Elmer-DeWitt reports, “This one was a classic slingshot, described succinctly by Jason Schwarz in his seminal Apple: Seven Reasons Shorts Love It: ‘If you can keep a good stock down,’ he wrote, ‘then you are able to load up for the ride back up. It’s like a slingshot — the harder you pull, the more propulsion you generate.’
MacDailyNews Take: “[Hedge funds and other investors] target strong companies like Apple with lies and rumors. In fact, it works better with a strong company like Apple, because after being artificially sunk, it then bobs right back up and the shorts can have their way with it all over again.” – MacDailyNews Take, April 8, 2009
Elmer-DeWitt continues, “This slingshot was timed to bring Apple’s shares down in advance of the company’s first quarter earnings report on Monday. The action started at 9:12 a.m. Friday when theflyonthewall.com reported, without explanation, that Deutsche Bank had removed Apple from its short-term buy list — a report that was immediately picked up by the talking heads at CNBC, who mischaracterized it as a ‘downgrade'”
“What actually happened, as the folks at Deutsche surely knew but didn’t bother to report, was that Apple’s six months on their short-term list had expired that morning, triggering a computer instruction that removed it from the buy list automatically,” Elmer-DeWitt reports. “No matter. The boys were looking for a reason to take a whack at Apple, and this news fit the bill. They set the wheels in motion, and by the close of trading the stock had fallen 10.32 points (3.55%), shaving $9.3 billion off the company’s market cap.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “James W.” for the heads up.]
I have to say, no one should really comain about manipulation of AAPL. If you are a long term investor, short-term artificial manipulation by analysts and hedge fund managers have very little effect over the long-term and if you are a short-term trader, they offer you a position to get in cheaply. Traders can’t make money if the price doesn’t fluxuate.
It should still be against the law! Especially false stories that hurt the companies value.
@ freefromdesign
I believe this type of manipulation has gone out of control. It creates too much instability just so that some traders can make money by artificially moving the stock.
Same thing happened with the credit market and look what mess we are in now.
I am long term already with a bunch of Apple that is several years old. I had been planning to buy some more on Friday due to a feeling about the new product and the earnings report. When I called my broker he said the stock was down about 8. It went down another 2 while we were talking, so I had him place the order. I was worried there was a health story about Steve Jobs, that I had missed. I don’t even think that will slow down Apple in the long run but it would definitely bring the stock down. Anyway, I was glad to buy in trough, since the stock is at a high range now. I definitely am amused at the way the stock is manipulated by sleazy reporters and hedge funds. I think a day trader could make a living on just Apple.
In a sinking tide, all the boats go down. The entire market plunged after the Scott Brown election, as investors fear the gridlock to come from The Party Of No. Why is this an Apple story?
I told you so.
It’s not done yet either. Right after Apples event, expect the stock to tank in a massive sell off by hedge funds. Apple doesn’t share dividends with share holders, so stock price is the only way you can make money on the stock. Hedge funds are itching for a sell off.
Moral of the story: don’t marry a Stock. Even AAPL. Selling is half of the game.
Wall Street is very much disconnected from Main Street and there are still way too many people who believe instant gratification takes too long. These people, after all, are the ones that don’t recommend Apple when they report great quarters because they feel Apple has peaked. They are clueless. What they are overlooking is that the tablet will do for media what iTunes did for music. If I were Steve I would keep these vultures at bay they just don’t get it
Should drop more. More the merrier.
http://www.bing.com When it comes to decisions that matter, Bing & Decide
What do they mean by Deutsche? Deutsche Post? Deutsche Markenbutter? Oh! Deutsche Bank. Why didn’t Philip Elmer- say so? It would have made much more sense here in MacDaily.
The people on Wall St. will destroy anything to make one penny. Take jobs in this country and send them to some place where they pay 50 cents a week. Absolute 100 percent scumbags. Total and complete wastes of human organs.
I think the Scott Brown election – in normally liberal Massachussetts – is a sign that people are beginning to understand business is not evil, employers are not evil, and trashing everything in the private sector is not a very smart to increase employment. Hopefully the Cap and Trade idea is dead, which is the idea of punishing businesses that produce products. And then there is Tax Increase coming next year – letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Now Democrats are beginning to whisper that maybe increasing taxes when real unemployment is around 20% is maybe not a great idea.
