American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;413644]First off. The "Rally To Restore Sanity And / Or Fear" was excellent. Who would have guessed we'd see Ozzy singing Crazy Train? [/quote]You must have been the only one there. I enjoy my fair share of Ozzy and Sabbath but, having some senior citizen show up and play a golden oldie does absolutely nothing as far as getting me to give up on my dream for America. I guess you're just a cheap date.

[quote=]Of course I am aware that the current make up of Congress does not reflect the more centered make up of the country.[/quote]Wow, that is quite an admission coming form you.

[quote=] With Dems in control with large numbers, the Great Recession, and a concerted right-wing effort to paint the last 2 years as a failure, it is no surprise Repubs will do well this election.[/quote]Please find one person (other than yourself) that agrees with this point of view.

[quote=]As a "liberal" I am generally content with what we accomplished the past two years. Landmark healthcare reform was #1 and financial reform #2.[/quote]Please enlighten us with just a few examples from each piece of legislation that you believe are big steps forward.

[quote=] The #3 on my list is the tax issue and while I'm not keen on extending tax cuts for the rich, if it goes that way for another 1-2 years, I'm OK with it as long as it gets decoupled from the middle class tax cuts. Down the road it will be a hard sell to just give a cut to the rich, and Dems will have achieved a permanent widening of the tax rate gap between rich and middle class.[/quote]What? Do you even understand yourself?

[quote=]I maintain that Wall Street and big business are responsible for much of our problems.[/quote]I contend that excessive payments to professional athletes are responsible (makes about as much sense as your point)

[quote=] Wall Street played a central role in causing the financial crisis, and both had central roles in locking up credit and / or laying off millions to increase their profits.[/quote]You know absolutely nothing about how markets work, do you?

[quote=] It is too bad we don't have elections for big business CEO's, or the directors of organizations such as the USCoC.[/quote]You are showing your ignorance. There is far more accountability for corporate leaders than there is for political leaders.

[quote=]Gridlock / sharing power with Repubs has certain advantages for Obama. Will weigh in on those and what I hope to see him do in the next two years later.[/quote]I see that you are reading my posts. I agree, the biggest beneficiary of gridlock will be big ears.

[quote=]I agree. That reminds me of something this weekend in Nevada, apparently the GOP hired a plane to fly around with a banner saying "Anybody But Reid". There is a small but significant component to the Republican vote this election that just wants change, period. It is probably "assholes" like them (your word) that will give Repubs the House.[/QUOTE]I haven't heard a single republican or tea party candidate make the argument that one should vote for them solely based upon "change for the sake of change"

Interesting, that is the only thing Obama ran on.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413646]Wow, that is quite an admission coming form you.[/QUOTE]He's just doing what many in the left wing media have been doing for the past few weeks. It's obvious that there is a route coming, and the agenda they advocated will be thoroughly rejected by the majority of the voting public. So, they now claim that they want Republicans to win control of something because too much of a "good" thing is, well, too much. Sure.

In Aesop's Fable terms, it's called Sour Grapes. But I have no illusions, he's lost, unredeemable.

Just heard that the daily expense of his junket to India will be around US$200 million. Per f-cking day!

All in this escapism will likely cost the US taxpayers $1.0B.

Just for a little perspective, that $1.0B could pay a US$50,000 salary to 20,000 currently unemployed workers for the next 12 months.

Tone deaf?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413658]Just heard that the daily expense of his junket to India will be around US$200 million. Per f-cking day!

All in this escapism will likely cost the US taxpayers $1.0B.

Just for a little perspective, that $1.0B could pay a US$50,000 salary to 20,000 currently unemployed workers for the next 12 months.

Tone deaf? [/QUOTE]It's called "getting the heck out of Dodge after you got your butt kicked." The fact that this trip was planned for immediately after the election is no accident. They've known for months that this was going to be really ugly.

You're right, he chose flight. The foreign media won't ask him nearly the same difficult questions as he would get back home after he officially gets rebuked on his agenda, and he can look like a big shot rather than a loser for a few weeks. What's a billion dollars when compared with not having to look yourself in the mirror at home? Call it the Medusa Trip.

[quote=Calvin Woodward, AP]WASHINGTON – Republicans reaped a windfall from independent voters and tea party activists to seize control of the House in midterm elections, gained seats in the Senate and served notice Wednesday they will confront President Barack Obama with a conservative agenda to cut government and spur private-sector jobs.

