Jim Cramer is Trying to Scare the American Voter

[rusty charly]

"We’ve had a government of, by, and for the corporations for so long that most people have forgotten that political risk used to be a reason to sell stocks. We’ve gotten so complacent about the Feds’ doing everything to support the rights of corporations to make as much money as possible with the lowest taxes in years that Wall Street could be in for the shock of a lifetime come fall, when—oh, heavens—the Democrats could take control of Congress. Given the fiasco that is our foreign policy, it could happen.

If the Democrats do take over, you can expect the usual whining: Corporations don’t pay enough taxes, CEOs are overpaid—all true, of course. But this column’s not about political philosophy; it’s about saving money. It’s about preserving your investments in specific industries coddled for a half-dozen years by the GOP’s love affair with business that I believe will be under assault, if not overrun, by a Democratic Congress."

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/businessfinance/bottomline/19385/index.html

[Mika]

1. IOW: Its bad fer 'Murica, but I'm all for promotin' it.

:puke:

[dchill]

2. I just wonder when...

this guy's aneurism is going to kick in...

[skipos]

3. He knows that Dem presidents are historically better for the economy

right? Doesn't he get paid big bucks to give people advice?

Anyway, Forbes has some ratings of ecomonic properity that verify this.

"Not surprisingly, Bill Clinton tops the magazine's prosperity chart. He is followed by two other Democrats – Johnson and Kennedy. The first Republican to show up is Reagan, who comes in fourth. No Democrat finishes lower than seventh (Truman), and the last three spots are all occupied by Republicans (Nixon, Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush). On a scale of one to eleven (one being Bill Clinton, eleven being the elder Bush), Democrats have an average ranking of 3.8, Republicans of 7.8."

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=131769

That probably explains why Democrats are better for the stock market too.

DOW SINCE 1901
Republican years Avg. annual change 6.9%
Democratic years Avg. annual change 13.3%
Source: Stock Trader's Almanac 2005

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm

[European Socialist]

4. Cramer's a smart guy--but he still doesn't get it--When the little guy ...

does well, the rich do even better.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. There is sick, twisted segment of the upper class

Not all of them by any means, but I honestly think there are some rich people in the world who would sacrifice the stability of the economy and even some of their own longterm financial prospects just to keep us riffraff in our place. They have to push others down to lift themselves up. They are enamored of the Gilded Era and want to bring it back, no matter what the cost.

[European Socialist]

8. And President Monkey is one of them!!!!

[suziedemocrat]

14. You Got it!!! I wish more people would realize that.

I was reading a travel guide for Chile. They were talking about how Chile has a very large class of impoverished people. They said as Chile became a business center and the economy improved, the lives of the impoverished also improved. Some of these people could even afford (gasp!) a used television set or used car. The book said this did not make Chile's upper-class happy because the differences between the classes was no longer as obvious.

Also Oracle's Larry Ellison's favorite saying comes from the warrior Genghis Khan: “It’s not sufficient that I succeed. Everyone else must fail.”

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. The article's not all bad but the overall tone is disturbing

It's clearly intended for an audience of selfish greedy pricks like him. Oh, and that b.s. about how going after WalMart to protect small businesses and reduce the trade deficit with China hurting poor people. What a load. WalMart has single handedly made more people poor than any entity I can think of for a long time.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. He could scare the chrome off a bumper

He is so creepy.

[HereSince1628]

9. Boo-Yah! Did I make you jump????

Or is it the image of him with the Bowie Knife in his teeth?

[blue cat]

10. Is this the same guy who does

Mad Money on MSNBC?

[TomClash]

11. I remember Cramer when he was sitting at his desk

hawking stocks on the phone to Maria Bartiromo.

Gee, Jim, tech stocks are going to be back in favor and oil and defense will take a powder. No shit.

[progree]

12. Repugs cut taxes to stimulate economy, Fed raises interest rates to slow i

Republicans cut taxes to stimulate the economy ->

The Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to slow the economy down to a point where inflation doesn't get too bad ->

Net result: tax cuts (without spending cuts) cause interest rates to rise! So recent home-owners (and those with ARMS) are screwed. And student loan interest rates have gone way up. And small businesses and large suffer from increased debt costs.

Tax cuts = higher interest rates and more debt!

Anyway, the only reason tax cuts stimulate the U.S. economy (in the short run) is because most of the new money to buy the resulting Treasury securities that fund the increased debt comes from overseas (East Asia mostly). So we are "stimulating" ourselves with borrowed money from overseas.

I wish when some rightie says that tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy, Dems should respond by asking how can it stimulate the economy if the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to slow it back down? But I never hear Dems make that argument. Why not? Is this rocket science? I don't think so.

Sure tax cuts help when the economy is in the doldrums like in 2001-3 and the Fed is cutting interest rates -- then the two policies are working together. But when economic growth and inflation reaches a point where the Fed has to raise interest rates to slow the economy, then it makes no sense. Alls we end up with is higher interest rates and higher debt.

(And tax cuts matched with spending cuts make economic sense too).

======================================================

The economy is "strong" in a GDP sense only because of unsustainable run-away federal spending and federal and private borrowing from overseas. The current account deficit for 2005 was not only a staggering record dollar amount ($805 Billion), but also a record percentage of the nation's economy (6.4% of GDP).

In just 5 years, federal spending has increased 42% ( 1.821,374 Trillion dollars was spent in the 12 months ending 3/31/01. 2.578,774 Trillion dollars was spent in the 12 months ending 3/31/06. That's about a 42% increase.).

The federal government debt has grown by 45% between March 31, 2001 and March 31, 2006. Relative to the size of the economy, it has grown from 58% of GDP to 64% of GDP during this period. It now stands at over $8.3 Trillion. See:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi

14% (one seventh) of the US budget now goes just to paying interest on this debt.

Its not tax cuts that are stimulating the economy so much as a massive federal spending increase. Here again, why, when a Repug talks about how well the economy is doing (in a GDP sense) and saying that Bush's tax cuts are causing it, why don't Dems ask, "how do you know it isn't the 42% increase in federal spending in just 5 years that is stimulating the economy?"

[teryang]

13. Corporations that want to sell in US need to pay for infrastructure

They have exported their capital and manufacturing overseas. The currency is in a nose dive because it backed by unkept promises. The entire economy at this stage represents a Ponzi scheme about to fail. It is only naked manipulation of the markets by everthing up to and including military force that keeps it afloat.

[upi402]

15. all my investments are 100% overseas, and a little gold

i'm fed up with this corporatocracy

when America is returned, then i'll vote with my dollars

[dunn]

16. He changed a few months ago. He startd talking about being a "team player

" about the same time they stopped rerunning his show one night a week for "Conversations WIth Michael Eisner". Prior to that he was anti-Bush and always said he did not like NEWS corporation stock. He has always liked NEWS stock since. He also used to mention frequently that he is a Democrat. He keeps mentioning that he is a "team player" now.