The Dow and S&P.....

[Rapunzel]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

You all know WAY more about this than I do, but I was under the impression that this was just a market reaction to the Keynsian economic policies being instituted under the new presidency.

Politics are intimately tied to the economy when major changes are made. I think it's hard to keep them in seperate boxes.

But, I totally agree with no name-calling.

[Rapunzel]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

As the White House starts targeting individual critics here is the response from one economic voice:

When I come to work each day, whether as a commentator for TheStreet.com or a host of Mad Money With Jim Cramer, I have only one thought in mind: helping people with their money.

I fight to help viewers and readers make and preserve capital. I fight for their 401(k)s, for their 529s and their IRAs. I fight for their annuities and for their life insurance policies. I fight for their profits, trading and investing. And in this horrible market, I fight to keep their losses to a minimum by having some good dividend-yielding stocks from different sectors, some bonds, some gold and some cash.

The lines are drawn pretty clearly: If you can help people make money to be able to retire, enjoy life, pay for college, pay down debt, etc., you are a "good guy," so to speak. If you take the other side of the trade, you are, well, let's say, a less favored fellow. And if you gun for the gigantic investor class that is out there that includes 90 million people in one form or another, whether it be 401(k)s or individual stocks or pension plans, then you are on my enemies list.

Now some, including Rush Limbaugh, would say I am on another enemies list: that of the White House. Limbaugh says there are only a handful of us on it, and if I am on it for defending all of the shareholders out there, then I am in good company. Limbaugh -- whom I do not know personally, but having been in radio myself, know professionally as a genius of the medium -- says, "They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight."

Limbaugh's dead right. I am a fight-not-flight guy, so I was on my hackles when I heard White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president on multiple venues, including the Today Show.

"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," Gibbs said about my point that President Obama's budget may be one of the great wealth destroyers of all time. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too."

Huh? Backup? Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.

The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have.

Gibbs went on to say, "If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience. No offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC, but the president has to look out for the broader economy and the broader population."

How much I wish it were true right now that stocks played less of a role in peoples' lives. But stocks, along with housing, are our principal forms of wealth in this country. Only the people who have lifetime tenure, insured solid pensions and rent homes but own no stocks personally are unaffected. Sure that's a lot of people, but believe me, they aspire to have homes and portfolios. If we only want to help those who have no wealth to destroy, we are not helping the majority of Americans; we are not helping the broader population.

You can argue, of course, that Obama inherited one of the worst hands in the world. I had been a relentless critic of the Bush administration's "stewardship" of the economy, calling repeatedly for changes to avert the disaster that I saw coming, although perhaps Gibbs hasn't seen my CNBC meltdown. Seemed pretty prescient to me.

I, like everyone else, have made less authoritative and wrong statements in the past, but that rant still stands as something that I am sure everyone in the Bush administrations' Treasury and Fed listened to. My calls to sell 20% of your stocks in September at Dow 11,000 and then all of your stock if you need the money for the next five years at Dow 10,000 in October, might have eluded Gibbs, too.

But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity that help eliminate the excess supply of homes.

We had a banking crisis coming into this regime, but now every area is in crisis. Each day is worse than the previous one for this miserable economy and while Obama's champions cite the stimulus plan, it's really just a hodgepodge of old Democratic pork and will not create nearly as many manufacturing or service jobs as we hoped. China's stimulus plan is the model; ours is the parody.

Sure there's going to be some mortgage relief, but the way to approach that problem is to eliminate the overhang, which a $15,000 tax credit for existing home sales could have dented if not consumed. I have offered a comprehensive plan of 4% refinanced mortgages for all by the government, not just those many considered deadbeats, to eliminate moral hazard. I have come up with a novel plan to cut the principal and spare the banks regulatory problems by offering them a certificate of equity, making them whole over time when the house appreciates in value, which will happen if demand is stoked and supply is shrunk.

