February 21, 2009
Keep an Eye on the Obama Effect
Larry Kudlow has some harsh words for Obama's plan to aid the mortgage market. If he's even partially correct it's a significant condemnation of plan that seems not only ineffective, but has had the dual effect of alarming markets because of that perceived lack of utility.
This is not a small issue. Bill Clinton has already begun offering public advice that Obama needs to be more publicly optimistic about the economy. That tip from 42 comes for a reason. Obama's talking down of the economy - as part of efforts to ram through the "stimulus" bill - have had a real, tangible effect. Yesterday's link to an Obama critic (and yet no fan of Bush) was notable is raising just such a point:
My concern is that recent events have squelched that optimism among consumers, and that the nation's mood is even darker than it was a few months ago. Remember how Obama derided the "politics of fear?" He's become its greatest champion.
Indeed, that was a notable component of the story on recent market woes headlining today's dead tree version of the Seattle Times:
"Right now, more than a crisis in mortgages or in housing, we have a crisis in confidence. That is biggest problem in trying to analyze the current market," said James Stack, president of market research firm InvesTech Research in Whitefish, Mont. "You cannot analyze psychology."
While Obama certainly isn't responsible for the long-term fundamentals of the economy or the state of the current economic cycle, the near-term response of the equity markets to his Administration has been pitiful. His own rhetoric has been less than helpful on that score. And if his plans for the "stimulus," TARP II, mortgage fixes and the like prove to be even half as ineffective as critics say then such problems will eventually catch up to this Administration...even if it is headlined by the One.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 21, 2009
01:44 PM | Email This
Would that be the same Larry Kudlow who wrote this in June 2005:
"Homebuilders led the stock parade this week with a fantastic 11 percent gain. This is a group that hedge funds and bubbleheads love to hate. All the bond bears have been dead wrong in predicting sky-high mortgage rates. So have all the bubbleheads who expect housing-price crashes in Las Vegas or Naples, Florida, to bring down the consumer, the rest of the economy, and the entire stock market."
Why should anyone care what this idiot has to say about housing or mortgages?
2. Obama's problem is that he's trying to inject morphine into a patient with a minor head cold. This is the result you get when you've got an amateur in his first experience at governing.
2--yes--we--(for whatever reason escapes me)--tossed the car keys and a bottle to effectively a teen--gawd hep us!
as history will again show, the more sober parental conservative types among us will have to be there to sop up the vomit & blood for some time, shaking our heads again;
A great, short article in the WSJ
on Obama's investment in failure and why, unlike the American people, the market isn't buying his rhetoric.
Surely I'm not the only one who remembers how the Dems and the press raked candidate Bush over the coals back in 2000 for "talking down the economy".
Obama is terrifying the nation. Is it being done deliberatly so that the far left can ram through any legistation they desire? Honestly, I don't know.
What I do know is that this kind of fear mongering can and apparently is destroying our confidence. People are hoarding money, not spending it. As a result companies are laying off workers because no one is buying. Nutcase "financial advisors" like Suze Orman go on Oprah and tell people not to eat out. Yeah that's a great idea, let's quit supporting each other's businesses. That'll surely make everything better. Where do these kooks come from, and why do people listen to them?
Obama is the worst example of a leader in my memory. The only President that came close was Carter, whose message was that our best days our behind us and we'd better just huddle up in the one room we can afford heat and wear a sweater.
I've seen a lot of goofy stuff in 50 years of following politics. This is the biggest head scratcher of all.
6. "Larry Kudlow must have a Reagan Kool-Aid enema pumping 5 barrels a minute into his anus. I watch CNBC every morning. (acutally my wife does)
A glaring example of the average intelligence (or lack thereof) level on the left.
"Larry Kudlow must have a Reagan Kool-Aid enema pumping 5 barrels a minute into his anus"
Is it ever possible to have a civilized exchange of opinion with you lefties? Man!
"facts" won't be able to explain his reasoning in a coherent, adult fashion. Not exactly a big surprise. It the same thing time after time, bring out the big boogy men socialists hate above everything, "free markets" and "wall street".
Gosh, I've never heard any of that crap before.
What "facts" and "demo_kid" won't respond to is when they are asked for specific policies that Republicans put in place that led to the economic meltdown. What was deregulated specifically, "facts"? What Republican legislation or acts let "Wall Street rape and pillage at will". Come up with some specifics and perhaps we can have a real intelligent discussion. Instead of talking about someone's anus.