So – thank you Scott Brown.
WTF? Take your head out of your …
Obviously the digit IQs are out and about.
This is a question not worth asking. Google dropped 32 points on Friday. The whole market was down, as it will always be whenever anything threatens to remove even a penny from the pockets of the greedy money monsters on Wall Street. Why is there air?
The Bush tax cuts were for billionaires only. Letting Bush’s gift to crooked cronies lapse is NOT raising taxes.
@neomonkey
As opposed the the Party of Your Wallet is Mine that wants to give the leeches of society everything you worked hard for. NO to that every day!
The Bush taxcuts were pretty exclusive -they only applied to working people who pay taxes. So a lot of Democrats don’t get them. Like for example Tim Geitner and Charlie Rangel. They don’t make enough to pay taxes.
Mr. Right you are wrong. The tax money goes directly to the rich, not the welfare queens. Republicans don’t understand what they are doing to themselves..
@Kent
Do you really believe what you’ve just said? How much do your tax bill go down under Bush?
@Hm
I don’t want censorship – unless it is foul stuff. MDN may be keeping up the neighborhood. But debate is good. I notice a lot of the liberal comments are not discussion, but strange name calling with no substance.
Investors are focusing their concerns on the Washington political controversy and concerns over weaker economic recovery. The broad-based, indiscriminate sell off also caused a retreat in AAPL.
We live in financially dangerous times. Politicians neither have the experience nor the remedy for a historical recession; and, there are also foreign (e.g. China) investment dynamics that may further alter market performance and investor behavior.
@ Original Shiva
I assume you know how to Google. Find what the Bush tax cuts were. They included rate table cuts to all the rates. That is sometimes referred to as an across the board rate cut. That would apply to everybody. You should not make political comments if you are too lazy to actually understand anything more complicated than “it’s all Bush’s fault”
“Why did Apple’s stock price drop 10.32 points on Friday?”
You ARE kidding… right? Gee you really DON’T know much about the market.
It’s called a COLLAPSE. Duh. The market’s going back down below where it was in March, as some of the world’s greatest investors (such as Paul Tudor Jones) have said quite plainly.
The entire market dropped 5% on Friday when Obama was talking about bank regulation.
“The entire market dropped 5% on Friday when Obama was talking about bank regulation.”
If someone had regulated the banks before, then maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now. Some of you fools are crazy sick with the notion that capitalism somehow can work in a vacuum of rules. It can’t. There have to be rules in place to prevent the kinds of things that happened at the end of 2008.
But don’t let the details of the story fool you. I mean they explained it very clearly in the article. Just go on and keep blaming Obama for every little thing.
I blame Obama
@ Macromancer
The banks have been under huge regulation over the last 30 years. In fact, the Congress specifically required the Banks to make high risk, subprime loans to non-qualified buyers through the Community Reinvestment Act. This act was given teeth in the 90s that penalized banks who did not have high percentages of sub prime loans. Then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were used to buy the bundled sub prime loans, thus creating a government guarantee. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were acting as government agents in this process. Government created the housing bubble by forcing bad loans and also keeping the interest rates at sub market level via the Federal Reserve. The entire crisis was created by the Government.
Thanks Kent.
Macromancer is just one of those who watches the government create a problem , then asks the government to solve the problem it created. The common sense of a crow bar.
It does not really matter for the long-term investor. If Apple keeps performing, the highs will get higher and the lows will get higher too. When it comes time to sell (even long-term investors should sell and take profit at some point), just pick one of the up swings. The only thing I’m worried about is a general downturn in the market, like what happened last year during the financial crisis.
I actually bought a bit more one Friday, but I acted too soon in the day, before AAPL dipped below $200. Oh, well. I’m hoping to see new highs next week.
Macromancer, my poor little retard:
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ‘‘If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
The New York Times, September 30, 1999:
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
I hate politics.
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of basic history can clearly see that the Clinton administration is to blame for sowing the seeds for not only the current economic malaise (creating the housing bubble by forcing lending to unqualified borrowers), but also for the events of 9/11 (blowing the chance to get Bin Laden when offered him on a silver platter, bombing the aspirin factory, etc.).
