February 10, 2009

"Stocks Tumble as Bailout Plan Is Unveiled."

...

109 comments:

Hoosier Daddy said...

Gee, now we're another trillion in debt and the markets tank.

Color me shocked.

Kirby Olson said...

The bailout plan seems to actually be Obama's reparations in disguise.

He's talking about building new schools in areas where there is industrial noise from trains, and where the science rooms are not up to snuff.

It's his reparations plan that he's been outlining for years in journals like Ebony, only now he's trying to argue that this is what the bailout REQUIRES. He's a very cynical guy who must think Americans are profoundly stupid not to see that this is in fact a massive spending bill for his pet projects, not any kind of bailout at all.

ElcubanitoKC said...

I saw that. As Hoosier Daddy said, another trillion dollars in debt, and the market didn't react the way they expected, duh and d'oh...

bearbee said...

bogus 'stimulas.' markets not buying into porky.

Henry Buck said...

It sounds like the new hit song from Multi-Culture Club:

Stocks tumble for ya
Stocks tumble for ya
Stocks tumble for you

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Wow... Big surprise. /sarcasm

When it became apparant that Obama and his socialistic anti-business policies would be the candidate the market tumbled. Prudent investors getting the Hell out of Dodge.

Now with the reality of this incredibly stupid, wasteful, pork laden, politically motivated give away as favors to those who elected Obama....the reality has sunk in and expect the market to continue to go down down down.

bearbee said...

Eric Burdon - Sixteen Tons

You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter, don’t you call me ‘cause I can’t go;
I owe my soul to the company store.

Henry said...

How about

"Stocks tumble randomly."

That's the real headline.

Cedarford said...

Hoosier -
Yes, what we really needed to do was borrow that 1 trillion from China and give it as tax cuts for the Rich so they could invest it in China or move their factories there or to India.
For we all know that Bush and supply-side tax cutting focusing on the wealthy along with open borders and easy credit had made America the prosperous, jobs creating engine where house value never went down..
Then Obama came along. And lets not forget the Democrats who were a minority in Congress from 1994-2006 cleverly orchestrating the economic catastrophe over the majority in Congress then "I'll never veto a single spending bill!" Bush's strenuous objections.

Of course Pelosi is a wreckless idiot on a George Bush scale, or a Denny "Porkmeister" Hastert level. But she wouldn't be in a position to screw up if Republicans hadn't royally screwed up their decade-long Mandate beforehand.

And..Can you imagine John McCain as President now?

"My friends, my friends! A lot is happening, most I don't understand, but I'll fight for you! When you're locked in a 4X4 cell you eventually learn the difference between the slop and toilet buckets..and that lesson guided me both to beer heiresses and friendly TV producers. I may not have a clue..in fact I oppose what I said yesterday from the core of my deep character and acute conscience and next we will......
Uh excuse me..the next page of what I have to say isn't up on Teleprompter..be sure when it comes up, I'll tell you more of what I am for and against. Meanwhile, back at the Hanoi Hilton...where I fought.."

Patm said...

I'm confused. How can so much of this be Bush's fault when Obama voted for everything that helped us get to this point?

Anyone listening to Rush? He's got some serious tapes and is making hints about a co-ordinated effort to take down global economies and America.

Henry said...

Alternatively:

"Stocks Tumble as Sarkozy Makes Unannounced Visit to Baghdad"

"Stocks Tumble as Artist Sues The A.P. Over Obama Image"

"Stocks Tumble as Darwin, Ahead of His Time, Is Still Influential"

madawaskan said...

I think what Geithner dreamt up for the banks so that they could put off mark to market is simply an accounting "trick" and postponing the inevitable.

The crap has still depreciated.

Oh-and you know what else maybe the Democrat pettiness finally bit them in the ass.

How can Obama make the argument that Republican SPENDING is what got us here so damn it we DEMOCRATS GET TO SPEND BIGGER.

See the illogic in that?

Americans can figure that out.

Wait Obama said that the Republicans for the past eight years got us into this with their SPENDING and now he is saying let me-the great Obama spend MORE.

I love how their own pettiness gets in their way.

To bad all of us are going to have to pay for their arrogance.

When you oversimplify things and blame it all on Bush-it's going to kill you.

Live by the sword die by the sword.

Greg Toombs said...

OK, Henry. Don't look at the correlation between the time Geithner made his announcements and the chart for the Dow this morning.

Yeah yeah I know: correlation isn't causation.

But it's close enough for me, especially since it's government works that's involved.

TMink said...

Henry wrote: "How about "Stocks tumble randomly."

I have a better one: Kool Aid drinkers clueless to laws of cause and effect.

