“The illusion that government can be a universal provider, and yet society still stay free and prosperous. The illusion that government can print money, and yet the nation still have sound money. The illusion that every loss can be covered by a subsidy. The illusion that we can break the link between reward and effort, and still get the reward.” – Margaret Thatcher
Americans overwhelmingly decided in poll after poll last year that Barack Obama was the most capable person to handle our economy. What gave them that idea? Obviously, they were swayed by the unfettered speaking style and his ability to present himself as unflappable and calm. However, those with a vested interest in the stock market or “skin in the game”, as Obama likes to call it, feel otherwise.
The day after the election, the stock market saw the most dramatic slide it had ever experienced a day after an election. And, yes, we have been in serious economic crises during many other elections, so this was NOT an unprecedented time. Since Obama maintained a convincing lead throughout the presidential election, I contend this “fear” has been driving the markets down since the beginning of last summer.
The only time I have seen a significant gain due to Obama’s actions, was after he announced Timothy Geithner as Sec. of the Treasury. But Geithner’s inept and apparently aloof attitude towards the market and a lack of a crisp strategy for the banks has helped maintain the downward spiral.
Since the Stimulus package is going to provide all of the jobs, etc to get our economy back on track, one would think the market would respond positively. But, the market only looks at the large amount of inflation that would be produced rather than the new eco-friendly sewage drain covers for Des Moines, Iowa. Okay, so there may not be an eco-friendly sewer cover project, but the idea probably didn't shock you!
He may be a “friend” to the environmentalists and the completely downtrodden, but he is no friend to our economy. As if we aren’t already on thin ice, Obama has signaled to the energy industry that he will stifle them with a cap and trade policy to keep the polar bears happy. Crucial investors have their hands tied behind their backs with a steep capital gains tax and higher income taxes. And the banks are freaked out from fears of nationalization.
And Obama’s decision to allow homeowners to default on their loans flies in the face of our economic system. You are lessening the incentive for banks to lend when you do not allow them to get back the money they loaned! Who will invest in JP Morgan, when they are now restricted by our government from retrieving their loans and increasing their profits?? No worries…we’ll just nationalize.
Americans have their futures invested in the stock market. This is not only for the realm of the greedy or rich…..teachers’ and firemen’s retirement funds are tied up in the market and …..over 50% of Americans own stocks in one form or another…. and most are counting on their investments for their retirement. By that time, the government will have ruined that, as well, and your new living “pod” and meal rations will be included in the next big stimulus! Yes, Comrade, soon we will ALL be equals…..except for the officials in government of course…..
Obama appears to be gearing up to create another depression, which will give him a mandate to even further tighten the government’s grip on our lives. I’d like to know how he would explain the obvious chasm between his moderate campaign rhetoric and first 40 days of radical policy.
A call to Obama's office was not immediately returned!
Americans overwhelmingly decided in poll after poll last year that Barack Obama was the most capable person to handle our economy. What gave them that idea? Obviously, they were swayed by the unfettered speaking style and his ability to present himself as unflappable and calm. However, those with a vested interest in the stock market or “skin in the game”, as Obama likes to call it, feel otherwise.
The day after the election, the stock market saw the most dramatic slide it had ever experienced a day after an election. And, yes, we have been in serious economic crises during many other elections, so this was NOT an unprecedented time. Since Obama maintained a convincing lead throughout the presidential election, I contend this “fear” has been driving the markets down since the beginning of last summer.
The only time I have seen a significant gain due to Obama’s actions, was after he announced Timothy Geithner as Sec. of the Treasury. But Geithner’s inept and apparently aloof attitude towards the market and a lack of a crisp strategy for the banks has helped maintain the downward spiral.
Since the Stimulus package is going to provide all of the jobs, etc to get our economy back on track, one would think the market would respond positively. But, the market only looks at the large amount of inflation that would be produced rather than the new eco-friendly sewage drain covers for Des Moines, Iowa. Okay, so there may not be an eco-friendly sewer cover project, but the idea probably didn't shock you!
He may be a “friend” to the environmentalists and the completely downtrodden, but he is no friend to our economy. As if we aren’t already on thin ice, Obama has signaled to the energy industry that he will stifle them with a cap and trade policy to keep the polar bears happy. Crucial investors have their hands tied behind their backs with a steep capital gains tax and higher income taxes. And the banks are freaked out from fears of nationalization.
And Obama’s decision to allow homeowners to default on their loans flies in the face of our economic system. You are lessening the incentive for banks to lend when you do not allow them to get back the money they loaned! Who will invest in JP Morgan, when they are now restricted by our government from retrieving their loans and increasing their profits?? No worries…we’ll just nationalize.
Americans have their futures invested in the stock market. This is not only for the realm of the greedy or rich…..teachers’ and firemen’s retirement funds are tied up in the market and …..over 50% of Americans own stocks in one form or another…. and most are counting on their investments for their retirement. By that time, the government will have ruined that, as well, and your new living “pod” and meal rations will be included in the next big stimulus! Yes, Comrade, soon we will ALL be equals…..except for the officials in government of course…..
