With Obama's approval rating hovering around 60%, one could argue that this "honeymoon" is still going strong. But what exactly has he done to deserve this extended love affair (except that he is not George Bush)?

Fox News just did a comparison of past Presidents approval ratings at this point in their administration. Turns out in 2001 George W. Bush's approval rating was 63% compared to 62% for Obama. Get this, Jimmy Carter topped the chart with a 70% approval rating and we all know what a failure he turned out to be.

Bottom line: It's too early at this point in ANY administration to judge it.

Let's not forget his tone deafness. 650,000 people lost jobs last month while he parties every wednesday night with friends eating $100 per lb. steaks.

I wonder if Obama is better suited to serve on the Detroit city council.

He can't fail fast enough for me. The sooner this embarrasment of an incompetent Marxist is gone, the sooner we can begin to undo the danage.

With luck, the Secular/Progressives who have co-opted the term liberal will be so discredited as to remain in the wilderness for decades.

With Obama's approval rating hovering around 60%

It hasn't been as low as 60% since November, and it certainly hasn't "hovered" there.

And most damaging of all, his handling of the economy has been an unmitigated disaster.

America disagrees with you:

The vast majority of Americans, 84%, think the current economic conditions were inherited and not caused by President Barack Obama.... Further, the majority of respondents don't believe Obama will be viewed as responsible for the economy's state until much later in his term.

And in an attempt to divert his failures, he bandies wits with a private citizen, Rush Limbaugh, who is not only making Obama look like a fool

Once again, America disagrees:

The skirmish has cast a bright light on the GOP and its search for leadership in the Obama era. But the personality-driven diversion has deflected attention from the deeper problems the party faces.

Simply put, the public isn't buying what Republicans are selling right now.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll this past week put Republican popularity at near historic lows. Just 26 percent in the survey viewed the party positively, compared with 68 percent for President Barack Obama, despite the economic crisis and sharp GOP criticism of his $3.8 trillion budget plan.

Republicans trailed by more than a 30-point margin on the question of which party is best positioned to end the recession.

Shorter Shawn: "Black is white. Hitler!"

".....passing spending bills which have totaled a staggering $2 trillion"

Make that 2.9 trillion after making a commitment to give 900 billion to Palestine.

ODA315,

The Chicago Sun-Times reported yesterday that the recent wave of new unemployment has hit blacks hardest. To me, this is a fascinating story because he is "their President", yet I wonder if the press will report this as a women and minorities hardest hit story, as I would expect if Obama was a white Republican president.

Oh dear goodness gracious!

Perhaps clutching your pearls and taking some Oxycodin will rest your nerves.

marc,

I think it was $900 million, but these days, who can tell the difference?

Pssst brian.... What does 84% of Americans believing barack hussein obama inherited the recession to do with how he's handled the problem since taking office?

My thoughts on Barry is: Tick, tick, tick. Only a matter of time. He came into office on top. Nowhere to go but down. ww

It is all very bizarre. Embarrassing, really.

I give him a week before the impeach train starts rolling, perhaps prior to a mental breakdown.

ML - Thanks for the correction, kinda put on display how easy it is to confuse such large numbers doesn't it?

don't forget that he's now over-whelmed and tired too. i only pray that we can stop this fool before all the money is spent and the private sector vanishes. although that would mean that a sufficient number of the obamatons wise up and put down their bongs long enough to realize that putting a community organizer with no experience and lifetime ties to marxists in the White House was not a good idea. i'm not hopeful.

Psssst....brian:

Could 56 percent of people who "somewhat approve" of obama's performance so far be classified as "hovering" around 60%

hmmm...65% of Americans think that the Republicans were in charge of Congress the last two years. Naturally the Dems and their MSM pals did NOTHING to disuade them in that thinking!

But as the 2010 elections roll around even the dimmest bulbs will realize it was the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Regime that got them wherever it is we wind up.

Can the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Regime throw enough money around between now and then to stay in power? Dunno. Just this week Obama's Budget Director tried to claim Obama is saving "$1.6 TRILLION by not funding surge levels of troops through 2019".

