FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery





jmi256
The stock market continues to decline as it reacts to Obama and the Democrats actions that increase taxes on citizens and businesses while then spending the money on activities that neither stimulate the economy nor lead to recovery. It seems like every time they do something the market tanks. If this was a short-term issue I could possibly live with it. But what they plan to put into action will have long-term destructive effects on the US (and by extension the rest of the world) in terms of decreased productivity, increased bureaucracy, increased government intrusion, increased costs and decreased accountability and transparency.

Obama and the Dems have spent a lot of time trying to deflect attention to the previous administration, but it is clear that the actions of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress share in a lot of the blame they are trying to deflect. Here is a good article from this morning’s Wall Street Journal.



Quote:

The Obama Economy
As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.


Source = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html
ocalhoun
I do agree that the idea of simply throwing money at the problem is foolhardy, and that far too much of that money is misappropriated in places where it will do the economy little good...

That article was a little over-the-top in lambasting the new administration though: I don't think he's declared war on capitalism just yet... nor can that be wholly blamed on him. That's something that started quite a while ago. I do, however, see much of what is going on now as a big step in the direction towards the USSA.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I don't think he's declared war on capitalism just yet... nor can that be wholly blamed on him. That's something that started quite a while ago. I do, however, see much of what is going on now as a big step in the direction towards the USSA.


I don't think what Obama says really matters that much, and to me that is a wonderful sign. That is the message for me from the stock exchanges. To me this is a good sign for capitalism that it will take its own course in spite of anything that the Government has decided. Think I have much more trust and confidence in the wisdom of Warren Buffett.

All politicians are really the same, and Obama cannot be different, or greater than the system. Which is also good for the United States. At least the economy is safe from that point of view.
Voodoocat
Great point! Obama keeps pointing out that he inherited a very large deficit (even though he whole-hearted endorsed the 750 billion dollar bank bail out and the 50 billion dollar Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts which caused the current deficit to swell monstrously) then turns around and approved another 820 billion dollar bank bailout!!!! Wall Street has had a negative reaction to every Obama finacial decision so far. How much more can we take?

Is this the change he promised? If so, no thank you!
liljp617
Just curious, and I don't really have any stance on the issue yet (I think it's a bit early for anyone to have one), but if he just chilled in his office with his feet up on the desk, would you be any more satisfied with him?
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
Just curious, and I don't really have any stance on the issue yet (I think it's a bit early for anyone to have one), but if he just chilled in his office with his feet up on the desk, would you be any more satisfied with him?


Of course not. But it shouldn't be a "take it or leave it" mindset. The issue I have is that the plan that he and the Democrats have forced through balloons the size of government while failing to actually stimulate the economy.

In reality the government has two weapons at its disposal to affect economic factors: monetary policy and fiscal policy. The monetary policy approach has been just about exhausted and rates can't get any lower. The fiscal policy approach is all that is left and what Obama and the Democrats are forcing through is a mess in that regard.
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Just curious, and I don't really have any stance on the issue yet (I think it's a bit early for anyone to have one), but if he just chilled in his office with his feet up on the desk, would you be any more satisfied with him?


Of course not. But it shouldn't be a "take it or leave it" mindset. The issue I have is that the plan that he and the Democrats have forced through balloons the size of government while failing to actually stimulate the economy.

In reality the government has two weapons at its disposal to affect economic factors: monetary policy and fiscal policy. The monetary policy approach has been just about exhausted and rates can't get any lower. The fiscal policy approach is all that is left and what Obama and the Democrats are forcing through is a mess in that regard.


How can anyone take an honest stance on whether it's a success or failure yet?
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Just curious, and I don't really have any stance on the issue yet (I think it's a bit early for anyone to have one), but if he just chilled in his office with his feet up on the desk, would you be any more satisfied with him?


Of course not. But it shouldn't be a "take it or leave it" mindset. The issue I have is that the plan that he and the Democrats have forced through balloons the size of government while failing to actually stimulate the economy.

In reality the government has two weapons at its disposal to affect economic factors: monetary policy and fiscal policy. The monetary policy approach has been just about exhausted and rates can't get any lower. The fiscal policy approach is all that is left and what Obama and the Democrats are forcing through is a mess in that regard.


How can anyone take an honest stance on whether it's a success or failure yet?


Not everything has to be tested out to know it's a bad idea. I've never personally jumped out a window, but I know it would end badly.

Increasing taxes during times of economic distress is a bad idea. Financing a growing government and government programs through debt is a bad idea. Killing the golden goose that drives our economy (i.e. small- and medium-sized businesses and individuals who invest in their businesses) by disproportionately driving their tax burden to a point it makes to decrease productivity is a bad idea.

Put that all together and Obama and the Democrats are driving us to a disaster. I don't know about you, but I don't think a strategy of spending almost $2 trillion and hoping it has an effect is a good one. I rather rely on commonsense, intellect and experience.
liljp617
You're fully entitled to use your common sense.

There are expert economists on both sides, so who's to really say? No offense meant at all, but I trust their expertise over the average person's common sense. Economists on both sides (as they always have) raise legitimate points on how to run an economy and what the government's role is.

And the most recent bill cannot be deemed a failure a week after it has passed...you and I both know that's not how the market works. Six months or a year from now, we can make a judgment on that specific bill.
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
You're fully entitled to use your common sense.

There are expert economists on both sides, so who's to really say? No offense meant at all, but I trust their expertise over the average person's common sense. Economists on both sides (as they always have) raise legitimate points on how to run an economy and what the government's role is.


I'm not relying on my common sense only. Or the common sense of average people only. I'm also taking into account the professional experience of hundreds of economists, some Nobel laureates. Obama and the Democrats have tried to spin their tax/spend program as something that is economically sound while many, many economists disagree with them.


liljp617 wrote:
And the most recent bill cannot be deemed a failure a week after it has passed...you and I both know that's not how the market works. Six months or a year from now, we can make a judgment on that specific bill.


That's exactly how the market functions. It processes all available information and reacts accordingly. So for example, when a corporation announces that it will cut dividends half a year from now, the stock drops instantly, not six months from now. So when Obama and the Democrats announce their scheme and the market reacts negatively, it's a direct reflection on the market's view.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
You're fully entitled to use your common sense.

There are expert economists on both sides

Can you name the expert "economists" on Obama's side?

Liljp617, even for the most unenlightened person it is obvious that the Government plan does not have the support of expert economists. Only those whose bread is buttered by the Government are doing that kind of talk and I'm sure they sound pathetic to themselves as that has to be against their own common sense. The message is very loud and clear. Obama's plan is not the right one for sorting out the economic problems. This calls for revision of what Obama has been working on, and regretfully of course the Government system is so heavy, BIG and CUMBERSOME that it is difficult to make changes. Also not the popular thing to do for Obama, so he just stubbornly continues on the same platform and clings to the same plan. Times like these call for people who can travel light, make unpopular decisions and change the decisions as necessary. Total flexibility. There is not much flexibility in the Government system as it is.
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
I'm not relying on my common sense only. Or the common sense of average people only. I'm also taking into account the professional experience of hundreds of economists, some Nobel laureates. Obama and the Democrats have tried to spin their tax/spend program as something that is economically sound while many, many economists disagree with them.


Like I said, there are many expert economists on both sides of the table. Who decides who is correct? You're of the opinion that the one's not supporting Democrats are correct, which is perfectly fine. That doesn't make them correct, nor does it make them incorrect. Not yet.


Quote:
That's exactly how the market functions. It processes all available information and reacts accordingly. So for example, when a corporation announces that it will cut dividends half a year from now, the stock drops instantly, not six months from now. So when Obama and the Democrats announce their scheme and the market reacts negatively, it's a direct reflection on the market's view.


How can the market accurately react to an insertion of a sum of money that really hasn't even touched the economy yet?

deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
You're fully entitled to use your common sense.