Meanwhile we have a President that is scaring the daylights out of nearly every American. I can't think of a single speech he has made where he has given anyone the slightest glimmer of hope. "Hope and Change" was the mantra of Obama during the campaign. I haven't seen anything from him other than
fear mongering and intimidation.
This is perhaps as good a thread as any to give a little primer on how to deal with leftist trolls.
1. We can of course ignore them entirely. That doesn't work so well. I've tried it and I still end up attempting to reason with them. I know it is an exercise in futility, which leads me to #2.
2. The most effective thing one can always do in responding to any leftist position is to ask them for specifics. Specifics are something leftists have an enormous shortage of.
If they can support their positions with facts more power to them. I will acknowledge that I am wrong if they are able to provide convincing evidence. But leftists freak out when you try to pin them down with such inconvenient things as facts or specifics.
So instead of supporting arguments the left dips into its endless bag of insults and pull out, "Caribou Barbie", "Chimp","Racist Homophobe" and on and on and on. They are such warm, delightful people.
Best way to deal with the left is to ask them for specific material to back up their arguments. It makes them furious, but it is very effective.
So AFSMP - What are you fighting for in 50 words or less ?
Your diatribes against the right only show that you have a deep seeded loathing and would like to eliminate them. I would like to do similarly to the Progressives, but that is not realistic.
Your analysis about Kudlow has no basis - give us an example of how he is wrong so often. If anything Kudlow is over-optimistic. Was the guy on CNBC also full of it too ? I don't see your take getting much support except for the Progressives, who are retarded when it comes to analyzing the economy - they are Neo-Marxist when it comes to solving the problem. Newsflash: Socialism doesn't work. You are showing yourself to be one of them.
Here's graphical PROOF
this recession is hung around Obama's neck. You can thank That One, the Marxist Messiah, for the current economic ills of the nation.
No, you're not a whack job, you're just an ignorant Marxist partisan. Did you look at the graph? It's indisputable. The tanking of the markets is directly tied to Obama. Conclusively.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Many of us have a difficult time giving anyone credibility who regularly posts insulting, disrespectful, ad hominem attacks. Anonymously.
A vigorous public debate is essential to our republic. I've lived long enough to see idiocies promoted by both philosophical friends and foe. Indeed, I've promoted plenty of significant idiocies myself. That's why I love to hear differing points of view. It forces me to think and improve my thinking. "Iron sharpens iron" as the proverb says.
Facts, I would be willing to give you more credence and even respect if you would be willing to set aside the name-calling and personal attacks. They diminish no one but yourself.
Lay out your reasoning. State your case clearly and respectfully. And may the best ideas / solutions rise to the top.
Offering hope in dark times was one of FDR's greatest strengths. Reagan sounded a similar optimistic tone throughout his life as well. Therefore, I would love to hear President Obama sound a more hopeful note regarding our nation's future.
After all, it's his future too.
By the way, my comment on name calling and ad hominem attacks applies to EVERY ONE here.
I care deeply about our nation and our region and I have grown quite weary of the ongoing, back and forth, non-stop nastiness. Let's debate issues and solutions, not intentions, motives, and conspiratorial agendas. I can't read minds and I'm pretty darn sure no one else here can either.
The Shadow may know what lurks in the hearts of man, but he ain't talkin'.
Since we're all relatively equivalent ignoramuses then, would anyone else be willing to stand up for "civilized debate"?
This is a race for correlation, not causality.
Of course the Stimulus Plan will have nothing to do with the recovery. That will be accomplished by the business cycle. My guess is we'll be back in full swing by July.
So, the game is: who can claim credit for the recovery. Like witch doctors who want people to believe that their "magic cure" of having the patient rest for a week and drink lots of water cures the flu for the patient, Obama and the Democrats are pushing hard to get some of the stimulus money into the papers as fast as possible to beat the recovery.
Then they can say "oh, look at what the stimulus did".
But stimulus or no, the recovery will come sure as day...and when it does, the Democrats will look like the egregious tax and spenders that they really are.
So either way, I think the Republicans will be perceived as right.
"facts", be prepared for me and I suspect others, to challenge you. You need to be able to back up what you say here with actual citations. Talking about someone's anus might go over just fine on a liberal blog, but to use such language here confirms the cultural collapse liberals have engineered. You clearly don't have your "facts" at hand. You shouldn't have to frantically search for them.