Those without a cursory understanding of basic history voted for Obama-Biden.
Don’t be surprised when, several years down the road, seeds of future tragedies are found to have been planted during the ignorance of the Obama administration.
Democrats aren’t equipped to be a modern U.S. President. They simply don’t have the backbone nor the stomach required to do the job right.
Welcome Back Carter, indeed.
Mister Historian,
George Walker Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush were president or vice-president for 20 of the past 29 years.
Jimmy Carter was President when the Community Reinvestment Act was passed into law. Bill Clinton was President when it was expanded and more enforcement provisions against Banks that did not create enough bad loans were added. When George W. Bush was President his treasury department warned in about 2004 about the risky behavior Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were engaging in and Barney Frank and Maxine Waters said there was no risk and it was racist to oppose the subprime loans. The Housing Bubble was caused by Democrats, though the Republicans could have fought harder against the insanity.
@Arnold Ziffel
“George Walker Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush were president or vice-president for 20 of the past 29 years.”
Yep and all the bad shit happened the other 9. And what does Bush being VP have to do with anything. The VP has no power to do anything anyhow. Clinton was Pres 8 of the last 17 and Obama 1 so that is 9 for DEMs and 8 for REPs. All those #s are BS. What makes 29 mean anything?
The damned recession was caused by people that shouldn’t be able to buy a house buying a house or buying too much house. Hell my wife and I bought a home in 02. Back then anyone could buy a house. We didn’t even have to get a credit check. They just asked us how much we made. We qualified for well over what we bought. We were smart and bought only what we needed and now we are able to keep our house and even double up on payments. Other people went crazy and got in way over their heads. People should be responsible for their decisions and if they bite off more than they can chew then they should f**kn’ choke on it.
Forget politics, I would love to hear some pissed off investor found the people that drove the stock into the ground and took them out. He was then caught but rewarded instead being thrown in jail.
“People should be responsible for their decisions and if they bite off more than they can chew then they should f**kn’ choke on it.” – CEOs and banks to?!
All of your drivel is so short sighted.
Bush… Clinton… GW Bush… Reagan… Carter…
idiots all of you!
Ever since the colonists kicked out the King and his good men, things have gone downhill.
Before the radicals, there was no worry about Fannie Mae.
No “too big to fail”
No worries about unstable car manufacturers.
No irrational national debt.
Blame the colonists, if your really being honest with yourselves.
All politics aside the author’s ‘slingshot’ rule is a dangerous concept.
Growth stocks tend to correct on average 72% when they finally start to tank and they often start their decent when their fundamentals look the best.
Now, I’m not saying this is Apple’s story. What I am saying is, do NOT buy on weakness. Your opinion about what a stock should do will not keep it from falling farther.
Obama is featured in a movie– exposing greedy hedge funds and market manipulation called “Stock Shock.” Even though the movie mostly focuses on Sirius XM stock being naked short sold to hell, I liked it because it shows the dark side of Wall Street. DVD is everywhere but cheaper at http://www.stockshockmovie.com
@ lectrcMAN,
Poppy Bush was Director of CIA for one year during Ford’s presidency, and evidence unearthed by Russ Baker for his seminal book, “Family of Secrets,” indicates Poppy was active in the CIA for his entire adult life. Don’t think he had any power while he was VP? Think again.
I still don’t get it. None of this matters in the long run. Unless you’re a wannabe investor trying to flip a few quick bucks trying to daytrade, this news has absolutely no bearing on your investments.
“The boys were looking for a reason to take a whack at Apple, and this news fit the bill.”
Well, keep in mind that the US stock market is in ultra-paranoia mode due to propaganda implying that federal government prevention of irrational, insane investing by US banks will prevent the return of rational capitalism in the USA, aka cognitive dissonance thinking.
When dumbass stock investors, typically day traders, are in ultra-paranoia mode, they listen for an ant to trip over a grain of sand. At which point they sell their most solid and reliable stocks (again cognitive dissonance thinking) believing the economic world is about to collapse. (o_0)
Paranoia and propaganda get a lot of traction these days, in case you hadn’t noticed.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue laugh” style=”border:0;” />
*DING*
Yes you are correct. It is also known as FUD.