How many MSM'ers picked up on utter horseshit?? Almost none!

But although the MSM gives Obama a pass on imaginary "savings", and laps up his flim-flam regarding imaginary "income" (way past Rosy "green economy" projections) the American people are ready to revoke that "pass".

jp2 -

I don't think he's done anything to be impeached for YET, aside from being clumsy, self-centered, and economically and diplomatically stupid.

The mental breakdown? Well, if he feels he's got to get out of the office SOMEHOW, then that'll be a sympathy move.

But that leaves us with President Biden. Which could well be worse.

Tune in for tomorrow's post:

Obama's Non-Impeachment the Result of MSM/Liberal Bias

And the day after tomorrow:

White House Silent on Obama Impending Impeachment

The next day:

Obama's Birth Certificate Sill a Mystery

Pssst brian.... What does 84% of Americans believing barack hussein obama inherited the recession to do with how he's handled the problem since taking office?

Because it didn't say "the recession". It said "current economic conditions". Surely "his handling of the economy" as Shawn derides has impact on current economic conditions.

Psst... I see you have as much of a problem understanding words as you do large numbers.

Marc:

Re # 9, since the point of Mr Mallow's post is that he defies anyone to deem Obama's performance successful, or even acceptable, Brian's comment that 84% of Americans believe the problems were inherited is quite relevant, as is the belief by a majority that it will be at least a year before the blame is his.

The vast majority of Americans realize Obama inherited a hell of a mess, and, unlike some regular Wizbang commenters, are smart enough to know it couldn't possibly have been fixed in 7 weeks. Or even begun to have been fixed. There's your relevance.

Psssst....brian:
Could 56 percent of people who "somewhat approve" of obama's performance so far be classified as "hovering" around 60%

Do you mean, can you take a time-trend analysis average of multiple data points, pick the single lowest data point gathered recently, and then project that backwards in time, superseding all other data, to establish a "hover" around that low data point?

Pssst... no.

"The vast majority of Americans realize Obama inherited a hell of a mess, and, unlike some regular Wizbang commenters, are smart enough to know it couldn't possibly have been fixed in 7 weeks. Or even begun to have been fixed. There's your relevance."

Bruce,

You may be right that the situation couldn't be fixed in 7 weeks.

But it sure as hell can be made worse..

You say that Obama's "ability to govern...has become a surprising disappointment."

Uh...not surprising to those of us who (reluctantly, I admit) supported McCain.

Shawn to Bruce: "You may be right that the situation couldn't be fixed in 7 weeks.
But it sure as hell can be made worse.."

EXACTLY!

And not only is he making the short-term worse, he is putting a long-term hurt on our children and grandchildren.

Obama "inherited" a $500 BILLION deficit. Within 4 weeks he had created a $1.5 TRILLION deficit for 2009. And the year is young!

If you hit a patch of black-ice while driving along a wintry road you may not be able to avoid damaging your car no matter what you do. But you certainly DON'T STEP ON THE GAS at that moment either!

The current mess that we are in was started by the Reid/Pelosi cabal in the House and Senate. They started this mess the day they introduced the raise in the minimum wage and it has gone downhill from there. Guess what folks, these people have had control of the Legislative branch since Jan 2007. Now they blame the previous administration for the mess.

Now that the "Messiah" has taken over, the economy is an unmitigated disaster and will continue to be so as long as the Dems control two of the three branches. They will continue to spend like drunken sailors, until all of the American people have risen and say enough is enough.

True, the Republicans have contributed to this fiscal mess, but at least they are listening to the people that voted for them - albeit barely. It is time for the people that are supposed to be working for us, to realize that they need to listen to their bosses and stop this shit. In the real world, people get fired for their incompetency and I don't see why we have to feed them any more.

Bruce

""The vast majority of Americans realize Obama inherited a hell of a mess, and, unlike some regular Wizbang commenters, are smart enough to know it couldn't possibly have been fixed in 7 weeks. Or even begun to have been fixed. There's your relevance."

