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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

BJean, quick question (I'm packing to go visit the folks at oh-dark-thirty in the morning)...

You keep talking about the powers that Bush took from us. Okay, no doubt there. However, can you please show me WHERE in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or ANY OTHER DOCUMENT that the government has the right to steal businesses away from people and dictate who gets paid and how much? I'll check back later for your answer.

Wow! I don't think I've seen a thread spewing this much crap and senseless propaganda since I joined this site. I can feel the hate seaping through some of these posts. I'm proud to be an American.

My thoughts are simple. Give the man a chance. Some of you can't do that though. He just doesn't seem to dance to your demented tune, and it infuriates you to no end. Maybe his method is a little different from what we've seen for a while. I know he's an elective servant, but just as harshly as you judge him, so shall you be judged.

"That's why I questioned BJean's assertation that he has been the most effective of any president in her lifetime."

Ok, my bad...."so far". But you still haven't told me what he's done to make him the most effective so far. And I mean some concrete things....not just "he's righting the wrongs" and "he's proactive"

Did you even read (really read) what I wrote? Jeb is not the point. I used that name because I figured that would be the most vile to you. I could have easily said "Palin". My point was that any power moves Obama and the congress pull off will eventually wind up in the hands of the opposing party!!

But those are a mess of conflicting statements! Did congress not get the chance to vote, or did they vote to give him the ability and discretion to bomb? Which?

Didn't you? You said Bush was a fascist. Not many fascists care to share their power with congress. And anyway.....splitting hairs is the last desperate grasp of a debate. How Clinton-esque! I'll ask it this way: What powers specifically did congress give up to Bush?

Yep. That's what I asked. And I notice that you didn't, or couldn't answer.

Unbelievable. What if I told you that a small group of jews secretly ran the affais of the whole world? Would you believe it, or would you ask me some questions (what's the name of this group? What is their agenda? How did you find this out?) about that group? And would you be satisfied with the answer "well, there's not a formal name. Have you stuck your head in the sand? Open your eyes! Jews run the world"? Because that's basically all you've given me.

Wow, that's amazingly open-minded of you. Didn't you kind of "scold" me a few posts back for not watching a balanced diet of news? Ah well, go on back and get your hard news from The Huffington Post or Media matters. They're much more fair.

Have ANY of these or your previous questions to her been answered?? Or are we getting the typical, left-wing dodge-and-spin reel? :wink:

Never mind, I already know my answer. :confused:

Beth, I must say that I am not a big fan of yours usually, but on this issue I am in TOTAL agreement. I've just read through all of this forum and can't believe that we are on the same page with this.

I can pretty much believe it, based on some of the other political threads we've been involved in.

And I will spend the next four years doing all I can to knock this goober out of office. He sure as hell didn't earn the spot, and he's proving it.

Wow! I don't think I've seen a thread spewing this much crap and senseless propaganda since I joined this site. I can feel the hate seaping through some of these posts. I'm proud to be an American.

My thoughts are simple. Give the man a chance. Some of you can't do that though. He just doesn't seem to dance to your demented tune, and it infuriates you to no end. Maybe his method is a little different from what we've seen for a while. I know he's an elective servant, but just as harshly as you judge him, so shall you be judged.

So let me ask you: If a conservative, ANY conservative, did what this loser is doing, would you stand staunchly behind it? Hell, would BJean?? I doubt it... :wink:

I understand why you are opposed to a group like ACORN, but they are not a fraudulent group. They aren't perfect, but they did not corrupt the voting system or the election process in America. The only place that accused ACORN of being an illegal group that I know of is Fox.

Er, well.....Fox and the democratic (and very liberal) chairman of the congressional judiciary committee:

Washington Times - Conyers weighing probe of ACORN

Wow! I don't think I've seen a thread spewing this much crap and senseless propaganda since I joined this site. I can feel the hate seaping through some of these posts. I'm proud to be an American.

My thoughts are simple. Give the man a chance. Some of you can't do that though. He just doesn't seem to dance to your demented tune, and it infuriates you to no end. Maybe his method is a little different from what we've seen for a while. I know he's an elective servant, but just as harshly as you judge him, so shall you be judged.

His method of socialism isn't any different than in other countries and it has failed to bring freedom to the people. When government takes control of enterprise and gets too big and interferes with mans ability to care for themselves and spends the peoples money like it's Water and puts the next generations to come into horrible debt, when politicians make millions and have the best benefits and medical care and no term limits, where is that halping and caring for the common people? That's a move towards dictatorship.

