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

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
link
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.
At what point does Obama own the economy, especially the drop in the stock market.
The recession certainly belongs to Bush and those who controlled congress over the last 4 years.

But the stock market is in a free fall since Obama took office and you can't blame Bush for that fact.
At what point does Obama take the blame for the state of the stock market? Especially if it keeps dropping like it is.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
never, the left will always have W to blame and the people will eat it up
 

Firebot

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2005
1,476
2
0
Considering that Clinton was considered responsible and blamed for the economy even as the housing bubble burst, and others like Winnar have been saying the stock market is Obama's fault even when he was only elected and not yet in office, it solely depends on if you are a Democrat (he won't be responsible until 8 years from now) or Republican (he's the solo cause of the American collapse just by existing).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
At what point does Obama take the blame for the state of the stock market? Especially if it keeps dropping like it is.

2013.

/hack thread

The fact of the idiocy in implyiing it's time to be asking about the stock market fall being Obama's fault a month and days into his administration when the causes are clearly from many years of policies and actions by the companies, is so obvious as to be ridiculous to have to point out, but let this thread serve as exhibit # 1,311 in PJ's absurdities.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
This argument has nothing to go on and relies almost exclusively on correlation equaling causation. I liked the third paragraph, the argument there essentially was that since this recession is longer than most that means it is Democrat's destructive policies causing it to be longer than usual. Maybe it is just a worse recession than most?

Ridiculous. The man has been in office a month and a half. He doesn't own it until 2011.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
at what point? i wouldnt say until after the first year. maybe year and half.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,899
63
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
link
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.
At what point does Obama own the economy, especially the drop in the stock market.
The recession certainly belongs to Bush and those who controlled congress over the last 4 years.

But the stock market is in a free fall since Obama took office and you can't blame Bush for that fact.
At what point does Obama take the blame for the state of the stock market? Especially if it keeps dropping like it is.



Its down about 800 points from the low it reached under Bush in November.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: waggy
at what point? i wouldnt say until after the first year. maybe year and half.

So he gets a 12-18 month free pass to enact horrible legislation that drives our economy even further south?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: waggy
at what point? i wouldnt say until after the first year. maybe year and half.

So he gets a 12-18 month free pass to enact horrible legislation that drives our economy even further south?

yup and apparently the market isn't forward looking either
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
/YAWN another stupid Op-Ed. Are you feigning ignorance or is it real? How many real economists do you think there are out there that will tell you that the economy cycles in less than two months after new policies? It's more like two years, FYI.

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Topic Title: The Obama Economy. As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.
Topic Summary: At what point does Obama own it?

What a switch! PJ can no longer piss and moan, point fingers and scream, but Clinton did it!. Now he's switched his usual attempts to distract and divert attention from his mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal to blaming their failures on Obama and his administration because, in the period of a few weeks, they haven't undone all the damage the Bushwhackos did to our economy.

It will be years, if not decades, before damage and stench from the Bushwhackos is gone.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: JS80
never, the left will always have W to blame and the people will eat it up

Come on JS. You know damn well that the banks f'd up under Bush because de(under)regulation and whatever damage is being realized now was caused because of that. The fallout from those damages (decreased lending, undermining of system confidence, loss of jobs) is only the fault of the prior years.

 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: waggy
at what point? i wouldnt say until after the first year. maybe year and half.

So he gets a 12-18 month free pass to enact horrible legislation that drives our economy even further south?

the horrible legislation he should be nailed on.

but that is diffrent from the Dow jones/stock market.
 

Jeffg010

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2008
3,435
1
0
"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."

This right here tells me Obama and his administration are total fools and we are in big trouble. Anyone that defends this crap must have there head so far up their ass.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: waggy
at what point? i wouldnt say until after the first year. maybe year and half.

The accurate question to use in judging Obama is whether his actions have been the right ones to address the situation, whether the problems last 1 more day or 1 more decade.