And 9 months from now you will be saying

"The vast majority of Americans realize Obama inherited a hell of a mess, and, unlike some regular Wizbang commenters, are smart enough to know it couldn't possibly have been fixed in 11 MONTHS. Or even begun to have been fixed. There's your relevance."

The bad part is we have to get to Hillary to even get to someone halfway competent.

That's right, Stan, raising the freaking minimum wage, which hadn't been raised for 10 YEARS, is what caused the meltdown.

Riiiiigghhtt.

I can just guess what you'll be saying if there IS progress in 9 months, Mr Retired Military guy.

"Unemployment back down to 6%? Why isn't it lower? Foreclosure rates down? Why are there any at all? Dow back to 8500? Why isn't it 10,000?"

Am I right? Or am I, like you, just guessing?

If you recall about 12-24 months ago, the markets were in the neighborhood of 11K to 13K and unemployment in the 4-6% range,and the Pelosi, Reid, et al, cabal was screaming how "we're in a recession! they're all McJobs!".
This is called a self fulfulling prophecy. They have reaped what they have sown. It is known wherefrom this came. The CRA. Fannie, Freddie, Barney, Maxine, Chris, Chuck... Don't think for a minute that we aren't trying to inform and engage that percentage that was well meaning but gullible during that charade of a campaign.
The buyers' remorse crowd is growing and informing itself too.
The assaults on the Constitution, The playground diplomacy, the retreads, the unvetted, the sidling up to enemies, all are being marked.

Bruce Henry: [in 9 monhts] "Unemployment back down to 6%"

Actualy unemployment will most likely be in the mid-teens. However, since they claim "$1.6 TRILLION" in "savings" based on NOT funding the surge through 2019...they just may come up with a "creative" way to view unemployment.

I would not put it past the Obama Regime to count as "EMPLOYED" those receiving welfare...
"They are employed caring for their families..."

dammit...I think I just gave them an idea!

Bruce

Actually in about 9 months I expect to be saying:

President Biden is my President and I will give him a chance.

And 9 months from now you will be saying
"The vast majority of Americans realize Obama inherited a hell of a mess, and, unlike some regular Wizbang commenters, are smart enough to know it couldn't possibly have been fixed in 11 MONTHS. Or even begun to have been fixed."

Who needs to wait 9 months? Seventy-nine percent (i.e., the vast majority) of Americans already think that it can't be fixed in 11 months. They give Obama a year or more before they consider him responsible.

Only 2% will blame him for it even within 6 months. Congratulations for being in the 2%.

But where Clinton at least had the smarts and awareness to realize he needed to "use" the Republicans to advance his agenda, Obama seems not to have that desire, or more appropriately, political adeptness.

Yeah, that really worked out for Clinton on healthcare reform didn't it? Republicans took over the House in 1994 and spent his second term wasting the country's time on impeachment while emboldening Hussein to kick out the UN inspectors and Milosevic to try his hand again at genocide in Kosovo.

Never mind the fact that in a recession bordering on depression these days when private sector demand has collapsed and the federal government is the only entity big enough to jump start the economy damn near every leader of the Republican party is calling for less government spending in a Hooverite burst of insanity that rightly leaves them on the sidelines.

You let us know when you're going to drop the failed policies of the last 30 years: the tax cuts for the rich; the deregulation of everything you can get your hands on, especially the financial markets; and the utter disdain and disregard for government other than the Defense Dept., and the American people might listen to what you have to say. Until then you have no credibility.

I remember the days of James Earl Carter all too well.

And yes, the Dems will spin wildly to obsfucate double digit unemployment. In the Carter era there was much talk that 6% unemployment was 'structural' and could never be eliminated. So therefore 6 % should be subtracted from whatever current unemployment figures were being discussed.

You'll see variations on that theme by mid-term elections.

markg8

No one EVER worked for a poor man.

Acorn and the shills for the CRA forced this on the financial markets.
The defense industry provides high function jobs and massive income tax revenue whilst protecting us and our military.

However, since they claim "$1.6 TRILLION" in "savings" based on NOT funding the surge through 2019...they just may come up with a "creative" way

Ah, I see you got the latest right-wing talking point memo. The fact is that including military ramp-downs in budget reductions is not "creative", it's standard practice. Including when Bush 41 did the same thing.

