The Economy -- Not the President -- Is Tanking the Market
One of the more ridiculous statements going around over the last few weeks is "this is an Obama bear market." This statement is, well, ill-informed at best and fraudulent at worst. Let's look at why.
First -- who is saying this? Such economic luminaries as John Hawkins at Right Wing News (who actually asked Is Obama Deliberately Tanking the Stock Market?), Powerline, Brit Hume along with a host of other right wing bloggers. What all of these people have in common is their incessant chearleading during the Bush years despite mounting evidence of an upcoming recession. There are the same people who argued that ... housing is a small part of the economy ... most people are paying their mortgages ... the US economy will decouple from the rest of the world .... it's the greatest story never told ..... you get the idea. Simply put, these are people who have distinguished themselves by being some of the best contrary indicators around.
Secondly, the SPYs -- the tracking ETF for the S&P 500 -- dropped from (roughly) 155 in the summer of 2007 to (roughly) 85 at the end of last year. Yet I don't remember any of them saying that was the Bush bear market -- even though that's a drop of roughly 43%. No -- it's the new President that's causing the problems. In addition, when Bush took office the SPYs dropped from roughly 130 at the begging of 2001 to 85 in the fourth quarter of 2002. Yet somehow I don't think any of them blamed Bush's policies for the drop. Then it was the "lasting effects of the Clinton recession" or something similar.
What all of these idiots are forgetting is the simple fact that the economy is the backdrop of the stock market. When the economy does well the stock market does well. When the economy doesn't do well, the stock market doesn't do well. And to that end, the economy isn't doing well right now. Let's look at some recent news events.
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and propertylocated in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008,(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by theBureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP decreased 0.5 percent.
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply in February (-651,000), and the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 to 8.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employment has declined by 2.6 million in the past 4 months. In February, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors.
Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts suggest that national economic conditions deteriorated further during the reporting period of January through late February. Ten of the twelve reports indicated weaker conditions or declines in economic activity; the exceptions were Philadelphia and Chicago, which reported that their regional economies "remained weak." The deterioration was broad based, with only a few sectors such as basic food production and pharmaceuticals appearing to be exceptions. Looking ahead, contacts from various Districts rate the prospects for near-term improvement in economic conditions as poor, with a significant pickup not expected before late 2009 or early 2010.Consumer spending remained sluggish on net, although many Districts noted some improvement in January and February compared with a dismal holiday spending season. Travel and tourist activity fell noticeably in key destinations, as did activity for a wide range of nonfinancial services, with substantial job cuts noted in many instances. Reports on manufacturing activity suggested steep declines in activity in some sectors and pronounced declines overall. Conditions weakened somewhat for agricultural producers and substantially for extractors of natural resources, with reduced global demand cited as an underlying determinant in both cases. Markets for residential real estate remained largely stagnant, with only minimal and scattered signs of stabilization emerging in some areas, while demand for commercial real estate weakened significantly. Reports from banks and other financial institutions indicated further drops in business loan demand, a slight deterioration in credit quality for businesses and households, and continued tight credit availability.
Expenses associated with rising loan losses and declining asset values overwhelmed revenues in the fourth quarter of 2008, producing a net loss of $26.2 billion at insured commercial banks and savings institutions. This is the first time since the fourth quarter of 1990 that the industry has posted an aggregate net loss for a quarter. The ?0.77 percent quarterly return on assets (ROA) is the worst since the ?1.10 percent in the second quarter of 1987. A year ago, the industry reported $575 million in profits and an ROA of 0.02 percent. High expenses for loan-loss provisions, sizable losses in trading accounts, and large writedowns of goodwill and other assets all contributed to the industry's net loss. A few very large losses were reported during the quarter-four institutions accounted for half of the total industry loss-but earnings problems were widespread. Almost one out of every three institutions (32 percent) reported a net loss in the fourth quarter. Only 36 percent of institutions reported year-over-year increases in quarterly earnings, and only 34 percent reported higher quarterly ROAs.
