Obama’s economic policy equates to a war on American business.
One must ask how his policies have worked out so far. Take a look:
Wall Street tumbled to new lows on Thursday and shares of Citigroup, once the largest bank on Wall Street, dropped briefly below $1 as deepening worries about the financial sector and General Motors sent investors running for cover.
Strangely enough, all of those companies have been bailed out (some more than once) by the Obamessiah. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that whole bailout thing supposed to have fixed those companies? Hmmm…
Throughout the market-wide losses, guess who’s been doing quite well? Wal-Mart. They’ve easily surpassed their expectations with a gain of over 5%. That’s got to really chap the libs, huh? I guess low prices aren’t quite so out of touch as the liberals like to say, are they?
Anyway, at long last, it appears that the Senate GOP has gotten a clue and grown a spine, all at the same time. At least a little bit, anyway:
Some encouraging news breaking tonight: Senate Republicans forced a delay on consideration of the $410 billion omni-pork spending bill. Harry Reid canceled the vote after confessing that he was one vote short of the 60 needed to shut off debate and move forward.
A Hill friend says Reid had to walk out 20 minutes after the scheduled vote and end the quorum call because he couldn’t close the cloture deal.
It all came down to a combination of some parliamentary procedures and some genuine stones:
Sen. David Vitter (R, La.) just objected to a unanimous consent request, and has promised to object to everything unless he gets a vote on his amendment. The effect will be to delay the cloture vote on the omnibus. It now appears that it will not pass tonight, staffers tell me.
Vitter’s amendment would force members and senators to vote for every pay increase they receive, instead of having member pay increase each year on “auto-pilot.”
Given the vote counts on both sides, this is about the last best hope of the GOP for stopping this madness, so kudos to them for using all available methods. Most of the amendments being offered by the GOP are intended to strip pork out of the spending bill, and the Democrats will never allow them to pass. But, forcing a vote will require the Dems to go on record strenuously in favor of earmarks. It’s a savvy move, and that’s why the Dems are doing everything possible they can to prevent it from succeeding.
But it’s not just the Reps that they’re targeting. Liberal Democrat Jim Cramer has recently been in the crosshairs of the Obama administration, too, adding another private citizen to the list of targets and proving that the cannibalism of the Left is stronger than ever. Why has he been under fire?
CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer says if he’s on the administration’s enemies list he’s in good company because President Obama’s agenda “is crushing nest eggs around the country.”
Cramer, who says he used to make “six figure” donations to Democrats before his media contract prohibited it, described talk host Rush Limbaugh as “a genius of the medium.”
On Wednesday, Limbaugh said he and Cramer were on the White House enemies list, and predicted the administration “was going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he’ll go down with a fight.”
Limbaugh, Cramer says, was “dead right.”
“I was on my hackles when I heard White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president,” Cramer wrote in a column posted Thursday on Mainstreet.com.
Cramer has been a strong critic of Obama’s, suggesting his budgetary problems have been destroying wealth by hurting the stock market.
On Wednesday, Gibbs said: “I’m not entirely sure what he’s pointing to, to make some of the statements. And you can go back and look at any number of statements he’s made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too.”
Cramer’s response to the blatant slam on Thursday: “Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope.”
Cramer said he personally agrees with Obama’s agenda, but says that in the current economic circumstances it is “radical,” and should be put on hold until the business climate improves.
Fear and panic? Where have we heard that before? It’s an awfully easy case to make, and more people are continuing to make it.
There’s a school of thought that the Obama administration is deliberately damaging the economy and gutting the stock market, on the theory that doing so will make more people dependent on the government and pave the way for a far-left regime. Doug Ross makes the argument:
Consider that, in the teeth of a devastating recession, Obama has:
• Raised taxes on small businesses, the engines of entrepreneurship and job growth
• Raised the capital gains tax
• Lied about “tax cuts for 95% of Americans”, offering instead $13 a week, achieved not through tax cuts, but by changing the federal withholding tables!
• Destroyed charitable giving by axing the tax breaks for 26% of all giving (or $81 billion in 2006)
• Proposed a carbon cap-and-trading scheme designed to punish oil companies and further tax consumers
Why would Obama inflict these destructive policies while the economy is collapsing? Simple. Each step strengthens the role of government in people’s lives.
• Squelching the stock market kills its attractiveness as a parking lot for private capital. Combined with an increase in the capital gains tax, investors will swarm to bonds — tax-free vehicles like municipal bonds, which benefit the growth of state and local government. And unions, of course.
• Carbon cap-and-tax will raise taxes on all Americans as the cost of goods and services will increase to address a non-existent threat.
• True tax cuts would grow the economy, which is why, of course, Obama shuns them. The last major recession was Jimmy Carter’s malaise. It consisted of of double-digit inflation and unemployment. It was finally licked by across-the-board tax cuts for everyone (even the despised rich), which touched off a twenty-plus year run of prosperity.
• Charities reduce the role of government assistance for those in need. That, in Obama’s world, can not be tolerated. That is why charities must be choked off and allowed to die. Especially faith-based institutions.
The only plausible explanation is that Obama’s destruction of the economy is intentional.
It is based on a failed ideology that has never — and can never — succeed.
It is, I admit, an intriguing theory, but I don’t buy it. Obama can’t possibly want to be a one-term failure. That’s what happened to Jimmy Carter, and Obama must know that it will happen to him, too, if his policies are perceived as dragging down the economy.
More likely the explanation is that Obama is an economic illiterate, and subscribes to the idea–which I think is rather common among Democrats–that what the government does has little impact on the economy. Obama likely believes that the economy will recover on its own, and in the meantime–in Rahm Emanuel’s immortal words–he shouldn’t let the crisis go to waste. So he enacts every left-wing measure that he wanted to do anyway, expecting that when the economy eventually recovers he can take credit for it, even though his policies, if anything, retarded and weakened the recovery.
That’s a cynical strategy, although not quite as cynical as destroying the economy on purpose; the difference is that it may well work.
Larry Kudlow (emphasis mine):
Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s address to Congress and budget. He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds. That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.
Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next ten years.
This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.
Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.
And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge tax increase on all blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, and new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.
Obama’s tax hikes will generate fewer revenues and lower economic growth. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.
Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.
Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner. There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse. Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?
Talk about a crisis…
14% of small businesses fear they are going to close their doors in the next 12 months because of the Democratic policies.
It could be even higher than that.
The 2.3 trillion dollars Democrat spent to stimulate the economy not one dime has gone to small businesses so far.
100% of that 2.3 trillion dollars so far has gone to the top 1% of American companies.
Small businesses are, of course, the engine of the economy.
Small businesses have been virtually ignored by the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress (they aren’t big Dem donors). As a result of the crisis, 14% of small businesses are likely to shut their doors in the next year.
** 97% of all new jobs are created by small businesses.
** 70% of our economy is created by small businesses.
Obama’s economic policy equates to a war on American business, and the proof is in the pudding. Just as a reminder: