Where's VandalBasher now?

[Don]

416 point drop in the DOW!

[Bucky]

Do you have any clue what that means??

Did you know the Dow averages a 3% drop twice a year?

Did you know it had been 4 years since the last 3% drop?




While most of you liberals are celebrating a decline in the American market, the smart investors see a 3% one day drop as a great opportunity to buy.
Those people don't get their news from the mainstream press.

[Hail to the Victors Valiant]

Where are you investing now. I've been a CD guy for the last few years, and while I may have missed out on some good buys, I do have guaranteed 5%earnings. If I were investing since 1999, I'd be leaning toward the energy and defense stocks. Instead, I decided to live a debt-free life with my business and personal expenses paid in advance by 3 to 6 months. For now, I'm satisfied with this position, but things could change as I'm earning slightly more money every year.

[Bucky]

Where are you investing now. I've been a CD guy for the last few years, and while I may have missed out on some good buys, I do have guaranteed 5%earnings. If I were investing since 1999, I'd be leaning toward the energy and defense stocks. Instead, I decided to live a debt-free life with my business and personal expenses paid in advance by 3 to 6 months. For now, I'm satisfied with this position, but things could change as I'm earning slightly more money every year.

You have missed out on a great Bull run since 2003. Stocks have been crushing it for 4 years. Lately, CD's have become attractive because of increasing interest rates. Short term rates are yielding higher than long term rates(inverted yield curve), which is a rare occurence, hence 3month-5 year CD yields are high. Most experts think the Fed will begin cutting the Fed Funds Rate sometime this year, possibly as soon as June. Once that happens, along with a few macro events, CD yields will drop back to "normal", so you might want to look into other options, long term. The markets are going to be extremely volitale this year, but the consensus is still a 6-10% gain in equities. If you do move into stocks, be prepared to take some quick losses along with your gains.

Of course, even though this might be the "consensus" it could completely wrong. The martkets might take it on the chin and recession could become the hottest buzz word. But most feel this is the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end of this Bull run.

[Bucky]

Strange. It's the mainstream press that's been reporting that this appears to be a routine correction, even though it's a bit unusual to have it appear after such a long gap and so suddenly. The mainstream press reported that the 3pm plunge was almost certainly due to a "glitch" when the computers were switched over. And the mainstream press reported that most experts believe this will result in a good buying opportunity in the coming weeks.

It seems that "smart investors" might as well get their news from the mainstream press.

BTW, I'm an investor. I'm pretty damn smart. I get my news from CNN and NPR, although "news" of any kind doesn't really guide my investment decisions. Research does.


What brokerage house do you work for?

You are only kidding yourself if you think the mainstream press doesn't dwell on negative news. Forget about the economy, all that is peddled to the public is negativity.

Tell me the last time that a great day in the markets made the headlines of the NY Times, USA Today, Washington Post, or any other mainstream publication. The media, especially with who is in the White House, will never fully acknowledge how great the economy has been after 9/11. Especially considering what happened before this great run. (recession 2000-2001 and terrorists attacks in 9/01).


By the way, what was so unusual about Tuesday's market drop(not correction, a correction is 10%)? On average a 3% drop occurs every 5 months. It had been 46 months since the previous 3% drop. To say this one decline was ordinary and overdue is the understatement of the week.

[Bucky]

I don't work for a brokerage house. I'm a lawyer. I litigate. I own stocks. And of course the media focus on the negative, because the negative sells (and therefore makes money for the businesses that the media are). But in this case, there wasn't a lot of "doomsday" forecasting because of the market drop. I was just calling you out on making things up (again) to support your thesis that the mainstream media has some agenda other than to make money.

What did I make up??

For the first time in YEARS, the market was the lead story in the mainstream press. It was also the first time in YEARS, that the market had declined by 3%. You can be the first to alert me when a great day on the market is lead story on any of the major evening newscasts

You claim the event on Tuesday was "unusual". Well the only thing that was "unusual" about it was that it took so long to happen. It was a record run, and most economists still have a very positive outlook on equities.

You are a lawyer, I don't doubt that you are a very successful lawyer. What is your opinion of the economy the past 5 years?