SSDD (for those that are less informed, "Same Shit, different day"

the shills for the CRA forced this on the financial markets.

Another right-wing myth. Debunked.

Hey, where's all the comment police chastising these people for changing the subject?

Propaganda. Another fine liberal institution.

Barney/Maxine: "Fannie & Freddie are fine"
Fed. Reg.

Bruce

That's right, Stan, raising the freaking minimum wage, which hadn't been raised for 10 YEARS, is what caused the meltdown.

I hope your brain can pick up on the fact, that during the time that the minimum wage was stable, we had people working and contributing to the tax rolls, thus supplying the necessary revenue to keep the government's bills paid.

The layoffs started when the Reid/Pelosi cabal passed the raise and have continued since. You may not realize it, but a company's largest expense is wages and the people who earn them are the first to go when a company cuts expenses.

Another thing here that most people don't realize, is that every union contract is based on the minimum wage, plus a certain percentage point depending on what the union feels is a nice rip off sum from the company. Of course, the unions would love to see the minimum wage go up to $12/hour or more, so they can extort more money for themselves.

Obama is a farce. And that's putting it politely. Give him more time? To do what? More damage?

Check back with you 'Bamabots in August. He'll have been in office six months. Will you still be blaming Bush?

Want to lay any bets that unemployment will be 10+% and the DOW around 4500 by the end of the year?

For everybody except Starkist employees

Markg
"the deregulation of everything you can get your hands on, especially the financial markets"

Ah the old deregulation of the banks mime from the left.

Tell you what MarkG.

Find me ONE PIECE OF BANKING DEREGULATION LEGISLATION WHILE BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.

Just one will do.

Markg

MIght want to take a gander here before you waste a lot of time.

http://www.qando.net/?p=1208#comments

Restaurants are one industry where labor costs are NOT the largest expense. Usually food cost is. I'm sure there are others.

When the minimum wage was "stable", as you put it, living costs continued to rise. How long should the minimum wage have remained "stable?" Until healtcare costs, rents, utility bills, and grocery prices quadrupled? Quintupled?

If your wage remained stagnant for 10 years, what do you think would happen to your productivity?

If your wage remained stagnant for 10 years, what do you think would happen to your productivity?

Time to improve myself and find more lucrative employment.

markg8 - "Yeah, that really worked out for Clinton on healthcare reform didn't it? Republicans took over the House in 1994 and spent his second term wasting the country's time on impeachment while emboldening Hussein to kick out the UN inspectors and Milosevic to try his hand again at genocide in Kosovo."

Um, no. Actually working with the reps in office at the time Clinton signed sweeping changes in welfare reform.

On Aug. 22, 1996, after vetoing two earlier versions, I signed welfare reform into law. At the time, I was widely criticized by liberals who thought the work requirements too harsh and conservatives who thought the work incentives too generous. Three members of my administration ultimately resigned in protest. Thankfully, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill because they thought we shouldn't be satisfied with a system that had led to intergenerational dependency.

Brian: "Ah, I see you got the latest right-wing talking point memo. The fact is that including military ramp-downs in budget reductions is not "creative", it's standard practice. Including when Bush 41 did the same thing."

Nice try, Brian (actually, it wasn't)

Bush 41 was looking to re-structure the entire defense budget based on the Cold War essentially being over. So going from a Cold-War footing to one without it would require different funding.

I watched the testimony as Obama's Budget Director pretended ANYONE ELSE would have kept the surge levels EXACTLY AS THEY WERE AT THEIR HEIGHT (which they aren't even now)...for 10 more years! Then he claimed Obama had the wisdom NOT to do this...and thus could claim all that money!

Pretty cool. If they need 3 Trillion dollars more in savings, they can simply claim that McCain would have paved the entire Interstate Highway system in GOLD!! Cost: $3 Trillion!! But since Obama is wise enough NOT to pave the Interstate Highway system in GOLD: ta da...$3 Trillion in savings!!