And no, I don't believe for a minute that you own 3 businesses. I think you live with your parents and get paid by the DNC to write your "comments". You probably get paid to call talk radio, too. I notice Demo_kid scurries away as well when he's asked to support his arguments with hard data. Is it just too hard for you guys? Or do you just make things up. You're here to throw out the latest talking points with a few Sarah Palin and Larry Craig crude references thrown in for good measure. You guys are so talented and edgy.
Just a wild guess. I could be wrong but what other reason could exist for your wild, unsupported posts? Oh, perhaps you are just simply another young brainwashed socialist. I almost forgot. Know what brainwashed means "facts"? It means that your ability to think for yourself has been taken from you, and you don't realize it.
@17: "Scurries away"? Hardly. I have a job and a life, and while I can devote some time to providing a reasonable contrarian voice to the radical right-wingnuts here, I can't do everything.
Regarding "hard data", you don't really care for it either. Presenting one graph and claiming that the great gods of the stock market have spoken is not proof, it's more like tea-leaf reading. And never mind, of course, the failing banks and stagnant credit markets... it's ALL Obama's fault! OBS, all over again.
If you seriously believe that the president can affect the stock market in that way, you're more foolish than I thought. I can present all the data I want (and I have before!) but if you're not smart enough or if you're too much of a partisan hack, it won't really matter, will it? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him pass basic economics.
RE Bill @ 5
That's almost exactly what I wrote in my note to Maureen Dowd in reaction to one line..."We dutifully cut back on Starbucks macchiatos, designer water and even Girl Scout cookies, but we keep hurtling down." in todays column:
Yes "we keep hurtling down". Do you know why?
The dirty little secret (the one those of us that you elites (like presbambi) look down upon know) is that NO ONE can make us spend or invest.
There is a great wave of Americans who refuse to participate by opting out: we are not taking what little we have left in our investments but we sure as hell are not investing more: not more stocks, not IRA contributions, not even pitiful savings accounts. We are not BUYING. Presbambi wants us to go out and spend (Hey! Weren't you the one who excoriated GW for THAT message after 9/11??)... but presbambi can't FORCE us to spend.
We are taking OUR MONEY out of the equation. Let him try his grand and disgusting plans without us. We won't abdicate our responsibilities, we won't shirk our taxes, but we also won't play the game that he absolutely needs us to play. Presbambi is sending us a check... that is going right into the safe. Oh wait. He's not! He's giving us a whopping $13 per week of our own money back! Nope, we won't be buying Girl Scout Cookies with it... or anything else. We'll be hoarding CASH. Let's all see how the grand presbambi plan works without willing conspirators...and victims. Not as clever as he thinks, is he? AND the "markets" know this, hence the downward spiral every single time he opens his mouth.
Perhaps your NEXT story should be about how the voters got EXACTLY what they voted for ...and how well they like it.
What you need to do, Demo Kid, is be ready to back up your assertions. Don't whimper about having a job and a life as some sort of excuse for not being prepared for debate. Pathetic. If you want to be a "reasonable contrarian voice" you should be prepared to have some facts at your disposal. We can all pick up the New York Times and get the most recent talking points.
I haven't a clue what you are referring to when you mention some graph and the "great gods of the stock market".
I do have to love your whining about how the president suddenly has no effect on the market since he's a Democrat. If Bush was still president you'd likely have given yourself a hernia in your unrestrained glee that Bush "is destroying the market".
You leftists can't have it both ways, and now you are about to find that out.
Ragnar, hoarding capital will surely do one thing. It will put everyone we know out of work. What will we get as the economy ultimately collapses as a result? The left saying, "see, we told you capitalism was evil". Be very careful what you wish for.
On the brighter side Dowd's column shows her amazing confusion about the new Obama era. She darts all over the place like our cat does when he plays with our laser toy. She's totally freaked out and confused. She ends her column this way:
"Yet Obama is oozing empathy compared with his attorney general, who last week called us "a nation of cowards" about race.
Eric Holder, who showed precious little bravery in standing up to Clinton on a pardon for the scoundrel Marc Rich, is wrong. We have just inaugurated a black president who installed a black attorney general.
We need leaders to help us through our crises, not provide us with crude evaluations of our character. And we don't need sermons from liberal virtuecrats, anymore than from conservative virtuecrats.
In the middle of all the Heimlich maneuvers required now -- for the economy, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, health care, the environment and education -- we don't need a Jackson/Sharpton-style lecture on race. Barack Obama's election was supposed to get us past that.
Besides, the president has other issues that demand his passion."
I think the left is destroying itself before our eyes.