[ZOOMBAG]

The market has been on a bull run for 25 years or more. A few glitches like 9/11, an occasional recession, but overall, the DOW was in th 700's during the deep recession in Ronald Reagan's first year in the White House. Since then, the market has been on an almost unbroken bull run save a two year dip around 9/11 and the .com bust (mostly a NASDAQ event, not a broad event). I remember when the DOW hist 2000 for the first time, then 5000, then 10000. I thought we'd be 15,000+ by now, but we'll get there.

I have NEVER invested in annuities or bonds and probably never will. I will always be a 100% stock man....

[Bucky]

The market has been on a bull run for 25 years or more. A few glitches like 9/11, an occasional recession, but overall, the DOW was in th 700's during the deep recession in Ronald Reagan's first year in the White House. Since then, the market has been on an almost unbroken bull run save a two year dip around 9/11 and the .com bust (mostly a NASDAQ event, not a broad event). I remember when the DOW hist 2000 for the first time, then 5000, then 10000. I thought we'd be 15,000+ by now, but we'll get there.

I have NEVER invested in annuities or bonds and probably never will. I will always be a 100% stock man....

The 9/11 bear market was more than just a Nasdaq event. The DJIA finally recovered from it's losses a few months ago. But I agree that you could call the market on a permanent bull run since the federal reserve finally figured out what they were doing after 12-15% interest rates in the early 80's. A lot of current models are showing a good chance of a recession in in the next 12 months. Every inverted yield curve since the 1960's has been followed by a recession.

[VandalBasher]

And I am still proud to be an American, even when we hit a bump. Oh, by the way, this drop in the market is STILL better than anything from the 90's.

Go USA

[Don]

And I am still proud to be an American, even when we hit a bump. Oh, by the way, this drop in the market is STILL better than anything from the 90's.

Go USA

Would you care to back it up with anything factual?

How about the DOW (since you brought it up originally)?

Under Clinton, from the close on Jan 19, 1993 to the close on Jan 19, 2001 the DOW went from 3,255.99 to 10,587.59 in 2,121 trading days. That works out to an increase of 0.05836% per trading day over the 8 years in office.

Under Wonderboy, from the close on Jan 19, 2001 to the close on Feb 28, 2007 the DOW has moved from 10,587.59 to 12,268.63 in 1,533 trading days or 0.0009613% per day.

To put that in prospective, IF the DOW had performed as well under Dubya the 2000's as well as it did under Clinton the DOW would NOW be at 25,897.26 or 13,286.63 HIGHER than it currently is.

PS, just for comparison, the DOW went from 970.99 on Jan 19,1981 to 2,239.11 on Jan 19,1989 under Reagan. That works out to 0.00037041% per trading day. IF the DOW had performed as well under Reagan as it did under Clinton the the DOW would have been at 3,162.93 when RR left office. OR if the DOW had performed as well under Clinton as it did under RR the DOW would have been at only 7,499.04 when Clinton left office instead of at 10,587.59.

Care to look at Nasdaq? How about GDP adjusted for inflation? Federal Deficit?

You guys hate Clinton so much that you can't look at things objectively.

[Bucky]

I assume that your position is that the President of the United States is fully responsible for the movement of the financial markets around the world. There isn't a credible economist or investment strategist who believes this...

So if Clinton was fully responsible for the .com boom of the late 90's, how responsible is he for the .com bust from early 2001-2002?? Did something magical happen the day he left office?? Did the incredibly overvalued market crash because George Bush was now President?

Enlight us, what is it that Bill Clinton did during his Presidency that caused the .com boom?

What did George W. Bush do during his first few days in office that brought the .com bust?

I'm very interested to finally find out!

[UGA]

Would you care to back it up with anything factual?

How about the DOW (since you brought it up originally)?

Under Clinton, from the close on Jan 19, 1993 to the close on Jan 19, 2001 the DOW went from 3,255.99 to 10,587.59 in 2,121 trading days. That works out to an increase of 0.05836% per trading day over the 8 years in office.

Under Wonderboy, from the close on Jan 19, 2001 to the close on Feb 28, 2007 the DOW has moved from 10,587.59 to 12,268.63 in 1,533 trading days or 0.0009613% per day.