There are expert economists on both sides

Can you name the expert "economists" on Obama's side?

Liljp617, even for the most unenlightened person it is obvious that the Government plan does not have the support of expert economists. Only those whose bread is buttered by the Government are doing that kind of talk and I'm sure they sound pathetic to themselves as that has to be against their own common sense. The message is very loud and clear. Obama's plan is not the right one for sorting out the economic problems. This calls for revision of what Obama has been working on, and regretfully of course the Government system is so heavy, BIG and CUMBERSOME that it is difficult to make changes. Also not the popular thing to do for Obama, so he just stubbornly continues on the same platform and clings to the same plan. Times like these call for people who can travel light, make unpopular decisions and change the decisions as necessary. Total flexibility. There is not much flexibility in the Government system as it is.


http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-economic-advisors-and-economic.html

You can complain of the source if you desire to. The list is slightly outdated (last updated September 7, 2008). Could be much longer if the list contained ordinary economists, not just the more prominent figures.

I doubt you'll be pleased with anything offered anyway to be honest. To pretend the only economists supporting Democratic policies are "buttered" is nonsense. There's always economists on both sides on every issue raised in economics and government's role in it.
deanhills
[quote="liljp617"]
jmi256 wrote:
To pretend the only economists supporting Democratic policies are "buttered" is nonsense. There's always economists on both sides on every issue raised in economics and government's role in it.


You are deliberately misinterpreting my words. I'm saying that if you work for the Government, then you have to toe the party line when you are making public statements. That is COMMON SENSE.

You have not provided us with the names of expert economists, in fact this is exactly what the Government guys do too. They tell us how bad the banks are doing, but don't give us the specifics, the balance sheets, the what, where how, etc. We just have to accept they are doing badly. As we have to accept that Government knows best how to bale those sick banks out. There is no substance to all these statements. And there is no substance as Government is not supposed to be in the game of doing business. And if they are really wise, they should leave that for expert economists to do.
LumberJack
Obama cannot magically fix the US economy. It is beyond "short-term" and it always has been. Everyone has made their bed, it is time to lie in it. The sad reality is, what Obama (and the next administration after him, and yes, it will be that long) the Fed, and his administration can do is make the process as least painful as possible. His package will save and create jobs. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. It may not be in the area where you want, it may not be your job, but it will. You cannot spend that much money, and not create jobs.

Furthermore, he has to fix a collapsed credit market. Those stimulus packages, are terrible, but there is nothing else that can be done. The US is in a unique situation, nothing like this has ever happened, they are all playing it by ear. What I think they are trying to do is nationalize as few banks as necessary, and then privatize them ASAP. The American credit market has been destroyed, it no longer exists as it did. It needs to be replaced, and it will be replaced by the thousands of Americans thinking of ways, working around the clock, to try and figure out how to fill this huge void and make a buck or two. It will require a tremendous amount of cash to do so, and time for Americans (and the rest of the world for that matter) to work off the stupidity.

I find it upsetting people feel like something "else" can be done, when really, the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian, Constitution, or even the damn Green party, would be just as useless. The one thing Obama has for him is that he is a great communicator, and when the time does come, I think he will be able to shake people out of the "psychological" shock they have been over the past few years, and the markets can start acting more rationally.
handfleisch
Sad to the the once-reputable WSJ continues to turn over its oped pages to the flaky fringe. There are isolated corners of disagreement among economists with the US gov's current approach to getting out of the massive economic crisis, but overwhelmingly the consensus is that this is generally what has to be done now.

What other viable solution do you rightwingers propose? The Bush/McCain plan of further tax cuts for the rich that didn't work in the first place? The American people said no thanks.
jmi256
LumberJack wrote:
Obama cannot magically fix the US economy. It is beyond "short-term" and it always has been. Everyone has made their bed, it is time to lie in it.


I agree with you on these points. But prior to the election Obama and the Democrats set the expectation that they would "fix" everything, including the economy. Granted he was careful in his exact words (and in some cases denies saying things when it was clear he did) so that it would not be easy to go back and point out that on such and such a date he said X, Y and Z, but he definitely set the expectation and rode on its coattails.

I don't expect Obama to "fix" the economy. In fact, I don't believe it's the government's role to control the economy. It didn't work for the former USSR and I don't think it'll work now. But I do think they should step in during times of crisis by removing barriers that hurting the economy (unfair trade practices, inequitable tax structures, hurtful monetary policy, etc.). But in the attempt to do so Obama shouldn't be allowed to do long-term damage to the economy. Some may argue the other way, but by piling on pet projects that only lead to more government spending rather than true economic growth Obama and Democrats are threatening the long-term health of the economy. All this spending has to be paid somehow and will drag down the economy.

Here's an interesting article one very possible effect of Obama's Tax/Spending Bill, as other "bailouts":

Quote:

U.S. rescue efforts may risk double-dip recession

By Emily Kaiser - Analysis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. companies, consumers and communities may grow so addicted to government financial help that cutting them off could trigger another recession soon after the current one ends.
Between the U.S. Federal Reserve's trillions of dollars in lending programs, the $787 billion stimulus package and $700 billion -- and counting -- in bank bailout funds, no one can accuse officials of soft-pedaling their crisis response.
But there is increasing concern that when the flow of public money subsides -- beginning next year when much of that stimulus package is spent -- the economy still won't be strong enough to stand on its own.
"The stuttering attempts to repair the banking and lending mechanisms so far by the new administration suggests that by late 2010, the specter of a second dip into recession will be looming large," said Merrill Lynch economist Sheryl King.
The latest evidence of the government's ever-changing plans came on Monday when insurer American International Group Inc got its third bailout, each with different terms.
That did nothing to improve confidence on Wall Street, where investors dumped stocks amid fears that the financial crisis was worsening.
The longer it takes to stabilize the financial sector, the more the economy suffers, and that feeds back into bigger loan losses and the need for even more government intervention.
John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia, said the government's success so far in shoring up markets and reviving the economy resembled the pattern of police patrols.
"At each corner where a policeman is stationed, we witness a decline in crime," he said. "In every market where the Fed focuses its liquidity facilities," credit conditions improve.
Unfortunately, where there is no direct government support, conditions are grim. Merrill expects unemployment to hit 10 percent by the end of 2009, with house prices losing 10 percent to 15 percent more and the stock market dropping another 20 percent.
That could erase $6.5 trillion off of household wealth, on top of the $12 trillion hit consumers have already taken, Merrill's King estimated.
SECURITY BLANKET
Those losses are a key reason why it is proving so difficult for the government to get much traction with its rescue plans because consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity.
Data released on Monday showed that Americans were rapidly rebuilding savings that they had run down in recent years when it seemed like rising home values and healthy stock markets would be enough to pay for retirement.
While that may be good for the global economy, which many economists say has been over-reliant on U.S. consumption, "recession has never been successfully arrested with austerity," Citigroup economist Steven Wieting said.
"While consumers in the U.S. will likely never really be the same as they were in the last decade, we can identify no source of growth for the global economy that doesn't involve a partial recovery in U.S. consumption," he said.
If spending isn't going back to the way it was, that may make it even harder for the government to ease up on aid.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have warned repeatedly of the risk of pulling away the economic supports too soon. However, Bernanke and other Fed officials have also stressed the need for a clear exit strategy to ensure that their repair efforts don't spawn inflation.
EXIT STRATEGY
In essence, the Fed and Treasury have been forced to take the place of the securitization market, where countless loans were repackaged and sold off to investors all over the world. While that proved to be the transmission mechanism for the financial crisis, it was also a vital aspect of lending and its collapse contributed to the global economic slump.
The Fed's own lending data shows that efforts to get money flowing again were having limited effect on the broader economy. Confidence has fallen so sharply that even those who can get credit are reluctant to borrow and spend.
According to the Fed's January survey of senior loan officers, 60 percent of domestic banks reported reduced demand for commercial and industrial loans, up from 15 percent in the October survey.
Some of the Fed's lending programs should wind down with little disruption because once credit markets improve, borrowers will be able to find better terms elsewhere, and the central bank can once again be the lender of last resort instead of the only viable option.
Extricating the Fed and Treasury from other means of support won't be so easy.
"Major industries have become dependent on federal assistance, and they will be followed by cities and states bearing mind-boggling requests," investor Warren Buffett wrote in his annual letter to shareholders. "Weaning these entities from the public teat will be a political challenge. They won't leave willingly."