I could go on, but you you get the idea. The news of the underlying economy has been terrible (at best). And that's what's causing the problems.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If it's not Obama's doing, it at least began to happen when it became
clear that McCain, the designated Repo man, was unlikely to achieve the
presidency, and it's continued ever since. It seems to be within the power of the
wealthy elites to decimate the stock market whenever it seems to them to be warranted.
'Let them eat cake, & stuff.'
Yes, the smartest people were shorting the market!
I still do not understand the logic behind the statement ""The reason for the massive recession was because George W did too good a job on the economy." Can you explain it more clearly? If Bush would have done less of a good job on the economy would recession be relatively mild then? How do you explain such a tepid expansion resulting in such a massive recession and how is that doing a "good job on the economy?"
Dugan, please explain your comment that ""The reason for the massive recession was because George W did too good a job on the economy." I have never heard anything so infantile in my life and I am not sure I can follow the reasoning behind such propagandistic nonsense. If you really "run money" as you say you do, I hope you have better knowledge of that than your critiquing of the economy suggests. It just sounds as if your reading GOP talking points for grammer schoolers.
There was barely a recession in 2001-2002 to ring out the excesses of the 1991 to 2000 boom. There should have more liquidation and much higher unemployment. But since George W and the federal reserve began to massively stimulate the economy fiscally and monetarily, a full liquidation was averted and the boom was reinvigorated in 2002 for a while until the Iraq invasion and then boomed dramatically beginning in spring 2003 and lasting until December 2007 or July 2008. Now we are not only liquidating the 2002-2008 boom, but the entire 1991-2008 boom since liquidation was averted in 2001. This is not a Republican talking about and this analysis has nothing to do with politics. There was a massive boom in consumer spending and bank lending which went almost uninterrupted from 1991 to 2008. We are seeing the correction of that now. You can't correct a 17 year credit boom in six months or with a minor tick up in unemployment. You need a real liquidation.
"By the start of the Bush Administration, housing prices (which over the prior forty years had just kept even with the overall rate of inflation) had on average, and after adjusting for inflation, risen approximately 23 percent over their mid-nineties levels—a substantial but still containable surge. In 2001, however, when the stock bubble collapsed, Alan Greenspan seized on the expanding housing bubble as the best tool for boosting the economy out of the recession.
So when Bush began to "massively stimulate the economy fiscally and monetarily" to avert a recession, which created a much worse problem than it was trying to avoid, how was this doing to "too good a job on the economy?"
According to Dugan, "The reason for the massive recession was because George W did too good a job on the economy." This statement may be the funniest thing I have ever heard on these blogs. The reason behind this massive recession is because George Bush failed to crack down on the subprime lending industry and continued to allow derivatives to go unregulated. In fact, he made it imposssible for local state's attorney generals to crack down on predatory lending. His tax cuts for the wealthy were always intended just as tax cuts for the wealthy. He misdiagnosed a mild recession as a very serious one. Then he applied tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthiest few that were not stimulative or immediate enough to help the economy in a recessionary environment. Then his economic policies resulted in one of the weakest expansions in our history, leading up to this huge recession resulting from his party's deregulatory policies. The mild recovery and the following huge recession are two unrelated events, except that perhaps the tax cuts slightly contribted to both. Dugan's statement is a enormous, arrogant joke which may only fool a few completely uninformed Fox News watchers. My God, what self-delusion!
Democrats as well as Republicans failed to crack down on subprime lending. In fact, both parties pushed for an increase in sub-prime lending. About derivatives, both parties again pushed for deregulation in the financial markets. About the Bush tax cuts, they have zero to do with the current recession besides adding fuel to the fire of the last economic boom, thus requiring a bigger correction now. Also, you very well know that tax cuts always benefit the wealthy more than anyone else because they are the ones that pay all the federal income tax. Almost a full half of all workers pay no federal income tax after deductions, so how are they going to see much benefit from a cut in the federal income tax? About the last expansion being weak, it was so because the recession preceding it was so shallow. To a large degree the last economic boom was simply an extension of the 90s boom. Last, I don't know what Fox news has to do with anything. I don't even watch it.