OT:
Tard comments about ‘The Housing Bubble’:
1) “The Housing Bubble was caused by Democrats, though the Republicans could have fought harder against the insanity.”
2) “Government created the housing bubble by forcing bad loans and also keeping the interest rates at sub market level via the Federal Reserve. The entire crisis was created by the Government.”
INCORRECT.
There were, as per usual, a multitude of factors involved. But here, IMHO, is the biggest:
Where do people invest while their country is turning into a ‘Service Economy’? Meaning, the country doesn’t actually create much of anything any more due to manufacturing and banking and corporations and jobs blahblahblah ALL going overseas?
People invest in tangibles like REAL ESTATE.
So what happens when this investment movement inflates the price of real estate beyond actual value? The investment systems dependent upon real estate sales generate incentives to make poor investments. One of these major incentives was the drastically drop the interest rate on loans. Notice how the current interest rate in the USA is still at the dead bottom of the well.
So what happens to a country where interest rates are artificially suppressed and incompetent, unsafe loans are handed out to anyone with a buck in their hand? The monetary stability and reliability of the country is gradually scoured out until it is HOLLOW. Thus the ‘BALLOON’.
So point your fingers polti-tards where the blame all belongs: The source of the problem. It started at least 20 years ago when the USA was dumped as an investment center and investments went over seas.
And yes, as I indicated above, there is a lot more involved, including the collusion of the US federal government with the investment/banking/real estate system. The Bush League in particular had a massive incentive to stop the Real Estate Bubble from crashing. Thus they were specifically the ones who crashed the interest rate in order to create further incentive to make poor real estate investments.
I know some of you won’t get it. So maybe make an effort to study such stuff and maybe you will get it.
And yes, the Democrats are just as unrealistic about the investment crisis and solving the ongoing Bush Depression.
OT:
Correction:
Should read: “The investment systems dependent THAT upon real estate sales generate incentives to make poor investments.”
Sorry.
OT:
End of the day. Sorry some more:
Should read: “The investment systems THAT ARE dependent upon real estate sales generate incentives to make poor investments.”
8-|
I see my mentally challenged friend Kent is back and is tossing out the usua, rather misguidedl political crap. C’mon Kent, don’t get as tiresome as I’m a PC or Zune Tang. Repetition is a sign of the mentally weak.
Tell me you are different…..
Buster – did you take your meds today? And wipe the drool off your chin
@ F.Maxwell
From the Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2009 — PART 1
F.Maxwell – before reading please pull your head out of the orifice between your legs.
“By EDWARD PINTO
All agree that the bursting of the housing bubble caused the financial collapse of 2008. Most agree that the housing bubble started in 1997. Less well understood is that this bubble was the result of government policies that lowered mortgage-lending standards to increase home ownership. One of the key players was the controversial liberal advocacy group, Acorn (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).
The watershed moment was the 1992 Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, also known as the GSE Act. To comply with that law’s “affordable housing” requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would acquire more than $6 trillion of single-family loans over the next 16 years.
Congress’s goal was to force these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to purchase loans that had been originated by banks—loans that were made under the pressure of another federal law, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to increase lending in low- and moderate-income communities.
From 1977 to 1991, $9 billion in local CRA lending commitments had been announced. CRA lending by large banks increased dramatically after the affordable housing mandate was in place in 1993, growing to $6 trillion today. As Ellen Seidman, director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a speech before the Greenlining Institute on Oct. 2, 2001, “Our record home ownership rate [increasing from 64.2% in 1994 to 68% in 2001], I’m convinced, would not have been reached without CRA and its close relative, the Fannie/Freddie requirements.”
View Full Image
Associated Press
The 1992 GSE Act was the fuse, and the trillions of dollars in subsequent CRA and GSE affordable-housing loans would fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen. But who lit the fuse?
The previous year, as Allen Fishbein, currently an adviser for consumer policy at the Federal Reserve, has noted, Acorn and other community groups were informally deputized by then House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez to draft statutory language setting the law’s affordable-housing mandates. Interim goals were set at 30% of the single-family mortgages purchased by Fannie and Freddie, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has increased that percentage over time. The goal of the community groups was to force Fannie and Freddie to loosen their underwriting standards, in order to facilitate the purchase of loans made under the CRA.