Gonna be a "fun" 4 years for you Brian. If Obama says: "I have now made sea-water drinkable...go forth my people and drink it" are you gonna do it? Oh hell yes!

bh - "If your wage remained stagnant for 10 years, what do you think would happen to your productivity?"

I'd call myself lazy, a dumb sum bitch for flipping burgers for so long.

Um, yes. August 12, 1996 was near the end of Clinton's FIRST term. He was re-elected a few months later.

Thanks for pointing out that Bill Clinton was able to work with cooperative members of the opposition to achieve some bipartisan goals. Perhaps if the present opposition would cooperate a little something could be done.

Also, I appreciate you giving props to Clinton for adopting policies that reflected the realitiies of the day, something that President Obama is also doing.

"I'd call myself lazy, a dumb sum bitch for flipping burgers for so long."

Ah, yes, the Self-Proclaimed Self-Made Men of Wizbang, always assuming that those who earn a minimum wage at an honest job are lazy, dumb sumbitches. I'm sure some are lazy dumb sumbitches, but I'm pretty sure lots of them are hardworking men and women doing the best they can.

Of course, we have no way to verify if you economic He-men are really He-men. We only have your word for it on the subject of your own awesomeness.

Brian mixed two sources and claimed both were the WSJ blog. His second quote actually came from an MSNBC story. The giveaway was this line: "Simply put, the public isn't buying what Republicans are selling right now." A line like that should never appear in a news story and if you go back and find the story, that line has been deleted.

The WSJ has a different slant than MSNBC. The WSJ notes that while Obama may be personally popular, his policies are not so much. It is a short step from unpopular policies to unpopular President.

Brian should also bestir himself to go look at the actual poll. Among other things, he would find that poll significantly over samples Obama voters. Obama voters would be more reluctant to change their opinion this quickly. But, rest assured Brian, that Obama is on the cusp. Between foreign policy fiascoes such as Gordon Brown, an inability to vet and push toward confirmation high level positions in his administration, and calls starting for the resignation of "Tiny" Tim Geithner, Obama doe not have a lot of time. The longer he continues to look inept and tired, the more quickly will come his undoing. This is not 1933. There is a lot more information flowing around the country than FDR had to deal with.

The poll results are at: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NewsPoll_030309.pdf

A hint for Brian. Never, never trust a reporters take on a poll. Go look at it yourself and pay particular attention to the internals. it would be easy to make a case this poll overstates Obama's popularity by 5-7%.

Rick

I am so tired of people in government with money trying to set policy. Sure the economy has hurt them, but not a much as the middle and lower classes. They talk to us but have no idea how we are hurting. They empathize with us. Big deal.

He is bankrupting our nation while "talking down" the economy, mentally imprinting the word "crisis" into our brains.

Well, he is certainly hasn't acted independently. The Democrats sure took the opportunity to author the most massive of spending packages in history. And lest you Republicans start feeling good about yourselves, let me remind you that you don't seem to have much of a problem with your side piling earmarks on the pig pile. Just because they didn't vote for it, doesn't make them look any less complicit. In fact, I'd say that the Repulicans appear hypocritical.

And in an attempt to divert his failures, he bandies wits with a private citizen, Rush Limbaugh

I disagree. I think it's been a masterful stroke by bringing to light that the Republicans got nothing. Don't get me wrong, I am firmly in the camp that Obama's lead to the left will be a disater for this country. So, you'd think think this represents a tremendous opportunity for the Republicans, right? Well, you'd be wrong. Instead of leading, they're just following and bitching about it all the way. In the meantime, a bloviating neocon like Limbaugh emerges as a de facto leader of the GOP. Why not? Nobody is else is stepping into the vacuum with true conservative principles. The GOP is toast and that's really too bad, since the Democrats continue the march to socialism unopposed like Sherman through Atlanta. Each instance is sad.