To put that in prospective, IF the DOW had performed as well under Dubya the 2000's as well as it did under Clinton the DOW would NOW be at 25,897.26 or 13,286.63 HIGHER than it currently is.

PS, just for comparison, the DOW went from 970.99 on Jan 19,1981 to 2,239.11 on Jan 19,1989 under Reagan. That works out to 0.00037041% per trading day. IF the DOW had performed as well under Reagan as it did under Clinton the the DOW would have been at 3,162.93 when RR left office. OR if the DOW had performed as well under Clinton as it did under RR the DOW would have been at only 7,499.04 when Clinton left office instead of at 10,587.59.

Care to look at Nasdaq? How about GDP adjusted for inflation? Federal Deficit?

You guys hate Clinton so much that you can't look at things objectively.

You have to throw in a 9/11 factor on Clinton/Bush's DOW numbers. I can assure you if 9/11 happened under Clinton's watch. The DOW will be different.

[VandalBasher]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17534336/




Don,

To Don: Go pound sand!!

I have never directed anything at you. I have only posted articles of GOOD NEWS on this website. This site can be very negative about our country. But I do see now that we definately have people in this country that look forward to us (and US) failing just so they can speak. Otherwise you wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Oh, if you don't know where to pound that sand, I'll send you a link.




Go USA

[Don]

Dude, I will remind you that YOU brought up the topic and brought up the relative economic position compared to the 90's.


And I am still proud to be an American, even when we hit a bump. Oh, by the way, this drop in the market is STILL better than anything from the 90's.

Go USA

I am NOT anti-American and do feel that the economy is coming along. I don't believe that it is in as good shape as it was in the 90's and stated some factual evidence to back it up. Now if you can't handle that then you need to pull your head out of the spot that you suggested I pound sand!

I grew up around the military. My father was in the army for over 30 years and served in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. My mother was an army nurse during WWII. Until my senior year in high school all I knew was life on military bases. Saying negative things about Bush is NOT being anti-American and is NOT being anti-soldier or anti-military.

[Don]

You have to throw in a 9/11 factor on Clinton/Bush's DOW numbers. I can assure you if 9/11 happened under Clinton's watch. The DOW will be different.

9/11 be damned!!!

The DOW was at 10,587.59 on Jan 19,2001 when Bush took office. It was down to 9,605.51 on 9/10/01 (the day before it happened). It fell to 8,920.70 on 9/17/01 (the day the markets re-opened). By 11/13/01 the markets had recovered at stood at 9,750.01. Starting at this point and going to the 2/28/07 that I used before. the DOW is up 2,517.68 points in 1330 trading days. That works out to 0.0172707 % per day compared to the 0.0583637 % per day during Clinton's 8 years in office.

Here are other breakdowns:

From Jan 18, 2002 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.0177089 % per day for 1285 trading days.

From Jan 17, 2003 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.0345153 % per day for 1034 trading days.

From Jan 16, 2004 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.0186663 % per day for 783 trading days.

From Jan 19, 2005 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.028659 % per day for 530 trading days.

From Jan 19, 2006 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.0431943 % per day for 278 trading days.

Compare these to the 0.0583637 % per day for 2021 trading days during Clinton's 8 years in office.

Now, as you can see there is NO TIME PERIOD that exists is which the DOW has performed as well as the DOW did during the Clinton term for 8 straight years. Those WERE amazing days!

[Don]

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

When Clinton took office on Jan 20, 2003 the DOW was at 3255.99 (the close on Jan 19,2003). After just 3 years in office on Jan 19, 1996 the DOW was at 5184.68. That works out to 0.0613115 % per day for 759 trading days. That's even higher than for his entire 8 years!. Including the ".com" years LOWERS the average!!

[Bucky]

9/11 be damned!!!

The DOW was at 10,587.59 on Jan 19,2001 when Bush took office. It was down to 9,605.51 on 9/10/01 (the day before it happened). It fell to 8,920.70 on 9/17/01 (the day the markets re-opened). By 11/13/01 the markets had recovered at stood at 9,750.01. Starting at this point and going to the 2/28/07 that I used before. the DOW is up 2,517.68 points in 1330 trading days. That works out to 0.0172707 % per day compared to the 0.0583637 % per day during Clinton's 8 years in office.