I have offered a comprehensive bank plan to solve a systemic problem -- could all bankers really be malefactors of wealth, Mr. President, or given the endemic nature can't we just presume that it's an epidemic and finger-pointing is a worthless endeavor until things get better? Like after Pearl Harbor -- let's win the war and then investigate, and even try and convict the bad actors, instead of demonizing everyone who works at a bank right now, when we need them to right themselves without too much taxpayer help.

Which leads me to the true irony of not being political: I don't like talking politics. It is personal, but some things are a matter of public record, including my substantial six figure donations to the Democratic Party before I was no longer allowed to contribute by contractual agreement. I regard two Democratic governors as my friends, and helped back one of them in a major financial way and spoke and campaigned directly for the other.

I also made it clear in a New York magazine article that I favored Obama over McCain because I thought Obama to be a middle-of-the-road Democrat, exactly the kind I have supported all my adult life, although I will admit to being far more left-wing during my teenage years and early 20s.

To be totally out of the closet, I actually embrace every part of Obama's agenda, right down to the increase on personal taxes and the mortgage deduction. I am a fierce environmentalist who has donated multiple acres to the state of New Jersey to keep forever wild. I believe in cap and trade. I favor playing hardball with drug companies that hold up the U.S. government with me-too products.


But these are issues that we have no time for now, on the verge of a second Great Depression. This is an agenda that must be held back for better times. It is an agenda that at this moment is radical vs. what is called for. I am proud to have voted for the Obama who I thought understood the need to get us on the right path, and create jobs and wealth before taxing it and making moves that hurt job creation -- certainly ones that will outweigh the meager number of jobs he's creating.

Most important, I believe his agenda is crushing nest eggs around the nation in loud ways, like the decline in the averages, and in soft but dangerous ways, like in the annuities that can't be paid and the insurance benefits that will be challenging to deliver on.

So I will fight the fight against that agenda. I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there. And when they get there, if times are good, we can have them give back or pay higher taxes. Until they get there, I don't want them shackled or scared or paralyzed. That's what I see now.

If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists -- tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and who get poorer by the day.

Found through realclearpolitics.com at http://www.mainstreet.com/article/money ... use?page=1

This is, unfortunately, a time when politics intersects completely and utterly with finance it would appear. It is impossible to leave politics out of it right now. And, with the White House personally attacking financial voices with whom the president might disagree you would have to ignore much in order to ignore the political aspects.

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

I'll have to re-read this tonight when I have more time to focus on it. I really like Jim Cramer and like to read his columns and insight on the market and specific stocks. I find him hard to watch (spaz!) for very long.

[Rapunzel]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

This is what prompted the above response from Cramer.

http://digg.com/business_finance/White_ ... Jim_Cramer

White House Knocks Jim Cramer For Calling Obama Budget "Greatest Wealth Destruction By a President"

NBC's Tom Costello, on duty at the White House today, asked press secretary Robert Gibbs about some comments made by his CNBC colleague Jim Cramer. On the Today show this morning, Cramer called Pres. Obama's budget a "radical agenda," adding, "This is the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a President."

"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," said Gibbs. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the back-up for those are too."

When pressed further by Costello, Gibbs said, "If you turn on a certain program it's geared to a very small audience. No offense to my good friends, or friend at CNBC. But the President has to look out for the broader economy and the broader population."

Last month Gibbs had some choice words for Cramer's colleague, Rick Santelli and his criticism of the Obama mortgage plan.

And, THIS is how the President's man treated Santelli:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19083.html

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs jumped at the chance Friday to rebuke a CNBC reporter whose attack on President Barack Obama’s anti-foreclosure plan caught fire on the Internet.

Gibbs took on CNBC’s Rick Santelli in unusually personal terms after being asked a question about Santelli’s bracing critique during a regular White House briefing.

