Via Michelle Malkin, President Obama’s 2,000-point tumble
On Nov. 4, after Barack Obama clinched the White House, the market closed at 9,625.28.In mid-morning trading today, the day President Obama signs his massive Generational Theft Act into law and a day before he unveils a massive new mortgage entitlement, the Dow dropped to to 7,606.53.
Now, imagine if President Bush had presided over a 2,000-point stock market tumble in the same time period — during the first few months of his presidency.
Great start, O.
Without getting into anything else, I would note that Bush was still President from November 4, 2008 until noon on January 20, 2009. That comes out to 106 days between election day and today. Of that time, Bush was president roughly 78 days, 73.6% of the time in question while Obama has been president 28 days, or 26.4% of the time in question. So even accepting the notion that whomever is in the White House is directly responsible for the Dow (a dubious proposition, shall we say), Malkin can’t tag Obama with a 2,000 point slide.
I have serious doubts and questions about the stimulus bill, but this kind of stuff is just plain silly. Further, it seems to me that it is part of an overall approach to the current financial crisis that is being pursued by the GOP, many commentators (and some news programs1 ) on FOX, and by a number of right-leaning commentators: hope for failure and further hope that whatever bad things happen can be pegged to Obama, and to heck with trying to actually be adults about the current situation. I don’t expect, by the way, for the GOP and like-minded folks to roll over and do whatever Obama wants. However, it seems to me that there hasn’t been much in ways of reasonable attempts to be part of the solution. Boehner’s main approach has been righteous indignation at press conferences and on the floor of the House, for example. Beyond that, I personally have been having a very hard time accepting Republican’s rebirth as fiscal conservatives (and I say that as one who found appeal in the notion of a fiscally conservative/responsible party and who found a great deal of disappointment in the behavior of the GOP during their tenure in charge of the Congress).
I will also note that political and economic “analysis” along the lines of whatever happens on a given day is the fault of whomever is in the White House on that day is radically simplistic, if not patently ludicrous. Someone needs to tell Malkin that if that is way we are scoring things, then 9/11 is solely George W. Bush’s fault and Clinton gets all the credit for those budget surpluses back in the 1990s.
For that matter, Bill Clinton should get the credit for my doctorate (earned in 1996), Ronald Reagan should get props for me meeting my wife (first date in 1985) and George H. W. Bush, thanks for my marriage (1990)! And, I suppose I should thank President Obama for the great weekend we just spent in New Orleans.
See! It’s an easy game to play if you try.
Sphere: Related Content- I am specifically thinking about a show I saw part of over the weekend on FOX about the stimulus, which was hosted by Bret Baier, the main news anchor now that Hume is in semi-retirement, and it was far more an opinion piece than a news piece. [↩]
February 17th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
[...] More here from Steve Taylor. [...]
February 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
[...] Steven Taylor, who is no Obama fan, points out, Malkin and those who’ve linked to her today are ignoring a very simple fact: Without getting into anything else, I would note that Bush was still President from November 4, [...]
February 17th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
[...] even before Bush for the market to do better under Democrats than Republicans. Doug Mataconis and Steven Talor, neither of whom supported the stimulus bill, both debunk the idea that Obama’s policies are [...]
February 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Reasonable attempts like, say, proposing stimulus bills without the questionable spending ( http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Blue-Dog-nips-Obama-with-a-better-stimulus-idea-39358182.html ), asking how the 1/3 of the bill that refers to setting up a government office to make sure doctors provide cost effective treatment would stimulate the economy ( http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/12/porkulus-alert-the-massive-expansion-in-health-care-regulation/ ), asking about dropping funding once the economy recovers, asking why the vote couldn’t be delayed until lawmakers (well, their staffs at least) could actually read the bill, or similar efforts?
February 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I agree about the speed problem/not reading the bill (although, I would note, that is sadly not unusual).
By “reasonable” I mean recognizing that they are in the minority and have to deal with the situation from that perspective. I honestly don’t think I have seen that–and I know I am not seeing it from large swaths of the commentariat.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I find it very very hard to pin this current situation on Obama. It is easier to Blame Clinton/Bush than it is to pin it on the current administration which is just starting… As to wall street falling… well the parasites know the party is over and responsibility must be forced into their daily gamble with other people’s money. I would not link market behavior to administration success… They lost their bonus and are in a bad mood…
February 17th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I think they did pretty well by voting against the bill, knowing it would become law anyway (and knowing that Pelosi’s efforts to keep the Blue Dogs in check may hurt her in November next year).
