i know wall street and most businessmen are against obama but (i dont know why) i expected the wsj to be much more leftist or even moderate as a paper. yet to my surprise it pulls very hard right. dont get my wrong, i dont mind seeing something else other than hammering mccain/palin and praising obama (cnn, abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc all do it for the most part), but it is pretty surprising to me nonetheless.

i even stumbled upon this: Bush has a good economic record:

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122039890722392873-lMyQjAxMDI4MjAwMzMwOTM4Wj.html[/url]

Re: wall street journal

yes, he actually does if you want a market opinion. but that's about it.

the market tends to lean right simply because the "right" read: fiscal conservatives, often avoid fucking with the market beyond general warnings. they tend not to regulate to allow for the proper demand/price to settle and find a natural balance of risk/rewARD. the only time i can remember the "right" getting involved was when they were telling everyone that while the tech boom was stock profits, there was no revenue to match.

also, they regulate far less. tend to keep corporate taxes down, open the financial markets to more ppl and keep the gains taxes down.

a big part of it was/is reganomics... left wing tends to push for quick solutions to problems, while the reganomics (which were hardly conservative in the sense, but more central because of govt involvment) stressed capitol investment which in turn, expands the future capacity of our domestic capabilities... i.e. great long term investment (think united technologies andthier alternative energy research from the 80's, now, they are one of the most dominant secure companies out there). the one time where this failed was a blend of both left and right allowing thier sides free reign and that instance is the united auto workers of america, who single handidly destroyed themselves like a heroin addict.

tghe left as the article calls them, tend to mix it up and impose heavy regulations on boh the market trading, and the industries themselves. ppl dont like to be told what to do when they are a billion dollar company. this often leads to extra expenses (tariffs, carbon taxes, increased payroll and liabiliteis associated, etc).

i obviously prefer the "right" as they allow more of the free market economy to operate. listen, the market will always find its most profitable route, if you dont beleive me, look at the job losses in america and the increased debt (solely relted to market and industry) since the advent of NAFTA (lead sponsor:john kerry), since china was given "most favored" trading status (also, J.kerry), and the increase of union power under bill.

lastly, the conservatives, while moreso hands-off, tend to require tougher reporting on teh market companies themselves. the exceptions fall under enron, where the most intelligent were also the most vile and find loop holes.

Re: wall street journal

while democrats like the government to have both hands on the market and economy, republicans prefer to use eight fingers. bush might be have a 'good' economic record, but his terms as president have deflated the potential the market had. a similar argument could be made (and has been made) against roosevelt.

Re: wall street journal

you should see some of the trade journals i read for accounting and financial data and thier opinions on bill clinton and greenspan's ride of pleasure with no speedometer. uncontrolled, no questions asked, report how and what you want......

Re: wall street journal

[QUOTE=shosh;644047]i know wall street and most businessmen are against obama but ([B]i dont know why[/B]) i expected the wsj to be much more leftist or even moderate as a paper. yet to my surprise it pulls very hard right. [/QUOTE]

I know why: Rush has conditioned you to think "media = liberal" rather than acknowledging the true state of affairs, which is that the media has a media centric bias, i.e., the media will tell whatever story it wants to tell to bolster its viewership.

But yes, you are correct, WSJ leans right, sometimes hard right, particularly on fiscal matters.

Re: wall street journal

plain and simple. the financial strength is the single most important factor in the country. above all other things as one, including your civil liberties. conservative is really the only "cautious" way to go here, as it limits risk. liberal spending/investing leads to tech booms so to speak.

therefore they prefer the prior. once the market dies, everything does. look to all major points in history over the length of the US. civil war freed slaevs, but was hardly about slavery, ww1 was pushed for economic dominance (imperial economics). ww2 essentially came about right after the depression, and then again look at the economic downturns of the late 70's which lead to "tear down that wall". then again in GW1 turn.

once the money goes, the rules go out the window. market dies > ppl lose jobs > increased short term gov't spending > increased unemployement > increased crime > ppl look elsewhere on how to recover > fighting.