Source = http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE52168Y20090302
LumberJack
I followed the election very closely, and I thought he portrayed a very honest outlook for Americans. That is will be hard, you will have to struggle, and it will take time.

He pretty much is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. History will be the ultimate decider for Obama.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Here's an interesting article one very possible effect of Obama's Tax/Spending Bill, as other "bailouts":

Very interesting article.

Lumberjack impressed me until he came up with "moron" and "stupidity".
Quote:
Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. It may not be in the area where you want, it may not be your job, but it will. You cannot spend that much money, and not create jobs.

Furthermore, he has to fix a collapsed credit market. Those stimulus packages, are terrible, but there is nothing else that can be done. The US is in a unique situation, nothing like this has ever happened, they are all playing it by ear. What I think they are trying to do is nationalize as few banks as necessary, and then privatize them ASAP. The American credit market has been destroyed, it no longer exists as it did. It needs to be replaced, and it will be replaced by the thousands of Americans thinking of ways, working around the clock, to try and figure out how to fill this huge void and make a buck or two. It will require a tremendous amount of cash to do so, and time for Americans (and the rest of the world for that matter) to work off the stupidity.

What do you mean by "to work off the stupidity"?
ocalhoun
Quote:
Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. It may not be in the area where you want, it may not be your job, but it will. You cannot spend that much money, and not create jobs.

Creating jobs is just a band-aid fix.
Its treating the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself: It may make us feel better for a while, but it is money wasted until we fix the problems that will make it occur again and again.
First, we need to fix the situations that are causing jobs to be lost, and then the jobs will come back on their own, without billions of our dollars wasted.
LumberJack
deanhills wrote:


Lumberjack impressed me until he came up with "moron" and "stupidity".

Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. It may not be in the area where you want, it may not be your job, but it will. You cannot spend that much money, and not create jobs.

What do you mean by "to work off the stupidity"?


It was late and I had a bad day... Rolling Eyes what I mean by stupidity is the stupid decisions (or lack there of) that politicians, SEC, fed, and Bank CEOs, CFO's, managment, BOD's, Credit Bureaus that caused the credit markets to collapse. This is why there are all the bailouts, your grand kids will be paying for this big mistake

The second layer of stupidity is people taking out mortgages they cannot afford, having several maxed out credit cards, and for businesses to actually be giving these to people. People seriously need to Educate themselves on how debt works, they are going to have to work off their debts, declare bankrupcy, etc. Then maybe people will start being responsible.


The moron is all these people who keep saying the budget won't create any jobs, you can't spend that much money and not create or maintain jobs.


ocalhoun, makes one fair point. All this money will be spent in vain, if the problems that causes this mess are not addressed. The government is going to have to make some very unpopular decisions with a lot of people for the greater good. Whether or not it will be done remains to be seen.

3 months into his presidency and people are already accusing him of destroying America. Lots have been done, in a very short amount of time, expecting results after 3 months is just setting yourself up for disappointment.
deanhills
LumberJack wrote:
[The second layer of stupidity is people taking out mortgages they cannot afford, having several maxed out credit cards, and for businesses to actually be giving these to people. People seriously need to Educate themselves on how debt works, they are going to have to work off their debts, declare bankrupcy, etc. Then maybe people will start being responsible.

The moron is all these people who keep saying the budget won't create any jobs, you can't spend that much money and not create or maintain jobs.

ocalhoun, makes one fair point. All this money will be spent in vain, if the problems that causes this mess are not addressed. The government is going to have to make some very unpopular decisions with a lot of people for the greater good. Whether or not it will be done remains to be seen.

3 months into his presidency and people are already accusing him of destroying America. Lots have been done, in a very short amount of time, expecting results after 3 months is just setting yourself up for disappointment.


I'm getting confused. The one moment we are talking about BIG banks that failed, and need to be bailed out and now it is about credit card spending. Credit card spending has been around for a long time. I have this picture of enormous loans to BIG companies and BIG investors. And those loans were inter-linked across the Atlantic with BIG banks and BIG companies in the UK and Europe. Up to last September, people had been living beyond their means on credit cards, but so have they in Canada, in South Africa, and all of the other countries whose Banks were not as exposed as those who had failed BIG time in the States, UK and Europe.

Furthermore, in order to nationalise a "few BIG US banks" will take a number of billion dollars to do. And will be saving investments and securing loans of BIG investors, BIG companies, AND Government. Obviously that will be filtered through eventually through the BIG companies, but it is written in the manifestos of the BIG companies that they have to protect their shareholders and investments. If that means not to rehire people that have been fired, then they won't do that. The only time when I see serious hiring, is when the Government creates specific incentives for BIG companies to hire people. Either through forcing them to, i.e. attach any of the benefits that come to those BIG companies in form of loans secured etc, to hiring X number of people and spending X number of dollars.

Otherwise I think you have simplified it a wee bit too much. Remember, those enormous loans (that have still not been explained to us in proper balance sheets, we just have to believe they are there) were created through greed, and most of those guys involved in that greed are still playing the game. And looking after themselves, which means playing with numbers.
handfleisch
Wingnuts on the WSJ oped page aside, are memories really so short that they don't remember the bank bailout process was started by Bush?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Wingnuts on the WSJ oped page aside, are memories really so short that they don't remember the bank bailout process was started by Bush?


I guess everyone who agrees with your point of view is "sane," and you’ll just continue to call everyone else names and whine about them.

Sooner or later Obama and the Democrats are going to have to take ownership of their actions. If they didn’t want the responsibility, they shouldn’t have run.


Quote:

‘Obama Bear Market’ Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps

March 6 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama now has the distinction of presiding over his own bear market.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 20 percent since Inauguration Day, the fastest drop under a new president in at least 90 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The gauge has lost 53 percent from its October 2007 record of 14,164.53, slipping 4.1 percent to 6,594.44 yesterday.

More than $1.6 trillion has been erased from U.S. equities since Jan. 20 as mounting bank losses and rising unemployment convinced investors the recession is getting worse. The president is in danger of breaking a pattern in which the Dow rallied 9.8 percent on average in the 12 months after a Democrat captured the White House, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“People thought there would be a brief Obama rally, and that hasn’t happened,” said Uri Landesman, who oversees about $2.5 billion at ING Groep NV’s asset management unit in New York. “It speaks to the carnage that’s in the economy and the lack of confidence in the measures that have been announced.”

A bear market is defined as a decline of 20 percent or more.

Buying shares “is a potentially good deal” for long-term investors, Obama said March 3. He compared daily fluctuations to a tracking poll in politics and said he wouldn’t adjust his policies just to meet market expectations.

Congress last month enacted Obama’s $787 billion package of tax cuts and spending on roads, bridges and public buildings. His 2010 budget indicated the government’s financial rescue may need another $750 billion after an initial $700 billion.

Getting Cheaper
The Dow average has dropped 31 percent since Obama’s election. The 30-stock gauge trades at 8.04 times annual earnings, the cheapest since 1995 and down from 10.06 times on Inauguration Day.

Citigroup Inc. led the plunge, losing 71 percent. The government proposed taking a 36 percent stake in the New York- based bank, cutting the percentage owned by shareholders. Detroit-based General Motors Corp. tumbled 53 percent after the largest U.S. automaker said it needs more government aid.