Obama appears to be gearing up to create another depression, which will give him a mandate to even further tighten the government’s grip on our lives. I’d like to know how he would explain the obvious chasm between his moderate campaign rhetoric and first 40 days of radical policy.
A call to Obama's office was not immediately returned!
10 comments:
Oh yeah-a new kind of politics. That's what he said! Lying sack of shit!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html
Hopefully you noticed in the article linked above that Rahm Emanuel has a conference call with all these supposedly unbiased reporters to set their talking points for the day! It is a new kind of politics, the politics distraction and deceit.
While I don't believe BO is helping the markets in any way, most of this volatility is the big traders manipulating stock prices. If you notice the market has been tanking for the past week because of this or that in the news, and amazingly today there the market shoots back up because of traders buying good stocks for cheap. Although the market is continuing to decline overall under BO, I think the real story is the same guys who made fortunes driving the market into the ground continue to bleed the market for everything they can, without concern for the fact that they may drive the stock market straight into government ownership. It would fall in line with our country's movement toward socialism, which is good if you like that sort of thing or your BO.
Winning the war on drugs??? Please....just legalize it, tax it and let's start to crawl out of our deficit (isn't taxation the American way?)....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504139,00.html?fark
The rich will get richer (as mentioned above by them "bleeding the market") and poor poorer.....
Some great advice for Barry!!!:
1) Forget talk radio. During the campaign, President Obama, you went after Sean Hannity on numerous occasions--which are recycled ad nauseam almost daily as sound-bites on his radio program. Once in office, both you and your staff have zeroed in on Rush Limbaugh by name. But Presidential candidates and elected Presidents must seem above the fray, and not descend into tit-for-tat with media celebrities. There is a reason why even your closest associates have ceased calling you Barack and now quite properly address you as "Mr. President"--and it is not due to your persistence in demonizing talk radio.
Did George Bush go after Bill Maher or Air American or Keith Olbermann when almost daily they slandered his character? Did he serially evoke Michael Moore? To have done so by name, would have demeaned his office. Worry about refuting conservative ideas, and governing the country, rather than dueling over the airways with those who get paid for only that. The country wanted a Lincoln, not another Nixon going after Dan Rather at a press conference. So far your administration resembles the latter, not the former.
2) Forget about George Bush. We got the message already that he is near satanic, you angelic. Yet even in your inauguration speech, you could not leave well enough alone, and so once again went after a predecessor who won two elections, and so far has been circumspect in his criticism of your own brief tenure. Even ex-Presidents--cf. Jimmy Carter's self-serving ankle-biting and Bill Clinton contorted snipes--reduce the office when they engage in schoolyard "they did it, not me" finger-pointing.
Again, in your first address to the nation, you went out swinging: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." But President Bush never set up such a Manichean either/or situation, as you yourself must accept, when you embraced his protocols on FISA, the Patriotic Act, the Bush-Petraeus Iraq withdrawal plan, and kept rendition, and so far have not quite closed Guantanamo.
And there was more still in that address: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. . .Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."
But Mr. President, deficits arose from out-of-control spending, inasmuch as the Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue. It is fair to fault the past eight years of profligate spending, but when you engage in such demagoguery, the American people can detect your subtext: "I won't criticize Bush's spending because I found it not enough and will trump it; I will criticize his tax cuts, since I want to make the wealthier pay for my even greater borrowing."
Cutting taxes on everyone who pays them is not transferring wealth, unless you believe that one's own income belongs to the government in the first place. Under Bush, nearly 50% of the tax filers for the first time paid no income tax at all--hardly a transfer of wealth.
As far as "gutting" regulations go, I don't think you wish to go there--given the careers of Franklin Rains, a disgraced Jim Johnson (of your recent hire), Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, who not only really did gut regulations that were at the center of the financial meltdown, but profited from such complicit laxity.
3) Drop the messianic style. The campaign is over. The Victory Column and Parthenon facades belong to last summer. Remember, it's hard finding elites to serve in government that are not tainted. You yourself discovered that depressing fact when you nominated tax-dodgers and lobbyists to your own cabinet. Not only did you have far more trouble on such ethical fronts than did Bush in his first month of nominations, but you suffered the additional wage of hypocrisy after adopting the prophetic rhetoric about your own virtue. 2012 will come soon enough without vero possumus at every turn.
4) Enough of the evil "rich." We've heard now about the proverbial jets, parties, and 'they want us to eat cake' rhetoric that is approaching the sloganeering of the French Revolution. No one likes a Bernie Madoff, or supports AIG and Citicorp execs wanting federal subsidies to cover their lavish lifestyles.
But a little humility is in order: the problem is not just Richard Fuld at a bankrupt Lehman Brothers, but also Clintonites like Robert Rubin at Citicorp, and liberals at Freddie and Fannie who took millions while destroying the financial integrity of hallowed institutions.