According to Eliot Spitzer in the Washington Post:
"Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders."
"Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
"Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye."
"The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules."
"But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigat
http://www
Dugan, stop the lies!!
About deregulaiton of markets:
But (Republican) Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican
http://www
About Bush tax cuts:
"Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners."
"Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years."
"Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households
"The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office."
http://www
Dugan, saying that "reason for the massive recession was because George W did too good a job on the economy" is simplistic and nonsensical drivel even by the standards of the propaganda and illogical you post here on a regular basis. You have set a new low for yourself in ill reason and pomposity. Your statement makes no sense, but I do not even want to give it the dignity of trying to explain it at all. Again, it is simplistic and nonsensical even by your standards.
"We start[ed] with a mess, a deep mess, made worse by the deepening recession," Treasury Secretary Geithner said. "And these things are pitting on themselves. And it's very important for people to understand, it's going to take some time to work through this. But what I want people to know is that we're going to do what's necessary to get through it. And these things will get traction. They will start to help unfreeze things, and they will help lay the foundation for recovery."
http://www
Yet, Geitner has yet to come up with a plan, despite being the head of the NY Federal Reserve Bank and heavily involved with the crisis from day one.
He stated his plan last night on Charlie Rose. You should watch something else besides Fox news.
"Asked about this line of attack, replete with phrases like the "Obama recession," Secretary LaHood offered a similarly ardent rebuke. If blame is to be cast, he declared, it can only, at this point, lie with the previous White House."
"This is not an Obama recession," he said. "He inherited all of this. He inherited a $1 trillion dollar debt. He inherited the recession. He inherited the lousy stock market. All of this was inherited. The guy has been in office a little over a month and what he has tried to do is listen to every economist he could listen to. And he put in place some opportunities to get people to work quickly through the transportation bill portion of it, to help the banks, and to help the real estate industry. And it is going to take time."
http://www
Obama inherited a recession, but he's made it worse with his anti-business rhetoric. Obama has systematically attacked nearly every sector of the market over the last few months. Is it a surprise then that the stocks of those sectors have gone down because less people want to own them? The downward pressure that's been put on stocks over the past few months will require a lot of time to heal. We should see a recovery snap back rally in the equity market soon, but the technical damage done to the market will take at least six months to work out.
Dugan, there is no reasoning with you so why bother. We would not be where we are if not for George Bush. His tax cuts were not particularly stimulative, so Greenspan responded by lowering rates. Bush himself warned of an economic implsion using similar rhetoric to Obama when he asked for the TARP bailout. I think Bonddad illustrates well how the market is responding to fundamentals, especially given that financial firms acounted for a third of total corporate profits two years ago. This year it has no profits and its share prices are cratering, hence the Dow is down. The rhetoric of Obama has been balanced. You conservatives cried that the Clinton tax increase would kill the markets and they helped the economy by balancing the budget. It will be the same now. Citi announced profits and the market lept 300 points yesterday. I guess I get tired, as I am sure many do here, by your dogmatic inflexibiltiy and Bush apologistic incoherencies.
Amen.
The Boomers giveth and the Boomers taketh away. It was not a fluke nor the efforts of any of the administrations of the past 50 years that grew consumer and real estate markets: it was the spending habits of 78,000,000+ Americans. Look around: the Boomers are aging and they are thinking--
Throw in the greed, irresponsbility and incompetence of the financial sector of the past decade and you have a perfect storm. But even when the Big Storm has passed, winter will still be here. Our economy will grow again only when we start producing the goods and services that the Boomer Echo are in a position to purchase.
Having said all that, all 535 of the lawmakers really like quick fixes. Good luck with that. Let's start taking some well-thought steps that prioritize shelter, food, re-tooling and far-thinking. And let's see the President veto any bills that don't have a realistic funding element.
This blame game is really getting old the constant blaming this one or that one.
Does everyone remember by the name of Bush? He allowed a lot of this to happen and that is a fact.