“It’s the Obama bear market,” said Dan Veru, who helps oversee $2.8 billion at Palisade Capital Management in Fort Lee, New Jersey. “We don’t know what the rules are in so many different areas the government is touching.”

Futures on the Dow average expiring this month fell today before a report that may show the economy lost more jobs in February than at any time since 1949. Dow futures declined 0.7 percent at 6:51 a.m. in New York.

Bank Losses
The U.S. economy contracted at a 6.2 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, the most since 1982, the Commerce Department said last week. Unemployment jumped to 7.6 percent in January, the highest since 1992, as Americans fell behind on their mortgages and banks seized homes at a record pace.

Losses at financial companies worldwide that grew to about $1.2 trillion sent the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index to a 38 percent retreat last year, the steepest since 1937.
“Prospects for recovery in the financial sector, despite all the government help, still seem rather remote,” said John Carey, who manages about $8 billion at Pioneer Investment Management in Boston. “We’ve had a weak economy for a couple of years, and we aren’t seeing the stimulus working at this point. That is what weighs on investors’ minds.’’

The Dow average took eight months to decline 20 percent following the inauguration of George W. Bush, reaching the level on Sept. 20, 2001, nine days after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

Herbert Hoover
The crash of 1929 occurred seven months into the administration of Herbert Hoover, who presided over an 89 percent plunge in the Dow between September 1929 and July 1932, the steepest retreat ever.

Only twice has the benchmark gauge slipped in the 12 months after the election of a Democratic president since 1900, after Woodrow Wilson’s victory in 1912 and Jimmy Carter’s in 1976.
The Dow entered its most recent bear market on July 2, 2008, when a 167-point decrease gave it a 20 percent loss from its record 14,164.53 on Oct. 9, 2007. Unlike the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, the Dow’s rally from its November low of 7,552.29 fell short of a 20 percent bull market gain, ending at 19.6 percent.

“Obama should be listening to the stock market more than talking to it,” said Kenneth Fisher, the billionaire chairman of Woodside, California-based Fisher Investments Inc., which oversees $22 billion. “He hasn’t gotten out of the gate well.”


Source = http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGJ_.gr_awkY
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
I guess everyone who agrees with your point of view is "sane," and you’ll just continue to call everyone else names and whine about them.

Sooner or later Obama and the Democrats are going to have to take ownership of their actions. If they didn’t want the responsibility, they shouldn’t have run.

Quote:

‘Obama Bear Market’ Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps


jmi256 wrote:

Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan
President Would Slap More Taxes on Those Who Make Over $250K to Fund Health Care




You can keep quoting blogs or Bloomberg or WSJ oped page forever, but the basic point of view of blaming Obama for the financial crisis -- well, no wonder you put "sane" in quotes.

Boys and girls, the country & world is in a severe economic crisis, and the market is going to jittery for a long time to come.

About the other article, wherever we draw the line between tax brackets, there has always been those who try to keep down in a lower one. I found the article pretty hilarious -- thanks -- with the ambulance chaser saying "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?" Talk about whining. Her taxes go to the roads she drives on, the firemen, the soldiers, the single moms trying to get by, extending unemployment during this crisis and so lessening the ranks of the homeless, the DMV, veterans benefits, our kids' schools, her grandparents' Social Security...

It's funny but sad that someone well off would be so bitter.

Last I checked 80% supported the Obama approach -- that would include most business owners and investors -- and about 10% are in Limbaugh "want to fail" land. It's hard to understand why anyone would choose to be in that latter category.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Last I checked 80% supported the Obama approach -- that would include most business owners and investors -- and about 10% are in Limbaugh "want to fail" land. It's hard to understand why anyone would choose to be in that latter category.


80% of what? Who were sampled in this survey, who was responsible for the survey, and what was the percentage of people who have been sampled, where, when, how .....????
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Last I checked 80% supported the Obama approach -- that would include most business owners and investors -- and about 10% are in Limbaugh "want to fail" land. It's hard to understand why anyone would choose to be in that latter category.


80% of what? Who were sampled in this survey, who was responsible for the survey, and what was the percentage of people who have been sampled, where, when, how .....????


Yeah, that number is highly suspect, especially considering the source. I've seen good overall approval ratings, but approval of the bailout packages have been dismal.

Here is another article that basically says the same thing as I linked to earlier. Handfleisch, you can whine about Reuters, the AP, WSJ and others being bad sources and anti-Obama all you want (even though I find the position ironic/laughable), but sooner or later he and the Democrats are going to have to come clean about their detrimental actions toward businesses. Like I said before, if they didn't want to lead, they should have not have run.

Quote:

Stocks turn in worst performance for new president
The Dow Jones industrial average has fallen 21 percent during President Obama's first seven weeks in office. Count back to Election Day and the results are even bleaker: a loss of 32 percent.

By MADLEN READ
The Associated Press

NEW YORK — The election of Barack Obama offered the promise of a new set of fixes for the financial crisis and the economy, a do-over that might help nurse the stock market back to health.

Since then, the market hasn't just gotten worse — it's turned in its worst performance ever for a new president.

The Dow Jones industrial average has fallen 21 percent during Obama's first seven weeks in office. Count back to Election Day and the results are even bleaker: That afternoon, the Dow closed at 9,625. Now it stands at 6,547, a loss of 32 percent.

Is this the Obama bear market? Or hangover from the Bush administration?

Some investors blame the slow-motion crash on Wall Street's disappointment with the government's $787 billion stimulus plan, its seemingly endless bailouts and the lack of specifics on how to rid banks of toxic assets.

Others say Obama inherited a recession destined to become the worst since World War II. And they note the market was already in awful shape at the tail end of the Bush administration, down 44 percent from the market's 2007 peak to Inauguration Day.
Either way, Wall Street has not exactly rolled out the welcome mat for Obama. Stockholders have lost $1.4 trillion during the young administration.

"There's not much evidence that anything is working," said Hugh Johnson, chairman of Johnson Illington Advisors. "Investors are waiting to see some results from these grand plans, and they don't see them yet."

Obama still has the nation's support — a 67 percent job-approval rating, according to a recent Associated Press-GfK poll. But Americans are racing nevertheless to pull money out of stocks. In the week ended March 4, nearly $30 billion was removed from stock mutual funds, according to TrimTabs Investment Research.

It is far from the only time investors have refused to grant a new president a honeymoon.

Before Obama, the worst Dow performance for the first seven weeks of a new administration was an 18 percent plunge in 1974 after Gerald Ford was sworn in, during a severe bear market triggered by the Arab oil crisis.

Ronald Reagan presided over a Dow decline of more than 20 percent from April 1981 through the end of the 1982 bear market. And in 2001, George W. Bush's first year in office, the Dow plunged from a peak above 11,000 to a low below 8,300 after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Market analysts usually play down the influence of presidents on the market but say this time could be different as taxpayer dollars prop up private companies and Obama's first proposed budget stands at $3.6 trillion, with a gaping deficit.

In this case, said Wachovia Securities chief market analyst Alfred E. Goldman, investors are saying "they have no confidence in the stimulus package doing much stimulation anytime soon. And they're greatly concerned about the size of the budget."

On some of the most wrenching recent days in the market, it's been easier to connect cause and effect.

The Dow sank 4 percent on Feb. 10 as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled a new bank-bailout plan that Wall Street immediately criticized as laughably light on details.

Several weeks later, investors shaved an additional 4 percent off the Dow after the government agreed to give insurer American International Group an extra $30 billion, bringing its loan total to $180 billion.

Now the Dow seems to drift lower day after day, with Wall Street waiting for clarity and selling in the meantime.

Investors want to know when and how the government will cleanse banks of bad debt and whether it will suspend accounting rules requiring companies to value assets at current market prices.
Over the weekend, White House budget director Peter Orszag stressed that Obama was handed a weak economy.