The best thing we can do is let them show us who they are. The worst thing we can do is to quit buying goods and services from our friends and neighbors. Seems pretty basic to me.
20. I'm sure Obama is loving (well, not really) being the latest president to hear "input" from Billy Clinton, who can't seem to stop himself from opening his yap and commenting on what he thinks all the other presidents are doing wrong....I think he being a narcissist actually believes he was a perfect president and that all other presidents after him are waiting with baited breath to her what he has to say.
21. The profanity comment above should be deleted on its face. But then again, it should be left up as a shining example of someone on the left conceding an argument before even making one. How does an enema apply to rational discussion?
Hey "facts" give us one lie Limbaugh has told, and support it with documentation. And don't use something he has said as humor. I want you to produce some real substance.
Bet you can't do it
This is straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
Saul Alinsky basically advises creating a crisis, which the Government can then ride in and "fix" like a knight on a white horse.
This negative-talk shouldn't surprise anybody. It is a combination of rules 1, 9, and 10.
This is straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
Saul Alinsky basically advises creating a crisis, which the Government can then ride in and "fix" like a knight on a white horse.
This negative-talk shouldn't surprise anybody. It is a combination of rules 1, 9, and 10.
You're wrong, and why is that NOT surprising! In fact, just take the last 10 years. In 1998 the average hourly wage - in 1982 dollars - was $7.80. In 2008, it was $8.64.
See, that's called a FACT and that's one that is REFERENCED too, with a hard link.
So you're wrong. Your claim is wrong. And once again anything you say is considered a lie because you don't back it up.
"Do you ever listen to Kudlow? He is fighting with every breath to keep the policies in place that caused this disaster, and have turned America from the largest creditor nation on the planet to the largest debtor nation in only 30 years."
In your imagination, No Facts. He is conservative, which bothers you - too bad. What you said is distorted and you will have a difficult time in proving it. I find him too optimistic and pay more attention to Bob Brinker, who is a moderate. Kudlow does believe in Supply side economics, which is opposite of Keynesian economics, which is what Obama subscribes to as did FDR.
Notoriously, Republicans are alleged to be the party of borrow and spend and Democrats were tax and spend, which has morphed into tax, borrow (Stimulus bill) and spend. A balanced budget amendment should have long since been passed by Congress. You with the big allegations toward the right and no problems with the left and credibility resides in the toilet until further notice.
Still waiting for all those Rush Limbaugh lies you referred to, "facts".
If you can't do that, and of course you can't, what little credibility you have left is dwindling away.
And no one is going to pay you $20 to verify claims you make, Mr. I have 3 businesses.
The DNC is going to can you if you can't do better than you are.
#27, exactly Angela. Hillary, and Obama grew up idolizing Alinsky...and Angela Davis, Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Che Guevarra, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh and the entire host of leftist heroes.
The open worship of these communists shocked me when I went to anti-war protests in the late '60's and early '70's. Holy cow I thought, where did all these communists come from? I didn't come here for this!
Thus began a long learning process. Needless to say, I get these people now. I used to live with some of them. The big question back then was do we "take to the streets" or do we "work within the system"? Obviously "work within the system" won out. Leftists control our media and our schools now.
The are making a huge grab for power on the back of a poor economy. I think they are miscalculating. It's a great thing. Now everyone gets to see them without their disguises.
Not a single specific citation of Limbaugh lying "facts"?
You simply don't know what you are talking about. You've been brainwashed by the left, probably since you were in pre-school.
If Limbaugh is such a big liar why can't you easily come up with examples?
I hope this exercise is causing you to do a bit of self-examination. One thing I am certain of is that you've never actually listened to Rush Limbaugh. Do you know what prejudice is?
Prejudice is judging people based on what you've been told without actual firsthand knowledge. Simply put it is pre-judging a person, or group of persons.
That's what you leftists do. When you attack Limbaugh or Fox News you really have no idea what you are talking about. But your prejudices, which flow from the leftist media, your teachers, your friends who of course all hold the same views you do, Hollywood biased people like Whoopi Goldberg, determine how you think. You don't have an open mind. You have been brainwashed.
Give us a single example of Rush Limbaugh "lying". You can't do it. The man is not a liar. He also quietly gives a great deal to charity. You might want to take some time to learn something about the real man instead of falling for a myth.
Shanghai Dan - interesting fact you list...what again are you trying to prove?
During the same 10 year period you report that "real wages" rose from $7.84 to $8.64 in constant dollars - about a 10% increase over that decade, non-farm labor productivity rose over 30% in the same time frame, averaging 2.5% per year.