“I’ve watched Mr. Santelli on cable the past 24 hours or so. I’m not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives but the American people are struggling every day to meet their mortgages, stay in their jobs, pay their bills, send their kids to school,” Gibbs said. “I think we left a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader that it was good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that,” the press secretary said, poking directly at the cable journalist, who reports from the trading floor at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Gibbs insisted Santelli was misinformed when he said Obama’s program would amount to a transfer of money from prudent taxpayers to those who had taken reckless risks.

“Mr. Santelli has argued, I think quite wrongly, that this plan won’t help everyone,” Gibbs said. “This plan helps people who have been playing by the rules. ... I would encourage him to read the president’s plan. ... I’d be more than happy to have him come here to read it. I’d be happy to buy him a cup of coffee — decaf,” the press secretary said, in a not-so-subtle jab at Santelli’s frantic style.

Gibbs brandished a copy of a fact sheet about Obama’s plan. “Download it, hit print, and begin to read it,” he said. In all, Gibbs used Santelli’s name six times.

The administration also dispatched two high-level officials onto CNBC to rebut Santelli in more detail, Vice President Joe Biden’s economic adviser Jared Bernstein and Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan.

CNBC hosts pressed Bernstein to explain why Obama’s plan calls for allowing borrowers to refinance loans even if they have less than 20% equity in their homes. “To refinance can save a family $4000, $5000, $6000 a year in an economy that’s been extremely tough,” Bernstein said.

“I don’t know that they deserve to refinance because those are the terms they signed up for in the first place,” CNBC’s Melissa Francis said.

“I think we perhaps have a very different perspective,” Bernstein allowed.

In a later segment, Santelli made clear he still wasn’t buying it.

“Pretty much everybody we know’s 401K is now a 201K. Why did that happen? Oh my God, nobody expected this housing crisis through no fault of our ownership of stock prices was decimated. Why is that any different than his explanation. We want our 401K money back. I want my stock money back,” Santelli said. “The retirement funds of many Americans [are] much larger of a loss than some people on their housing at this point in time.”

Here's what Santelli was attacked by the White House for saying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA


Apparently the increasingly propagandized Jon Stewart decided to defend Obama's plan and tried to rip on Santelli.

Anyway, I think there is a guessing game out there now regarding which popular/famous/knowledgeable economic expert the White House will try to trash next for finding Obama's financial plans somewhat lacking or downright dangerous.

[Rapunzel]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

And, THIS woman's head maybe found on a White House platter soon, as well:

I find myself tuning into CNBC these days. This is unusual for me, as business news bores me. I’m one of those whose eyes glaze at the mention of credit/default swaps, futures trading, and derivatives markets. But now, with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid troika attempting to remake our nation, I will submit to chatter about all of those things as long as I am treated to some full-throated defenses of capitalism.

If ever there were a time when our market economy deserves a little coddling and a soft pillow under its head, it is now. Battered by a financial meltdown, a plunging stock market, declining trade, and frightened consumers, now would be the time to cut corporate tax rates (which are among the highest in the world), reverse the “mark to market” rule for valuing assets, temporarily increase unemployment compensation and Medicaid (with sunset provisions), and keep taxes low. When Barack Obama agreed last autumn that it was not a good idea to raise taxes during a recession, it seemed that he was at least enough of a moderate to understand the importance of markets. One can no longer indulge that hope. Like blasts from a machine gun, Obama has announced higher taxes on the owners of small businesses (the most productive individuals), higher taxes on the energy industry (through the cap-and-trade system), green mandates on the auto industry that will increase the cost of each vehicle, a bailout of mortgagers that will increase the cost of mortgages down the road, increased unionization (which reduces jobs), a repeal of the successful welfare reform of the 1990s, and a rhetorical assault on Wall Street that leaves investors edgy.

The Democrats scoff when you use the “s” word (socialism). It’s a bogeyman, they argue. Not so. If by socialism, you refer to the sort of government-heavy economies that characterize most of Europe, then we are clearly headed there about as fast as Flight 1549 was headed for the Hudson River.