Here are other breakdowns:

From Jan 18, 2002 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.0177089 % per day for 1285 trading days.

From Jan 17, 2003 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.0345153 % per day for 1034 trading days.

From Jan 16, 2004 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.0186663 % per day for 783 trading days.

From Jan 19, 2005 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.028659 % per day for 530 trading days.

From Jan 19, 2006 to Feb,28, 2007 : 0.0431943 % per day for 278 trading days.

Compare these to the 0.0583637 % per day for 2021 trading days during Clinton's 8 years in office.

Now, as you can see there is NO TIME PERIOD that exists is which the DOW has performed as well as the DOW did during the Clinton term for 8 straight years. Those WERE amazing days!


You actually took the time to look up these statistics?

I fell sorry that you can be so ignorant about what moves the financial markets. And how can you lack enough common sense to realize that an incoming President has nothing to do with how the financial markets act during the first few days of their administration.

[Don]

You actually took the time to look up these statistics?

I fell sorry that you can be so ignorant about what moves the financial markets. And how can you lack enough common sense to realize that an incoming President has nothing to do with how the financial markets act during the first few days of their administration.


A) I didn't look up the statistics. I don't rely on sites to do my analysis for me. I calculated them myself. With the click of a button I down loaded into an eXcel spread sheet every daily closing DOW average since Oct, 1928. Then, with the use of logs and exponentials can I calculate the average daily DOW increase over any time span I wish. Which I did.

B) Why do you not respond with ANYTHING factual, just a lot of general BS. SHOW ME SOME NUMBERS!!!!!

C) I gave you the average over an EIGHT year span. You came back with talk of the .com garbage so I shortened the time span to the beginning of the eight years span and you still have objections to it.

D) You want to attribute any good economic news today as evidence that Bush's handling of the economy is great but you NEVER want to give Clinton ANY credit for his handling of the economy when it OUT-PERFORMED for 8 straight years the economy under Bush for ANY two year span you care to pick.

E) IF you would actually compare the economy (GDP, DOW, Deficit, etc.) under the past 10 presidents (50+ years) the would find that it has on average performed BETTER under the Dems than it has under the Reps. You are going to have to look it up yourself as it WON'T be on one of "your" sites.

[ZOOMBAG]

Would you care to back it up with anything factual?

How about the DOW (since you brought it up originally)?

Under Clinton, from the close on Jan 19, 1993 to the close on Jan 19, 2001 the DOW went from 3,255.99 to 10,587.59 in 2,121 trading days. That works out to an increase of 0.05836% per trading day over the 8 years in office.

Under Wonderboy, from the close on Jan 19, 2001 to the close on Feb 28, 2007 the DOW has moved from 10,587.59 to 12,268.63 in 1,533 trading days or 0.0009613% per day.

To put that in prospective, IF the DOW had performed as well under Dubya the 2000's as well as it did under Clinton the DOW would NOW be at 25,897.26 or 13,286.63 HIGHER than it currently is.

PS, just for comparison, the DOW went from 970.99 on Jan 19,1981 to 2,239.11 on Jan 19,1989 under Reagan. That works out to 0.00037041% per trading day. IF the DOW had performed as well under Reagan as it did under Clinton the the DOW would have been at 3,162.93 when RR left office. OR if the DOW had performed as well under Clinton as it did under RR the DOW would have been at only 7,499.04 when Clinton left office instead of at 10,587.59.

Care to look at Nasdaq? How about GDP adjusted for inflation? Federal Deficit?

You guys hate Clinton so much that you can't look at things objectively.

Nah, the Market has always done well when one party controls Congress and the other the White House. The main reason is Washington politicians cannot get anything done with party splits like that so they end up just leaving us all alone. That's what Clinton did best....he pretty much left the economy and Wall St. alone. Our economy and equity markets do best when politicians of any ilk just leave them alone....and stay away from tax increases. We have the best thing of all worlds for Wall St. lovers now, a split power base in Washington. Bush will veto any economic measure the congress puts forth and congress will ignore anything the President wants. And that's a GOOD thing for all!!!