So, average wages slid significantly measured against overall labor productivity gains.
Is that what you intended to prove?
31. #32 - Kudlow is a conservative - which proves that you don't know jack. You sound like a neo-Marxist. As for the rest, call up someone who cares. YAWN.
32. #32 - YAWN. Anyone who pays attention to Bathtub boy Olberman has atrophied in the brain beyond help.
Factless claimed in post 24 that male workers' wages slid; no references provided. The facts show that real income has been rising, and I provided a reference.
Your reference about the productivity increase?
34. That Obama honestly thinks he can engineer a way out of this through bailouts and redistribution is telling. There are a lot of Democrats, who pay their mortgage on time, who are not going to very impressed with the subsidies for those who default.
35. So now Obama wants to take over the banks...It's know wonder the stock market keeps tanking.
@1: Great quote - Larry Kudlow is a fool who has been wrong, wrong and wrong.
@2: Little Ricky D. - You would not know a recession if it hit you in the head - you have been wrong so often you would not know right if it hit you on the side of the head.
Ricky D. said early last summer: "The economy IS sound." Yup, you're a fool and wrong to boot.
Oh, and @11, Shanghai Dan - thanks for the graph, now go back to third grade and learn some economics. You could not interpret anything mathmatically if you tried.
Your "proof" just shows how ignorant you are. Do you think Obama overtaking McCain in the primary has ANYTHING to do with the stock market falling?
Are you really THAT STUPID that you forgot about the banking crisis brought on by the regulatory failures of Phil Gramm and Bush?
Wow, what passes for discourse on here is at the level of third grade partisan hacks.
Kudlow is a dogmatic maniac whose frothing at the mouth about things he doesn't begin to understand is painful to watch. His guests and the rest of the staff openly laugh whenever he goes mental because he has zero substance behind his tin eared bleating. He is a clown. This morning the fool called all of the people bleeding money in the housing market "losers," implying the taxpayers who would be bailing them out are "winners." He has no idea they are one in the same.
Like a lot of other public figures mistaken for conservatives, he's for government intervention when it increases the portfolio value, and against it when it doesn't. There is no higher guiding principle behind the mouth.
"correctnotright" please cite specifically the "regulatory failures" of Gramm and Bush. What specifically did they put in place that caused the "banking crisis".
Be specific as to cause and effect. Otherwise one might indeed think that we are having a discourse here on a third grade level.
Hey, your Marxist Messiah came out today trumpeting a new direction - PAYGO. And the market promptly dropped.
Guess what - people actually LISTEN to the words spoken, learn the motives behind them, and then react accordingly. The market started dropping when it was clear that the man proclaiming that it was time to tax and spend and redistribute wealth took the lead.
If you're such a bad investor that you do not follow what the politicians - the ones who control the taxation and apparently now the nationalization of industries - then you deserve to lose every penny you have.
Now about your charge:
banking crisis brought on by the regulatory failures of Phil Gramm and Bush?
What law did Phil Gramm create that brought about the failures? And what law did President Bush sign that brought on those failures?
Be specific, or be shown to be a fraud.
Exactly Dan. We have to hold these peoples' feet to the fire and make them back up the talking points with specifics. Once they are challenged it is amazing how they disappear. Even better, it forces them to actually examine their beliefs. And maybe once in a great while one of them will suddenly go, "gee, we really are full of baloney". I don't expect any miracles, lefties are not real good at admitting they are wrong.
The rhetoric of "correctnotright" is so eerily familiar. Why he sounds so much like "Acid Brain", "Demo_kid", "facts" and a host of other leftist trolls.
Isn't it interesting that none of the leftist trolls that live under the bridge here at S/P post with a real name? Nah, it just must be a coincidence!
41. Well if NEVER correct would like to look up the video. He could see the Bush people being slammed about fixing Freddie & Frannie. It's what a 2004 or 2006 vid. They tried what twice to bring the problem under cnotrol and both times were smeared and called liars.
Shanghai Dan - my reference was the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Productivity and Costs, Productivity change in the non-farm business sector 1947-2008 - you'll see they break it out into fairly odd groupings of years - but for 1995-2008 the average annual percentage change was 2.5% - making the comparison to your slice of years easy.
You'll see that I ignored the manufacturing sector, because in part I believed it to be a subset of the information I quoted and in part because this sector had even more significant gains in the years you quoted - and I didn't want to seem like I was piling on...
I'd have been faster at responding, but I have a business to attend to.