Incomplete returns showed the GOP picked up at least 60 House seats and led for four more, far in excess of what was needed for a majority. About two dozen races remained too close to call. [/quote]The next congress will have at least 240 Republicans, a comfortable majority for the GOP. Too bad the GOP didn't do quite as well in the Senate; Delaware, Nevada and California all went Dem.

Cartoon I'd like to see. Barack and the Democrat Donkey at a restaurant, where John Boehner in a chef's hat is serving them a dead crow on a platter."Eat hearty, we have plenty more in the kitchen!"

[QUOTE=Westy; 413677]The next congress will have at least 240 Republicans, a comfortable majority for the GOP. Too bad the GOP didn't do quite as well in the Senate; Delaware, Nevada and California all went Dem.

Cartoon I'd like to see. Barack and the Democrat Donkey at a restaurant, where John Boehner in a chef's hat is serving them a dead crow on a platter."Eat hearty, we have plenty more in the kitchen!"[/QUOTE]I can't see why BHO needs an entourage of 3,000 (yep, that is the number I read) to go to India. If they all fly over on military transports, that would technically constitute an invasion. Just more proof that BHO is in this for someone other than the American public. Further, when you can waste, and there is no denying that this is 100% wasteful spending, $1.0B of Americans' hard-earned money just to hide from your own responsibility you show yourself for the POS that you are.

While I had predicted that the GOP would take both the house and the senate, it is better that they won control of the house and have a very slight minority in the senate, as opposed to controlling both houses. As I mentioned sometime ago, when gridlock is reinstalled in Washington, the American economy will begin to heal itself. There is little doubt that if BHO had kept his hands off the economy, that we'd already be out of this recession and, sadly, the Democrats would still control both houses of congress. If, as I suspect, the economy improves over the next two years, BHO will certainly be touting it as his success despite the fact that any recovery will be inspite of his policies rather than caused or helped by them. He would further embellish his lies by saying that he got the car out of the ditch in the face of GOP control of both houses. Similarly, had the GOP had won the senate too, he would heap any and all failures on the GOP controlled house and senate. With the Dems in control of the senate, such arguments needed to be better crafted and are naturally more difficult to drive home. Further, the house controls the purse strings of the nation and initiates most legislation. Therefore, the GOP will be able to move legislation through the house (stopping by minority leader pelosi's office to rub her nose in it) and force it on the senate. With the narrow margin in the senate, they can't reject out of hand what the house sends them. Too many Dem senators won yesterday by the slimmest of margins in districts where six months ago they thought they were slam dunks. To ignore that is certain defeat in 24 months. Therefore, the senate will be forced to move some legislation onto the president who will have to either sign it or veto it. Unfortunately, for BHO, he won't be able to vote present.

First up in January will be the extension of the Bush-tax cuts. I doubt that the lame duck congress will act on this because they will be looking to punish the public rather than helping them out. Side note, the lame duck congress will need to be careful on forcing more unwanted legislation through against the wishes of the public (Cap and Tax, immigration, etc) . First week or two in January, the house passes tax-cut extension and sends it to the Senate. Senate will have to pass it or the blood bath for Dems will continue in 2012. It then goes to BHO's desk, before the state of the union address. What will he do then? He'll sign it and say it was all his idea to help out the poor working stiff. Whatever, so long as it gets done.

Then, hopefully, the gloves will come off. The mandate of the next congress is to dismantle, de-fund and destroy government excess and waste starting with Obamacare (too bad they can't cancel Obama's $1.0B boondoggle to India) reduce the size and scope of government and stop the governmental intrusion and infringement upon individual liberty. If these newly elected legislators do not carry this fight to the enemy (using the president's terminology) they too will be burned at the stake in 24 short months.

As for how they go about repealing Obamacare, that is a challenge. I doubt that they can do it with a full frontal assault (I. E. Repeal the whole thing with one piece of legislation. If the house voted to repeal it and sent it to the senate, the GOP would need to pull a couple blue dogs over to their side. I find it hard to believe that Obama would sign into law a law repealing his signature legislation and the core element of his effort to destroy the country. Therefore, there is no way it becomes law, so Dem defections would only serve to oppose the commie in chief, rather than advance legislation towards becoming law. Of course, I am sure that any defectors would immediately be added to BHO's enemies list.

