New Fox News Op-ed: The Democrat's Recession
My newest piece at Fox News begins this way:
Since Barack Obama’s election, the market has fallen for six of the eight days since Obama’s win. The Dow Jones Industrial average has fallen from 9,625 to 8,497, a 12 percent decline. The NASDAQ and S&P 500 have experienced similar declines.
The Wall Street Journal and others have labelled the drop the “Barack Market,” reflecting the higher taxes on everything from capital gains and dividends to income and increased regulations. They are right, but they are thinking much too narrowly. Much, if not all, of any recession and economic problems is due to Democrat policies.
The media focuses on the drop in housing prices, consumer purchases, or stock prices as the cause of economic problems, problems that they view as unrelated to Democrat policies. . . .
posted by John Lott at 11:57 AM
27 Comments:
Hmmm, the last/latest thing on Fox News Channel web site is the following: Minnesota Ripe for Election Fraud dated Mon. Nov. 10, '08...
Meanwhile Sen. Inhofe is less than pleased the way this bailout is bailing out certain entities: Roll Back the Bailout
The following is from the Tulsa World: "It is just outrageous that the American people don't know that Congress doesn't know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone,'' the Oklahoma Republican told the Tulsa World.
"It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.''
This is rich, Obama has not even taken office yet and already they are calling it "Obama's Recession". Give me a break! This economic situation was in motion long before Obama even considered running for the presidency. Who are you people trying to fool. Comments such as this didn't work during the election and why should they be taken seriously now.
It is just amazing. Obama hasn't even taken office yet and they have the audacity to blame him for the financial crisis. Why don't we blame him for the previous recessions as well while we are at it. Why don't we blame him for the financial institutions and automotive industry problems. Give me a break! These problems were long in motion even before Obama even decided to run for office.
Succinct appraisal of a sticky situation. Too me, the whole mess speaks more to the bankrupt nature of our system for identifying leadership. Both main parties are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Barack is not an answer, he's the final symtpom of a sickness. The irony is galling: foment a crisis, blame the other guy, get elected and dominate both houses.
Are you saying that the proposals offered by politicians actually impact the economy before the politicians get even elected? Your nuts.
John, any chance you'll do an article or post on the Clinton administration, outlining the myth that Clinton had anything to do with the economic surge we had?
There seems to be a myth out there that Clinton was this great economic genius, when in fact, it had little to do with him, all about cutting capital gains taxes, the Internet boom and welfare reform to name a few.
Republican economics have been disproven by any thorough, objective measure many times over.
Some years it seems to work if one looks at the data while wearing special filtering goggles (1983 thru mid 1990 is often put forth, when median GDP rose around 3.8% per quarter, and also 2.7% for 2001 to 2006. On the surface of it good to great numbers. Revenues generally increased also, but not at the rate often given when adjusted for inflation. Revenues unfortunately decreased 2001 to 2003, the reverse of the Repub prediction for Tax Cut I).
But of course the elephant in the room is the fact that in all cases they grew the economy on credit, on borrowed money, by ungodly increases in deficit spending. Reagan doubled the national debt in his two terms, same for Bush. These increases were greater than the debt incurred by all other presidents combined.
Neither Reagan nor Bush meaningfully cut government spending, largely because that's the hard part/impossible side of supply-side economics. None of this debt has been paid-off, and probably won't be in our or our children's lifetime.
The bottom line is the Repub approach of "cut taxes" to stimulate the economy, coupled with their promise of fiscal prudence and balanced budgets never has been done, hever has worked in the real world. And human nature being what it is never will.
Look at these websites for the actual hard data and facts: Congressional Budget Office's historical data,the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Please back up your claim that Henry Paulson is a Democrat. A little research leads me to believe that this claim is at best a stretch, and possibly just an outright lie.
Dear Rich:
Why don't you simply follow the link that I have in the piece for evidence for your question?
Dear John,
Certainly the democrats' desire to provide home ownership was overdone. Just as certainly, Bush regime decision not to regulate an industry that had the capability of bringing down our credit system was equally stupid. Moreover, Bush's decision to increase domestic spending while prosecuting a trillion $ war and cutting taxes was indefensable. And where were the lookouts in this adminsitration? Were the treasury department, Fed and SEC so inept that they couldn't see the worst catastrophe in our lifetime even days before it happened? There's plenty of blame to go around. Don't put it all at the democrats' doorstep.