By the sheer size of the budget they are pushing, Obama/Pelosi/Reid are increasing the share of the American economy that will be controlled by the government. Government spending accounts for more than 50 percent of the economies of France and Sweden and more than 45 percent of the GDPs of Germany and Italy. As recently as 2006, the federal government’s share of America’s GDP was 21 percent (with another 11 percent for state and local governments). Now it is approaching 40 percent and likely to grow significantly beyond that if Obama and Co. have their way on health care reform, universal pre-K to college education, and other programs.

We are rapidly narrowing the gap with Europe. This represents policy nirvana for the Democrats. They adore the sclerotic, slow-growing, cradle-to-grave security of the European Union. But do most Americans really want to go there? We will emerge from this downturn. But if the Democrats succeed in using it as an excuse to impose a huge new welfare state, we will not emerge as the same country.

Per capita economic output has been much higher in the United States than in the European Union. Our growth rates have been consistently higher since the Second World War. Until this recession began, America’s unemployment rate was half of Europe’s, and our unemployed spent less time jobless than did Europe’s. European industry has certainly contributed to world prosperity, but cannot match the United States for innovation, dynamism, freedom, or wealth creation. And the Europeans are failing the most basic test of vitality — they are demographically disappearing. That’s one reason why the term “once-great” applies to places like Great Britain and France.

Yes, there’s a recession on and it’s deep. Capitalism is not perfect (though one harbors the suspicion that if government had not, in effect, subsidized risky mortgage lending we would not be in this position). But with all its defects, capitalism remains the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever witnessed. Just in the last 25 years, hundreds of millions of people, principally residing in China and India, who had been close to destitution and starvation are driving cars, sipping lattes, and chatting on cell phones thanks to free-market reforms. Countries with few natural resources other than the brains of their people — like Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan — have become economic powerhouses by permitting the free market to work its magic.

Here at home, the U.S. has been able to dramatically improve standards of living not just for the wealthy (they do fine in every country) but for ordinary people. Hard work has been rewarded, not punished. And the free market has given us everything from computers and iPods to Prilosec and the Mayo Clinic.

It didn’t seem possible six months ago that capitalism in the United States could be in danger. If Obama/Pelosi/Reid have their way, the U.S. too will bear the prefix “once-great.”


— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZD ... A2MmE4MzE=

[McPants]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

And, THIS woman's head maybe found on a White House platter soon, as well:

What are you suggesting that the Obama administration will do to the woman?

[Rapunzel]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

She runs the risk of being personally and publicly ridiculed by the White House just as others (including Cramer) have had done to them quite recently.

"Head on a platter" is a euphemism. Have you not heard it before?


As an aside: What the White House did to Cramer is shocking in part because Cramer openly endorsed Obama during the campaign. He is a lifetime member of the Democratic party. And, rather than listening to someone they might want to listen to, the Obama camp arrogantly belittled him to his peers and to the nation during a televised press conference. In response the press corps is apparently starting to refer to the White House spokesman as "Thin Skinned Gibbs".

[McPants]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

She runs the risk of being personally and publicly ridiculed by the White House just as others (including Cramer) have had done to them quite recently.

"Head on a platter" is a euphemism. Have you not heard it before?

I am familiar with the term. It refers to the destruction of an enemy. Your many articles don't make it clear that this has occurred thus far when people have criticized the Obama administration, which leads me to believe that it won't happen to the woman in question either.

[oceanchild]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

Apparently the increasingly propagandized Jon Stewart decided to defend Obama's plan and tried to rip on Santelli.

Stewart lit into Santelli because Santelli said he would be on the Daily Show and then backed out at the last minute.

[Rapunzel]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

Apparently the increasingly propagandized Jon Stewart decided to defend Obama's plan and tried to rip on Santelli.

Stewart lit into Santelli because Santelli said he would be on the Daily Show and then backed out at the last minute.