I understand why you are opposed to a group like ACORN, but they are not a fraudulent group. They aren't perfect, but they did not corrupt the voting system or the election process in America. The only place that accused ACORN of being an illegal group that I know of is Fox. Everyone else did their research and interviewed the people in the group and learned the truth about the accusations that Fox leveled against ACORN.

Uh-huh, yeah. And I have this bridge to sell you...

I see you haven't answered the hard questions yet. Interesting.

By the way, for those who apparently don't know the definitions:

so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun 1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

fas⋅cism   /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun 1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.2.(sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.3.(initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

BJean is almost right. We are skimming past the socialism part and heading straight for the fascism arena. This guy thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants. If that isn't a dictator and/or tyrant, I don't know what is.

And never forget, people loved Mussolini, too, until... :smile2:

You people are lunatics.

I asked you questions that you never answered. You have done nothing to prove any of your points. You have only spouted the same propaganda that Rush Limbaugh spews. Are you on Oxy?

And yet you belittle me because I haven't answered questions - to your liking.

Go suck an egg.

Calm down, we are NOT entirely Socialist. I say entirely, not because of a new government but because of an ongoing one.

I believe we are a Capitalist society with a Socialist twist, and we have been for a long time. This is a good thing!

Our taxes go to pay for "benefits" not only for all citizens, but also for underprivileged ones. Our poor and disabled citizens are examples of benefactors to this form of "Socialism". We could do what less generous societies do and have them fend for themselves (survival of the fittest), but we try to keep our citizens out of the gutters.

Is there abuse to this system? Yes, but most recipients are truly in need of help. I don't mind sharing my wealth with them because who knows, I may be there myself.

In earlier posts, I read a lot of anger and spite about people on the "dole". Since this economic crisis (let's just say the last year), there are millions more people standing in the welfare or unemployment line, unable to find jobs. Are we, as the American tax paying citizens that still are fortunate to have a job, going to tell these people to fend for themselves? Or are we going to lend a hand? This would be sharing the wealth.

P.S. When certain companies have been offered bailouts to keep them afloat and they take some of this money to stuff excess $ in the pockets of those who are used to living high on the hog, you have an example of the worst reason to support "Capitalism".

You are right in a sense. I don't have a problem with our tax money helping those who are in dire straits, but there is far too much waste and greed and abuse of the tax dollar. There needs to be a balance. There needs to be oversight on those who are using the tax dollar. Some accountability. We have far too many programs, and with programs there are more and more gov. employees who get a far above average Joe paycheck that comes with extremely nice benefits, retirement and health ins. It's one thing to help the poor, it's quite another to bilk the hard working U.S. citizen from too much of their money.

Here's an example in my own life. I am a landlord. We own 2 multifamily homes. The woman on the 2nd floor collects SS disability and is on a gov. funded program that pays a large portion of her rent. She pays only $80. The rental fee is very reasonable for my area. We got notice with the housing Dept. when the monthly check came yesterday saying that they would not allow any rent increases this year, and that even those who receive rent payments will be reduced. I don't understand why she can't get a job and support herself. I see her walking around town, smoking, playing with her dog. She's been living here about 5 years, and I've gotten to know her some. She collects SS benefits and gets free medical care from the state and get's free housing, but should she? She even worked part time under the table in her past. Now I'm not saying everybody does that, but alot of people take it if they can get it. Once a friend of mine was wondering if it were better for her to go to work, or accept the medical benefits from the state and the foodstamps. After weighing it up, she decided to stay with the benefits, cause she would only make a little bit more money if she worked. The problem with gov. supporting people who don't work is that they WONT work if they don't have to.

You people are lunatics.

I asked you questions that you never answered. You have done nothing to prove any of your points. You have only spouted the same propaganda that Rush Limbaugh spews. Are you on Oxy?

And yet you belittle me because I haven't answered questions - to your liking.

Go suck an egg.

What a liberal. You spin and spew and don't listen to logic OR facts, nor do you answer questions because you know that you have no defense to what you believe. It's the easiest way to totally unhinge you people. And I see it worked again. Y'all never disappoint, that's for sure. :confused:

You are right in a sense. I don't have a problem with our tax money helping those who are in dire straits, but there is far too much waste and greed and abuse of the tax dollar. There needs to be a balance. There needs to be oversight on those who are using the tax dollar. Some accountability. We have far too many programs, and with programs there are more and more gov. employees who get a far above average Joe paycheck that comes with extremely nice benefits, retirement and health ins. It's one thing to help the poor, it's quite another to bilk the hard working U.S. citizen from too much of their money.