So, do you like what the neocons have wrought? You can fix it by ceasing to behave like victims and crying about Obama. Start concentrating on how to fix the GOP, because you will continue to lose if you allow the neoconsertives to remain in control. Take a deep breath and recognize that education must precede activism. Spend some time with Russel Kirk and F.A. Hayek and learn how divergent we are from the Founders legacy because of the hegemony of the statists in both parties. Maybe you'll begin to understand that it doesn't much matter if the Democrats or Republicans are in control. The result is the same.

bh - "Ah, yes, the Self-Proclaimed Self-Made Men of Wizbang, always assuming that those who earn a minimum wage at an honest job are lazy, dumb sumbitches"

Reality stretched and pops like a cheap circus balloon. Lets review what I did say:

"I'd call myself lazy, a dumb sum bitch for flipping burgers for so long."

You DO SEE the word "myself" right?

bh - "Of course, we have no way to verify if you economic He-men are really He-men. We only have your word for it on the subject of your own awesomeness."

And, evidence to the contrary, we take your word y0u can read with some modicum of comprehension.

bh - "Also, I appreciate you giving props to Clinton for adopting policies that reflected the realitiies of the day, something that President Obama is also doing."

Unlike today when the budget is getting busted at record levels and makes obama look like Bush III.

If people have a hard time making it, why do the democrats want to raise taxes? I know, only on the rich, but of course they pass it on. Not counting all the "fees" and other hidden taxes. Face it, the demo's care about nothing but their seat of power. ww

BH,
"Perhaps if the present opposition would cooperate a little something could be done."
What?
Your side controls everything. The only real opposition to Obama, the only opposition that matters mathematically, has to come from fellow Dems. It's almost too bad you won sooooo big in November. You've lost your scapegoat.

r caird - "A hint for Brian. Never, never trust a reporters take on a poll."

And "Never, never trust" brian when it comes to polls.

Bruce Henry- do you make a habit of calling other people liars?

There are a lot of self-made business people in the US - many of them immigrants that bust their asses to succeed. They start at minimum wage, not speaking the language and succeeed.

Why can't homegrown earners match that record? Is it cultural?

File this under "Incompetence Personified." (Also)

Obama's financial and economic guru Geithner.

When Barack Obama announced his champion to rescue the world from economic ruin, it was the first time most Americans had ever heard the name Tim Geithner.

...

If anyone in the US media had thought to ask a former Australian prime minister for his assessment, they would have heard a different view. And they would not have been so surprised at Geithner's performance since.

In a speech to a closed gathering at the Lowy Institute in Sydney on Thursday, Paul Keating gave a starkly different account of Geithner's record in handling the Asian crisis: "Tim Geithner was the Treasury line officer who wrote the IMF [International Monetary Fund] program for Indonesia in 1997-98, which was to apply current account solutions to a capital account crisis."

In other words, Geithner fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem. And his misdiagnosis led to a dreadfully wrong prescription.

...

[Former Prime Minister] Keating continued: "Soeharto's government delivered 21 years of 7 per cent compound growth. It takes a gigantic fool to mess that up. But the IMF messed it up. The end result was the biggest fall in GDP in the 20th century. That dubious distinction went to Indonesia. And, of course, Soeharto lost power."

Exactly who was the "gigantic fool"? It was, obviously, the man who wrote the program, Geithner, although Keating is prepared to put the then managing director of the IMF, the Frenchman Michel Camdessus, in the same category.

Worse, Keating argued, Geithner's misjudgment had done terminal damage to the credibility of the IMF, with seismic geoeconomic consequences: "The IMF is the gun that can't shoot straight. They've been making a mess of things for the last 20-odd years, and the greatest mess they made was in east Asia in 1997-98, so much so that no east Asian state will put its head in the IMF noose."

Bruce Henry,
Since you have such disdain and contempt for
Wizbang, why don't you MoveOn.org.
Don't let anyone here discourage you from posting
your opinions elsewhere.

I notice that Henry the Bruce didn't take on
"Time to improve myself and find more lucrative employment" but had ample energy for the sarcasm in "burger flipper"...

There are a lot of self-made business people in the US - many of them immigrants that bust their asses to succeed.