A William Jefferson, Charles Rangel, or John Murtha is an advertisement for ethical impropriety. Nancy Pelosi's private jet is as worrisome as those of the Big Three auto execs now on public assistance; both Ms. Pelosi and the car CEOs get federal monies and preside over bankrupt entities--and fly in class.
You are our President; so, please, begin seeing greed as an equal opportunity vice that infects liberal and conservatives alike--and anyone else with all too human frailties. If anything, the liberal egalitarian suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy for engaging in Rangelesque schemes or Robert Rubin 'me-first' bonuses--in the same manner conservatives do when caught with women or drugs after boasting of the need for old-time morality.
5) Stop the dissimulation. Your plan might work for a while given the incineration of trillions in stock and home equity and the need for replacement cash, but its revenue-raising component is not just aimed at the miniscule number of "rich", which you imply to the American people are flying the skies of America in private jets while being unpatriotic in avoiding taxes and violating regulations.
In fact, for your plan to succeed, you must go after the upper, upper middle-class, those making between $250,000 and $600,000 who are restaurant owners, home builders, labor contactors, architects, surgeons, engineers, hospital executives, college administrators, Ivy-League law professors, and many dentists.
These households are wealthy, yes; but they don't own or even fly on $50 million private jets or host private Super Bowl parties. Their income is all reported, and with such good salaries come high insurance and, in the case of business, constant reinvestment and expensive inventories. They are not greedy, but the bulwark of the United States' productive classes who in aggregate pay over 40% of the collective income taxes, and provide most of the jobs in the country. Under your plan many in these high-tax states will pay nearly 70% of their incomes in FICA, Medicare, federal income, and state income taxes. Why gratuitously mislead the American people that those for whom you will lift FICA ceilings or up their IRS bites to 40% are in any way synonymous with the super-rich? Remember the very, very wealthy voted overwhelmingly in your favor precisely because their riches gave them immunity from high taxes, and in many cases they were far removed from the everyday risk and worry of owning a hardware store or trying to keep together a family-owned construction firm. George Clooney is a world away from a paving contractor, just as making $400,000 a year on call 24/7 is not quite making $40 million investing or $2 million for a cameo.
So please no more intellectual dishonesty, Mr. President. Those in great numbers who will pay your higher taxes are not really the rarer Warren Buffets, Bill Gateses, Diane Feinsteins, Teresa Heinz Kerrys, Sean Penns, George Soroses, Oprah Winfreys, or Tiger Woodses, whose mega-wealth really does result in private jet rides, and yet exempts them from worries that increased taxes might wreck their small businesses.
A final note. You are engaged on a vast revolutionary agenda, one that if successful will create a high-tax, big government, large entitlement, UN-centered, and European-emulating country, far different from America of the past. Given your political skills and the current economic crisis, you, as FDR once did, may well pull it off.
Such radical transformation ipso facto creates winners and losers and means radical readjustments that stir passions. But the challenge of a President is to show empathy for those you must target, and some sensitivity to counter-arguments made from good intentions and sound logic.
Instead, you are beginning to create an 'us/them' climate of increasing passionate intensity, and unleashing zeal that cannot be healthy for the country. So far your soaring rhetoric, untraditional background, and the good will of the American people have mitigated such extremism as your Attorney General calling the nation collective "cowards" or your own serial invective against "the rich," "bankers" and Rush Limbaugh.
But there will come a time, when you will rue the politics of class warfare and the rhetoric of the demagogue--and may find the very intensities that you are unleashing for political advantage now, later on will be precisely those that you most regret that even you cannot control.
So a little less 'Bush did it' or Rush this and Sean that, and a little more of the need of all Americans to debate in calm and respect dissension in these times of uncertainty in which no one has all the answers.
-Victor David Hanson
It is apparent the market has responded to Obama. The steep drop the day after the election is not mere coincidence.
The rich may be getting richer, but not sure if the poor are getting poorer. Maybe incomes have not kept up with prices, but people purchasing goods beyond their means on credit has driven up the prices of goods due to higher demand.
A healthy stock market will keep the poor in their jobs. Simple logic.
"it's hard to find elites to serve in govt that are not tainted"....SOUND point given the argument at hand!
Mr. Hanson, you my friend, should be writing this blog!!
Proof in the pudding:
http://www.thebigmoney.com/features/todays-business-press/2009/03/04/former-countrywide-execs-making-bank-crisis
Good article.
Foreclose on the rest of those that default on loans....so we can allow more poeple to buy them up with cash they actually have! Poeple who are foreclosed upon will just lose the money they invested in their homes...no different than 1-3 years of wasted rent on an apartment. Yes, their credit score may be ruined, but maybe that will prevent others from giving the irresponsible person loans in the future.
As far as the rich getting richer...it's unfortunate...but, that's life, man!!
Post a Comment