After the Bailout: Is Obama Depressing the Market?

Barack the magic candidate

Obama began complaining about the Bush policies 2 years ago-or was it 4, or 6. This was in a bull market with low interest rates and low unemployment. His solution? Raise taxes and increase spending.

Now the crisis is real. His solution? Raise taxes and increase spending. When pressured on this idiotic policy he waffles..."well, maybe not so much".

We know what happened during the depression and we know what we get with SIGNIFICANTLY lower taxes and pro-growth policies. Read Luskin's study on Republican administrations like Nixon who chose price controls etc. and Democratic ones like Kennedy and Clinton that lowered taxes (JFK) or kept them reasonably low (Clinton).

Don't bore me with jibbersih about Clinton raising taxes and balancing a budget and growing teh economy. It was Reagan's massive cuts that were mostly preserved by Bubba that made teh BIG difference.

PAT DUGGAN of IL @ Oct 08, 2008 10:07:15 AM

Registered Lobbyist

I have been reading Jim's blog for some time now and if you read it everyday you would often wonder what side of the fence he is on. RED, BLUE... it doesn’t really matter because it is now getting everyone to go inward and start thinking as we should have been doing for the last decade. As an ex- Bond trader now for 15 years and a market analyst, I have been telling my husband that we are already in a recession and on the tip of a depression. Look at the charts and the economic patterns. The difference between then and now is that along time ago the government did not bail savings and loans out. That is why they collapsed.

It is my democratic side of me that is not ready for the change that an inexperienced senator will bring to the country. However, McCain is offering change from the current administration and his experience will offer stability that our country needs right now, Then and only then can Hilary run with a clean ticket in 2012, and take the reins. Republicans are only good 4 years at time. Did you hear Joe B. last week. When asked what will he do as VP?, Palins answer was something like, We discussed will I best will serve, Energy, Special needs… Bidens said something like this, “ I will sit at the right side of him at all meetings and give my advice” SORRY, Isnt that what we are upset with Bush/Cheney deal. Cheney pulling all of the strings. So I ask, Do you want a president that will stand on his own two feet? Or one that needs to get the VP approval?

However, growing up in Chicago, being a democrat, knowing first hand how corrupt Chicago Politics are, I would never vote into office a democrat from Illinois for President EVER. Hilary was smart, she moved away some .35 years ago. I am willing to wait another 4 years. The sub prime loan killed my business, my ability to borrow and some of my retirement. It was my risk. I should have known.

So back to the Bailout. Give a kid an inch they will ask for a mile. What happened to transparency? This bail out bill was filled with other needs that did not need to be in the bill. Maybe the legislate should adopt a policy for Bills that come to the floor that will cost the taxpayers any more that a Billion dollars, there can only be related items in the bill. What do you think? Cavuto and Huckabee are honest and top dogs and are right on. Jim, you need to get your people to talk with Huckabees people and get on his show for commentary. Thanks Jim for keeping us thinking and keeping them honest. Peace.

S.Dose of IL @ Oct 07, 2008 20:33:50 PM

Complicated Solutions

There are many arguements on both sides of the aisle as to who started this whole mess but lets listen to poor Gvo Palin's naive and simple comment regarding the use of credit. Miss-use of credit by all Amercans, Business and Government from Elm St to Main street to Wall St and Both end of Pennsylvania Ave is the problem. Cridt requires honesty and trust. Honesty that you will pay back the debt and trust that you are a worthwhile creditor and borrower. Ronald Reagan said "Trust but Verify". We need to balance our household budgets and expect no less from our government, at all levels. If we don't have the money, we cannot afford it. Business credit is based on future earnings (grwth - not inflation). Government is not in the earning business, therefor should not be in the deficit business except in extreme national emergency.

SaveUMoney of NY @ Oct 07, 2008 14:53:19 PM

Do facts matter at all?

Fatesrider,

Do facts matter at all to yoU?

I quote from economist Thomas Sowell:

" Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years — including the present year — denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Sen. Dodd, Congressman Frank, and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today’s financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the president. So did Bush’s secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration “right-wing ideology” of “de-regulation” that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn’t.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?"

James isn't the shill, Fatesrider. You are.

Kent G. Budge of NM @ Oct 07, 2008 14:24:43 PM

Interesting ....

Fatesrider might be a little harsh in his/her assessment for my taste, but he/she makes quite a few valid points. The key for me is this: whenever I read a column that cites exactly one study or source (in this case, Morici), I ask myself how hard the writer had to search to find the one that supported his or her opinion. Pethokoukis finds parallels between the two decades but offers no evidence for cause and effect, while fatesrider offers at least one plausible alternative explanation.

The worst part of this editorial (and that's what it is) is the title. Many people will only see it in a link or reference some where, and if they even read the article, will judge what the read based on the supposition staked out in the title. Few will read it closely enough to notice the inconsistencies fatesrider points out.

As for Alan Boles, you're the reason why I don't read comments sections more often. If you are going to throw together a jumble of unrelated "Facts" and opinions, you might as well write well enough for the reader to understand without reading it twice and translating it in their head to actual English. Anyone who writes that poorly needs to familiarize themselves with a spell and grammar checker. Write your crap in Word and then paste here or something. You're just an embarassment.

madurb of TN @ Oct 07, 2008 13:52:18 PM

Yeah, be a shill again

That's it... If I see your face on another post, I know you're being a Republican apologist rather than a reporter. You are not capable of looking beyond your politics when writing. If you had some balance in what you write, you'd at least validate yourself as a reporter of SOME kind.

It would be nice if you labeled your column Political Opinion instead of Money and Business. My father and I, who are not of the same political bent as each other, but both know more about how the economy works than, apparently, you do, have disagreed with the whole unregulated 'free market' ideology from the beginning and specially this bailout. The 1980's were 'saved' by the emerging computer tech industry, an emerging global economy (shared risk) and not Reaganomics. The deregulation of the lending industry in the 1980's - that 'free market' thing with which you seem so thrilled - got us into this mess in the first place. We need fiscal policy change and you advocate for the incumbents.

Has anyone ever told you the definition of 'insanity'? It's doing the exact same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. Conservatives attempt to maintain the status quo or traditionalist policie3s - neither of which is change. How can we expect change from a party priding itself on clinging to the past? If you say, "The Republicans can change but the Democrats can't", you're not only delusional, you're hypocritical. The budget deficits have, on average, doubled or more under Republican leadership, and only gone up a third under Democratic leadership since WWII. Your inability to look beyond your politics makes you a very poor choice for US News and World Report's Money and Business reporter. You advocate for the economic policies of a party whose fiscal leadership has driven the country to financial ruin. Not only is that a patently invalid position from which to advocate, it's irresponsible as a reporter to even try.

How do you even look at yourself in the mirror?

I respect your right to say what you want - but in the proper venue. Start posting in the Op-Ed section with the other republican apologist, Barone. At least he has the decency to label his posts AS opinion. I'm blocking your whole editorial site from now on. It's NOT Money & Business. You should be registered as a lobbyist.

Fatesrider of CA @ Oct 07, 2008 13:13:05 PM