Now if we can get that senile idiot Greenspan to keep his mouth shut (or get people to stop listening to the old fool) and get the Fed to drop rates back to 2004/5 levels....we'd see a 15,000+ DOW and housing back in gear....and I could retire...

[ZOOMBAG]

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

When Clinton took office on Jan 20, 2003 the DOW was at 3255.99 (the close on Jan 19,2003). After just 3 years in office on Jan 19, 1996 the DOW was at 5184.68. That works out to 0.0613115 % per day for 759 trading days. That's even higher than for his entire 8 years!. Including the ".com" years LOWERS the average!!

Idiot, that had Nothing to do with anything Clinton did or didn't do. The only things that affect the economy that come out of Washington are income tax policy and the Federal Reserve's interest rate policy. The President can have a say in the former, but only if Congress follows his will, which Congress never did under Clinton. Taxes were REDUCED because the Republican Congress starting in 1994 force tax cuts down Clinton's throat much as they did Welfare Reform and the Fed started lowering interest rates. The .com boom had nothing to do with Washington fiscal policies. IT was beast of it's own creation....as most things economic are.

Two things move the market and help the economy that stem from government. Low interest rates and low taxes. That is why Europe continues to be in an an unbroken 20+ year RECESSION they have never gotten out of. The combination of ridiculous tax rates and high interest rates always stifles economies. And no chief executive has any control over either.

[ZOOMBAG]

A) I didn't look up the statistics. I don't rely on sites to do my analysis for me. I calculated them myself. With the click of a button I down loaded into an eXcel spread sheet every daily closing DOW average since Oct, 1928. Then, with the use of logs and exponentials can I calculate the average daily DOW increase over any time span I wish. Which I did.

B) Why do you not respond with ANYTHING factual, just a lot of general BS. SHOW ME SOME NUMBERS!!!!!

C) I gave you the average over an EIGHT year span. You came back with talk of the .com garbage so I shortened the time span to the beginning of the eight years span and you still have objections to it.

D) You want to attribute any good economic news today as evidence that Bush's handling of the economy is great but you NEVER want to give Clinton ANY credit for his handling of the economy when it OUT-PERFORMED for 8 straight years the economy under Bush for ANY two year span you care to pick.

E) IF you would actually compare the economy (GDP, DOW, Deficit, etc.) under the past 10 presidents (50+ years) the would find that it has on average performed BETTER under the Dems than it has under the Reps. You are going to have to look it up yourself as it WON'T be on one of "your" sites.

Your error, of course, is giving credit or blame to President. Presidents do not control fiscal policy, Congress does in one way, predominantly...tax law. The Republican party rammed a lot of things down Clinton's throat in his last six years. Bush can be blamed or given credit a bit more because he had a friendly Congress.

The other big impact on the markets are interest rates. But the Federal Reserve is pretty independent of Congress and the President, even if the President appoints the chairman and Congress confirms the choice. After that they tend to go their own way.

Aside from the that, the economy and markets run themselves.

[Bucky]

Now if we can get that senile idiot Greenspan to keep his mouth shut (or get people to stop listening to the old fool) and get the Fed to drop rates back to 2004/5 levels....we'd see a 15,000+ DOW and housing back in gear....and I could retire...

If interest rates were around 1-2%, you would be seeing the worst inflation since the 1970's.

Alan Greenspan is considered by many to be the greatest Fed Chariman ever...he certainly has a record to be proud of and is casting a gigantic shadow over Bernake.

[Scarlet Hayes]

D) You want to attribute any good economic news today as evidence that Bush's handling of the economy is great but you NEVER want to give Clinton ANY credit for his handling of the economy when it OUT-PERFORMED for 8 straight years the economy under Bush for ANY two year span you care to pick.


Clinton gets his due all the time. That said, he didn't have to deal with a terrorist attack that wiped out the WTC, a hurricane disaster in the SE, or a long protracted war overseas. Considering that backdrop, the Bush economy is performing at a staggering rate.

Beyond the economy, you can take both of those one-world socialists and give em a nice send off. Our nation's recent economic success can be attributed mainly to one president (if you insist on giving credit to a president) - Reagan. The rest of these clowns have been nothing but posers on so many levels.