Thus a provision was inserted into the law whereby Congress signaled to the GSEs that they should accept down payments of 5% or less, ignore impaired credit if the blot was over one year old, and otherwise loosen their lending guidelines.
The proposals of Acorn and other affordable-housing advocacy groups were acceptable to Fannie. Fannie had been planning to use the carrot of affordable-housing lending to maintain its hold over Congress and stave off its efforts to impose a strong safety and soundness regulator to oversee the company. (It was not until 2008 that a strong regulator was created for Fannie and Freddie. A little over a month later both GSEs were placed into conservatorship; they have requested a combined $112 billion in assistance from the federal government, and much more will be needed over the next few years.)
The result of loosened credit standards and a mandate to facilitate affordable-housing loans was a tsunami of high risk lending that sank the GSEs, overwhelmed the housing finance system, and caused an expected $1 trillion in mortgage loan losses by the GSEs, banks, and other investors and guarantors, and most tragically an expected 10 million or more home foreclosures.
As a result of congressional and regulatory actions, the percentage of conventional first mortgages (not guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration or the Veteran’s Administration) used to purchase a home with the borrower putting 5% or less down tripled from 9% in 1991 to 27% in 1995, eventually reaching 29% in 2007.
@F.Maxwell – please do more to understand the topic before your next post
From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 2009
By EDWARD PINTO
All agree that the bursting of the housing bubble caused the financial collapse of 2008. Most agree that the housing bubble started in 1997. Less well understood is that this bubble was the result of government policies that lowered mortgage-lending standards to increase home ownership. One of the key players was the controversial liberal advocacy group, Acorn (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).
The watershed moment was the 1992 Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, also known as the GSE Act. To comply with that law’s “affordable housing” requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would acquire more than $6 trillion of single-family loans over the next 16 years.
Congress’s goal was to force these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to purchase loans that had been originated by banks—loans that were made under the pressure of another federal law, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to increase lending in low- and moderate-income communities.
From 1977 to 1991, $9 billion in local CRA lending commitments had been announced. CRA lending by large banks increased dramatically after the affordable housing mandate was in place in 1993, growing to $6 trillion today. As Ellen Seidman, director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a speech before the Greenlining Institute on Oct. 2, 2001, “Our record home ownership rate [increasing from 64.2% in 1994 to 68% in 2001], I’m convinced, would not have been reached without CRA and its close relative, the Fannie/Freddie requirements.”
View Full Image
Associated Press
The 1992 GSE Act was the fuse, and the trillions of dollars in subsequent CRA and GSE affordable-housing loans would fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen. But who lit the fuse?
The previous year, as Allen Fishbein, currently an adviser for consumer policy at the Federal Reserve, has noted, Acorn and other community groups were informally deputized by then House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez to draft statutory language setting the law’s affordable-housing mandates. Interim goals were set at 30% of the single-family mortgages purchased by Fannie and Freddie, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has increased that percentage over time. The goal of the community groups was to force Fannie and Freddie to loosen their underwriting standards, in order to facilitate the purchase of loans made under the CRA.
Thus a provision was inserted into the law whereby Congress signaled to the GSEs that they should accept down payments of 5% or less, ignore impaired credit if the blot was over one year old, and otherwise loosen their lending guidelines.
The proposals of Acorn and other affordable-housing advocacy groups were acceptable to Fannie. Fannie had been planning to use the carrot of affordable-housing lending to maintain its hold over Congress and stave off its efforts to impose a strong safety and soundness regulator to oversee the company. (It was not until 2008 that a strong regulator was created for Fannie and Freddie. A little over a month later both GSEs were placed into conservatorship; they have requested a combined $112 billion in assistance from the federal government, and much more will be needed over the next few years.)
PART 2 for F.Maxwell
\
from WSJ, Nov. 9, 2009
The result of loosened credit standards and a mandate to facilitate affordable-housing loans was a tsunami of high risk lending that sank the GSEs, overwhelmed the housing finance system, and caused an expected $1 trillion in mortgage loan losses by the GSEs, banks, and other investors and guarantors, and most tragically an expected 10 million or more home foreclosures.