Obama wins the nomination, stocks fall. Obama wins the elections, stocks fall. Obama unveils economic policies, stocks fall.

Hardly random.

Trey

ElcubanitoKC said...

Henry, how can you breath with your head down there???

TMink said...

Henry, you don't understand the whole stock market thing do you?

So why comment on something that displays your ignorance?

Trey

Hoosier Daddy said...

Cedarford,

I'm not sure what your point is. The GOP spent like drunken sailors? That's yesterday's news. So now that we established that the GOP lacked fiscal conservatism, we can use that as an excuse for Democrats to do the same?

Funny but the 'he did it too!' excuse didn't work for me back in
2nd grade either.

Henry said...

And yet those stocks will rise again -- maybe even later today, if not tomorrow -- and Obama will still be president and Geithner will still be bailing out banks.

Here's a sample headline to keep in your pocket:

"Stocks rise as investors count off one more day in Obama's presidency."

Henry said...

Trey, just think of all the money you lost today not day trading.

Henry said...

Really, anyone who thinks it obvious that stocks tumbled because Geithner laid out his plan -- as opposed to tumbling yesterday in anticipation of the plan -- why weren't you shorting?

The Drill SGT said...

Likely Analysts read the CBO analysis of the Stimulus package where it said that the random billions in spending would ultimately hurt the economy.

and signals from Treasury bond buyers that they dont have bottomless pockets to spend on devaluating bonds, that look more and more worthless.

Combine that with the new plan that didn't talk about free money to banks, and fitness tests, and maybe wall street decided that the gravy train was drying up where they were concerned and the problems we not fixed yet.

What would have helped Wall Street was tax rate cuts on businesses or on capital gains, those would instantly raise the market. From their perspective borrowing money to increase the EITC today, will ultimately result in a tighter credit market and higher taxes on folks who ultimately pay taxes (or their grandkids)

madawaskan said...

Dust Bunny Queen

When it became apparant that Obama and his socialistic anti-business policies would be the candidate the market tumbled. Prudent investors getting the Hell out of Dodge.


Well exactly. The Four Horsemen of a Democratic Economic Apocalypse-

Taxation, Litigation, Unionization, and Regulation.

Add to that though-they've figured out who's going to PAY for Obama's historic trillion dollar bill-

Industry.

They can read Obama's bill and figure out that half of it goes to improve buildings and build buildings in Washington DC and to fill it with more bureaucrats to redistribute the "wealth" how they the appointed ones see fit.

How many fiefdoms, czars, and overlapping experts has he added already-in just two weeks?

John Stodder said...

Really, anyone who thinks it obvious that stocks tumbled because Geithner laid out his plan -- as opposed to tumbling yesterday in anticipation of the plan -- why weren't you shorting?

Because given Geithner's reputation, the plan was more shitty than expected?

MadisonMan said...

ElcubanitoKC, since I see you here, I must remind you of this, followed by this, this and this.

Pay up.

The Drill SGT said...

I know the stimulus package is just full of these sorts of nuggets, but I got a kick out of saying that the Senate stimulus bill included $198,000,000 for Philippino Veterans of WWII. Not going to generate a bunch of US jobs out of money sent to Manila are we?

MadisonMan said...

I got a kick out of saying that the Senate stimulus bill included $198,000,000 for Philippino Veterans of WWII.

I wonder how much that is per veteran.

ElcubanitoKC said...

MadisonMan, you were correct then. The claim of racism hasn't been made...yet :P

The Drill SGT said...

Hey, Elcubanito,

you guys ought to get on board with veterans benefits for the Bay of Pigs survivors and their families. After all that was a JFK war :)

The Drill SGT said...

MM, estimate was 9-15k per. which is a good chunk in Manila

chickenlittle said...

How much $$ do the oceans get for not rising up?

Henry said...

Because given Geithner's reputation, the plan was more shitty than expected?

Or maybe the plan was pretty much as expected, but some random downward movement midmorning was amplified by nervous herdthink investors.

Or maybe continued doubt about fundamentals expressed itself today and Geithner's presentation had nothing to do with it.

LutherM said...

Never send a boy to do a man's job. For students of English History: Barack should change his name to ETHELRED.

Darcy said...

Henry Buck - loved your 12:09!

And LOL, John Stodder!

madawaskan said...

Henry-

I don't believe in shorting.

But explain to me how Geithner's mark to market strategy for the banks is not simply an accounting trick?

I genuinely don't get it or trust it.

Cedarford said...

Romney, in the wings....