"Job losses began in January of 2008. The stock market started declining October 2007," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "This has been, you know, eight years in the making, and again, it's going to take some time to work our way out of it."

Presidents themselves generally try to distance themselves from the market's gyrations. So pundits were surprised last week when Obama seemed to offer advice.

"What you're now seeing is profit and earning ratios starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal," he said, "if you've got a long-term perspective on it."

The Dow lost 37 points that day before rising about 150 the next.

The recession began in December 2007, before Obama even won the Iowa caucuses. And it accelerated dramatically under Bush, with the economy shrinking at a 6.2 percent annual pace his last full quarter in office.

There's no reading yet on how much the economy has shrunk under Obama, but indicators are dire. Unemployment has jumped to 8.1 percent, highest in 25 years.

Jon Merriman, chief executive of brokerage Merriman Curhan Ford, cautioned that the stimulus package will take time, probably six to nine months, to work its way through the economy.

Time is something Obama has plenty of. Ronald Reagan wound up with a healthy 135 percent gain on the Dow for his time in office. Gerald Ford picked up a respectable 23 percent for his shortened term.

"The guy's been in office for two months," Merriman said of Obama. "We gave the last guy eight years. Let's give this one some time."


Source = http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008833666_stocksobama10.html
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

Yeah, that number is highly suspect, especially considering the source. I've seen good overall approval ratings, but approval of the bailout packages have been dismal.


http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-briefs24-2009feb24,0,3673514.story

Quote:
Obama gets 80% approval rating nationwide, poll finds

President Obama receives strong grades for his first full month in office, as large majorities of Americans support his $787-billion economic stimulus package and the recently unveiled $75-billion plan for stemming mortgage foreclosures, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.


Yeah right, "dismal".

This whole thread is about one thing only, which is how you and Limbaugh and the Republican 10percenters want Obama to fail. Congratulations if you get your wish.

Nobel economist Paul Krugman, who pretty much has been right about everything, says Obama's package was too small (thanks to his appeasing Republicans) and it will probably be necessary to do another one in 2010. But by then the Want-To-Fail crowd will have so spread their message of blaming Obama, as they have since day 1 of the presidency, that it might be politically impossible to get it passed. In this scenario the Repubs will have "won" in regaining some power by tearing down any decent chance this country had to refocus its economic strategy on recovery, sustainability, renewable energy, infrastructure, education, and tax cuts for the middle class.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:

Nobel economist...


Since you're such a big fan of Nobel laureates, I'm sure you agree with the three (along with the 100+ others) who refute Obama's claim that his bill is a good one for the country. I'm sure three legitimate Nobel laureates trump one New York Times Op-ed writer.

I respect that Krugman won the Nobel prize, but his thesis had nothing to do with the subject at hand. He wrote about localization of trade and its effects on manufacturing. His NY Times Op-ed pieces are fluff, not scholarly works. You can see his presentation here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/krugman-slides.pdf

You can complain about the Cato Institute paying for he ad that ran in the paper, but it was the economists who signed the petition, not the Cato Institute.


Source = http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

Quote:

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

• Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
• Douglas Adie, Ohio University
• Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
• J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
• Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
• Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
• Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
• James Bennett, George Mason University
• Bruce Benson, Florida State University
• Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
• Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
• Alberto Bisin, New York University
• Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
• Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
• Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
• Donald Booth, Chapman University
• Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
• Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
• Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
• Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
• George Brower, Moravian College
• James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
• Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
• Henry Butler, Northwestern University
• William Butos, Trinity College
• Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
• Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
• Art Carden, Rhodes College
• James Cardon, Brigham Young University
• Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
• Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
• V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
• Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
• Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
• J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
• Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
• R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
• John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
• John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
• John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
• John Coleman, Duke University
• Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
• Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
• Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
• Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
• Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
• Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
• Antony Davies, Duquesne University
• John Dawson, Appalachian State University
• Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
• Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
• John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
• James Dorn, Towson University
• Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
• Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
• Francis Egan, Trinity College
• John Egger, Towson University
• Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
• Paul Evans, Ohio State University
• Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
• W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
• Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
• Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
• Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
• Peter Frank, Wingate University
• Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
• B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
• John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
• Rick Geddes, Cornell University
• Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
• William Gerdes, Clarke College
• Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
• Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
• Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
• Richard Gordon, Penn State University
• Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
• Ernie Goss, Creighton University
• Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
• Earl Grinols, Baylor University
• Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
• R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
• University, Edwardsville
• Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
• Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
• Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
• Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
• Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
• David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
• Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
• Gailen Hite, Columbia University
• Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
• John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
• Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
• Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
• Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
• Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
• Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
• Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
• Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
• Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
• Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
• Daniel Klein, George Mason University
• Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
• Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
• Marek Kolar, Delta College
• Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
• Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
• Deepak Lal, UCLA
• George Langelett, South Dakota State University
• James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
• Robert Lawson, Auburn University
• John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
• David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
• Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
• Dean Lillard, Cornell University
• Zheng Liu, Emory University
• Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
• Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
• John Lunn, Hope College
• Glenn MacDonald, Washington
• University in St. Louis
• Michael Marlow, California
• Polytechnic State University
• Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
• Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
• Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
• John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
• Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
• Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
• Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
• John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
• James Miller III, George Mason University
• Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
• Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
• John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
• Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
• Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Michael Munger, Duke University
• Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
• Richard Muth, Emory University
• Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
• Seth Norton, Wheaton College
• Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
• Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
• Evan Osborne, Wright State University
• Randall Parker, East Carolina University
• Donald Parsons, George Washington University
• Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
• Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
• Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
• Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
• Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
• Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
• Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
• Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
• William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
• Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
• Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
• Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
• Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
• Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College
• Adriano Rampini, Duke University
• Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
• Mario Rizzo, New York University
• Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
• Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
• James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
• John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
• Charles Rowley, George Mason University
• Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
• Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
• Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
• Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
• Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
• Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
• William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
• Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
• James Smith, Western Carolina University
• Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
• Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
• Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
• Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
• Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
• Shirley Svorny, California State
• University, Northridge
• John Tatom, Indiana State University
• Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
• Henry Thompson, Auburn University
• Alex Tokarev, The King's College
• Edward Tower, Duke University
• Leo Troy, Rutgers University
• David Tuerck, Suffolk University
• Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
• Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
• Charles Upton, Kent State University
• T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
• Richard Vedder, Ohio University
• Richard Wagner, George Mason University
• Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
• Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
• Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
• Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
• Walter Williams, George Mason University
• Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
• Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
• Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
• Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University

Additional economists who have signed the statement
• Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University
• William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa
• Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University
• Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College
• Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
• George Averitt, Purdue North Central University
• Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
• Timothy Bastian, Creighton University
• Joe Bell, Missouri State University, Springfield
• John Bethune, Barton College
• Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
• Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
• Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University
• Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
• Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
• Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
• Edwin Burton, Univ. of Virginia
• Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware
• Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
• Don Chance, Louisiana State University
• Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas
• Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
• Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami
• Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama
• Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware
• Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
• A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
• Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont
• Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
• William Dewald, Ohio State University
• Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia
• Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
• Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho
• Jack Estill, San Jose State University
• Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
• Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
• Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
• Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
• Arthur Fleisher, Metropolitan State College of Denver
• William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
• Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton
• Joseph Giacalone, St. John's University
• Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge
• Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
• J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
• Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
• Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University
• Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky
• Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
• Richard Hart, Miami University
• James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
• Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University
• Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
• Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
• John Hoehn, Michigan State University
• Daniel Houser, George Mason University
• Thomas Howard, University of Denver
• Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver
• Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa
• Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
• Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
• Scott Kelly, Albany State University
• Carrie Kerekes, Florida Gulf Coast University
• Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
• James Kurre, Penn State Erie
• Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
• W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
• Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
• Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
• John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
• Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama
• Henry Manne, George Mason University
• Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• James Barney Marsh, University of Hawaii at Manoa
• Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
• John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California
• Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston
• John McConnell, Purdue University
• W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
• Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University
• Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie
• James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
• Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida
• Tim Muris, George Mason University
• John Murray, Univ. of Toledo
• David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia
• Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron
• Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami
• Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota
• Allen Parkman, Univ. of New Mexico
• Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
• Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University
• Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
• Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
• Robert Prati, East Carolina University
• Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
• Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
• Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
• Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
• Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage
• Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
• Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
• Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University
• Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast
• John Seater, North Carolina University
• Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California
• Thomas Simmons, Greenfield Community College
• W. James Smith, University of Colorado Denver
• Frank Spreng, McKendree University
• Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University
• John E. Stapleford, Eastern University
• Courtenay Stone, Ball State University
• Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA
• Scott Sumner, Bentley University
• Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University
• William Trumbull, West Virginia University
• A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University
• Randall Valentine, Georgia Southwestern State University
• Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa
• Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
• Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
• Gene Wunder, Washburn University
• John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
• Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester
• Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
His NY Times Op-ed pieces are fluff, not scholarly works.