I just love the way eveyone points but everyone has forgotten when one finger is pointed there are three finger pointing back at yourself and that is a fact.
I don't like Obama but he seems to be trying but I could be wrong.
The jury is still out on Obama here too.
I agree with you on the current blame game and those doing the blaming. I don't think Obama should be getting blamed for other peoples engineered destructions when he's only been at the wheel a bit over a month.
It seems the ones blaming would like us to believe in their fairy tales and historical revisionism.
Obama has been in office less than two months. Bush was on vacation his first eight months on the job!
The bush/republican recession began in oct 07 and morphed into the bush/republican depression in aug08.....
According to NBR, the recession began in December 2007. According to the most popular metric in determining if the country is in recession, two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, the economy went into recession in Q3 2008 as Q3 and Q4 2008 both saw negative GDP, although Q3 was barely negative. The economy really began to sink in September 2008 with the failure of Lehman.
negative growth for 4 or more quarters is considered a depression and since economists say positive growth is not possible until 2010 we are officially in a depression
"most popular"? Either the country is in recession or it isn't. There are a lot of measures of production in the economy. The NBER identifies GDP and unemployment as two key measures of production. They called December, 2007 the start of the recession because unemployment numbers showed a decline in production. The mess that started in September, 2008 was the recession dropping to levels of decline not seen since at least 1982 and possibly since World War II. Claiming it wasn't a "real" recession until September, 2008 is just admitting you don't care because your job wasn't one of the ones lost.
So what happened, did your 401k drop like a rock in September? Is that what finally made the recession "real" for you?
What's your point? It's Bush and the Republicants' fault by any metric you choose to use.
"The economy really began to sink in September 2008 with the failure of Lehman."
That's like saying the patient got really sick when he died. The symptoms of the problem were there long before Lehman failed. Several failures happened almost immediately after one another. As usual, you make a long series of points with little insight.
THE ECONOMY WILL REMAIN BAD UNTIL OBAMA GETS SOME SMART BUSINESS PEOPLE HELPING HIM INSTEAD OF A BUNCH OF BUREAUCRATS. WARREN BUFFET, AN OBAMA SUPPORTER EVEN SAYS HE IS CONCENTRATING ON HIS POLITICAL ENGINEERING MORE THAN THE ECONOMY. WHY CANNOT DEMOCRATS EVER UNDERSTAND THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM? I VOTED FOR OBAMA AS AN INDEPENDENT BUT HAD NO IDEA THAT HE WAS SO RADICAL THAT HIS POLITICAL AGENDA WAS WHAT HE WOULD FOCUS ON. THAT FOCUS PLUS HAVING A TOTAL IDIOT FOR TREASURY SECRETARY MEANS AMERICANS WILL SUFFER FOR 4 YEARS WITH OBAMA. REPUBLICANS ONLY HAVE TO WAIT AND DEMS WILL BE SWEPT OUT OF CONTROL IN WASHINGTON FOR SURE. SURELY SOME DEMOCRAT IN DC UNDERSTANDS THIS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF AMERICANS ECONOMIC SYSTEM BY THE OBAMA DEMOCRATS. IF YOU CAN FIND ONE GET HIM OVER THE WHITEHOUSE FAST!!!
Why are you yelling?
Radical political agenda? Like what?
"Radical political agenda" depends on your perspective, and your willingness to get information from a broad spectrum. It seems most liberal comments here are insulated.
That leads to what you assume as reasonable and normal, middle America would consider radical.
Take for instance, man made global warming. The left agrees with Gore that the debate is over.
On the other hand, there's the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change being held now in NYC. Opening the conference is Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union. When it comes to man made global warming, Klaus calls that a myth. He is also an outspoken critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and says the panel is one-sided and has a political agenda. As more scientists are dissenting from this agenda (including the 70+ at the conference), the public opinion is shifting. Only 11% in the Czech Republic now believe in man made climate change. The belief is declining both here and in Europe.
It is not only radical to declare the scientific debate is over; but the solutions being proposed to deal with it by Obama are premature and radical.