Here's an example in my own life. I am a landlord. We own 2 multifamily homes. The woman on the 2nd floor collects SS disability and is on a gov. funded program that pays a large portion of her rent. She pays only $80. The rental fee is very reasonable for my area. We got notice with the housing Dept. when the monthly check came yesterday saying that they would not allow any rent increases this year, and that even those who receive rent payments will be reduced. I don't understand why she can't get a job and support herself. I see her walking around town, smoking, playing with her dog. She's been living here about 5 years, and I've gotten to know her some. She collects SS benefits and gets free medical care from the state and get's free housing, but should she? She even worked part time under the table in her past. Now I'm not saying everybody does that, but alot of people take it if they can get it. Once a friend of mine was wondering if it were better for her to go to work, or accept the medical benefits from the state and the foodstamps. After weighing it up, she decided to stay with the benefits, cause she would only make a little bit more money if she worked. The problem with gov. supporting people who don't work is that they WONT work if they don't have to.

EXACTLY!!

So, if I get this right, YOU as a property owner are being dictated to by the government that you are not allowed to raise your rents on her because SHE receives assistance. Did I get that right? So not only is she being owned by the government, so are you -- and you are just an unwilling participant.

There is a difference between a handout and a hand up. When you have generations of people living on the dole, what is the government doing FOR them? They are making them totally reliant on the government rather than them being reliant on themselves. WHY IS THIS A GOOD THING?? I see absolutely NO benefit in this!

I'll tell you, the liberals want -- NEED -- the poor. Hell, they have helped CREATE the poor. If they didn't have the poor, they would lose a large chunk of their voter base.

When liberalism was the primary ruling party for about 40 years, did we end up with fewer poor? Did things get better in primarily poor and/or minority areas? Did their situations improve AT ALL?? No, it didn't. Why is that, if liberalism "works"?

The fact is, it doesn't. Liberalism creates a whole class of people that are kept down by the chains of government under the guise of helping them out. I say if you start feeding a wild animal, that animal loses the ability and desire to go out and hunt for its own food. Have you improved the animal's situation by doing this?? What happens if the person feeding this animal dies or moves away or is no longer able to afford feeding it? At this point, you have created an animal who has lost the instinct to hunt or forage, and no doubt its offspring have now been affected by this problem as well.

Since when is it evil and wrong to make people accountable to themselves and their families, encourage them to do things for themselves, and empower them to take charge of their OWN lives rather than enable them? This is what I don't understand about die-hard leftist liberals.

What is wrong with self-reliance? What is wrong with less government intrusion into our lives and a smaller government, more personal accountability and responsibility, fewer taxes, the ability to build a better mouse trap and reap the rewards from doing so, and securing our borders? If anybody can tell me why those basic tenets of conservativism are wrong and evil, I'd love to hear it.

So long as one side wants to enable people and reward bad behavior, you will have no problem finding people who will line up for it. Y'all have created a sense of entitlement in many people who have no conscience over stealing the hard-earned money of others. I choose NOT to share my wealth, and I feel no guilt in saying that. If I choose to share it with my family, that is MY choice; but I am tired of having the hard-working in this country be punished for doing everything RIGHT, while those who don't get rewarded. That is some effin' skewed thinking there. And unfortunately, I can't help but think less of those who support this type of thing.

Well I feel better Beth because I live to keep you from being disappointed.

How do you think this country is going to get back on its' feet? You really believe that everybody should stand back and let things fall where they may?

Don't you understand that the kind of thing that you espouse is exactly what got us in this situation in the first place?

Seriously, you are not truly understanding the big picture. You have blinders on and they only allow you to see the Reaganomics, the trickle down theory of economics in America, and less government that the Republicans talk about but never deliver.

Reagan and Bush were for MORE government. More is what you got under those guys, not less!! They have made fools of people who believed what they said.

The idea that Obama has of making the top one percent of Americans pay 3 additional percent of taxes doesn't even begin to burden those folks with the kind of taxes they used to pay. Until your guys rewarded them for nothing, they had a much larger tax burden than Obama is suggesting.

If the top mega-wealthy Americans were generous enough to take care of the people who work for them, provide the things that are necessary to keep workers employed, keep them in medical insurance and a living wage, then this would not be necessary. But it is their own greed that has caused this problem. I could list all the things that they have done to actually undermine capitalism, but I really can't imagine that you don't know those without me telling you.

Please tell us exactly how doing nothing is going to right the boat? And if you say just let the capitalist billionaires do their thang, you'd be wrong in each and every way. We flatly would not be in this fix if it weren't for them.

And if you are not a billionaire, you're nuts for wanting to continue to pay those billionaires share of the pie. You should be insisting that they take up some of the slack that they helped to create.

And government is what runs America. For you to be totally anti-government is unAmerican!