Re: wall street journal

[quote=toasty;644120]I know why: Rush has conditioned you to think "media = liberal" rather than acknowledging the true state of affairs, which is that the media has a media centric bias, i.e., the media will tell whatever story it wants to tell to bolster its viewership.

But yes, you are correct, WSJ leans right, sometimes hard right, particularly on fiscal matters.[/quote]

c'mon man, even you have to admit that the majority of the mainstream media strongly favors obama and with the exception of a couple of dudes here and there, fox, and talk radio, most love to kiss his ass. and this is where you do have a point, the media will sell whatever makes them more money.

one more thing, i dont listen to talk radio for a couple of reasons: a) im on the phone and it makes it hard to listen to it and b) i really cant stand them. the very few times ive listened, there were some points i agreed on but i cant stand their over-dramatization of everything, their laughs, jokes, screams, etc

[quote=thesightless;644127]plain and simple. the financial strength is the single most important factor in the country. above all other things as one, including your civil liberties. conservative is really the only "cautious" way to go here, as it limits risk. liberal spending/investing leads to tech booms so to speak.

therefore they prefer the prior. once the market dies, everything does. look to all major points in history over the length of the US. civil war freed slaevs, but was hardly about slavery, ww1 was pushed for economic dominance (imperial economics). ww2 essentially came about right after the depression, and then again look at the economic downturns of the late 70's which lead to "tear down that wall". then again in GW1 turn.

once the money goes, the rules go out the window. market dies > ppl lose jobs > increased short term gov't spending > increased unemployement > increased crime > ppl look elsewhere on how to recover > fighting.[/quote]

good post man.

Re: wall street journal

[QUOTE=shosh;644141]c'mon man, [I]even you have to admi[/I]t that the majority of the mainstream media strongly favors obama and with the exception of a couple of dudes here and there, fox, and talk radio, most love to kiss his ass. [/QUOTE]

Actually, no I don't. This fallacy of a liberal media is just that, a fallacy, and they will push whatever story is most salacious, regardless of who it helps/hurts.

Re: wall street journal

shosh, stop they all like him too much you are talking to a wall here. fans of a candidate never really acknowledge this, much like i still beleive that the ppl are smarter and independent guys will have a fair shot. i gave up. you shold too. obama is a puppet, you knowit, i know it. stop arguing with them and lets gets factual. can everyone start posting viable things such as stances on tings like abortion, gay rights etc. maybe some voting histories (not that barak or the grandmilf hav e much to go by), possibly some opinions from the candidates on topics from the past. enough of pallingate, the fucking girl is 17 and it has no effect on the woman's POV's, just that her kid like the rest of them, stupid due to society.

but toasty. you guys follow his like hard line muslims follow mohammed's quotes and how cowardlyDJ followed christ. the comparable language and refusal of obviousness is there.

Re: wall street journal

ok. let's argue semantics. if you boil down what fox, cnn, msnbc, and the rest really are, you're going to find that they all sit left of center. More government for whatever. more intrusion for whatever. more taxes on whomever, more regulation of whatever. unnecessary wars for whatever. supporting the restriction of trade.

i think it's a bit naive to think it's a fallicy, and it's a bit stupid to make such a generalization without realize one's favourite channel is actually far left of where you're told it is.

Re: wall street journal

^ mariner you are right and you wanna know why ? ? ?

99% of media is staffed by unions, who have play. the WSJ isnt, and is owned by the dow jones company. they are a private group. media loves leftist interests, simply because they are more fun to cover and offer more bitching and moaning. dow jones loves right leaning news cuz it benifits them.

Re: wall street journal

so in the end, they all still look to just make $$$, not really care about anything else

Re: wall street journal

obama on oreilly this thursday after murdoch helped mend the relations between fox and obama: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202730_pf.html[/url]

Re: wall street journal

[quote=shosh;644195]so in the end, they all still look to just make $$$, not really care about anything else[/quote]

ppl say religion is the cause of wars.... religion came about cuz a small group of people wanted to control the money in jerusalem, hence every fucking religion having "the original tie to the land" even though judiaism was around a few thousand years before jesus, who was around 600 yeas before mohammed, who was around a few hundred years before they put mohammed into a book.