[QUOTE=Westy;413677]Cartoon I'd like to see. Barack and the Democrat Donkey at a restaurant, where John Boehner in a chef's hat is serving them a dead crow on a platter."Eat hearty, we have plenty more in the kitchen!"[/QUOTE]He he. I love the vision. I might change the tagline a bit: "We've CHANGED our menu. I HOPE you like this crow." I'm not sure that improves it, but there should be a way to work in that whole HopeyChangey thing he was so big on two years ago.

There are obvious dynamics to the results last night. It was the largest rebuke a sitting President ever has received, at least if one measures by the numbers. The Senate definitely broke a bit more for Democrats than many, including myself, predicted. But, this was by far and away the biggest number of House seats ever lost. Even more importantly, it's also likely the biggest number of governships and state legislatures to ever change hands mid-term. Regardless of the final outcome in the Senate, it's also among the highest number of Senate seats to change parties. I don't have stats on these latter two, but in many ways this was unprecedented. There's no legitimate way to look at the result, other than to say it was a stern rebuff of Obama's agenda and performance. There are illegitimate ways to look at it. But, the numbers don't lie: This result is far and away a greater loss of raw power than what happens in either a normal mid-term, or even what happens in a mid-term when the economy is bad.

Now, here's what I find interesting. The sitting Senators know that. Whether they'll publicly admit it is a different story. But, that doesn't matter: They know it. In two years, there are another 33 of them up for re-election. Of that, 23 of them are Democrats. Only 10 are Republicans, and nearly all of those are in so-called "safe" states. How many of the 23 Senators running for re-election in two years are going to be watching how they vote extra carefully now? My hunch is that it will be more than a handful. Many of these were seats that changed hands in 2006 and, as we saw last night, they can quickly flip back.

This is where Republicans can make some headway. They need to force issues to vote and make these Democratic Senators worry about defending their record in two years. Obama still has veto power, obviously, but he'll get weaker every time he wields it to defeat what would be bi-partisan legislation. Spending cuts and program cuts should be top priority.

In my opinion, that will be the key to the next two years. A number of the 23 Democrats up for re-election just got a glimpse of what their fate could be like. Freshly elected Democrats in the House who supported ObamaCare and the Stimulus were routed, especially if they came from conservative-leaning districts. Senators up for re-election in two years will have a much harder time supporting an unpopular agenda when their neck is on the line and they see what fate befell their peers. Should be interesting.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413688]He he. I love the vision. I might change the tagline a bit: "We've CHANGED our menu. I HOPE you like this crow." I'm not sure that improves it, but there should be a way to work in that whole HopeyChangey thing he was so big on two years ago.[/quote]Another good cartoon would have past and present snapshots.

In the 'past' drawing, luminary democrats like Hugo Black and Robert Bird would be serving "Jim Crow" to black customers at the lunch counter.

In the 'present' they could have Pelosi, Ried and Obama in the kitchen serving plain old crow to themselves, sitting at the counter.

[quote=]Now, here's what I find interesting. The sitting Senators know that. Whether they'll publicly admit it is a different story. But, that doesn't matter: They know it. In two years, there are another 33 of them up for re-election. Of that, 23 of them are Democrats. Only 10 are Republicans, and nearly all of those are in so-called "safe" states. How many of the 23 Senators running for re-election in two years are going to be watching how they vote extra carefully now? My hunch is that it will be more than a handful. Many of these were seats that changed hands in 2006 and, as we saw last night, they can quickly flip back.

This is where Republicans can make some headway. They need to force issues to vote and make these Democratic Senators worry about defending their record in two years. Obama still has veto power, obviously, but he'll get weaker every time he wields it to defeat what would be bi-partisan legislation. Spending cuts and program cuts should be top priority.

In my opinion, that will be the key to the next two years. A number of the 23 Democrats up for re-election just got a glimpse of what their fate could be like. Freshly elected Democrats in the House who supported ObamaCare and the Stimulus were routed, especially if they came from conservative-leaning districts. Senators up for re-election in two years will have a much harder time supporting an unpopular agenda when their neck is on the line and they see what fate befell their peers. Should be interesting. [/QUOTE]All of which make it is better not to have control of the senate. The GOP house can pass whatever it wants and force it on the senate. If they stay true to what the proclaimed last night (always a big risk with politicians) that would have tax cuts and regulation cuts followed by cuts to the size and scope of the federal government. It will be very hard for Dems in the senate, who will face reelection in 24 months, to be on the wrong side of the issues.