Gosh blinkety! I sure could have done better at this than Obama or McCain...but the Religious Right said I was totally wrong because I lacked purity on a lifetime of being a Right to Lifer. That, and the Mormons that still deliver 3 Western states and make them competitive in 3 others are Godless heretics..that love a twisted version of Jesus.
Oh well...
But darn, it makes me mad!


6 nameless high-ranking Generals in the bowels of the Pentagon:

General 1 - "Both Parties are failing. For the security of the Nation and the lives of its citizens, we need to establish coup criteria where we would step in and end Rule by Lawyers."
General 2 - "Dow at 5,000."
General 3 - "Maybe that plus 16% unemployment and the collapse of the dollar as the Chinese and Russians and Saudi creditors make a play to cripple us."
General 4 - "Dow at 5,000, plus half the hospitals closing, and mass riots would be my threshold."
General 1 - "So we wait to save the Constitution like Lincoln did - by fixing it and ignoring certain parts...Should we wait on drafting arrest lists of the likes of Madoff, Chris Dodd, Pelosi, Dick Fuld, Denny Hastert, Barney Frank?"
General 3 - "I'd wait on those lists. Just the DC-insider lawyers number in the 10s of thousands. Let alone the Wall Street people that created the poison paper. Waste of time to work on lists if we aren't sure we may have to act.."
General 6 - "Cheney and others counsel patience. Patience! Let's see how Obama does, 1st.."
General 1 to General 5 "Colin, you've been pretty quiet"
General 5 - "Just listening. Wait and see. I think we will all know when we must rescue the nation, it will be a sum of factors. Not just a metric like the Dow at 5,000. But everybody seeing unfettered capitalism failed, Bush failed, Obama failed, and civilian government failed..and no one wanting communism. Just people that can step in and fix things and get the country right again. Ending legal paralysis and corrupt legislators wrecking the country for special interests..Gentlemen, we are not 'there', quite yet."

reader_iam said...

Whatever the cause, it bites.

Triangle Man said...

My stars! Stocks haven't been this low since...last Thursday?

The markets probably are reacting to the bill passing, but are the market's reactions at all informative any more?

Michael H said...

Obama speaks. Geithner speaks. DJIA drops 330 points. DJIA futures for tomorrow are down 380 points. Gold prices expected to rise to $1000 per ounce based on April futures contracts.

It is one thing to fool the voters into believing that "stimulus" included government confiscation of every citizen's private medical records, wetland restoration, etc., and quite another thing to convince the market.

Barack Obama was nominated on August 27, 2008. On that day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 11,502.51. As of the moment I am composing this post the DJIA is 7940.41, a 31% drop in less than 6 months.

The market is rational, and it has not bought into hopey changey, not has it bought into the silly notion that a massive expansion of government can stimulate the economy.

Henry said...

mad wrote: But explain to me how Geithner's mark to market strategy for the banks is not simply an accounting trick?

Really, I'm not defending Geithner or Obama. I'm mocking cause-and-effect daily stock market analysis, nothing more.

garage mahal said...

Make no mistake, this is Obama's recession.

ricpic said...

Senator Max Baucus, Democrat liar supreme, just said that "Every dollar spent, every dollar, is stimulative."

MadisonMan said...

Make no mistake, this is Obama's recession.

Well, it is now. It becames his when he was inaugurated.

Simon said...

Unfortunately, the Democrats haven't learned their lesson: "we have to do something" is the thinking that gave us Smoot-Hawley. Sometimes, the politician's obsession with doing something is precisely what plunges a crisis into a catastrophe.

Bruce Hayden said...

Barack Obama was nominated on August 27, 2008. On that day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 11,502.51. As of the moment I am composing this post the DJIA is 7940.41, a 31% drop in less than 6 months.

Worse, I think. It really didn't start to drop like a rock until essentially the day that Obama pulled ahead of McCain during the banking crisis where Obama came across as studied and cool, and McCain tried to force a solution.

Yes, maybe it dropped because of the banks, but realistically, it didn't really start dropping until after the McCain's fiasco a short time later.

And, if you really don't believe that Obama and his fecklessness has some effect on the markets, just look at the day he was inaugurated and a couple days after that.

madawaskan said...

Henry-

Definitely I agree with you on that-it's never that simple-wish it were.

rdkraus said...

Credit where credit is due. Both parties played a huge role in our current situation.

Which one seeks to add fuel to the fire, and which one has the extinguisher?

Seems like an easy question.

hdhouse said...

oh the Right Wing here is on Full Tilt Dumb Mode.

This isn't the stimulus package idiots. This is the "rest of the bailout money" for the banks. Duhhh.

After Mr. Bush and Mr. Paulson simply gave away the first $350 billion without so much as a fairtheewell, now there are conditions. Of course Wall Street and the stock market doesn't like conditions. Tough.