That takes some rational discussion, not just an emotional 'when it feels like it's been a while'.

I think it's sad that now that we finally have a somewhat progressive government, its hands are tied by the crisis, not able to do what it would otherwise do.

It runs the risk of Obama and liberal policies getting unfair blame. The Great Depression was going on four years before FDR took office; Obama took over only a few months after the crisis started. If FDR had taken office in 1930 instead of 1933, he'd have had to deal with a lot of those problems.

The economists seem to be fairly united in saying Obama is doing the right things.

The Republicans are leaning towards the political ploy of opposing him and hoping to get political advantage by blaming the problems on Obama.

Hopefully, they'll continue to pay the price for that wrong policy.

But there's always the risk of the same sort of thing happening as when Carter inherited a disastrous economy, did things to get it on track (he, not Reagan, appointed Volcker who was widely credited with addressing inflation), but because the problems were still going on, the country turned to the biggest deficit creator and someone who ended the nation's policies of the economic growth being fairly distributed, and began the problems we see today with the bottom 80% getting zero after inflation for 30 years.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,890
55,156
136
Originally posted by: alchemize
Bush owned 9/11 in 8 months, so that's what I'll give Obama. Leftie logic :)

I assume by your smiley that you know how little sense that makes, right?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
No doubt the market is reacting to some of Obama's proposed policies, but a lot of it is also just more bad news on our economy, stuff that Obama doesn't really have much control over.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: alchemize

Bush owned 9/11 in 8 months, so that's what I'll give Obama. Leftie logic :)

9/11 happened ON Bush's watch, and he was forewarned, but he chose to ignore the warnings.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: JS80
never, the left will always have W to blame and the people will eat it up

Come on JS. You know damn well that the banks f'd up under Bush because de(under)regulation and whatever damage is being realized now was caused because of that. The fallout from those damages (decreased lending, undermining of system confidence, loss of jobs) is only the fault of the prior years.

I have to disagree that he knows that, as accurate as it is.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
It will never be Obama's to own. In O's 8th year, when unemployment is 8%, the deficit continues to be $500 billion per year and inflation is 10%, he and his supporters here will point out that he "saved" millions of jobs because of his policies. And if he had not had such a huge mess to clean up, well, we would be in a boom time for sure.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Whether anyone likes it or not....Obama owns this economy right now. He asked for the job and he got it. No doubt that Obama got handed a tough, tough economy. Wall Street doesn't like what they see so far and I don't blame them...insane spending and the promise of future tax increases is not inspiring a lot of confidence. Hopefully Wall Street is wrong...but these guys typically get it right and they definitely don't like what they're seeing so far.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: JS80
never, the left will always have W to blame and the people will eat it up

Come on JS. You know damn well that the banks f'd up under Bush because de(under)regulation and whatever damage is being realized now was caused because of that. The fallout from those damages (decreased lending, undermining of system confidence, loss of jobs) is only the fault of the prior years.

I am not blaming O for the banking crisis. I am merely pointing out that the market is forward looking and whatever messages the Treasury and his admin is sending the market does not like it.

But you and I both know whether it was a republican or democrat in the White House post Clinton, the government would have still pushed for increased home ownership across the board and we'd be in the same situation.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Jeffg010
"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."

This right here tells me Obama and his administration are total fools and we are in big trouble. Anyone that defends this crap must have there head so far up their ass.

Independant economic experts say that letting AIG fail - it operates in 130 countries, by the way - would lead to a large number of failures of other institutions and be disastrous.

I don't know pretty much anyone here who is more opposed to the free hand allowing that situation to happen - see the Bernie quote in my sig - but it doesn't mean they're wrong.

I will say that I want our government to prevent an AIG from existing next time. Make the industry comeptitive, allow for them to have to pay the price for bad policies.

I can support the bailout of AIG while plugging my nose - will you agree with me for the government to limit firms becoming 'so big the government has to bail them out'?