Dow Drops Back Below 8,000

Dow Falls 41 Points As Investors Skeptical Of Looming 1Q Earnings Reports

(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.

[gce651]

Let it fall to 2000!

The Dow Jones, et al. are NOT THE ECONOMY!

[sndkzyaa]

The SEC is letting scam artists get away with murder in the markets.
Posted by Kuei1248 at 5:34 PM : Apr 6, 2009

Like they did on Clinton's watch, when Madoff was turned in to the SEC in 2000 and they just ignored him.

Like Enron did. And Worldcomm and Andersen Accounting, and all the other Clinton era stock market frauds.

In the past sixteen years, we have become a nation of the poor ruled by a congress of the wealthy.

[Kuei1248]

"Thank you for showing us you actually know nothing about the market. "

I have been right on all accounts of the market. People say buy low/sell high. Only one problem. The businesses you are investing in now are all crashing, declaring bankruptcy, committing billion dollar scams and running off with your money. You can't sell high. Everything keeps going lower. The SEC is letting scam artists get away with murder in the markets. They get caught, they fold their business and start a new one and go through it all over again. The stock market is a complete joke. Look at all the Q (bankruptcy) stock tickers. What do you suppose happens with the investor's money when a company folds? That is right, investors lose it all. To say I know nothing of the market is a copout. We are in a system that does not work. End of story. We knew NAFTA would not work when it was introduced and we were correct. I am a Manufacturing Process Engineer who has watched american manufacturing take a complete cr@p since the introduction of "free trade". Now america has nothing to trade except war. Good future, HUH? Americans have to pay taxes to sell their product to countries who have $1/day labor wages, and they sell here for free. They now have all of our blueprints and designs and technology. How long did you think it would take before they ran us out of business? You, sir, are the one who knows little about the market, if ANYTHING.

[sndkzyaa]

Heck with DOW, maybe we should get rid off that nest of crooks and manipulators once for all.
Posted by zokin at 4:04 PM : Apr 6, 2009

Yes, absolutely, toss it out the window.


And the next time the barometer warns of rapidly falling atmospheric pressure, toss the barometer out the window because you don't want to know that a hurricane is coming.


Here's another idea. If you don't like what the stock market is telling you, just don't look.

Some of us LIKE having actual credible information to work with. The Dow reading is credible because people are paying real dollars to change its value.

They don't do that without a good reason.

[sndkzyaa]

And stating that you love people finding fault with Obama, without any logical argument in support of him, means nothing.

Except than that you have no substance or ideas, and a failed ideology.
Posted by searingtruth at 3:11 PM : Apr 6, 2009

Unlike the "professionals", who are ultra intelligent and know the market so well that they brought our country and its economy to its knees.
Posted by searingtruth at 3:38 PM : Apr 6, 2009

TWO excellent posts! Well said.

You're in fine form today.

[sndkzyaa]

Today the market went down a few points - what did that mean? Absolutely nothing.
Posted by brainteaser2 at 4:07 PM : Apr 6, 2009

And yet, when the market goes up a few points and the Obama nation is here cheering and praising their messiah, you're nowhere to be seen telling them it means nothing.

And then when I try to set them straight with actual facts, and they respond by getting confused about things like the meaning of before and after, you remain strangely silent.

You only heap derision on the ones who mention of it when the market goes down.

You are a faker.

[sndkzyaa]

EXACTLY, DUMBTITS! That was my POINT- that you didn't HAVE A POINT! HOW UNBELIEVABLY FRIKKING STUPID ARE YOU????
Posted by ghostfighter-2009 at 1:52 PM : Apr 6, 2009

Translation: you don't actually understand words like high, low, open, and close, and you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So you try to cover it up by taunting and name calling in ALL CAPS and hope nobody notices that you didn't actually type any factual information while you were calling me stupid.

It's a standard liberal tactic. Anybody who's been on the boards for a while knows it.

Fact - you accused me of lying when I said the market was down 100. Now that I've proven your ignorance, you're pretending you meant something else.

But you just can't think of what else your comment might have meant.

So you just shout name-calling insults and hope nobody notices. LOL!

You're such a pathetic loser.

[sndkzyaa]

the lie of WMD in Iraq is not from Clinton but from Bush Sr. Banking deregulation was introduced by the republican controlled Congress, even if Clinton vetoed it, it would have passed anyways.
Posted by geewheeez at 2:48 PM : Apr 6, 2009

What a selective memory you have.

Clinton was telling the WMD lie in 1998, before he was impeached. He used it as his excuse to attack Iraq on the eve of his impeachment vote, causing the vote to be postponed by a few days.

The overwhelming majority of Congress adopted Clinton's WMD lie, so they voted for war in Iraq. Bush had the full bipartisan support of Congress when he started the war.

Now the liberals want to practice historical revisionism and pretend that didn't happen.

They also NEVER want to discuss the HOUSE vote on the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley banking deregulation. The support was so overwhelming, a vote wasn't even taken in the House on their version of the bill. In the final vote, only 73 members of the house voted against it - the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for it. Only 8 sentators voted against the final version.

Yes ONLY 8 in the entire senate. Once again, the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for it.

Being signed by Clinton was a mere formality. Few pieces of legislation have ever passed with such overwhelming support of both parties.

But the fact is, Clinton was proud to sign it, and he's still proud of it today.

Facts - liberals are allergic to them.

[searingtruth]

"I just love it when posters think they know the market. Some of them have even gone to college to pretend they know the market. Allan Greenspan once remarked that even with advanced math calculations he still couldn't really predict what the market was going to do. Today the market went down a few points - what did that mean? Absolutely nothing."
brainteaser2


I see again.

So no one knows anything about the market, but you know that when it goes down it means nothing?

But in any case, you do forward the truth of the market, that even those proposing to be experts have no idea what it's going to do.

And that's because it's amoral, based upon pure greed and inhumanity. Not the welfare of the American people.

Which is an excellent reason for Americans to abolish it.

Before it abolishes us in favor of the next great inhumane empire, the Chinese.
ST


"And so together we shared the fate of all the failed democracies before us, joining those pitiful beings who had held the light of freedom in one hand, and put it out with the other."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave

[brainteaser2]

I just love it when posters think they know the market. Some of them have even gone to college to pretend they know the market. Allan Greenspan once remarked that even with advanced math calculations he still couldn't really predict what the market was going to do. Today the market went down a few points - what did that mean? Absolutely nothing.