[ZOOMBAG]

Clinton gets his due all the time. That said, he didn't have to deal with a terrorist attack that wiped out the WTC, a hurricane disaster in the SE, or a long protracted war overseas. Considering that backdrop, the Bush economy is performing at a staggering rate.

Beyond the economy, you can take both of those one-world socialists and give em a nice send off. Our nation's recent economic success can be attributed mainly to one president (if you insist on giving credit to a president) - Reagan. The rest of these clowns have been nothing but posers on so many levels.


Ronald Reagan's greatest gift to the modern American Economy, that has separated us from much of the rest of the world, is Reagan affirmed Business' right to FIRE people at will. The hard core smashing of the Air Traffic Controller's union pretty much set the tone for the future. When business is free to contract the labor force at will, they are far more likely to EXPAND it at will....and the will EXPAND a LOT more than they will contract over time. That is why we sit at virtually FULL employment and Socialist Europe continues to wallow in double digit unemployment and slow or non-existent economic growth.

[Bucky]

A) I didn't look up the statistics. I don't rely on sites to do my analysis for me. I calculated them myself. With the click of a button I down loaded into an eXcel spread sheet every daily closing DOW average since Oct, 1928. Then, with the use of logs and exponentials can I calculate the average daily DOW increase over any time span I wish. Which I did.

B) Why do you not respond with ANYTHING factual, just a lot of general BS. SHOW ME SOME NUMBERS!!!!!

C) I gave you the average over an EIGHT year span. You came back with talk of the .com garbage so I shortened the time span to the beginning of the eight years span and you still have objections to it.

D) You want to attribute any good economic news today as evidence that Bush's handling of the economy is great but you NEVER want to give Clinton ANY credit for his handling of the economy when it OUT-PERFORMED for 8 straight years the economy under Bush for ANY two year span you care to pick.

E) IF you would actually compare the economy (GDP, DOW, Deficit, etc.) under the past 10 presidents (50+ years) the would find that it has on average performed BETTER under the Dems than it has under the Reps. You are going to have to look it up yourself as it WON'T be on one of "your" sites.



You just are not making any sense. Perhaps a simple Macroeconomics 101 could help you out.

I am not going to get too deep into economic theory, but let's keep it simple. No credible economist would argue that the President of the United States has much influence on how the "markets" perform. Again, are you realy dense enough to believe that Bill Clinton is somehow fully responsible for the .com boom of the late 90's, and has no responsibility for the recession which started a few weeks after he left office??


For the record, but Bush and Clinton had minimal impact on the "market". Clinton's greatest accomplishment was reducing the federal deficit, which was squandered by poor spending and the needed reaction to 9/11. Bush's accomplishment is lowering the taxs for ALL American's which helped jump-kicked the economy out of the 2001 recession.

You had to dig deep, but it was announced today that the Federal deficit was reduced by 25% in January. Federal tax receipts are at all time highs, thank you Mr. Laffer.

[ZOOMBAG]

If interest rates were around 1-2%, you would be seeing the worst inflation since the 1970's.

Alan Greenspan is considered by many to be the greatest Fed Chariman ever...he certainly has a record to be proud of and is casting a gigantic shadow over Bernake.


Greenspan is and was an idiot. The most overrated Central Banker in history. The old fart can do us all a favor and pass on....

[Bucky]

Ronald Reagan's greatest gift to the modern American Economy, that has separated us from much of the rest of the world, is Reagan affirmed Business' right to FIRE people at will. The hard core smashing of the Air Traffic Controller's union pretty much set the tone for the future. When business is free to contract the labor force at will, they are far more likely to EXPAND it at will....and the will EXPAND a LOT more than they will contract over time. That is why we sit at virtually FULL employment and Socialist Europe continues to wallow in double digit unemployment and slow or non-existent economic growth.



Couldn't have been said any better.

I wish the quasi-socialists in the media would pack up and move to France. With 10-12% unemployment and their wonderful health care system they would have plenty of "bad" news to write about!

[ZOOMBAG]

Couldn't have been said any better.

I wish the quasi-socialists in the media would pack up and move to France. With 10-12% unemployment and their wonderful health care system they would have plenty of "bad" news to write about!


