Dow Drops Back Below 8,000

(CBS/AP)  Wall Street pulled back Monday as investors took profits following a four-week rally, fearful of poor earnings reports starting this week and more trouble for banks.

Investors were also disappointed that talks for IBM Corp.'s $7 billion deal to buy Sun Microsystems Inc. have stalled — a sign that the market is still not ready to support big mergers.

Financial shares sold off after a prominent analyst predicted more losses at banks and said the government's efforts to prop up the ailing industry might not be as effective as hoped.

Michael Mayo issued "sell" ratings on several banks and said in his report that loan losses could exceed levels seen in the Great Depression.

The market was already on edge about the coming parade of first-quarter results, which kicks off Tuesday with aluminum producer and Dow component Alcoa Inc. Worse-than-expected reports could easily upset the market's recent advance, which brought stocks up more than 20 percent from early March, when stocks hit their lowest levels in 12 years.

"You have some skittishness in the market," said Len Blum, managing director at Westwood Capital LLC. "We have earnings season up ahead and it's very difficult to predict what that is going to do."

According to preliminary calculations, the Dow Jones industrials fell 41.74, or 0.5 percent, to 7,975.85 after being down as much as 155 points.

The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 7.02, or 0.8 percent, to 835.48, while the Nasdaq composite index fell 15.16, or 1 percent, to 1,606.71.

Technology stocks were lower following the IBM-Sun news. Discussions between the technology giants had been in their final stages, but The Associated Press learned that IBM took its offer off the table Sunday after Sun terminated IBM's status as its exclusive negotiating partner.

It was unclear whether talks were continuing, or if Sun was trying to find an alternative suitor. Sun shares plunged more than 22 percent, falling $1.93 to $6.56. IBM fell 66 cents, or less than 1 percent, to $101.65.

Also weighing on the technology sector was a downgrade of Cisco Systems Inc. A Goldman Sachs analyst cut the rating on the stock to "Neutral" from "Buy," saying it had reached her $18 price target. Shares dropped 63 cents, or 3.5 percent, to $17.53.

Among the biggest decliners in the financial industry were Wells Fargo & Co., which dropped $1.09, or 6.7 percent, to $15.25, and PNC Financial Services Group Inc., which fell $1.99, or 5.6 percent, to $33.81. Regional bank stocks also posted big losses.

[walt1944]

Whenever I hear about Wall Street and the GGRREEEDDYY financial crooks and "rertards" that run the financial machine of the country, I can't help but think back to when the former-Great IDIOT Bush II was pushing hard to "PRIVATIZE" Social Security and put the entire thing in the hands of Wall Street.

If the GREAT IDIOT had been successful in that huge mistake, I would think that the current recession would have become a great CATASTROPHE for the country, bigger even than the BIG "D" of 1929!

If there is anything to be thankful about in this neocon Fascist Nazi Republican-caused Recession/Depression we are in, its that groups like AARP, and even stupid neocon Congresspeople had sense enough to know you NEVER TOUCH Social Security, no matter how bad the economy is or how much the White House wants to "tinker" with it!

HAIL OBAMA!!!!

[sndkzyaa]

Before Clinton was impeached (but not convicted) in a not-so-silent GOP attempted coup, Clinton's "saber-rattling" about Saddam's weapons remained saber-rattling-- despite air strikes against Iraqi sites which "locked on" with radar or fired on US aircraft. Clinton chose to work within the UN inspections regime, and was doing so when he left office.
Posted by alphaa10000 at 12:08 AM : Apr 7, 2009

Aah, memories, memories. They can be so faulty.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

Here's Slick Willy telling us Saddam had WMD, even though no WMD have ever been found in Iraq after 1991:

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

?The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. "

Speech from the Oval Office by President William Clinton, explaining his attack on Iraq
reported by The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 16, 1998

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clintontext121698.htm

Just for a time reference, recall that Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998.



Here?s Hillary repeating Bill?s impeachment eve speech, almost word for word, and adding that Saddam was pursuing nuclear capability:

?Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people?

?It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons??

Hillary Clinton?s Senate floor speech, explaining her vote FOR war against Iraq
October 10, 2002

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html




Later in the same speech, here's Hillary connecting the Iraq war with 9/11:

?And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.




Yes, the war in Iraq is a Clinton war. Bill Clinton started the WMD lie, which was then adopted by the majority of Congress. President Bush started the war with the full approval of the overwhelming majority of Congress.

Thousands died from Clinton's WMD lies.

Liberals are so allergic to facts.

[sndkzyaa]

yo sndkzyaa...you seem to forget that the president do not pass laws. Lets get down to the core question, who wrote the Gramm-Leach-Billey bill???
Posted by geewheeez at 9:54 PM : Apr 6, 2009

Yo, you seem to forget that the authors of a bill do not pass laws, either.

Laws are passed by a vote of Congress. And in the final vote on that measure, only 8 senators and 73 members of the house voted against it.

That's an OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats along with an OVERWHELMING majority of Republicans.

Twist and spin all you want. It had overwhelming support from both parties. That includes Democrats.

President Clinton signed the bill into law proudly, and he is still proud of it today.

[sndkzyaa]

yo sndkzyaa...you seem to forget that the president do not pass laws. Lets get down to the core question, who wrote the Gramm-Leach-Billey bill???
Posted by geewheeez at 9:54 PM : Apr 6, 2009

Yo, you seem to forget that the authors of a bill do not pass laws, either.

Laws are passed by a vote of Congress. And in the final vote on that measure, only 8 senators and 73 members of the house voted against it.

That's an OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats along with an OVERWHELMING majority of Republicans.

Twist and spin all you want. It had overwhelming support from both parties. That includes Democrats.

President Clinton signed the bill into law proudly, and he is still proud of it today.

[sndkzyaa]

Who cares? Close the country.
Posted by 167irishboy at 9:40 PM : Apr 6, 2009

Seems like the Obama nation cares LOUDLY when it's going up.... LOL!

[sndkzyaa]

Hardly a consensus, when almost all GOP senators voted for Bush, but Democratic senators were divided-- 29 for, and 21 against. Likewise, when GOP congressmen voted an almost perfect party line for Bush, but Democratic congressmen were about 60 percent against the resolution.
Posted by alphaa10 at 1:45 AM : Apr 7, 2009

So, then the majority of Democrats adopted Clinton's WMD lie and voted for war.

Including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry....

Thanks for admitting that the majority of Democrats are to blame for the Iraq war.

[alphaa10]

Postscript-- In my post below, "Selective Memory?", the word "consensus" has been misused when applied to the 2002 AUMF on Iraq. As in the statement, "In effect, the resolution was a consensus of congress about Bush claims..."

"Consensus" was intended in the popular sense of a very rough, general direction of opinion. But when the actual partisan breakdown on the Iraq vote is considered for the numbers, it becomes anything but a rough, general agreement.

The Iraq resolution, in fact, appears to be a partisan victory of the GOP, over a divided Democratic Party.

Hardly a consensus, when almost all GOP senators voted for Bush, but Democratic senators were divided-- 29 for, and 21 against. Likewise, when GOP congressmen voted an almost perfect party line for Bush, but Democratic congressmen were about 60 percent against the resolution.

[geewheeez]

yo sndkzyaa...you seem to forget that the president do not pass laws. Lets get down to the core question, who wrote the Gramm-Leach-Billey bill???

[geewheeez]

Nobody worst than BUSH and the retuhgs.

[167irishboy]

Who cares? Close the country.