Hmmm… I take this as another “in your face” type of moment from you. Take some pride in it for now, because this will not last.

The One (who cannot still find his birth certificate and still does not understand the US Constitution) has already done great damage to our future. Inflation, higher taxes, higher job losses, continually growing unemployment are in our near future.

This joker was supposed to give us change. All he has done has given us radicalism. At the end of BO’s first term, Jimmy Carter will look brilliant by comparison.

The S&P is simply the value of the underlying stocks in the index. the value of those companies is related mainly to consumer spending which has rebounded somewhat. Try getting new venture capital. Try getting a loan, even if you are well-heeled. Capital went on strike and caused the bankruptcies of Chrysler and soon GM. No private capital stepped up. Capital is on strike in lending to TARP recipients. No one knows what Obama&Co. will demand next. When I think about “capital”, although it can have several definitions, I think about risk, not passive investment in the market. That capital is still on strike.

Somehow, money is trickling back in - just like in the banks’ earnings reports. Go figure. Who would think that the Fed’s printing, dumping and allocating $12t in the last year would have shown up on the radar?

In a word, this isn’t real capital, it’s paper, fiat. We’ll all - soon - come to know what that really means.

Eddie - So I’m guessing your all for President Obama spending 6 TRILLION Dollars? The S&P is up for a few days and now you stand there on the Obama Flagship and proclaim “Mission Accomplished”. Let me spend 6 Trillion I don’t have and I can make anyone belive times are getting better.

You can manipulate language, revise history, politicize science, and change civics. But, the math will eventually catch up to the charade.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A ‘DISGRACE’…. Yesterday, a Politico headline read, “Disgraced John Edwards back in the spotlight.” Jamison Foser responded with a short item that got me thinking.

Maybe someday, we’ll see a Politico headline like this about Newt Gingrich.

That would be nice. After all, Gingrich, while in Congress, was plagued by questions over ethics violations, carried on an extramarital affair with a younger aide while impeaching President Clinton, enjoyed Cheney-like approval ratings from the public, was forced from his leadership post by his own caucus, and soon after resigned from the House altogether. Is he a “disgrace”? Sounds like it.

I’m not necessarily bothered by the Politico’s use of the word in relation to John Edwards. The former senator’s future in public life is certainly bleak. But Foser’s broader point — what constitutes a “disgrace”? — is worth considering.

As far as I can tell, doing something disgraceful isn’t enough. Republicans like Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and David Vitter, among many others, have seemingly disgraced themselves, but none are commonly awarded the term.

In contrast, Dems like Edwards and Rod Blagojevich are labeled a “disgrace” with minimal hesitation.

The rule, then, seems to be that politicians are a “disgrace” when their allies no longer want anything to do with them. If like-minded figures are willing to hang out with you, you’re in good shape. If not, expect the “d” word. Democrats won’t return Edwards’ calls,so he’s in trouble. Vitter is seeking re-election, presumably on a “pro-family” platform, so he’s fine.

With this in mind, the problem with Gingrich isn’t that he doesn’t deserve to be called a “disgrace,” it’s that Republicans still consider him credible. Perhaps, if the GOP had higher standards, we’d have more “disgraces.”