Liberalism is the politics of guilt. Guilt is essentially weakness and a fundamentally USELESS emotion. I honestly have never felt guilty about anything I have ever done or said in my entire life. I wish sometimes I had made better choices but that's not guilt. Guilt makes people doubt themselves and creates an inability to be decisive. Our greatest leaders were people who DID SOMETHING....NOW. I used to work for a General who's primary edict to me was DO something, anything, even if it's wrong. I'll kick your butt if you are wrong, but I'll FIRE you if you can't decide on a course of action and ACT.

The politics of guilt have NO place in America. We should feel sorry for NOTHING we have ever done as a country. We do what we do because we are the greatest people the earth has ever seen. We do, because we are RIGHT...and we are ALWAYS right. If you think any other way you are not an American....at least not one I want breathing my air...

[Scarlet Hayes]

Zoom, I have no problem seeing people let go due to well documented short-comings. But to "fire at will" is a pretty extreme position. Taking that position to the extreme would have far-reaching consequences. For one, consumer confidence would likely diminish. Besides that, who wants to get fired by an annoying over achiever that was probably still a bed-wetter at 15? I'm not looking for employment where I can be let go on a whim. Boss' ole lady aint giving it up, some middle manager wants to make me a scapegoat, etc... effff that. Hire and fire RESPONSIBLY. Document that crap. Word to the wise - workers, you do it too!

[ZOOMBAG]

Zoom, I have no problem seeing people let go due to well documented short-comings. But to "fire at will" is a pretty extreme position. Taking that position to the extreme would have far-reaching consequences. For one, consumer confidence would likely diminish. Besides that, who wants to get fired by an annoying over achiever that was probably still a bed-wetter at 15? I'm not looking for employment where I can be let go on a whim. Boss' ole lady aint giving it up, some middle manager wants to make me a scapegoat, etc... effff that. Hire and fire RESPONSIBLY. Document that crap. Word to the wise - workers, you do it too!

I'm not talking about individual employment issues. We have laws to prevent wrongful termination. What I'm talking about is the ability of a business to shut down a plant or close a series of stores or liquidate entire divisions, or consolidate at any time they feel they need to for the health of the company. Companies are FAR more likely to open new plants, expand divisions, open new stores, because the know, in rough times, they can close them down without any consequence or government interference. And that is the history of our modern economy and we continue almost unbroken growth and full employment.

[Scarlet Hayes]

Wasn't the Air Traffic controllers situation based on a contract dispute? Man, I was only about 13 or 14 at the time (circa 1981) so I'm not up on the details. I do remember that Reagan fired em all. Now that was decisive.

As far as companies reshuffling, I'm pretty much with you. But I'm not a fan of 'em leaving the US and then having the audacity to try to sell their crap back here (this is a wide reaching topic that really can't be sufficiently addressed on a message board). There, of course, is a solution to that problem - make America once again business friendly, not business hostile.

Seeing Halliburton leave the US for the UAE turns my stomach on so many levels.

[ZOOMBAG]

Wasn't the Air Traffic controllers situation based on a contract dispute? Man, I was only about 13 or 14 at the time (circa 1981) so I'm not up on the details. I do remember that Reagan fired em all. Now that was decisive.

As far as companies reshuffling, I'm pretty much with you. But I'm not a fan of 'em leaving the US and then having the audacity to try to sell their crap back here (this is a wide reaching topic that really can't be sufficiently addressed on a message board). There, of course, is a solution to that problem - make America once again business friendly, not business hostile.

Seeing Halliburton leave the US for the UAE turns my stomach on so many levels.

Halliburton leaving is a prime example of a company escaping corporate income taxes, the biggest remaining evil in our tax code. We should have NO corporate income taxes in this country of any kind. We can get all the revenue we need by taxing the money people make by working for these companies and using consumption based taxing on individuals. But no, we tax the companies directly, tax what's left when they distribute it to stockholders , and tax the employees on what the company pays them. It's a socialist sham.

Until we remove ALL corporate income taxes companies like Halliburton will continue to leave the USA. I know I would if I were them.

[Scarlet Hayes]

When will politicians quit trying to tax us out of existence?

On the flip side, watching a defense contractor, known for soaking the bejeebers out of the American taxpayer, leave the US and take its jobs with it....ugggghhhh....it just makes ya sick.