

Yea, Reagan was a good speaker, but not nearly as good as President Obama. But, the main difference is that Reagan, as a republican, shafted the working man to enrich the well to do. Now, with President Obama, there is hope that our country will again be great!

 

Is that difference because you think he'll shaft the "well to do" to enrich the "working man"? Exactly who are the "well to do" and the "working man"? Does the "working man" mean the "poor man" or someone who works hard or smart or both for what they earn and does well? What exactly are the delinations and what purpose do they serve? What makes one better than the other or one entitled to the fair earnings of the other? Is it wrong to work hard, earn your pay, and become better off? Is that not an admirable quality? Don't we tell our children to get a good education, work hard, have a positive attitude, save for the future, and do better than us? Or do we instead teach them to grow up being wards of the state entitled to handouts from the taxation of those who do better? Is being rich in itself evil? Is a poor man's greed and envy just as evil as a rich man's greed an envy? How will our country be any greater by such wealth redistribution rooted in greed and envy? Obama's talk fits right in with Wright's "rich white men" talk.

 

I don't think that President Reagan did so malevolently. I think he just didn't understand the bad effects of his policies.

I think that the just completed Bush administration did know that they were putting into place policies that resulted in a huge transfer of wealth from the middle- and working classes to the wealthy.

 

Ridiculous. Thank God we finally have a real leader in the White House. That figure head Bush was destroying America.

 

And you got a socialist!:smilewinkgrin: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Two lies in one post. You are holding up well df!

 

Yes. I have serious doubts that the United States would have survived 4 more years of George W. Bush as president.

 

Dragonfly is one up on you JC, at least on this thread.

 

To be precise, the working man is anyone who makes less than $250,000/year.

 

So then, it has nothing to do with work but, rather, with the amount of income because many who make less than this hardly work and many who make more work very hard. Who then becomes the judge of whether or not a man is a "working man" and whether or not he "deserves" to keep that which he's earned or to take that which is has not?

 

Many? As in most? If that is what you mean by many, then you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

"Many" means many as opposed to "few" which means few.

But, Ken, I think you missed the point.

 

What a load of baloney. Hateful leftist tripe. Shame on you. My wife and I work very hard for our money.

 

You must really dislike JustChristian.

Also, how hard you work has no bearing on the OP.

 

The "Obama effect" is being noted by analysts, pundits, etc. He speaks, and the public is not convinced, showing their disapproval in the market numbers.

 

And this would be different than any other POTUS how? They call is the most powerful job in the world for a reason don't ya think? It also works for the good too, just look at the other night after his speech it went up some 250 points... It ebbs and flows and both directions when he speaks.

Good or bad, it comes with the job I believe.

 

No, it didn't. His speech was Tuesday night after the markets had closed. Wednesday's market was down 80 points (on the Dow). It was Bernacke's speech that spiked the market up 250 points on Tuesday.

 

Sorry, you're right... but my point still stands, if people liked what he said, it would go up, if they didn't it would go down... That office has great power in their speech.

 

In Government, if it happens, it was meant to be.
Pay no attention to what they say but rather, what they do.