Dear John,
Have you conviniently forgotten that the Bush administration cut taxes while prosecuting a trillion $ war and increasing domestic spending? Have you forgotten that no one in the Bush administration had the competence to see this catastrophe coming (isn't that what Treasury and Fed are there for)? Have you forgotten that Bush administration decided not to regulate the industry that had the ability to bring down our credit system? Do you think these issue were not equally to blame? A mess this big takes a breakdown of leadership and responsibilty from every direction. Don't be so childish as to call it the democrats' recession. It's beneath you.
I have never read such lying fear-inspiring partisan dribble in my lifetime. John Lott has no leg to stand on here. This disaster has been EIGHT years in the making, not two! He claims every recession is the dems fault when in REAL LIFE it's the dems that have to get the country out of republican messes. It's been PROVEN that "free" markets are never free. It's akin to Marxism in that way. It sounds great on paper, but is an utter disaster that leads to dictatorship (*cough* Bush *cough*). Reaganomics has ALSO been PROVEN to be a disaster in practice. The trickle down is nothing more than the rich hosing the middle and lower classes. There is no monetary trickle effect. Period. John Lott should do the world a favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
OK, John. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I'll accept all the blame for the collapse of the stock market, the shattered economy, etc, if ... you go on record right now and state that if by the end of Obama's administration the stock market has recovered and the economy is growing, YOU'LL give President Obama and the Democrats all of the praise.
Put up or shut up.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. I'm glad you pointed out how the economics haven't improved after the election of what democrats are calling "The Messiah", B. Hussein Obama. I was just talking to someone about the Democrat's Recession, and she was telling me that I should be happy because my economic situation will improve under Obama, and my life really wouldn't change all that much in the meantime. And then I explained to her that the stock market is still crashing affecting my 401K and IRAs, people are getting laid off or having hours cut back at my company (could be me next), my husband owns a small business that depends on developers who are not building because of the housing market so we will have less and less income, and eventually we could lose our house as a result. Yah, my life will be better off with Obama? What a load of liberal b.s. I'm with 'scooteraz' on the Clinton article too. Libs are always telling me how great Clinton's economic policies were and how he was such a great president because of it. You need to clear the record and explain how was the policies of George Bush (senior) that gave Clinton the ERA of "economic surge". Thanks for your article.
Dear MRT:
"Bush regime decision not to regulate an industry that had the capability of bringing down our credit system was equally stupid"?
Ugh? What are you talking about? What regulations did you want that the Dems were supposedly pushing for? Bush tried to take care of Freddie and Fannie, but the Dems wouldn't let that come up for a vote in the Senate several different times. As I note, the changes that Obama proposed would have made things much worse.
The solution would have been do get rid of some of the regulations, not impose new ones. Everything from new regulations on accounting to mandates that the mortgages have to be giving to risky borrowers were problems created by government regulation.
Also, you can't blame the fact that the markets haven't changed since the election on the dems either. They're not GOING to change yet. That's why this is called a "Lame Duck" session. It took years to get to this point anyways, why do you expect IMMEDIATE results? Nothing is going to change until February '09 at the EARLIEST ... and more likely it'll take up to (if not more than) a year to see some serious results.
Has everyone here forgotten about Barney Frank, and his role in all of this?
Eh, I thought you hateful separatists would at least wait till Obama was actually president before you blamed him for this ungodly mess that Bush put us in. I guess I underestimated your ignorance and short-sightedness.
But I have to say that I particularly like the part about those poor poor lenders that were forced to make all that money by giving high-interest, adjustable rate loans to as many buyers that would unwittingly fall for it. Those poor lenders! Yes, it's the Dems fault for making them practice fair lending practices that they subsequently took too far. The nerve of those liberal bastards!