And now there are the second-wave immigrants. There are now those who are leaving the US for free economies with better climates for business growth. Let the do-nothings in the private sector and governement find out how little there is when nobody is producing. Selfish, you say? What do you think it is when you steal my hard-earned money to give it away as if it belongs to you? Carrying your dead weight on my back is tedious. Atlas is shrugging.

Brian mixed two sources and claimed both were the WSJ blog.

Bullsh-t. I quoted two sources, and linked to the source of each quote independently. I didn't "mix" anything. Don't blame me for your poor reading skills.

His second quote actually came from an MSNBC story.

It did? Which one? Because the source that I quoted was an AP article. I guess I made that hard for you to figure out by actually providing the link to my source.

if you go back and find the story, that line has been deleted.

Nope, still there.

So let's see... you failed to notice that I cited and linked to my sources, you misrepresented by post by falsely accusing me of "mixing" them, you went off on your own to search for my source, found a different article somewhere else, and then falsely claimed that one of the lines I excerpted had been removed from the story.

I dunno, Rick. I'm not really inclined to take your advice about how to read articles right now.

retired military I don't have to. It's been the Republican dream since Ayn Rand's time to deregulate everything they can get their hands on. Reagan infamously said he "was going to get the government off our backs". Phil Gramm as head of the banking committee in the senate spent the 1990s threatening to slash funding for the SEC any time they dared tried to do their job, gutted the Glass Steagall Act and he made sure Credit Default Swaps weren't regulated. Rubin may have signed off on the Glass Steagall Act but it was the Republicans who shoved it thru congress.

Gramm routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited--at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms--setting off a wave of merger mania.

Once again fellas, It's time to stop pretending. Your party's policies got us into this mess. Decades of misgovernance and deregulation have resulted in the sudden destruction of the house of cards financial markets. The rest of the economy is in a shambles because much of the US consumer base is tapped out and the rest of it is scared as hell. Couple that with a flatlining financial market that has cut off business lending when businesses have little consumer market to sell into even if they could get loans and that leaves us where we are today. The government as spender of last resort.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism when it's well regulated. Unregulated capitalism promotes idiotic bubbles in all kinds of markets. Those days are over and so is your political party's.

Atlas has got his head between his legs and kissing his cold tush goodbye. A friend of mine, a liberal friend, from a very blue part of Obamalala Land called and said his landlord got laid off yesterday. His landlord ,also very liberal, thought he would be the last to be laid off. Surprise! The company is getting ready for tough times ahead despite their beloved being in charge. And my friend's company has seen sales go into a deeper decline than the Dow. I did not say I told you so but, I did. And, so did Obamalala. They are listening to him now. And they are not liking what they hear.

"Ah, yes, the Self-Proclaimed Self-Made Men of Wizbang, always assuming that those who earn a minimum wage at an honest job are lazy, dumb sumbitches."

Says the guy who snidely referred to Shawn as "Assistant Produce Manager".

Decades of misgovernance and deregulation have resulted in the sudden destruction of the house of cards financial markets.

You have fun with that concept as the producers of this country take their opportunities, and yours with them, elsewhere. If you think this is not happening this moment, you're a fool. Of course, your above statement has already left little doubt. You haven't a clue, but, you will soon enough. Pity it will be too late for debate.

Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" was relentlessly derided by liberals. "Yeehaw! is not a foreign policy" was one of their favorite churlish refrains. They said we needed to restore America's reputation and leadership, so they gave us the gift of Obama. Note to Obama worshipers: Obama is not off to a good start.

"retired military I don't have to."
Posted by markg8 | March 8, 2009 8:31 PM

Of course you don't. Just like I don't have to pretend anything you say is grounded in fact or the product of rational thinking. At least you're more honest than the other trolls.

Maggie, I have said nothing that implies contempt for Wizbang as a website, or a business entity. I have directed some sarcasm at many regular commenters, as they have directed their sarcasm at me. It's all in good fun here, right?

Oyster, Shawn posted a piece that was all opinion, and fact-free. I said something smart-ass about it. Is that so wrong? Aren't we here to entertain each other?

ehula, since you said essentially the same thing as marc, only more articulately, I chose to respond to marc's more easily ridiculed comment.