I'd need my own blog to fully outline Obama's radical agenda already being implemented. Let me end where I began and suggest that those who still have blinders on with your support of Obama, step back and look at his actions from an alternative view. Most radical agendas require a rush to judgment.
Obama radical? That is a distorted view of reality. The mere appointment of Geithner indicates the opposite. Obama's pragmatism is based in his lawyerly training. The truth is to be found between two opposing positions. But that is not really a true pragmatic approach; if Obama were truly a pragmatic thinker he would by necessity be more radical. A pragmatic solution to our problem is to be found outside the two opposing positions which it means it would be more "rooty" - more radical. In this case Obama is not radical enough. ;-)
Obama campaigned as a centrist but has moved very far to the left since inauguration. I know many people, including me, who voted for Obama but have become dismayed at the approach he's taken in the past few months. The market obviously has been very unhappy at Obama's change of direction.
From March 10th,
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that
32% now Strongly Disapprove of the President’s performance, the highest level of disapproval measured to date. The rising negative is driven by Republicans, 56% of whom Strongly Disapprove of Obama’s performance. Since Inauguration Day, Republican opposition has doubled.
These figures give Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +6, his lowest rating to date. The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve.
No wonder you have to shout your posts lack sense. Obama is a politician he didnt pretend to be an economist and as far as being a polician what folks like you dont seem to get is that you can't fix the economy unless you fix things like healthcare and education you actually are naieve enough to believe that you can get a strong roubst economy with 46 MILLION people without healthcare and a healthcare system with costs that are out of control. Folks like Buffet and you have NO CLUE what you are talking about let me know when Buffet have no health insurance. You are out of touch and you fail to empathize with 46 million people and you fail to see how the cost of healthcare is choking the life out of this country and if you want to be sustainable in the long run it has to be addressed NOW. Do you even have a clue whats happening to average American?
As far as voting for Obama because you thougth he was going to tackle the economy I have my doubts that you even voted for him. You seem more are like McCain voter so FESS UP.
Carol
What is radical about Obama? Your post is far more radical. Obama would not have offered a trillion dollar stimulus package if it was not for the failures of economic fundamentalism and deregulatory failures of conservatism.
I just finished listening to three "experts" on the Early Show this morning.
This article is right on target whereas the "talking heads" are just that talking heads giving Obama negative grades and saying that he is not doing a good job.
President Obama has definitely tried to right the ship that is sinking. The "talking heads" are great at spouting but are not in the position to know all the nuances and how difficult this situation is.
Give our new president credit and as a country we should be try to work together.
EXCELLANT ARTICLE. SO TRUE
OBAMA IS THE NEW, JUST ABOARD, CAPTAIN OF A TITANIC, FIVE MINUTES AFTER IT STRUCK THE ICEBERG.
IF ANYONE IS TO BLAIME IT IS THE CAPTAIN WHO STEARED THE COURSE TO THE ICEBERG.
ITS THREE CAPTAINS WHO WERE AT THE WHEEL. BARNEY FRANKS, CHRIS DODD AND GEORGE BUSH. THOSE THREE FORCED ALL THESE BAD LOANS ON THE BANKS. WE NEED TO TELL POLITICIANS OF BOTH PARTIES TO KEEP THEIR GRIMEY HANDS OFF OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM IN AMERICA BEFORE WE ARE IN THE BAD SHAPE ALL OTHER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN IN FOR YEARS.
I want to hear more. Please explain how banks were forced to accept bad loans. Please explain how the creation of credit default swaps by the banking industry and their pleas to keep them unregulated was forced on them by anyone in the government. Please, explain your claims or admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, I remember Barney Frank insisting that the banks offer loans to people who could not pay them back. In fact, Franks always said more policies should be geared toward renters and not everyone wants to own. You guys on the right live in a land untouched by evidence or reality!
No one appears to be pointing out that the con-men and thieves in the financial world are, themselves, always support, and are supported by, the right wing press. That anyone takes a blind bit of notice of them in the face of overwhelming evidence of how wrong they've been for a very long time, is a testament to gullibility !