News alert, Jmi256 declares Nobel Economist Paul Krugman is fluff.

You're hilarious. It's like a Compound Wrongness Disease. And all you can do is keep copying and pasting the same CATO propaganda. Great, they got the names of the small percentage of economists who strongly disagree with this approach. It's a nice list used by the Want-To-Fail crowd. But given that a huge majority of Americans -- that would include small business owners, stockbrokers, and everyone else -- generally support the plan, give it a break now.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
His NY Times Op-ed pieces are fluff, not scholarly works.


News alert, Jmi256 declares Nobel Economist Paul Krugman is fluff.

You're hilarious. It's like a Compound Wrongness Disease. And all you can do is keep copying and pasting the same CATO propaganda. Great, they got the names of the small percentage of economists who strongly disagree with this approach. It's a nice list used by the Want-To-Fail crowd. But given that a huge majority of Americans -- that would include small business owners, stockbrokers, and everyone else -- generally support the plan, give it a break now.


So if these 100+ legitimate economists are all wrong, who are all these economists who agree with Obama's bill?

And how can you say businesses and investors/stockbrokers support the bill when the market tanks every time Obama opens his mouth? As pointed out over and over, small business owners are against Obama's bill and the horrible repercussions for their businesses due to the increased taxes and spending it represents. They know his actions are detrimental in the long-term and will raise their taxes in the future as well. If you have something that proves otherwise, I'd like to see it. All you've provided is stupid pictures and opinion.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
[
So if these 100+ legitimate economists are all wrong, who are all these economists who agree with Obama's bill?

And how can you say businesses and investors/stockbrokers support the bill when the market tanks every time Obama opens his mouth? As pointed out over and over, small business owners are against Obama's bill and the horrible repercussions for their businesses due to the increased taxes and spending it represents. They know his actions are detrimental in the long-term and will raise their taxes in the future as well. If you have something that proves otherwise, I'd like to see it. All you've provided is stupid pictures and opinion.


Hey Jimi, cease fire.
(For the record, I wasn't referring to the economists in your list when I mentioned your Compound Wrongness Disease. I said they are in minority opinion.)

OK. From Economist magazine, the voice of fiscal conservatism:



Quote:
We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge




Here are just some of the MAJOR economists supporting Obama (notice no "Shenadoah College" professors)
Quote:


* Jason Furman (director of economic policy) source bio
* Austan Goolsbee (senior economic policy advisor), University of Chicago tax policy expert source Wikipedia website
* Karen Kornbluh (policy director) source bio Wikipedia
* David Cutler, Harvard health policy expert source Wikipedia website
* Jeff Liebman, Harvard welfare expert source Wikipedia website
* Michael Froman, Citigroup executive source bio
* Daniel Tarullo, Georgetown law professor source bio
* David Romer, Berkeley macroeconomist source website
* Christina Romer, Berkeley economic historian source website
* Richard Thaler, University of Chicago behavioral finance expert source Wikipedia
* Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
* Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
* Alan Blinder, former Vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve source Wikipedia bio website
* Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute labor economist source bio
* James Galbraith, University of Texas macroeconomist source Wikipedia website
* Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1979-1987 source Wikipedia
* Laura Tyson, Berkeley international economist, Bill Clinton economic adviser source Wikipedia
* Robert Reich, Berkeley public policy professor, former Secretary of Labor source Wikipedia weblog
* Peter Henry, Stanford international economist source website
* Gene Sperling, former White House economic adviser source Wikipedia
* Heidi Hartmann, President, Institute for Women's Policy Research website

Other prominent economists who support Obama:

* Brad Delong, Berkeley macroeconomist source Wikipedia website weblog
* Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate source Wikipedia
* Edmund Phelps, 2006 Nobel laureate source Wikipedia
* Ray Fair, Yale macroeconomist source Wikipedia
* Dan McFadden, 2000 Nobel laureate source website
* Robert Solow, 1987 Nobel laureate source Wikipedia

James Heckman on Obama

“I’ve never worked with a campaign that was more interested in what the research shows.”

James Heckman, Nobel Laureate
University of Chicago


Jimi, really, someone is using you as a tool. Don't let them.

On edit: link http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12342127
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Jimi, really, someone is using you as a tool. Don't let them.


Another red herring. Your so-called "proof" is all about another topic. It has to do with which candidate they planned on voting for, not anything about Obama's tax bill. So it must have been written before Obama even unveiled his bill.

I'd like to see a link to the source.
jmi256
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Jimi, really, someone is using you as a tool. Don't let them.


Another red herring. Your so-called "proof" is all about another topic. It has to do with which candidate they planned on voting for, not anything about Obama's tax bill. So it must have been written before Obama even unveiled his bill.

I'd like to see a link to the source.



I see now why you omitted a link to the source. While you tried to pull a switch and bait with your little article, it’s apparent that The Economist isn’t as pro-Obama as you would try to make it. Actually I think the publication has some good arguments from both sides.
Quote:

Barack Obama's budget
Wishful, and dangerous, thinking


Mar 5th 2009
From The Economist print edition

The president has not explained to Americans that if they want bigger government, they will have to pay for it.

A PRESIDENT’S first budget proposal is more than a set of figures. It is also an outline of his philosophy of government. The plan Barack Obama delivered on February 26th envisages an ambitious and costly expansion of the government’s role in the lives of Americans. Its centrepiece is a big expansion of state-provided health care—for which he has budgeted $634 billion over the next decade while admitting that yet more will be needed. He will fill in the details in coming weeks while insisting the plan meets several criteria: it must extend insurance to the 15% of Americans who now lack it, it must help slow the growth in costs, and it must be paid for.
Add increased spending on education, energy and other initiatives, and federal expenditures, excluding defence, would rise to a new high of 18% of GDP in the coming decade. Small-government conservatives fume, yet this is what Mr Obama victoriously campaigned on and, at least in the case of health care, what Americans seem to want. The ranks of the uninsured have grown as care becomes more expensive and more employers, through whom most workers get insurance, drop or curtail benefits. Losing a job often means losing health insurance too, making unemployment doubly traumatic.

Although Mr Obama’s revenue plans are not clad in the ambitious rhetoric of his spending initiatives, they are just as profound. To pay for his plans and get the deficit down to manageable levels, he would return top tax rates to where they were before George Bush cut them, extract more from the rich by capping their deductions, increase taxes on corporations and auction carbon-emission permits. At the same time, he promises permanent tax cuts for 95% of workers.

Sadly, these plans are deeply flawed. First, Mr Obama’s budget forecasts that the economy will shrink 1.2% this year then grow by an average of 4% over the following four years. It might if the economy were to follow a conventional path back to full employment. But this is not a conventional recession. The unprecedented damage to household balance sheets could well result in anaemic economic growth for years, significantly undermining the president’s revenue projections. The economic outlook continues to darken and the stockmarket has already tumbled to 12-year lows. Mr Obama may either have to renege on his promise to slash the deficit to 3% of GDP in 2013 from more than 12% now, rein in his spending promises or raise taxes more.