I watched the clip. Stewart is really just a propaganda machine for the new administration. He's subtle (Michael Moore should take a lot of lessons from him) - most certainly. Stewart was going to make his political point regardless of whether Santelli came on the show. And, to think such an enormous chunk of young people in the United States actually think they get news from Stewart. No. They get indoctrination in the form of laughs.

[Rapunzel]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

She runs the risk of being personally and publicly ridiculed by the White House just as others (including Cramer) have had done to them quite recently.

"Head on a platter" is a euphemism. Have you not heard it before?

I am familiar with the term. It refers to the destruction of an enemy. Your many articles don't make it clear that this has occurred thus far when people have criticized the Obama administration, which leads me to believe that it won't happen to the woman in question either.

The marked criticism from the White House is an attempt to destroy "enemy" voices. I suppose I should have said the White House would be "calling" for her head on a platter. Perhaps that would have been more accurate as we are seeing a desire to destroy any and/or all voices of opposition to Obama's economic vision for America.

Therefore, I ammend my previous euphemism to say that the White House might be "calling" for her head on a platter next.

Although, I think you understood what I was saying to begin with. Re-reading the entire thread I doubt anyone could not "get" that I was saying the White House might be attacking her personally next.

[McPants]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

The marked criticism from the White House is an attempt to destroy "enemy" voices. I suppose I should have said the White House would be "calling" for her head on a platter. Perhaps that would have been more accurate as we are seeing a desire to destroy any and/or all voices of opposition to Obama's economic vision for America.

Therefore, I ammend my previous euphemism to say that the White House might be "calling" for her head on a platter next.

To destroy and to publically disagree with are not the same thing. In a democracy I expect the political leadership to respond to criticism. I certainly prefer that over silence any day of the week, regardless of who happens to be in power.

[Sheherezade]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

I saw the Daily Show. I didn't see it as "ripping in to Santelli" - it was satire about CNBC's bad calls throughout the last few years. Santelli called home owners in bad mortgages "losers". The Daily Show was pointing out where they may have gotten all that bad advice.

I see a lot of these high-flyer business advisers as whiny. Didn't anyone read Robert Samuelson in Newsweek in the years leading up to this? Or Soros' book? Or any of the number of other pre-2007 volumes that called this meltdown? They (including Cramer) ignored and belittled anyone that said derivatives were dangerous. Warren Buffett called credit default swaps "weapons of mass destruction" in the market....but he ended up buying in anyway and losing. The financial markets were an overleveraged poorly conceived house of cards - an economy built on 80% fairy dust. Look at these products! They are junk. They promise incredible returns, stimulate fast up-up-up growth....and have no risk because we've left that behind with the originating bank. It was too good to be true. Bubble. False economy. Whine all you want, but those "gains" over the last eight years were built on a very shaky foundation. The emperor has no clothes....and someone finally noticed. There is no transparency because all the CDS deals are private contracts (to avoid regulation as insurance). No one knows nothing. Now no one trusts anyone. So.....down we go.

I've got money. I'm holding. Not because of taxes, not because of capital gains, not because of socialism, not because of Jim Cramer or Jon Stewart or Obama. I'm holding because I don't know what a real valuation is anymore and I don't trust the corporate balance sheets with shady accounting practices. I'm holding because there is clearly a major correction in play and I want to see the bottom before I jump in. I don't plan on starting a business with my spare cash or hiring anyone. I'm just holding.

There may also be something to the demographics in this. Gen X (me) is now middle aged and in the investing class. There is a massive drop in numbers. 12% of the population. If the investing class falls off by twelve percent that alone will change the market. All the boomers will start to move in to stable investments because they will need the money soon. Massive flux there. Not to mention the effect that the generational change has on consumer markets. How is a generation that has 12% less people going to fill all the homes (and second homes) built by the juggernaut before us? Something will go unsold. I went to four different elementary schools - BECAUSE they kept closing them down for lack of students. There is A LOT going on at once.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[PrincessFiona]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

I have been out of town all week, but...here is my quick and pointed post.