Therefore, it is quite possible to get lots of "bi-partisan" legislation (leaning more to the right given the situation, but they will have to give some stuff to the Dems to get it through-it is Washington after all) to the president's desk intended to curtail and repeal his agenda. He will be forced to veto or accept. No more 'present' votes. Let the people see more evidence of who he really is.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413693]Therefore, it is quite possible to get lots of "bi-partisan" legislation (leaning more to the right given the situation, but they will have to give some stuff to the Dems to get it through-it is Washington after all) to the president's desk intended to curtail and repeal his agenda. He will be forced to veto or accept. No more 'present' votes. Let the people see more evidence of who he really is.[/QUOTE]Yep. Get legislation out there that is intended to create jobs rather than the economy-stifling stuff we've seen the past two years. Tax cuts coupled with government spending cuts should be included here. How about legislation providing that we'll keep all the tax increases from ObamaCare but, instead of funding that plan, we'll use it to bring down the deficit? That would be far more cost effective. The guys who estimated the cost of ObamaCare are the same sort of folks who did the projections on the New Jersey tunnel that Christie just killed. We can't "afford" this program, so we may as well kill it now.

I doubt it will be tough to pick off 3 or 4 votes in the Senate to get most economic legislation to Obama's desk, although Dems could always refuse to bring items to the floor. But, that's OK, too. Those are the sort of games that got them in trouble with ObamaCare. If they want to wear that badge for the next round of elections, let them explain to the American public why it was in everyone's best interest that they stifle legislation intended to get the economy going again.

Let Democrats in the Senate propose more of the same sort of stuff we've been seeing: Cap and Tax, Cash for People Who Can't Repay It or Don't Need It,"free" Healthcare for All, More Misguided Stimulus; Comprehensive Immigration "Reform", Better Benefits for Their Union Buddies; Campaign Finance Reform That Excludes Their Union Buddies; Bailouts of Companies Where Their Union Buddies and Wall Street Allies Work; Etc, Etc.

I'm already tired of hearing Obama lie that he now wants to work together in a bipartisan way, just days after he said Republicans were his enemies and that they had to right in the back. The guy is truth-challenged, and he's certainly done his best to dispel any notion that he's smart.

An excellent showing for Repubs last night.

Not enough for the Senate though. I predicted 51 for Dems with a shot at 52; we got 52 with Washington in the balance.

Good thing for Toymann he did not accept the original bet. But well done Toymann, if / when we are in town at the same time we should still hit Madahos together.

Though Repubs got more seats in the House than I would have liked, I am glad they won the House. I would not be so if Dems also lost the Senate, or if Dems had not passed the health care and financial reforms. But those are done and cannot be repealed, so now it is time for Repubs to share some of the responsibility. There has been some chatter on "stopping Obama's agenda", but I'm wondering what is being stopped? Out of control spending? Big government? All make-believe. Dems did not have other major reforms or spending programs planned. The heavy lifting was done the first two years with huge majorities that were destined to get reduced. One issue that comes to mind going forward is clean energy, but there is room to make progress on that going forward.

The plan has been and still is to focus on the deficit from here forward, with recommendations pending from the bipartisan financial commission due to report on December 1. That will be very interesting. I think the odds are Obama will continue to be seen as more willing to work with Repubs than vice-versa, but we shall see.

I believe the Repub win last night increased Obama's chances of re-election in 2012 by at least 10%.

Speaking of crow, I wonder what the Tea Party Express folks had at their "Victory Watch Party" in the same Las Vegas hotel as Reid. They were planning to rub it in his face. Pretty low, glad that didn't work out for them. I remember hearing last week a Reid aid said they weren't concerned because their own polling showed Reid up 6 points. This when all other polls showed Angle ahead. And he won by 5 points. Reid is the man.

I honestly do hope the Repub win leads to more hiring and job growth. Time will tell whether Repubs can disprove polls like the one below.

Most Voters Think House GOP Likely To Disappoint By 2012
[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2010/most_voters_think_house_gop_likely_to_disappoint_by_2012[/url]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413693]All of which make it is better not to have control of the senate. [/QUOTE]Careful, according to Stan, being OK with a loss is Sour Grapes. That's makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=Esten;413705]if Dems had not passed the health care and financial reforms. But those are done and cannot be repealed...[/QUOTE]Don't bet on it.

[QUOTE=Esten;413705]The heavy lifting was done the first two years...[/QUOTE]I think you mean "the [strike]heavy lifting[/strike] [i]un-lubricated butt-fucking the Dems gave the American people[/i] was done the first two years".