When was the last time that Wall Street and the Market behaved in accordance with the real world we have to live in.

Of course we have the "hey don't look back that's history" crowd...gotta love them....unfortunately the mailman has now brought "history's bills" and they are due. Should we forward them to Mr. Bush?

Just another example of his irresponsibility and pushing off the mess for someone else to clean up.

madawaskan said...

I'd just like to add that Obama seemed to hold over everybody's head yesterday the fact that he appointed three Republicans to his Cabinet.

He mentioned this twice yesterday.

It seemed to me that he was saying that he didn't appoint who he felt was best for the job, but that he had them there because he felt he would get votes in return.

He is using the Secretary of Defense as leverage against the Republicans in the Senate?

Somehow there is something sickening about that.

rdkraus said...

From The Corner

This morning the Heritage Foundation in conjunction with the Club for Growth, held a conference on the bailout. Here's what one of the speakers, CATO Economist Arnold Kling, had to say about the Democrat's economic plans:

“I think about the stimulus as an economist but I feel it as a father. Barack Obama is destroying my daughters future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs. That’s how I feel, now back to how I think.”

Tibore said...

"The Drill SGT said...
I know the stimulus package is just full of these sorts of nuggets, but I got a kick out of saying that the Senate stimulus bill included $198,000,000 for Philippino Veterans of WWII. Not going to generate a bunch of US jobs out of money sent to Manila are we?"


Actually, a good number of Filipino veterans live in the States.

I don't know how the money is ultimately to be doled out, but the formula proposed last year was to give $15,000 to ones who were US citizens, and $9,000 to the non-citizen Pinoys.

I don't know why they stuck this in the stimulus bill, and I'm sort of aggravated that they lumped it in. We need to remember that the money for this was set aside last year in its own separate act, and going back further, the whole idea of providing the promised compensation to veteran Filipinos has been proposed many times in the past, certainly well before Obama came onto the national stage. Bickering amongst the Congressional members (big surprise) kept it from being distributed last year, but my point was that the Filipino War Veterans Equity Bill was never brought into being with the intent of making it part of the stimulus package. It predates the package by a good margin.

It's stupid to lump in dough that was already set aside and promised in another context within this package. The cynic in me wonders if it's packaged that way deliberately to get the Fil-Am crowd to approve of the overall proposal. That sort of rolling up seems offensive to me. I hate politicking like that. Since the compensation is judged by last year's congress to be necessary, why turn the delivery of it into an insult by making it some rider on a larger package, instead of giving it its own time and space?

I'm in favor of the act on it's own, but I'm steamed that Washington thought of it so highly they attached it to something else to improve palatability of that other package. It deserves it's own time and space, not some lumping in with the rest of Pelosi et. al.'s stuff.

Synova said...

Romney, in the wings....

It doesn't help to think of what might have been.

I don't believe that his religion was the sticking point on him not getting the nomination. If everyone (or anyone) had seen the financial collapse coming he might have made it, but as it *was* then, looking forward, he just wasn't a very conservative candidate. He didn't excite anyone. I mean... when I saw pictures of the Republican candidates I could name them all easily, except for that generically handsome fellow who didn't really look like anyone. That's a *problem* when someone is trying to get elected. I mean... figure that I was paying attention, maybe not as closely as some but undoubtedly more than most.

The most interesting thing about Romney *was* that he was a Mormon. If it wasn't for *that*, who'd have even known who he was?

Shanna said...

Yay! I got quoted on an Anchoress post, linked by Althouse! I'm totally famous:

"Earlier today I glanced at an Althouse thread - I’m sorry I can’t remember which - and someone cleverly quoted from the musical Evita:

“And the money kept rolling in from every side
Eva’s pretty hands reached out and they reached wide
Now you may feel it should have been a voluntary cause
But that’s not the point my friends”
“When the money keeps rolling out you don’t keep books
You can tell you’ve done well by the happy grateful looks
Accountants only slow things down, figures get in the way
Never been a [President] loved as much as [Barack Obama]”

Also, this bill blows.

Shanna said...

Damn, meant linked by Instapundit.

Maxine Weiss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

My two cents:

The market is down due to a severe shortage of confidence.

Obama must work on his stump pitch asap. There is no doubt his stimulus plan will be passed so he can jettison the doom & gloom talking points (for now).

Jason (the commenter) said...

Honeymoon ended, 10th of February, 2009.

ElcubanitoKC said...

hdhouse, denial can only last so much. Enjoy it while you can...

bill said...

Also, this bill blows.

Excuse me?

former law student said...

Stocks Tumble as Bailout Plan Is Unveiled.