The Economy started tanking under Bush, so this is not 'just' Obama's fault.

The Economy will worsen under Obama and yes, GMW, people got what they wanted....you can't take away the money from people at the top who worked hard to get there and expect those people to still be able to invest in starting businesses or buying things that stimulate the economy.

We worked very hard for many years making next-to-nothing to get where we are today....We talked to our tax accountant last week and she said that if/when Obama's new tax plan goes into effect, we will pay $25,000 more each year. That's hardly the chump change everyone thinks, is it? We won't be investing/spending on anything because we won't have the money to do it. We are upside-down nearly $100k on our house, owe money for student loans and also have to think about college for our kids...and since we earn above a certain threshold, our kids aren't going to qualify for any help.

The tax increases are a disincentive for hard work, people at the top won't be able to/willing to spend money to help continue to stimulate the economy, and we are going to turn the healthcare into a nightmare....think medicare....all of this will be paid for by our children and our grandchildren.....

sigh


Kris

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: The Dow and S&P.....

The Economy started tanking under Bush, so this is not 'just' Obama's fault.

I agree with you. The economy is not Obama's fault, if that suggests that he did something proactively to cause it. The market started crashing in Sept., after it became clear what was happening to the banks on the bad debt from real estate, but this disaster long preceded Obama...and Bush, actually. It started under Clinton, when his Administration started encouraging banks to make high-risk loans, in an effort to start making homeownership "affordable" to people who otherwise couldn't have been homeowners. Then Bush did nothing to stop it, and in fact, promoted this idea--that the Government should act to promote the goal of a "homeowner" society. Then, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, among others, promoted this. And now, it's all coming home to roost.

But it was also clear that nothing Obama offered on the campaign trail would do ANYTHING to correct this problem. And, in that way, everything that has happened since his election is his fault. He is responsible for the way that his policies are received by the market--they are HIS policies. Beyond the beautiful words and sweeping promises and vague feel-good prose, nothing's there. That's why the market--which is utterly uninfluenced by pretty words of "hope" and "change"--has violently reacted to Obama. It's pretty telling.

The Economy will worsen under Obama and yes, GMW, people got what they wanted.....

Hope and change. Maybe he should modify that to "Hope things will change." Or "hope nobody notices that all they have now is the change in their purse."

They are already calling it "Obama's Bear Market" because the Dow has lost 20% just since his inauguration--that's not even taking into consideration all the tanking it did since Election Day. Whether you think that Obama created the situation, he's the President now and this unrelenting mantra, "This problem we inherited..." is only going to play for so long.

I am really hoping that he will go more centrist (like it was repeatedly promised he would do by the nattering idiots on TV news). I don't think, though, he will. I don't think that he is particularly interested in doing the popular thing, or the easy thing, or the thing that will guarantee him re-election. I think he is a man of his prinicipals. I think he will act to do exactly what he promised--which is to use socialism as the strategy for addressing some of our most pressing problems. I think that it is more important to him to effect the changes he promised that to get re-elected--a very noble character trait, and one which more politicians should embody. It is something that should inspire us... except for the fact that it is frightening because his changes won't serve us well.

I'm with Rush on one account--albeit I might have said it differently. I very much want Obama's broad plan to introduce and institutionalize socialist mechanisms to fail. I do not believe this goal is in the best interest of the country. If that sentiment gets reduced to the malicious soundbite, "She wants our President to FAIL!!!"--which is said in a tone to suggest that I am unpatriotic--then I guess, yeah, I do, if you equate the man with the implementation of his policies. But I contest the suggestion (as was made toward Rush) that I am unpatriotic for taking this position. Patriotism is not defined by blindly nodding and supporting everything your President does (as the Democrats have spent the past 8 years howling at the Republicans, especially about the war), just because he's the President. I want Obama's initiatives to move away from free market economies and expand Government control not to be realized. So, I guess my patriotism is in the form of refusing to support the policies of the President.