Second, Mr Obama’s scattershot tax increases are a poor substitute for the wholesale reform America’s Byzantine tax code needs. Limiting high earners’ deductions for mortgage interest, local-government taxes and other things is certainly more efficient than raising their marginal tax rates even more. But it would be better to replace such deductions for everyone with targeted credits, abolish the alternative minimum tax (an absurd parallel tax system that ensnares a sizeable chunk of the upper middle class), and implement a broad sales tax. Rather than simply eliminating the sheltering of corporate income from abroad, Mr Obama could have broadened the corporate tax base and lowered the rate. In sum, Mr Obama could simultaneously raise more revenue and make the tax code simpler and more conducive to growth. But he hasn’t.

Tell it like it is
Finally, by asking only the richest 2% of Americans to pay more, Mr Obama is building his vision of a more activist government on a shaky foundation. Mr Bush’s tax cuts raised the proportion of American families that pay no federal income tax (or are net recipients of tax credits) from 33% to 38%; Mr Obama’s will raise it to 44%, according to the Tax Policy Centre, a research group. Although many of these people do pay payroll taxes, Mr Obama is also intent on reducing the link between payroll taxes and the pension and health-care benefits they were supposedly designed to pay for. It certainly makes sense to keep poor people off the income-tax rolls, but removing a sizeable chunk of the middle class weakens the political bond between taxpayer and government, and will lead to pressure for more such spending.
Mr Obama’s team rightly points out that Mr Bush’s tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy at a time when their share of income was anyway rising for more fundamental reasons. But the recession is already undoing some of the rise in inequality as the capital gains, bonuses and Wall Street profits that fuelled much of the gains in top incomes turn to dust. This could further imperil Mr Obama’s revenue projections, if the rich people he is relying on to pay virtually all his bills end up a lot less rich than they were. Much as Mr Obama would like to shield the middle class, he needs to level with Americans: if they want a bigger government, one that will help them in all sorts of ways, they should be prepared to pay for it.

Source = http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237211
deanhills
Thanks jmi256, the article in the Economist is an excellent one. My sentiments exactly. Where are all the balance sheets? How can a nation vote for such a huge Bill and not ask for specific facts regarding the banks that should have gone bankrupt, i.e. the exact status of the debt, in dollars and cents, dates, who, where, what, how, taking responsibility where responsibility should be. There should have been questions asked about the exact nature of the debt, specifics, and then specifics about the Government bail-out and nationalization. Again the who, where, what, how. Is the Government going to be involved in the business of banks? How legitimate is that? Are they qualified to be involved? Should there not be an investigation of all the debt accounts, and the information reported through a Commission to the citizens of the United States? Where is the transparency of information in all of this?
jmi256
And here's another gem. Thanks Handfleisch!

Quote:

The Obama rescue
Feb 12th 2009
From The Economist print edition
This week marked a huge wasted opportunity in the economic crisis

THERE was a chance that this week would mark a turning-point in an ever-deepening global slump, as Barack Obama produced the two main parts of his rescue plan. The first, and most argued-over, was a big fiscal boost. After a lot of bickering in Congress a final compromise stimulus bill, worth $789 billion, seemed to have been agreed on February 11th; it should be only days away from becoming law. The second, and more important, part of the rescue was team Obama’s scheme for fixing the financial mess, laid out in a speech on February 10th by Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary.

America cannot rescue the world economy alone. But this double offensive by its biggest economy could potentially have broken the spiral of uncertainty and gloom that is gripping investors, producers and consumers across the globe.

Alas, that opportunity was squandered. Mr Obama ceded control of the stimulus to the fractious congressional Democrats, allowing a plan that should have had broad support from both parties to become a divisive partisan battle. More serious still was Mr Geithner’s financial-rescue blueprint which, though touted as a bold departure from the incrementalism and uncertainty that had plagued the Bush administration’s Wall Street fixes, in fact looked depressingly like his predecessors’ efforts: timid, incomplete and short on detail. Despite talk of trillion-dollar sums, stockmarkets tumbled. Far from boosting confidence, Mr Obama seems at sea.

Toxic tantrums, contingent chaos
The fiscal stimulus plan has some obvious flaws. Too much of the boost to demand is backloaded to 2010 and beyond. The compromise bill is larded with spending determined more by Democrat lawmakers’ pet projects than by the efficiency with which the economy will be boosted. And it contains “Buy American” clauses that, even in their watered-down version, send the wrong signal to trading partners.

For all those shortcomings, the stimulus plan gets one big thing right. Given the pace at which demand is slumping, a big, and sustained, fiscal boost is vital for America’s economy. This package, albeit imperfectly, administers it.

That makes the inadequacy of the financial rescue all the more regrettable. Fiscal stimulus, indispensable as it is, cannot create a lasting economic recovery in a country with a broken financial system. The lesson of big banking busts, such as Japan’s in the 1990s, is that debt-laden balance-sheets must be restructured and troubled banks fixed before real recoveries can take off. History also suggests that countries which address their banking crises quickly and creatively (as Sweden did in the early 1990s) do better than those that dither. This is expensive and painful, but cautious, penny-pinching governments end up paying more than those that tread boldly.

By any recent historical standards America’s banking bust is big. The scale of troubled loans and the estimates of likely losses—which are now routinely put at over $2 trillion—suggest many of the country’s biggest banks may be insolvent. Their balance-sheets are clogged by hundreds of billions of dollars of “toxic” assets—the illiquid, complex and hard-to-price detritus of the mortgage bust, as well as growing numbers of non-housing loans that are souring thanks to the failing economy. Worse, banks’ balance-sheets are only one component of the credit bust. Most of the tightness of credit is owing to the collapse of “securitisation”, the packaging and selling of bundles of debts from credit cards to mortgages.

Fixing this mess will require guts, imagination and a lot of taxpayers’ money. Mr Geithner claims he knows this. “We believe that the policy response has to be comprehensive and forceful,” he declared in his speech, adding that “there is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than aggressive action.”
But his deeds did not live up to his words. His to-do list was dispiritingly inadequate on some of the thorniest problems, such as nationalising insolvent banks, dealing with toxic assets and failing mortgages. Mr Geithner promised to “stress-test” the big banks to see if they were adequately capitalised and offer “contingent” capital if they were not. But he offered few details about the terms of public-cash infusions or whether they would, eventually, imply government control. His plan for a “public-private investment fund” to buy toxic assets was vague and its logic—that a nudge from government, in the form of cheap financing, would enliven a moribund market—was heroic. Banks’ balance-sheets are clogged with toxic junk precisely because they are unwilling to sell the stuff at prices hedge funds and other private investors are willing to pay. Vagueness, in turn, led to incoherence. How can you stress-test banks if you do not know how their troubled assets will be dealt with and at what price? Amid these shortcomings were some good ideas, such as a fivefold expansion of a $200 billion fledgling Fed facility to boost securitisation. But for nervous investors and worried politicians, desperate for details and prices, the “plan” was a grave disappointment.

A great failure of nerve
How serious is this setback? One interpretation is that Mr Obama’s crew mismanaged expectations—that they promised a plan and came up with a concept. If so, that is a big mistake. Managing expectations is part of building confidence and when so much about these rescues is superhumanly complex, it is unforgivable to bungle the easy bit.

More worrying still is the chance that Mr Geithner’s vagueness comes from doubt about what to do, a reluctance to take tough decisions, and a timidity about asking Congress for enough cash. That is an alarming prospect. “Banksters” may be loathed everywhere, but more money will surely be needed to clean up America’s banks and administer the financial fix the economy needs. That, as this newspaper has argued before, means both some form of “bad bank” for toxic loans (with temporary nationalisation part of that cleansing process, if necessary) and guarantees to cover catastrophic losses in the “good” banks that remain. Mr Obama’s team must recognise this or they, like their predecessors, will come to be seen as part of the problem, not the solution.