We have some massive fundamental issues on a macroeconomic scale that is hitting America hard. The dems both passed it or encouraged it. America suffers from a huge trade deficit, passed by BILL CLINTON - set our dollar at a lower value BEFORE Bush was elected. The wealth inequality grew huge during the Clinton administration, and we experienced quite a bit of inflation. Anyone who knew this and thought our economy was in great shape like most democrats don't understand economics. I'm young, but I wasn't old enough to be served the "dot com" koolaid, age and timing had everything to do if you could benefit from the dot com thing. Anyone who thinks that Clinton is responsible for the dot com success doesn't understand the fundamentals of economics. The deficit sends ALl of the dot com profits out of the country, to China.
Clinton also passed deregulation. As did Cummings, Dodd and Pelosi- the three dems most famous for throwing stones. This is as ridiculous as Charles Manson accusing his accomplices of the whole murder. The bailout shouldn't be happening.
America has so much wealth. Americans make this country great, it's never the politicians. It's really scary how the American people have no control over what happens. The government can't regulate correctly because they're all only concerned about special interests. Set efficient regulation, then get the government completely out of economic affairs. They dont' know what they're doing.
Especially that Obama guy. He has already talked about Windfall taxes and Guarenteed Retirement Accounts, both would be HORRIBLE moves during a credit crunch. He won't fix the fundamentals. He's already discussing biofuels but not wealth retention, trade barriers and the like. If Volcker gets his way, put your money into an interest earning CD.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad. It actually sounds like Mr. Lott believes this foolishness.
No one forced the banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. Blaming the Democrats and Obama for the lack of oversight from 94 to 06 is ridiculous. Pretending that the problem was the inability to charge outrageous interest is simply blind.
The surprising thing for me, is how folks like Mr. Lott can actually fool themselves into believing this stuff.
The Dems and their regulations (or lack thereof) forced the banks to lend to risky borrowers? Really? In the two years that they've had very weak control of Congress? Please explain your odd theory.
"Have you conviniently forgotten that the Bush administration cut taxes while prosecuting a trillion $ war and increasing domestic spending? Have you forgotten that no one in the Bush administration had the competence to see this catastrophe coming (isn't that what Treasury and Fed are there for)?"
First, the Bush tax cuts resulted in the highest ever income for the fed, which helps with things like funding the war. I don't defend Bush's spending (the fed spends twice what it did 8 years ago), but the tax policy is solid.
Second, the Bush administration called for more banking oversight where the sub-prime market was concerned (as did Sen. McCain) and was shot down by Democrats. Including one Barry Obama.
The fact is, Obama was elected largely in response to an economic crisis which he helped to create.
FountainheadZero
Come to the dark side.
Please dont embarrass the University of Maryland with your overly biased opinions.
The markets usually react to the past
& are slow to predict the future.
Barack Obama was elected to save your white arse from some pissed off depressed black fella.
Count your blessing !!
It's sad how demeaning you folks have to be toward our President-Elect. B. Hussein Obama? Barry Obama? How truly pathetic that the only ammunition you have against him is his name. His father stuck him with Hussein. That says nothing about who he is. While a teen, he tried to fit in a bit more by going by Barry instead of Barack. He's no longer ashamed of that, so is back to Barack. That says nothing negative about him either.
Blaming the Democrats for the economy is foolish. They have had weak control of Congress for only two years, after 14 years of Republican dominance. The stock market tanked more before the election than after, so pretending that it's in response to Obama's election is lying to yourself.
I agree with John 100 percent. It is not logical to believe that our financial meltdown is due to the $5000/minute war, monster foreign deficit, disgraceful lending practices or any of the other financial tactics us Republicans have used over the years. It HAS to be the threat of a Democratic president. What else could it be?
A perfectly fine example of how Democrat policies place ideology over common sense business practices, and all in the name of getting votes.
The market, now facing a President Elect, who does have a proven far left agenda, reacts to the possibility of even more unsound policies and the media ignores this in favor of what? More stories that deflect criticism away from those who created this mess? Why?
The responses here, almost relect the Media responses. Attacks, deflections, and an almost complete disavowal of the causes.
If in fact Dr. Lott is incorrect about his observations, I'd like to see proof. As for his opinion in this matter, there is nothing that I can see that exists to disprove it.
I may be wrong, but I must ask this; Where's the beef?
Obviously you persist in making the same mistake over and over again... you take a very narrow slice of data and insist that correlation is the same thing as causation.
Actually, I think we can be pretty certain now that this is not a mistake... it's a deliberately fraudulent argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home