Hey...

[telkanuru]

The rise may be tied directly to the election mainly because it occured across the entire board of defense contractors the day after the election.

[CutLass]

Don't know about Halliburton, but does it not occur to you that Lockheed just recently secured the contract for the F-35? You don't think that might have something to do with increasing stocks?

Lockheed won the JSF (F-35) contract three years ago. Wednesday's rise had nothing to do with it.

Continuation and increase on other contracts for Lockheed and the other defence companies, including continuation of the provisioning work at Haliburton is why their stocks went up.

[Soldier]

I wasn't aware it was a distinct rise starting since Wednesday - my mistake.

Though, it still makes perfect sense to me - wouldn't you invest more in a defense company right after a conservative Republican president got re-elected?

[Rogue]

Sounds logical to me.
But remember I'm a fan of making money. (and keeping it)

[Epictetus]

At least the Reps are only talking:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...arters_vandals

I assume you're implying that this was a Democratic group? They burned Kerry in effegy as well. Anne Coulter, on the other hand, is a fairly powerful figure in the Republican party.

[telkanuru]

And I take this opportunity to point out that Anne Coulter has an Adam's Apple. And it's not an ad hominem (rep point for he who figures out why )

[mrbiggs]

And....voila....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._nm/economy_dc

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...kets_stocks_dc

The job increase was in October, before Bush was elected. Maybe employers were starting to hope for a change, and hired people.

I still find it hard to economically support a President who lost 6 trillion dollars of our money. Which is alot.

[telkanuru]

...6 trillion dollars of our money. Which is alot.

Look up in the sky! It's CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!! Yar!

[Soldier]

The job increase was in October, before Bush was elected. Maybe employers were starting to hope for a change, and hired people.

I still find it hard to economically support a President who lost 6 trillion dollars of our money. Which is alot.

Lost our money, or spent it?

[Epictetus]

And I take this opportunity to point out that Anne Coulter has an Adam's Apple. And it's not an ad hominem (rep point for he who figures out why )

Impossible. Unless Anne Coulter is a male.

The Adams Apple is a secondary sex charicteristic of the male body. It expands during puberty as hormone levels grow and change. Scientifically, it is called the "prominentia laryngea", or prominence of the larnyx.

So... I guess your calling Anne Coulter a man, that's not really an ad hominem attack. Of course, "ad hominem" can be translated as either 'against the person' or 'against the man', which is somewhat awkward given the argument.

Or maybe I'm thinking to much into this.

Signed,
Epictetus, Philosophy Major: Will think for food.

[Inquartata]

Increase in employment. Oh sure, those are the people the Republicans hired to vote for George Bush. Hang on until December when the party doesn't need them anymore and they all get laid off again!

Dang it, why didn't I get MY check?

Stock Market rise. All the Wealthiest Americans who had pulled their investments in fear of another "economy killing act" from the Bush Administration. Sighing in relief that they would have a few months of rebound before he has time to do something stupid again.

Yes, because wealthy people can move their wealth in and out of the market with just that celerity---and not worry at all about guessing wrong and dropping a few million. And they move like lemmings, too!

[Inquartata]

I should note that the specific stocks that rose were of companies such as Haliburton and Lockheed, etc. I don't see that as a posititive so much as damning.

Selective perception?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AAPL...e=3&f=2004&g=d

Just one example of a non-Bush company that went up. Not that you want to hear that, of course.

[Inquartata]

Re: the employment figures. It's nice that more people got jobs, but note also that unemployment went up 0.1% and that there is still a net loss in jobs for this administration.

It went up because more people are reentering the job market. That's a decrease in the "discouraged worker" segment of the labor force, rises in which the Kerry campaign et. al. found so horrible a few months ago. If a RISE in that segment is bad, a shrinkage of it is good, no?

But yes, there is still a long way to go. I only noted the higher number in token of the fact that the President doesn't control the economic data, else the encouraging figures would have been released BEFORE the election.

And to give Riptide a head start on his consolation.

[Inquartata]

Anne Coulter, on the other hand, is a fairly powerful figure in the Republican party.

Sort of the way Molly Ivins is in the Democratic? IOW, not very?

Pundits aren't usually moving forces within political parties. They just like to think they are. And they like US to think they are.

[Inquartata]

The job increase was in October, before Bush was elected.

Which was sort of my point.

Maybe employers were starting to hope for a change, and hired people.

Wait---are we coming to a consensus ( at last! ) that everything which happens in the economy during a President's term may not be his doing? That maybe he has little real control over economic events? That other forces are more important?

I still find it hard to economically support a President who lost 6 trillion dollars of our money.

Lost it? Please explain...

( If you mean the nat'l debt, it's borrowed, not "lost". When you finance a car or take out a student loan, is the money gone forever? )