No one knows if this will stop the bank bleeding or not. The banks still clutch to their credit derivatives, refusing to believe that the tranches they conspired with S&P or Moody's to rate AAA, are actually worthless.

Will all the subprime borrowers and alt-A borrowers walk away from their homes and mortgages? Only God knows. But massive unemployment will only increase the number of defaults.

Unfortunately, the Democrats haven't learned their lesson: "we have to do something" is the thinking that gave us Smoot-Hawley

The lesson for Democrats is "Don't trust Republican solutions to economic crises;" Smoot and Hawley both being Republicans.

TMink said...

Henry, my guy is buying the shit out of stocks for me! I am young enough that I will not need the money for awhile, I can take some paper losses while buying up stuff.

Trey

EDH said...

Not only is he a tax cheat, that Geithner is a real economic buzz kill!

Revenant said...

The lesson for Democrats is "Don't trust Republican solutions to economic crises;" Smoot and Hawley both being Republicans.

So why are they passing a bill that is Smoot-Hawley in all but name?

If they wanted to try an approach different from what the Republicans of the 1920s and 1930s favored, they'd be voting the way the Republicans of the 2009 are. :)

Maxine Weiss said...

That was a mistake, and I'm trying to delete it myself.

Henry said...

Trey, I'm buying too. 401K bimonthly. No need to time the market to the Treasury Secretary's press conferences.

fcai said...

Change you can believe in - the destruction of the US economy. What 18 muslims in commercial aircraft couldn't do, one lone whacko, aided by his mentally challenged sidekicks, can accomplish with the stroke of a pen.

How do you like BO now?

Triangle Man said...

All of you who knew this would happen had short positions, or have been out of the market since Labor Day, right?

rdkraus said...

Correct

fcai said...

I sold my last significant position in August, so yes, yes I am out of the market.

former law student said...

why are they passing a bill that is Smoot-Hawley in all but name?

To stimulate the US economy instead of the Chinese and Korean economies.

The feds have historically spent our money on American goods. AM General trucks deliver our mail, and General Dynamics builds our submarines, tanks, and fighter planes. Personally, I'd rather see Caterpillar plants add a shift than Komatsu plants.

Revenant said...

"why are they passing a bill that is Smoot-Hawley in all but name?"

To stimulate the US economy instead of the Chinese and Korean economies.

You should make up your mind. First you slap the Hoover Republicans for launching a trade war during a recession, and now you seem to think it is a good idea for Obama Democrats to do the same thing.

Which is it? Are trade wars a good idea during a recession, or a bad idea? Hint: it's the second one.

rocketeer67 said...

To stimulate the US economy instead of the Chinese and Korean economies.

"Buy America" couldn't possibly stimulate the domestic economy enough to offset the damage it would do by sparking off a trade war - and ultimately, the regular kind.

Henry said...

To stimulate the US economy instead of the Chinese and Korean economies.

It's not a zero-sum game.

rocketeer67 said...

All of you who knew this would happen had short positions, or have been out of the market since Labor Day, right?

I've been stuffing cash in socks and under mattresses since November 2006. But I work in affordable housing development, so I knew what was eventually coming for the last five years. The last midterm election sealed it, though.

Leland said...

Going with Michael H's theme. I looked at the Dow Jones starting with the beginning of Bush's 2nd term:

1/20/05 - 10,471
gradual slope up with a low of 10,100 up to
1/3/07 (Dem's takeover Congress) - 12,474
10/1/07 (Start first FY of Dem spending) - 14,087
1/2/08 - 13,727
4/2/08 - 12,608
7/2/08 - 11,215
10/2/08 - 10,482
In one year of Democratic appropriation bills, the Dow Jones erased 4,000 points and moved back to the beginning of Bush's 2nd term.

Diamondhead said...

The lesson for Democrats is "Don't trust Republican solutions to economic crises;" Smoot and Hawley both being Republicans.

You're blaming them for their being Republican rather than for their ideas - which, today, as it happens, are mainstream Democrat ideas.

hdhouse said...

Leland once again proves that Republicans never met a number that they couldn't or wouldn't try and blame on the other guy.

Please give a date when Republicans will take responsibility for something...anything at all...

GOP = SEF (someone else's fault)...always someone else, always..never take responsibility for anything..just blame someone else...lovely.

Revenant said...

All of you who knew this would happen had short positions, or have been out of the market since Labor Day, right?

I stopped all new investment in the market a little over a year ago. My existing investments are being sold off at a rate of $3000 in losses per year.

If I could deduct 100% of my capital losses in a year I'd have converted all of my investments to cash months ago.

EDH said...

I think this is a major setback for Obama and the Democrats.