Source = http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=13108724
handfleisch
Jimi, it's a shame to see you being so dishonest. I used the Economist source to show how wrong your CATO-inspired idea was, that most economists are opposed to Obama's plan just because CATO got some 200 economists to sign a statement. You know that. I showed that most economists support Obama's approach. You were proven wrong. Now you change the subject, and act like it's a revelation that there might be articles in the Economist questioning Obama-- not the point at all. Change the subject, divert attention -- these aren't the tactics of someone trying at honest debate, but of someone who must use bluster and volume to support an indefensible point of view or being just plain wrong. You pretty much have shredded your credibility. I thought you were a cut above the "Obama might be terrorist sympathizer" and "never heard of Limbaugh" no-nothing crowd on this website, but I guess not.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Jimi, it's a shame to see you being so dishonest.


You're calling me dishonest? That's rich! You're the one who purposely posted some charts and claimed that they said one thing while they in fact say nothing of the sort.
LumberJack
I would just like to remind everyone, that it has been about eleven year since the US government has been able to have an unqualified opinion on their financial statements.

US government spending (and its balance sheet) has been a problem for a long time.
handfleisch
Quote:

‘Obama Bear Market’ Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps

March 6 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama now has the distinction of presiding over his own bear market.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 20 percent since Inauguration Day, the fastest drop under a new president in at least 90 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The gauge has lost 53 percent from its October 2007 record of 14,164.53, slipping 4.1 percent to 6,594.44 yesterday.



Just for an example of how twisted by Obama Derangement Syndrome (a condition where seeing the word "Obama" causes fits of apoplexy and self-hatred) the articles in this thread are, I took today's news of a stock market surge and rewrote them in the other direction:
Quote:

‘Obama Bull Market’ Rewards Investors as Dow soars 380 points


March 11 -- President Barack Obama now has the distinction of presiding over the greatest stock market rally of the year.

Wall Street snapped out of its gloom Tuesday and posted its best performance of the year amidst Congressional approval of President Obama's budget plan, bolstered by optimistic reports from Citibank.

Obama was characteristically reluctant to take all the credit for the stock market surge. He compared daily fluctuations to a tracking poll in politics and said he wouldn’t adjust his policies just to meet market expectations. But the president added that buying shares “is a potentially good deal” for long-term investors.

The Dow Jones industrial average rose 379.44, or 5.8 percent, to 6926.49, its highest close since late February. All 30 of the Dow industrial stocks gained ground. Broader market indicators also posted sharp gains. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index rose 43.07, or 6.4 percent, to 719.60, while the Nasdaq composite index rose 89.64, or 7.1 percent, to 1358.28.

Banking stocks led the markets higher all day. Citigroup chief executive Vikram Pandit wrote in a letter to employees that the bank had operated at a profit for the first two months of this year and was on track, based on historical trends, to earn $8.3 billion for the quarter.

[b]The news broke a months-long torrent of bad news from the banking industry and the economy in general. Congress last month enacted Obama’s $787 billion package of tax cuts and spending on roads, bridges and public buildings.


From http://www.StopODS.ObamaDerangementSyndrome.com
(Actually here are the sources:)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/us/politics/11web-educ.html?ref=us
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7051404&page=1
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIg34ct-JZVW_v1Nx7Yg9GhIScqwD96RM4S80
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003671.html

Stocks Surge: Market Rallies Nearly 380 Points
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7051404&page=1
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:

Just for an example of how twisted by Obama Derangement Syndrome (a condition where seeing the word "Obama" causes fits of apoplexy and self-hatred) the articles in this thread are, I took today's news of a stock market surge and rewrote them in the other direction:



So now all you can do is make up fake news stories to try to justify your views? And also create some fake syndrome to describe those who disagree with you? I feel really bad for you.

I have nothing against Obama the person. He ran a very good campaign, and I congratulate him on his win. But this blind hero worship you and others have is troublesome. The fact that you feel the need to rewrite legitimate news stories to fit your twisted view really is something you should consider seeing someone about. Seriously. The fact that you feel you need to do all this goes beyond run-of-the-mill trollery.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
So now all you can do is make up fake news stories to try to justify your views? And also create some fake syndrome to describe those who disagree with you? I feel really bad for you.

I have nothing against Obama the person. He ran a very good campaign, and I congratulate him on his win. But this blind hero worship you and others have is troublesome. The fact that you feel the need to rewrite legitimate news stories to fit your twisted view really is something you should consider seeing someone about. Seriously. The fact that you feel you need to do all this goes beyond run-of-the-mill trollery.


I wonder how Citibank did their calculations for their accounts? If they made billions in profit, how come they needed a bail-out contribution, or is the bail-out also part of the accounts? I tell you, nothing is transparent and nothing makes sense. Where are those bad debts hidden at the moment? In a trash account? Or is it that Citibank received a "major investment" from the Government as a shareholder and now that is part of the profits? Have these questions been asked anywhere, sure they have, but where are they being reported?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
I showed that most economists support Obama's approach.

Wrong
You showed that most economists supported Obama before he was elected.
This isn't about which candidate should have been elected, nor is it about parties and political agendas.

This is about how this new plan to fix the economy is deeply flawed and already shows signs of failure, despite its enormous price tag.
handfleisch
interesting reactions:
Stocks dip during crisis that was years in the making: "It's Obama's fault! He opened his mouth! sky is falling aaagh."
Stocks rally for 3 days in the wake of stimulus package news, biggest gains since November 2008: *crickets chirping*

BTW Obama has compared daily stock market fluctuations to a tracking poll in politics and said he wouldn’t adjust his policies just to meet market expectations.

Quote:
Wall St. Builds on Winning Streak

Wall Street extended its rally into a third day on a mixed batch of economic data yesterday and some positive corporate news, sending the Dow Jones industrial average back above 7000.

Stocks are now headed toward their best week since November. Yesterday, every major sector from financial services to technology and health care closed with a gain. Crude oil prices surged 11 percent, to $47.03 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The Dow, an index of 30 blue chip stocks, climbed 239.66 points, or 3.5 percent, to close at 7170.06. It is up 9.5 percent in the last three days. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index surged 29.38 points, or 4.1 percent, to 750.74, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite index gained 54.46 points, or 4 percent, to close at 1426.10. The gains continued in Asian markets today, with Japan's Nikkei 225 average up nearly 5 percent in early trading.

edit: forgot link (massive cover-up!) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031201443.html?hpid=topnews
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
BTW Obama has compared daily stock market fluctuations to a tracking poll in politics and said he wouldn’t adjust his policies just to meet market expectations.

Perhaps you are quoting someone again completely out of context of the discussion. I am sure Obama would be the first person to agree that he is not an expert in stocks and shares by the closest of margins, nor an economist even when you are trying to make him into one. Rolling Eyes
handfleisch
Xanatos
handfleisch wrote:


And this is how all fascist and/or socialist leaders in history came into power.
deanhills
Xanatos wrote:
And this is how all fascist and/or socialist leaders in history came into power.
Totally agreed. The wording of the posters and the posters and photos themselves. The mass media propoganda on the Internet, dedicated Websites ... the whole shebang ... Evil or Very Mad
Related topics
Congratulations President Obama
Economists Object to Obama's $Trillion+ Spending Plan
Republican strategy, via Limbaugh: Wanting Obama to fail
Should Obama and Dems Limit Charitable Giving?
Obama's first 6 months, a list of accomplishments
Obama and Dems Using Unions to Attack
Obama helps strengthen General Electric-Putin ties
Obama's Unemployment Numbers Keep Going Up
Could Democrats loose Obama's former Senate seat?
Massachusetts Senate race - Dems in trouble?
Employment situation improving under Obama
Tea Party: 4 in 10 are Dems, Independents
What happens when Obama raises taxes?
Republicans Block Jobs Bill for Teachers & Emergency Wor
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.