I do think the Republicans jumped the gun with regards to the first draft of the bill. And I think the Republicans haven’t done a great job tying Pelosi and Reid to the bill. I also think the Republicans could have done a better job mentioning the parts of the bill that had nothing to do with stimulus.
I have to concede when it comes to the commentariat. I think the better strategy long term will be to recognize that the non-stimulus parts of this law have a strong likelihood of turning into something like the Patriot Act (especially the parts about health care).
For the record, I definitely do hope the economy recovers, and the stimulus definitely includes provisions to help. On the other hand 2/3 or more of the bill has nothing to do with the economy, and I hope those portions die a very public flaming death.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:47 am
[...] Steven Taylor offers this: [...]
February 18th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I find it troubling that the most heard argument in support of the spending bill is the claim that those who oppose the bill are merely party hacks. The vast majority of the people I know were against the reckless spending of the Reagan and Bush’s years and are against the spending now. When are the majority of Americans going to stand up and call a spade a spade, and refuse to have their party spend recklessly. I am also not sold on the argument the GOP is suddenly fiscally conservative, but I believe the GOP’s base, and the DNC’s base for that matter, are fiscally conservative. Bush’s numbers tanked NOT because he was a conservative, but because he was not and he was a sell out. I’m afraid Obama and this congress is acting a lot more like Bush than a breath of fresh air.
In my view, Obama’s popularity will eventually reach that of Congress if he continues to ignore fiscally conservative principles. The numbers of Obama supporters will decrease as we find out, like Bush, Obama’s rhetoric is empty regarding troop withdrawal, smaller government, and less taxes.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
So the Republicans are already gunning for the President’s next bill which is intended to deal with the housing crisis. Here are John Boehmer’s questions about Obama’s proposal:
• What will your plan do for the over 90 percent of homeowners who are playing and paying by the rules?
Answer: It won’t hurt them. In fact, if they have a neighbor who is in default, it may actually preserve their property’s value when they try to sell. It is not acceptable to allow 10% of all homeowners to lose their homes. This is a typical Republican position, which appeals to people’s greed and their unwillingness to help others. In the end, we will all be paying the price for this economic recovery. The question is, what is our alternative? The Republicans don’t have one.
• Does your plan compensate banks for bad mortgages they should have never made in the first place?
Answer: The idea that banks should be penalized now, when they’re going belly-up left and right, is ridiculous. More importantly, a family should not be thrown out of their home and have their credit destroyed because their lender took advantage of de-regulation. Again, we’re talking about human beings here, not faceless corporations. Obviously, the Republicans still don’t get that.
• Will individuals who misrepresented their income or assets on their original mortgage application be eligible to get the taxpayer funded assistance under your plan?
This is the same kind of hypothetical that the GOP used when it tried to derail the stimulus package. How many of them have taken tax deductions they shouldn’t have, or padded their resumes. Again, you can’t destroy the lives of a significant percentage of the population because some may have been less than honest in obtaining their loan. If you choose to do that, then you also jeopardize the values of all the surrounding homes in a neighborhood. The ripple effect would be devastating. Helping people stay in their homes until property values recover some of their losses is also the right thing for the troubled lending industry.
• Will you require mortgage servicers to verify income and other eligibility standards before modifying mortgages? Watch more on the home foreclosure crisis »
This sounds like just another impediment to helping Americans who are in trouble. What about all the homeowners who have lost their jobs or had salary-cuts, while their adjustable rate mortgages were escalating? Do we punish them because they can’t afford their mortgages anymore? You may as well tell FEMA not to help survivors of a flood since they all knew it was a flood area before they bought their homes there. Oh wait. They already did that.
• What will you do to prevent the same mortgages that receive assistance and are modified from going into default three, six or eight months later?
Another hypothetical reason to do nothing now. It is a foregone conclusion that many homeowners who receive assistance will still go into foreclosure. But, again, that is not an intelligent reason not to help as many people as possible in this crisis. These criticisms are doing exactly what President Obama warned us about. The GOP is making the “perfect” the enemy of the “good”. And, you’ll notice that none of these questions submitted by Boehmer to the President offer any positive suggestions. More potshots. More saying “no”. More obstructing.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I haven’t read your earlier blogs, but I’m sure you used the term “generational theft” to describe Bush’s $2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans - or his $1 trillion war on nothing in Iraq. No? I’m shocked! But hey, go ahead, keep bashing “O” and pushing tired, old GOP theories. You have nothing to add, so why not parrot your leader, Rush Limbaugh, and hope Obama fails. Then you can crow and gloat!