As a result of congressional and regulatory actions, the percentage of conventional first mortgages (not guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration or the Veteran’s Administration) used to purchase a home with the borrower putting 5% or less down tripled from 9% in 1991 to 27% in 1995, eventually reaching 29% in 2007.
Fannie and Freddie acquired $1.2 trillion of loans from banks and other lenders from 1993 to 2007. This amounted to 62% of all such conventional home purchase loans with a down payment of 5% or less that were originated nationwide over the same period.
Fannie and Freddie also acquired $2.2 trillion in subprime loans and private securities backed by subprime loans from 1997 to 2007. Acorn and the other advocacy groups succeeded at getting Congress to mandate “innovative and flexible” lending practices such as higher debt ratios and creative definitions of income. And the serious delinquency rate on Fannie and Freddie’s $1.5 trillion in high-risk loans was 10.3% as of Sept. 30, 2009.
This is about seven times the delinquency rate on the GSEs’ traditional loans. Fifty percent of the high-risk loans are estimated to be CRA loans, with much of the remainder useful to the GSEs in meeting their affordable-housing goals.
The flood of CRA and affordable-housing loans with loosened underwriting standards, combined with declining mortgage interest rates—to 5% in 2003 from 10% in early 1991—resulted in a massive increase in borrowing capacity and fueled a house price bubble of unprecedented magnitude over the period 1997-2006.
Now this history may repeat itself as many of the same community groups are pushing Congress to expand CRA to cover all mortgage lenders, credit unions, insurance companies and others financial industry segments. Are we about to set the stage for another catastrophe?
Mr. Pinto was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae from 1987 to 1989. He is currently a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry.
Yes – he happens to know a lot more about the topic than a bonehead reporter. You did not indicate what facts that he presented about the massive government mandated subprime loans was inaccurate. You don’t deal in facts – they are over your head.
What is that i hear in the distance? The cry of the right-wing-o-tard! Threatened it will puff up and tell numerous lies in an attempt to distract the predator. It is a curious defense. Many biologists are rather confused as to how the species has survived so long….
Let see – F. Maxwell’s “sources” are like the “settled science” of Global Warming, where just this past weekend the IPCC had to admit that its assertion that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in a few decades, was just conjecture, not “fact” or science as they had previously indicated. Settled science for liberals is what the rational world recognizes as bullcrap. Same with its economic understanding. This is not a surprise. Liberals are now interpreting Scott Brown’s victory in Massachussetts as an indication of support for Obama and his Health Care takeover. That actually makes sense – to a liberal. I bet F. Maxwell even believes it. Let’s make the Libs happy and elect 150 more Scott Browns in November.
@Kent
I took the red pill……
Oh and here is an observation……regardless of your political leanings, from a Canadian’s point of view….When Regan was in Power, our PM, Brian Mulroney, a conservative came into power. Both economies went into the toilet and created massive deficits. Clinton and Chretien came into power, both liberals, they fixed the economy and, Chretien anyway, eliminated the deficit and created surpluses. Then Bush and Harper came into power, both conservatives and guess what…yep…that flushing noise of our respective economies circling the bowl.
My point is to not blame anyone here…just stating a trend.
Reagan ended the Carter recession and ushered in a decade of huge economic growth. Clinton had good economic results after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and prevented his socialization of health care. You really don’t have a clue about the US.
Too much gravity.
Most people don’t know that Buster’s last name is Hymen.
Don’t fuck with Buster.
To kent:
Regardless of your politics, I appreciate the fact that you’re a serious douche bag. Now, seal the deal by being a birther.
AMPAR
Let me guess – you voted for the Chicago thug for President? The one who thinks there are 57 states. You probably think Huey Long was a good governor. You probably wear a Che tshirt. What a dickhead.
AMPAR – are you the boyfriend of Barney Frank who used to run the male prostitution racket in his lower level – and Barney didn’t know about it?
Actually, kent with a little k,
I’ve been here for years. MDN knows me. I respect freedom of speech..