I think they expected the markets to respond favorably to the TARP II announcement, so they wanted to time passage of the stimulus in the Senate to share in the good news and give it momentum.

Now it looks like they have two dogs with fleas.

John Stodder said...

Why are you talking about Republicans? They lost, right?

The election of Obama and a stronger Democratic congress in the aftermath of an unsuccessful Republican administration doesn't logically flow into the need to accept the Democrats' financial plans whole and without scrutiny.

You're right in this sense. If Bush criticizes these plans, I am not interested in what he says. Cheney can shut up too.

But that doesn't mean you get to disenfranchise ALL critics of Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Geithner. Obama was elected president. He wasn't elected infallible.

former law student said...

First you slap the Hoover Republicans for launching a trade war during a recession, and now you seem to think it is a good idea for Obama Democrats to do the same thing.

The "same thing"?

Choosing to buy a Chevrolet is not "the same thing" as putting a tax on Toyotas.

It's not a zero-sum game.

The good jobs that went to Southeast Asia benefit us -- how, exactly? Most people would rather have a job that pays well than a house full of cheap crap.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

All of you who knew this would happen had short positions, or have been out of the market since Labor Day, right?

And selling covered calls on positions.

The idea that people will just keep buying US debt forever is foolish. What happens to this plan when they hold a Treasury auction and there are no buyers as happend recently in the German bond market and in the British arena too?

Think it can't happen? It already is happening. We have just guaranteed a depression for probably the next 10 years with the passage of this monstrosity.

I feel for my child and future grandchildren. The idiots who elected Obama and the congress critters that we have have selfishly and foolishly thrown away the future. Welcome to a third world country.

raf said...

GOP = SEF ??

Coming from the party where everything has been Bush's fault for a long, long time, that is quite droll.

Michael H said...

hdhouse said: Leland once again proves that Republicans never met a number that they couldn't or wouldn't try and blame on the other guy.

Were you not listening last evening when Mr. Obama blamed the previous administration for the present economic conditions? Even though Mr. Obama was a US Senator during GWB's second term?

By the way, GWB never blamed the Clinton administration for any of the problems GWB inherited.

Smilin' Jack said...

Treasury Chief Aims to Restore ‘Lost Faith’ in Bailout...
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner called for more direct capital injections, a new program to buy troubled assets...


Well, I've kept the faith...instead of taking my garb-...oops, I mean troubled assets...out to the curb each week, I've been storing them in my basement, waiting for a buyout and a yummy "capital injection." But now they're starting to smell--c'mon Timmy, time to step up.

carly said...

Well now we know that all it takes to be "indispensable" enough to get away with tax fraud is being a gibbering idiot.

Clearly this man has not a CLUE what to do; and neither does the man who appointed him. I'll buy the notion that Geithner at least WANTS to figure out a way to fix the economy. Barry's goal, I fear, is to break the back of the economy so government takeover is "necessary".

So for our President, things are going exactly according to plan....

Cedarford said...

Michael H - By the way, GWB never blamed the Clinton administration for any of the problems GWB inherited.

Bush got a lot of mileage from him directly or his surrogates blaming Clinton for "failing to stop Bin Laden", his "suicidal tax increases nearly wrecking the US economy", and of course for the "culture of sleaze and corruption on Wall Street that caused the phony tech bubble"

Joe said...

The good jobs that went to Southeast Asia...

Now that's funny. The jobs that went to "Southeast Asia" were shitty jobs. (A big chunk of IT outsourcing was for failed projects that would have been canceled otherwise.)

That aside, how exactly do you buy "American" cars? Is a Ford built in Mexico more American than a Toyota built in Kentucky?

Michael H said...

Here is a combination of two posts that Leland and I put up earlier.

Look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average starting with the beginning of Bush's 2nd term:

01/20/05 - 10,471
01/03/07 - 12,474 Democrats take over a majority in Congress
10/01/07 - 14,087 Start the first fiscal year of Democrat controlled Congress
01/02/08 - 13,727
04/02/08 - 12,608
07/02/08 - 11,215

08/27/08 - 11,502 Barack Obama nominated by his party
10/02/08 - 10,482 End of the first fiscal year of Dem. controlled Cong. Dow dropped back to where it was on the first day of Bush’s second term.
In one year of Democratic appropriation bills, the Dow Jones erased 4,000 points and moved back to the beginning of Bush's 2nd term.

02/10/09- 7,889 Today’s close.

The DJIA has dropped 44% since 10/01/07, the start of the first fiscal year of the Democrat controlled Congress. The federal deficit began its wild escalation at the same time, as a veto-proof majority in Congress could pass into law any and all spending bills and President Bush was unable to veto those bills because Congress could override his veto.