Siurely no thinking person can possibly believe, or be influenced by, the bigotted twaddle these idiots are putting out !
For Republicans to blame Obama for the market is pretty amazing. Its based on the presumption that their audience is too stupid to think in a complex manner. Obama is president and anything that goes wrong must be directly blamed on him. Give me a break! But ofcourse once the economy turns around these same thugs will say it was various outside forces that helped to rebuild the economy, despite Obama's anti-capitalist 'socialist' agenda. If McCain were president right now would the stock market be at a different level? Absolutely not! But critical investments would be put off in order to pay for a never ending war in Iraq and more tax cuts for the rich.
You are exactly right! The market deteroriation is blamed on Obama, but when conditions improve the right will say that the tax cuts were responsible, and as you say, despite Obama's "socialist agenda." The right haggles over any infrastructure spending or entitlements, but does not mind a never-ending war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more tax cuts for the wealthiest few. Their approach to the economy was soundly rejected last November.
The market deterioration is because of Obama's attack on business. EVeryone in the investment community knows this. I run money and I'm one of many in a network of investors and managers who run money. This administration has been unable to put together a banking plan which is why there's continued pressure on financials, failed to put together a weak stimulus package which has pressure industrials, put forth cuts in Medicare Advantage which tanked most health care stocks, announced cuts in strategic defense spending which tanked defense stocks, announced a carbon tax which hurt coal and utility stocks, announced a bill that would result in more unionization for Fedex employees which tanked that stock, etc. etc. The weak Q4 GDP of last year is not in the mind of any investor. The weak employment numbers are a lagging indicator and investors already know this. The problem is looking forward. If the Obama administration continues along this path, the economy will remain weak for some years and voters will show their discontent at the ballot box. Obama may win reelection in four years, however, on his public speaking ability alone.
For someone who "runs money" Dugan sure has a lot of time to post anonymous comments on Huffington Post!!
IF OBAMA BELIEVED IN PEOPLE RATHER THAN BEING THE CONTROL FREAK HE HAS TURNED OUT TO BE HE WOULD SUSPEND ALL WITHOLDING TAXES FOR 6 MONTHS AND LET PEOPLE HAVE ALL THE EXTRA MONEY HE IS HAULING INTO DC TO WASTE. LET FOLKS HAVE THEIR OWN MONEY AND WATCH THE BOOM DAYS COME BACK. WHY CANNOT LIBERALS GIVE UP THEIR CONTROL ALL FROM DC FREAK MENTALITY JUST LONG ENOUGH TO LET AMERICANS GET THEMSELVES OUT OF THIS PROBLEM. WATCH EXTREME MAKEOVER AND CONTRAST THAT WITH ANY GOVERNMENT KATRINA SYNDROME PROGRAM. IF LIBERALS WOULD TRUST PEOPLE WITH THEIR OWN MONEY TO GET US OUT OF THIS MESS YOU CAN ALL GO BACK TO BEING CONTROL FREAKS AFTER THE BOOM SETS IN.
Because tax cuts work so well, case in point charging Iraq and Afghanistan war to our grandchildren by cutting taxes during war. I for one have children in school, woiuld like the potholes in my roads to be fixed sometime, my trash picked up once a week, my roads plowed and sanded, laws enforced, etc.
Screw tax cuts, I for one will put the money in the mattress, and not for one single solitary instant, consider spending a dime of it on chinese crap 'stuff' while watching our country's infrastructure deteriorates even further. You got an axe to grind, start complaining on how it's spent or get a job with the Hannity or Limbaugh team.
IF I WRITE IN ALL CAPITALS I'M THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT AND MY ARGUMENT IS THAT MUCH MORE ARTICULATE.
If the truth was told to the public there would be hell to pay in this country because america is broke. All those rich and super rich white boys has suck the life out of this country. if you really want to know what happened read the book by The Credit Crisis of 2008 and what it means by George Soros. Crimes has committed against this country and these SOBs are demanding that be given public funds so that they can continue their rape of this country and the world's economies.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