Your bizaree assumption that you have the right to post any crap is laughable. You’re an idiot. And free speech isn’t really free.
I think it’s especially funny that you accuse me of being gay.
@Ampar….with regards to kent, some village is missing their idiot….so kent has adopted MDN as his halfway house until he figures out where he can go….hopefully that will be soon.
I’m still laughing at the hymen joke….lol
Kent (you should really put that other vowel back in your name), don’t fuck with Ampar. He doesn’t like to enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
AMPAR
You are scary. I will never say a word again, as you are so obviously superior, known by the people at MDN, and you knowing how to make superior arguments, like “douchebag”. That is brilliance. And you uttered the word “birther”. And your friend Buster likes to say “kunt”/. It does not surprise me you are well known at MDN. I bet everyone likes to steer clear of the guy who spends most of his time in the bus station rest room scrawling things on the walls. Why don’t you get outside of the stall and outdoors into the fresh air. You would make better friends than Buster.
Hey kent….the ignoring starts now.
@buster
Being ignored by someone whose main focus is female hygiene is not a threat – its a reward unto itself. Please ignore away.
Obama uses teleprompter during speech at elementary school:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100119/480/9131bc77c7534185bdbf267bb4ab8497/
Boy, did you Obama voters get duped!
@kent
This is basic stuff, but it’s obvious that we’re expecting too much from you:
1. Posting one or two examples of discredited climate research does not invalidate all climate research that you disagree with. It’s like me posting a story about one example of a corrupt GOP politician and gloating that it proves that all GOP politicians are corrupt.
2. When I post an article, if you believe it to be factually or logically flawed, you’re supposed to say why, not post something from an extremely biased source and then tell me it’s my job to discredit it. I posted Aaron Pressman’s article. Given your inability to find flaw with it, I’ll assume that you’ve conceded that point.
@Buster
You wrote: “Reagan ended the Carter recession and ushered in a decade of huge economic growth.”
You’re honestly gloating about Reagan tripling the national debt and taking us from being the world’s largest lender nation to being the world’s largest borrower nation? Seriously? Do you think that the money faeries are going to pay off that debt and pay the interest on it?
Applauding the results of Reagon’s borrow-and-spend policies is like congratulating yourself for loading up your house with stuff bought on credit cards.
F. Maxwell
Since you rip the minor deficits (relatively) that the Democrat Congress under Reagan created (Congress’s create deficits, F.Maxwell, not President’s) I am sure you are horrified by the quadrupling of the budget in the last 12 months under the combined wisdom of a Democrat Congress and Democrat President. The Democrats just in the past week requested a $1.9 trillion INCREASE in the spending ceiling. Please tell me how you have expressed your outrage over this, given your hostility to deficits. By the way, during Reagan’s term, since he proposed, and got passed, large across the board tax cuts, tax revenue increased every year as the economy grew. Since the current administration despises the Private Sector (except that part that is involved in government subsidized “green jobs” which would not exist without government support) tax revenues are shrinking in every area – Federal, State and local. Not unexpected when the government is hostile to all business activity and penalizes accomplishment.
So, are you for the current plan to reduce revenues through destruction of the private sector and also huge deficits through Congressional profligacy? I assume you are anxious to get rid of the current President and Congress.
FMaxwell
By the way, on the Housing Bubble, a question for you. Since we know Bankers are greedy, and since we know the mortgage industry over a period of about 100 years created an extremely scientific method of granting credit that produced very low rates of defaults, what changed in the last 20 years that caused the mortgage industry to lose this knowledge and to begin to book loans that would not have been approved in the past? What was the motivation for the Banking Industry to create bad loans, when they already knew how to make money without bad loans? Please explain that.
@ F.Maxwell
If it is not over your head. (I am pretty sure it will be)
So you, F.Maxwell are asserting that Obama is totally destroying our economy these incredible deficits. So FMAXWELL is telling Obama and Congress to cut spending immediately, including entitlements, quit talking about Health Care which will impose huge added costs, stop the Cap and Trade talk, because all this will increase the Deficits, which you assert are the dragon to be slayed. You, FMaxwell, are telling everyone that Obama & Pelosi’s increased deficits means they are unfit for office, just like Reagan. Right?