Barack Obama was nominated on August 27, 2008. On that day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 11,502.51. The DJIA closed today at 7888.88, a 31% drop in less than 6 months since Obama was nominated.

This recession cannot be blamed on President Bush. It is the Democrat recession brought about by the non-management of Freddie and Fannie, by obscene amounts of deficit spending, and by the market’s wariness of the Obama administration’s so-called stimulus plan.

In fairness, many of the congressional Republicans share part of the blame for behaving like Democrats, adding earmarks to bills, and wanting to be fiscal ‘moderates’.

TMink said...

Well said Michael.

Trey

fcai said...

Careful, you might confuse the little fuzzy headed liberals with all those facts.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Choosing to buy a Chevrolet is not "the same thing" as putting a tax on Toyotas.

Of course it is.

Say you have two cars, selling for $20,000 each. One's a Toyota, the other a Chevrolet.

Scenario A: You slap a $20,000 tax on the Toyota. Presto! The Toyota now costs you $20,000 more than the Chevrolet.

Scenario B: You hand out bags of $20,000, with the stipulation that it can only be used to purchase a Chevrolet. Presto! The Toyota now costs you $20,000 more than the Chevrolet.

The only difference is that in the first scenario, the prices paid by consumers are $20,000 vs $40,000. In the latter scenario, the prices paid by consumers are $0 vs $20,000. The effect on trade is the same either way.

Joe said...

He still hasn't explained how taxing Toyotas made in Kentucky help the economy.

Cedarford said...

Michael H.

The day your beloved Maximum War leader took office on Jan 20, 2001, the DOW was 10,587.80.

The day he left, Jan 20, 2009, the DOW was 7,888.88.

The country was trillions more in debt, and real wages for the lowest 2 Quintiles had decreased.

Sofa King said...

Unfortunately, the Democrats haven't learned their lesson: "we have to do something" is the thinking that gave us Smoot-Hawley. Sometimes, the politician's obsession with doing something is precisely what plunges a crisis into a catastrophe.

This bill is a classic demonstration of the "politician's syllogism:"

1. Something must be done.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, this must be done.

chickenlittle said...

The day he left, Jan 20, 2009, the DOW was 7,888.88.

Well, you know what they say--the market portends the future. The market was already discounting Obama. BTW, the market peaked under Clinton in 2000 (March I believe) before Bush was nominated.
Anyway, there's a much better correlation between the Dow and the Fed Chairmanship.

former law student said...

The only difference is that in the first scenario, the prices paid by consumers are $20,000 vs $40,000.

No problem. Consumers can buy either a $20,000 Chevrolet or a $20,000 Toyota. FBI agents have to ride around in Ford Tauruses, however.

Is a Ford built in Mexico more American than a Toyota built in Kentucky?

It's a close question. Both will have significant US content in components and subassemblies. The Toyota will be made of Japanese steel. The $50,000 per job subsidy Kentucky gave Toyota in '85 must have been exhausted by now.

Kentucky assembly-line workers earn higher wages, so they will pump more bucks into the US economy than the Mexicans will pump into the Mexican economy. But the low cost of Mexican labor would also mean that Ford would have more money to pay its engineers, accountants, etc. to spend in this country.

Michael H said...

@Cedarford - The DJIA was 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day George W Bush began his first term.

It fell and rose in response to the usual economic trends, and also to the dot com bubble bursting and the 9/11 attacks.

The DJIA stood at 14,087 on 10/01/07, the start of the first fiscal year with the the Dems having a majority in Congress. That is an increase of approximately 40% in six years.

The DJIA slid from that high to today's low of 7,888, all under a Dem majority.

Your 6:33 PM comment is foolish, although you seem to have avoided blaming the Jews, so that's good.

ricpic said...

Our children and our grandchildren ARE BEING RAPED!

John Stodder said...

I keep hearing that we're "sticking our children and grandchildren with the bill."

Who says they'll pay it?

If I went to borrow money and told the bank my children and grandchildren were going to assume all my debts so they might as well just lend me the money, the bank would probably say "hell no." How would they know how eager my children and grandchildren are to pay them back? Our children and grandchildren might decide that since they weren't a party to it, it's not really their problem. Hence, I wonder for how much longer banks will lend to the US based on the good credit of our children and grandchildren.

Revenant said...

No problem. Consumers can buy either a $20,000 Chevrolet or a $20,000 Toyota. FBI agents have to ride around in Ford Tauruses, however.

Anyone who buys a car is a consumer of cars, dipshit. It doesn't matter if it is a private citizen or an FBI branch office. So in this example the FBI would be receiving a $20,000 price break from the US Congress provided it chose Chevy over Toyota.