February 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
hahahaha… so funny. did you conveniently forget that Bush came into office at a time when the market was doing well… the government was left with a surplus. obama walked into a shitstorm. all you repubs out there… GIVE IT TIME!!!
February 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Why would they give it time? They don’t like Obama because he’s not a Republican. They’ll bash him no matter what he says or does. If his plan fails, they’ll get all smug and say, “neener-neener.” And if he’s successful, they’ll credit the Bush Regime. The good news is that the dittoheads have been reduced to a peanut gallery of noisemakers.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I think that every single objection I have heard from every single Republican was also raised during the Patriot Act debate (Okay, you really have to change some of the words but they are semantically equivalent).
Back then, those questions were characterized most unfavorably and those who raised them were invited to shut up and sit down.
Now these bullies and thugs have lost their majority and without a single hesitation have become the traitors they lambasted 7 years ago.
Now, I am not convinced that a stimulus package was the way to go. There is an argument to be made for letting these financial houses that were built on fictitious value collapse so we can shrink to fit the available money.
But let’s face it. A stimulus was going to happen. I am glad the Democrats are running the show for this one. Yes, the debt will explode but at least we will not be eliminating taxes for the wealthy to give them more money to give us.
Regardless of the outcome, when this is done we will at least have new roads, schools, hospitals and other crucial items that routinely get voted down by short-sighted greed heads.
Bad news for the right wing, though. This will definitely strengthen the government, never the goal of the Republicans.
And of course, everything the Democratic President suggests will be attacked, not because anybody knows anything better but the attacks must be made because the fortunes of the party trump National Interest.
Sneer away.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Malkin is pre-disposed which is to say, she never has anything positive to say so whatever Obama does will fit into Malkin’s mental trash bin. That I might add occupies all of her brain cavity. Malkin is a hateful, whining writer who is paid to spew her venom. Moreover, she is so dumb, she hasn’t realized that the verdict on Obama’s presidency is after four years, not four weeks.
She might also remember that the S&P was at 1366 when GW took office and at 805 when he left. If Mrs Malkin thinks that is some kind of achievement, well, it goes to my comment about her brain cavity lacking brains.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Please tell me you’re doing more than writing blogs for a living?
Let me guess; your wife paid for the get away.
Who did you voted for in November? Wait. Don’t tell me.
Without that degree President Clinton afforded you, what are you?
So you met and married your wife under Regan and Bush’s presidency. Does that mean the stars were properly aligned? Or was that just you being clever? Not.
Lastly. What are the odds that your wife simply settled?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Not accurate. Bush campaigned on tax cuts while the economy was doing well (better to give the money back than to increase spending), but the dot-com bubble started popping before he took office in January, so he then said the tax cuts were necessary to fix the economy.
Steven Taylor is a professor of Political Science.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Max,
Thanks for pointing that out, although one guesses that she won’t be too impressed.
In re: your other post above (#8): ultimately I think we share a great deal of skepticism about this bill, and for many of the same reasons. I can even understand the political calculation of the GOP in terms of voting.
Still, I would have preferred a more concerted effort to address the problems, and then if Pelosi and Reid shot them down, so be it (and then the political chips would fall as they would).
It does seem, btw, that the GOP is banking on failure for political reasons. I find that problematic, even though I don’t find it surprising.
If anything, I am not willing to give either side much of a benefit of a doubt.
February 20th, 2009 at 7:09 am
[...] the last sentence above captures what I was trying to get at the other day in terms of my general criticism of the Republican approach to this problem to date. addthis_url = [...]
March 5th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Actually I think a case can be made to hold current budget policy responsible for the decline in the stock market. Remember — stock prices reflect future corporate earnings, and few outside government has any faith in the current Washington planning.
Worse, even the CBO is saying (again) the stimulus plan will make us worse off in the future, and obviously discounts current stock prices — it would be crazy if things like this didn’t:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10008/03-02-Macro_Effects_of_ARRA.pdf