Will: at this point, except for noting a loss by doing simple mathematics, you prove to know nothing and your bias has also infected your common sense. Not only have you taken this completely out of context, but it seems to me that you cherry-picked an excerpt only to further your self-serving agenda. Try reading the book and understanding the message that it's trying to convey. No one's trying to gaurantee fool-proof investing, or citing triple-digit gains. It's the methodology and mindset that they're trying to get across to the reader. But that would have required you to read the book instead of just scouring for hot buttons. Key phrase that you should have focused on "long-term investing." Not 9 years.

People write a book to sell a book. If they were that savy about investing they would be doing that instead of wasting time writing a book.

"ry reading the book and understanding the message that it's trying to convey. ..." Good point, bphilly. Because, clearly, Will misunderstood the message behind a book titled DOW 36,000, which says "formed a terStocks are now, we believe, in the midst of a one-time-only rise to much higher ground -- to the neighborhood of 36,000 for the Dow Jones Industrial Average...." See, Will, the message that book was trying to convey is that over a period of 10 years, you would more than likely lose some 20% of the money you invested in the stock market. Lol!

I agree Billy, but I am still in the market long term.

And I might point out, Will, with your Bush derangement syndrome and your cynicism of Republicans, you would be mistaken if you somehow believed that there's something ironic that the party that claims that it understands how to stimulate the economy held the executive office and controlled both houses of Congress for the majority of those 10 years. I mean just look at the economy under the last Dem administrat... oh, no, don't do that. Well, then.... just look at the ration of government spending to government revenue over the past eight admnistrat.... oh, no, don't do that either (because the ratio is significantly work for EACH AND EVERY Republican administration in comparison the the Dem administrations. Hmmmm. Well, Will, I can't come up with any rational argument to prove that you're wrong, so instead I'll just hysterically type the word "cuddle," and point out that you're bald. Oh yeah, and Jeremiah Wright, Sandy Berger, and vast left-wing media conspiracy.

Based on previous history, Will is certainly not writing a book just to "sell a book". Nobody bought his leaflet on the juke boxes.

talking point sleuth: Fox News much?

"It wouldn't shock me if I discovered that the authors had moved on to promoting a "drill baby drill" energy policy." It's a good thing oil companies aren't weenies like you, Will. They're busy finding oil and gas in this country (including a large gas shale play in Pennsylvania) that 10 years ago would not be recoverable.

Buncho - your link to the DJIA webpage is not working. Just being of service, since nobody else at 400 N Broad seems to catch your errors.

"They're busy finding oil and gas in this country (including a large gas shale play in Pennsylvania) that 10 years ago would not be recoverable...." Yeah, and that's really going to go a looooooooong way towards solving this country's dependence on foreign oil. Sheeces, all those idiot Dems who think that we will need alternatives to fossil fuels are just a bunch of loons. Not to mention, all that domestic oil and gas in this country will magically solve the problems with global warmi.... oh, wait, global warming is just all a conspiracy dreamed up by thousands of climate scientists, who are either terrible researchers or corrupt. Drill baby drill.

TPS: I don't remember seeing this a call for 36k in the 10 year time frame. And if you're bringing up govt spending, you may want to note that we are in a deficit now, and your guy wants to introduce a trillion dollars in new spending on entitlement programs coupled with raising taxes for the rich while we teeter on recession, who coincidentally play a direct role in how many jobs are created. Now that's what I call sound economic policy. And for the record tax CUTS create more revenue, not tax HIKES. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-02-20-debate-oppose_x.htm

The Republican BS machine is alive and well. Honestly guys, I promise you that you don't need to lie to stay alive. So, despite Obama repeatedly stating that any increase in spending would be offset with spending cuts, you play the old lie that Democrats are big government, tax and spend. The Bush administration and the Republican led Congress gave massive tax cuts to the wealthy while increasing the overall spending. That's where the huge deficits came from. Now, if you want to make the case that Democrats are the big government party, please explain how we will pay for these deficits? Is there another source of revenue other than taxes. If you increase overall spending, you've raised taxes. If you give massive tax cuts at the same time, you create a massive deficit. So, the Republicans are responsible for the largest government in history but they are sticking our kids with the taxes. I guess you could look at it as a backdoor and reckless way of decreasing the size of government. Our kids won't be able to pay the taxes to sustain basic government functions because Republicans have bankrupted the country. The justification for giving tax cuts to the wealthy is that they create jobs. Apparantly, no one explained to the American people that the wealthy create jobs for Chinese and Indians. So, Bush will leave office with a massive accumulated deficit and how did things work out with the economy? Aren't we all much better off now than 8 years ago. But McCain will fix everything by deregulating and taxing health care and continuing the tax cuts for the wealthy. I guess he looks at the last 8 years and says "This is my idea of a great economy. More of the same." Republicans that try to claim that the Dems are the tax and spend party haven't been paying attention. The Republicans are the tax your kids and spend party. Take note: Now that the economy has tanked, the talk is about middle class consumers not overtaxed wealthy people.

Here's another question for Republicans: Demand for goods and services drive the need to create jobs. The american consumer makes up 2/3 of the economy and that's largely the middle class. We're in a recession or depression and the country is losing jobs at an larming rate. We can expect more job loss and a major decline in consumer spending. What jobs would wealthy people create in that environement? Yet, McCain wants to make Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. McCain is right. The economy is not his strong point. Neither is honesty, dignity, or morals. Take a look at the Rolling Stones article about McCain. And he has the nerve to launch an attack on Obama's character. McCain is not a war hero. He's a coward and a low life.

Blue chips are only one part of the stock market! MODERN PORTFOLIO THEORY: 90% of a portfolio's performance is determined by its allocation, which means an investor should own small cap, mid cap, and int'l stocks, as well as blue chips. The S&P has an awful 10 year return, but like the dollar (anyone else paying attention?) it will come back. The winners take turns each year, so it's best to own the market ("A rising tide floats all ships") instead of one asset class ("Don't put your all your eggs in one basket"). The majority of journalists don't understand economics or the stock market, and Bunch's cynicism is evident in his lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

bpphilly, Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy after they had been cut and deficits were run up under the previous two administrations.