I got one word for you : Stall.

[QUOTE=Esten;413705]...passed the health care and financial reforms. But those are done and cannot be repealed, [/quote]The new congress was elected as a reponse to Obamacare. If they do not repeal or dismantle it, they will be out, too.

[quote=]so now it is time for Repubs to share some of the responsibility.[/quote]Yes, they have the responsibility to follow through on their promises. As for 'sharing' responsibility, the Democrat party, led by Obama, Ried and Pelosi own this financial mess, the healthcare disaster and the out of control spending (doesn't mean people before them didn't contribute. The Republicans in congress held together in a rare showing of unity against the stimulus and health care, which are the two biggest factors in their wins on Tuesday.

[quote=] There has been some chatter on "stopping Obama's agenda", [/quote]If the biggest repudiation of a president's agenda since 1938 is 'chatter', I wonder what it would take to get your attention.

[quote=]but I'm wondering what is being stopped?[/quote]If it comes out of BHO or a Dem, stop it dead in its tracks. Rollback and repeal whatever you can.

[quote=]Out of control spending? Big government? All make-believe.[/quote]So, I guess all those trillions of debt are make believe too? The US$1.0B being spent on BHO's trip to India (3,000 people, 40 aircraft, 34 warships, etc) is make believe. The 17% unemployment rate is make believe.

[quote=]Dems did not have other major reforms or spending programs planned.[/quote]Cap and Tax and Immigration "Reform" are not major reforms or programs in your eyes?

[quote=] The heavy lifting was done the first two years with huge majorities that were destined to get reduced.[/quote]Those majorities were slashed and decimated, not 'reduced', precisely because they were used to abuse the American public, the American economy and the Constitution for the personal and political gain of a handful of powerful Democrats.

[quote=] One issue that comes to mind going forward is clean energy, but there is room to make progress on that going forward.[/quote]What a waste of money. Eliminate all restrictions on drilling within US territories and lets see what happens.

[quote=]The plan has been and still is to focus on the deficit from here forward,[/quote]You are a lying sack of s. BHO has pathologically lied about focusing on the deficit, jobs and the broader economy since before his election. He has done absolutely nothing except work to advance his marxist agenda.

[quote=] with recommendations pending from the bipartisan financial commission due to report on December 1. That will be very interesting.[/quote]Wow, what a great panel. I wonder what they are going to say? Raise taxes! Why couldn't the executive and legislative branches of our government conduct their own investigations? Do they lack the personnel or resources? No. It is because the objective of this admin and the outgoing congress is to raise taxes and to continue their efforts to weaken the Unites States of America. Therefore they come up with a "Blue Ribbon 'Bi-partisan' Panel" to look into what can be done. Are you fuc*ing kidding me? This is a ruse that was fixed from the get go to deliver a third party recommendation to raise taxes. Alan Simpson is there so they can say it was bi-partisan so when the dems raise taxes and further harm our economy, they will shrug and say "It wasn't us. It was the bi-partisan commission. We had to do it"

[quote=] I think the odds are Obama will continue to be seen as more willing to work with Repubs than vice-versa, but we shall see.[/quote]Err? Who is it that currently sees him to be more willing to work with the republicans than vice-versa?"The Rebulicans can come along, but they got to ride in the back" "Elections have consequences, I won, you lost"

[quote=]I believe the Repub win last night increased Obama's chances of re-election in 2012 by at least 10%.[/quote]Glad you agree with me. I hope that you have enjoyed reading my posts. I won't venture a guess on the improved probability. It is peculiar that while Esten is admitting that the effect of an empowered legislative house blocking the president's agenda and attempting to roll-back his legacy will be positive for the nation (benefiting the president politically) he still clings (bitterly, I might add) to the vapid, unrealistic neo-marxist ideology that got us in this mess in the first place. Albert Einstein is credited with defining insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Since we are on the subject of Einstein, he had more than a few good quotes. Two more that seem apropros for Esten are:

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be" and "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits"

[quote=]Speaking of crow, I wonder what the Tea Party Express folks had at their "Victory Watch Party" in the same Las Vegas hotel as Reid. They were planning to rub it in his face. Pretty low, glad that didn't work out for them. I remember hearing last week a Reid aid said they weren't concerned because their own polling showed Reid up 6 points. This when all other polls showed Angle ahead. And he won by 5 points. Reid is the man.[/quote]

The Tea Party and their agenda shaped this rout of the Dems. I am not sure what they were drinking at the Tea Party party. However, liberals across the country didn't have room in their mouths for crow because they were filled with the sacks of all those Teabaggers.