money rules all, not reliigion, its about oil, resources and the long term ability to hold on to them for survivial, cuz you know what, eventually, and with t he exponential ability to procreate, someone is gonna have to cut the rest off the keep thiers alive. thats what the fucking war is about, thats what life is about, the jews found this out 5K years ago. these tree hugging hippie idiots dont realize this. (referring to the anti war protestors im watching on TV.) and sadly, this is why i honestly beleive obama is lieterally a dead man... there is entirely too much too lose in money, he will win the election, but something stupid will happen b/c ppl's deep fucking pockets get hurt.

edit : wow, nice friggin dennis leary rant there buddy

Re: wall street journal

if you mean the USA is bankrupt and that is good then ok I agree with you

Re: wall street journal

[QUOTE=runningman;644281]if you mean the USA is bankrupt and that is good then ok I agree with you[/QUOTE]

you make this dumbass statement all the time. how is this^ good for anyone on the planet? really. i mean, i know you hate america and americans, it's blatantly obvious, but don't you know that america being bankrupt is bad for the entire world, including you?

Re: wall street journal

[quote=Jenks;644304]you make this dumbass statement all the time. how is this^ good for anyone on the planet? really. i mean, i know you hate america and americans, it's blatantly obvious, but don't you know that america being bankrupt is bad for the entire world, including you?[/quote]

Oh I'm sorry Jenks did I hurt your feelings.. How is this Good?? It's not good at all for anybody. But first you have to acknowledge and accept where you are in order to move forward with the proper course of action(Sun Tzu). $9 Trillion in debt with no end even close in sight. The housing bubble is not even close over and soon the banks will go and Inflation is off to the races. Superinflation is next when the goverment failed promises come in with the FDIC.

Change is necessary and I don't mean Obama change I mean you would be better off picking a random off the street and throwing him in as prez then these two bought candidates (this might be an exageration but I'm sure you get my point). Also know this nothing will occur during peaceful protests. Do you think the USA broke off of Britain with peaceful protests? We are heading into a depression and a world war and I am sick to death of these eternal optimists with unwaivering faith in governement.

It is awfully hard to move forward with your head up your ass.

Here is more great news Jenks

[URL]http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/news/economy/jobs_august/index.htm?cnn=yes[/URL]

Re: wall street journal

1. applause
2. i think you are both arguing the same position but dont realize it.

Re: wall street journal

[quote=runningman;645233]

Change is necessary and I don't mean Obama change I mean you would be better off picking a random off the street and throwing him in as prez then these two bought candidates (this might be an exageration but I'm sure you get my point). Also know this nothing will occur during peaceful protests. Do you think the USA broke off of Britain with peaceful protests? We are heading into a depression and a world war and I am sick to death of these eternal optimists with unwaivering faith in governement.

[/quote]

Amen brother.

Re: wall street journal

[QUOTE=thesightless;645236] 2. i think you are both arguing the same position but dont realize it.[/QUOTE]

^this.

now that he explained himself and he's not just another america hater cheering from the sidelines at our misery- yes we're on the same page.

it's the same with the price of gas. i applaud $4 a gallon, bring it on! if that's what it takes to wake up this country, and especially the dumb fucking hummer driving soccer moms with 8000 sq ft McMansions in the burbs, so be it. i'm just as disgusted with this country as the next guy. unfortunately we are few.

Re: wall street journal

dont blame the wealthy. most of them earned it through hard work and education. not everyone who owns a million dollar is truly rich through inheritence. some of us earned it from scratch (not me , my old man though, he worked his ass off and deserves his 1.3M house)

Re: wall street journal

i don't blame the wealthy, i blame the attitude, and you know the difference.

Re: wall street journal

there was a great editorial from CNN's money commentator about the wage battle. the WSJ picked up it as well. i have to find the article but it theorizes that once obama is elected, we stand to lose roughly 20K jobs within the small business sector (which accounts for 90% of this country's income). the idea behind it, according to both sources is that obama not only will extend the wage mandate (7.75 by july 09) , but has aspirations of raising it further. dont ppl realize that small business isnt IBM where the 2 dollar increase isnt really felt, but the extra monies will either gut the small businesses, or lead to massiver layoffs.