Kentucky assembly-line workers earn higher wages, so they will pump more bucks into the US economy than the Mexicans will pump into the Mexican economy.

I have to wonder just how clueless a person has to be before a statement like that starts to make any kind of sense.

Company X hires 20 American workers for $50,000 each. Those workers then spend that $1 million here in the United States.

Company Y hires 200 Mexican workers for $5,000 each. It spends $1 million to by the equivalent value of pesos to pay those workers with. The workers then spend the pesos in Mexico.

At this point, a clueless person says "see? $1 million just left the country". A person who has been paying attention, however, realizes that the entity that sold Company Y a million bucks' worth of pesos now has $1 million in dollars. THAT entity spends its $1 million to hire Americans, buy goods for Americans, etc etc etc. Sure, they might trade the dollars for some other currency, but ultimately those dollars are coming back to America. You can't SPEND a dollar except in the American economy or the economies of those nations that have yoked themselves to ours by opting to use the dollar as their currency of choice (e.g. Panama).

So the long and the short of it is that whether you blow all your hard-earned dollars on American workers or those nasty dirty foreign workers, you're pumping the exact same amount of money into the American economy. The only question is whether you're getting good value for the dollars you spent -- which, if you hire based on nationality instead of quality, you likely aren't.

sonicfrog said...

Sofa Kinhg - Brilliant!

I'm stealing it.

VinceP1974 said...

Obama a few weeks ago

OBAMA: In the end, the answer to our economic troubles rests less in my hands or in the hands of our legislators than it does with America's workers and the businesses that employ them. They are the ones whose efforts and ideas will determine our economic destiny just as they always have. For in the end it's businesses -- large and small -- that generate the jobs, provide the salaries, and serve as the foundation on which the American people's lives and dreams depend. All we can do, those of us here in Washington, is to help create a favorable climate in which workers can prosper, businesses can thrive, and our economy can grow.


Obama, last night:
OBAMA: At this particular moment, with the private sector so weakening by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs -- and breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do.


This guy is a dangerous dangerous fraud.

I am genuinely fearful of every day.

former law student said...

I have to wonder just how clueless a person has to be before a statement like that starts to make any kind of sense.

Mexicans make less than Americans.

Palladian said...

Aww, look, our resident Green-Party Nazi Cedarford is advocating, in his own wordy and not-particularly-interesting way, the takeover of the United States by a military regime. How cute!

former law student said...

Obama a few weeks ago

OBAMA: In the end, the answer to our economic troubles ...All we can do, those of us here in Washington, is to help create a favorable climate in which workers can prosper, businesses can thrive, and our economy can grow. And that is exactly what the recovery plan I've proposed is intended to do. Thank you.


Try reading the whole speech, and you'll see that Obama's being consistent. Another excerpt:

And they [executives] understand that when it comes to rebuilding our economy, we don't have a moment to spare.

The businesses that are shedding jobs to stay afloat - they cannot afford inaction or delay. The workers who are returning home to tell their husbands and wives and children that they no longer have a job, and all those who live in fear that theirs will be the next job cut - they need help now. They are looking to Washington for action - bold and swift. And that is why I hope to sign an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan into law in the next few weeks.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/obama_business_leaders.html

Revenant said...

Mexicans make less than Americans.

Which means you get more value for your money. This is a good thing.

And, as I pointed out, the money you're paying them still goes back into the American economy. So again, how clueless does a person have to be to think this is a bad thing?

Leland said...

Please give a date when Republicans will take responsibility for something...anything at all...

10/1/1993 (First FY for Dem Congress and President in 12 years) - DJIA 3,581
1/3/1994 (Republicans take over Congress) - 3,756
10/3/1994 (Start of first Republican FY) - 3,801
10/3/1995 (One year of Republican appropriations) - 4,761
10/1/1996 - 5,904
10/1/1997 - 8,015
10/1/1998 - 7,632
10/1/1999 - 10,273
10/2/2000 - 10,700
9/10/2001 - 9,605
10/1/2001 - 8,836
10/1/2002 - 7,938
10/1/2003 - 9,469
10/1/2004 - 10,192
10/3/2005 - 10,535
10/2/2006 - 11,689
1/3/2007 (Dems takeover Congress) - 12,474
9/28/07 (Last Republican Congress FY) - 13,895

Cedarford - The DJIA was 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day George W Bush began his first term.

Note, Bush's first FY began 10/1/2001. Clinton's last FY dropped 2,000 pts. Bush's last FY is still dropping, but I think I've shown that drop began with the Democratic Party taking control over the Congress.

Michael H said...

@Leland- Thank you.