[quote=]I honestly do hope the Repub win leads to more hiring and job growth.[/quote]

Because lord knows that no one on your side is capable of doing it.

[quote=] Time will tell whether Repubs can disprove polls like the one below.

Most Voters Think House GOP Likely To Disappoint By 2012.[/quote]

Give it up Esten. If the American public didn't want the grown ups to come in and clean up this mess, Tuesday would have worked out a little differently for your guys.

America, in the most convincing way just told the world through a historic electoral *****-slapping that they are disappointed in the dismal performance of the Democrat party. The Dems are so loathed that potential, future disappointment is favored over the continuation of proven disappointment. Go figure.

However, I do think that the action in the stock market today is interesting.

The first few news stories (from the main stream media) are trying to credit the fed's plan to buy $1.0T in bonds. I guess if you didn't know any better, this might seem plausible. But why are equity markets improving while oil is at a recent high, unemployment is increasing and the govt is essentially guaranteeing short term capital gains for bond traders? Additionally, why are US equity markets responding when the Fed action may devalue the dollar by as much as 20% ?

The short answer? Because they expect better returns there than they can get elsewhere.

The Fed action is an attempt to alter credit markets via a route other than through rate setting policy where they have very little wiggle room. As for rate setting policy, the Fed is like a werewolf hunter down to his last couple of silver bullets, you can't risk wasting any, in case you really, really, really need to. They are trying to drive interest rates lower with the hope of making credit more available (unlikely in this environment, increasing money supply and driving capital into the equity markets and other investments that might spur growth.

However, bonds have both prices and yields (interest rates. Sort of) therefore in the most basic terms you can make (and lose) money on bonds two ways: playing the yields or playing the prices. First, you can buy and hold the bond thereby receiving the interest payments related to the bond. You can also trade them, based upon their prices, and if you buy low and sell high, you will make a capital gain. For bonds, price and yield to maturity (essentially int income you would make holding the bond until it matures) are inversely related. That is to say if the price goes up, the yield goes down. By reducing the supply (buying something makes it more scarce for others to buy) you are impacting the supply and demand relationship moving the pricing equilibrium upward. Typically, as yields drop, money is forced out of the credit market and into the equity markets and other investments that can provide better returns.

However, if you have a whale at the table who is determined to blow $1.0T before retiring to the high-rollers' suite, why wouldn't you stick around to take some of his capital? In fact, if your capital is currently involved in another money making activity, why not reconsider deploying it into the debt markets to make short-term capital gains on trading bonds? With derivatives (there's that dirty word) you can mitigate much of your exposure to the declining interest rates of your underlying asset (the bod) while playing the upside on the price.

Therefore, increased interest in equities must mean that the perceived opportunities in equities will yield greater risk-adjusted returns than those that can be made in a debt markets with an artificial pricing anomaly that tells investors precisely which directions prices must go.

Therefore, the Fed's plan has a slight flaw in that the professionally managed moneys will likely not rapidly redeploy into job creating investments, rather they will suck the $1.0T out of the Fed and make a profit doing so. That is not to say that the end result will not be lower rates, it will. However, the action will be less stimulative than expected.

To the contrary, I see today's buoyancy in the market being more related to the election results and confirmation from Boehner (if that were my name I would proudly pronounce it Boner) and company that the new congress will pursue strategies that are more conducive to conducting business than the soon-to-be predecessor congress. The promise of less regulation, less intangible-undefined big-brother risk and lower taxation will start to have immediate results because corporations will be better able to assess the true costs of expanding their businesses.

The stock market and commodity prices are leading economic indicators. The professional investors, at least today, are looking at an improved landscape for the US economy as evidenced by the equity market activity. The trend of rising oil prices, which has been going on for a while and it not necessarily related to the election results, is indicative of anticipated, future global demand (I. E. It is predictive of global growth) . The US economy has been one of the slowest to break the grip of the global economic crisis, while many international markets have seen marked improvement. Germany for instance is experiences remarkably low unemployment (probably not a coincidence that Merkle has been much more capitalistic than her US counter part) and even Argentina is growing.

Like I said, one day does not a recovery make. However, may I paraphrase Lao-Tzu (the father of Taoism? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

As for the Fed action, an anonymous proverb (or cliche) comes to mind "every stick has two ends"