I enjoy posting here, and I may be wrong, but I think a few commenters here enjoy arguing with me. It's your choice, maggie, if you want me to leave. I think I bring something to your site. If you disagree, disemvowel this post, and you'll never hear from me again.

Obama lied the Dow Jones died.

Relax, Bruce. You offer a needed counter-position, whether or not anyone agrees. Nobody wants this to be a neo-con pub, with the possible exception of the neo-cons.

Markg8
"retired military I don't have to"

That is because you cant. You are a typical liberal. You spout your mimes with no basis in fact or at best half truths. You made the accusation. Why not be man enough to back it up?

"Once again fellas, It's time to stop pretending. Your party's policies got us into this mess. Decades of misgovernance and deregulation have resulted in the sudden destruction of the house of cards financial markets"

Notice he said decades. Lets see if he really really means what he says.

Republicans had control of the House from 1994 - 2006. They had control of the Senate from 2002-2006.

So tell me Mark what decades are you talking about? The only party that has been in charge of Congress (and the house sets spending) are democrats.

"Unregulated capitalism promotes idiotic bubbles in all kinds of markets. "

Sorta like the unregulated banking which is nonexistent. Gotcha.

Oh in the examples you mentioned with Gramm I sorta missed the ties that Barney and Dodd and Obama have with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Did you forget those? Kinda hard to miss when some of Obama's advisors were on their boards. But you think all that is a coincidence right?

And a year from now when we are in a depression with no daylight you will still be saying "It is the republican's fault"

Markg8

Since you are such a fan of govt regulation how about pointing out one thing the govt does EFFICIENTLY better than business?

If you want a model of govt efficiencey look at the tax code. It is so convuluted you can't get the same amount on your refund from 3 different IRS agents doing your taxes for you. . I guess that is to be expected when Barney Frank, chairman who OVERSEES the tax code cant even pay his own taxes, neither can the SECY of the Treasury and about 4 other Obama nominees.

What govt regulation created more efficiency than the private sector?

Let me go back to watching tv while you compile your nonexistent answer saying "I dont have to point out anything because .

April 15...Tea Party time! Haven't been to one yet...but am hoping one gets ramped up for Northern California somewhere (Sacramento?)

Wherever it is I will be there!

Will Obama care? Nah. All of a sudden the Left has decided that dissent is NOT the "highest form of patriotism" (hint: it never was).

But just maybe the MSM will be forced to cover the Arpil 15 rallies if enough folks show up.

maybe...

Marg8
While you are googling fruitlessly (if you know how to do that)

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2002/nf20020118_8714.htm

However, it's also important that lawmakers refrain from thinking that the events of the past year -- from September 11 to the California deregulation scandal to the Enron accounting mess -- mean a regulatory overhaul is needed to prevent such problems in the future.
It's essential that Congress and the White House not be misled into the idea that increasing government oversight will help the economy in the long run. In the '90s, government deregulation of key industries unleashed powerful market forces in everything from telecom to financial services. And American society has been unusually open to upstarts like Bill Gates of Microsoft and Richard Schulze of Best Buy. We need to keep it that way for the long-term health of the world's most powerful economy.

http://articles.latimes.com/p/1997/dec/27/news/mn-2574
They cite a variety of factors that may have spurred productivity in recent years: Globalization of the economy has prodded companies into seeking to reduce costs. Government deregulation has made firms more efficient. Business investment has mushroomed.

Now find 2 articles that state government regulation increases productivity.

All of a sudden the Left has decided that dissent is NOT the "highest form of patriotism"

Really? Is anyone complaining about your funny little tea parties?

(hint: it never was).

Oh, yes it was. Still is. Dissent away.

Markg8 (AKA Mr Banking deregulation caused this mess)

FRom an OBAMA SUPPORTING COLUMNIST

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100501253.html

Who were the purchasers? They were by no means unregulated. U.S. investment banks, regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, bought piles of toxic waste. U.S. commercial banks, regulated by several agencies, including the Fed, also devoured large quantities. European banks, which faced a different and supposedly more up-to-date supervisory scheme, turn out to have been just as rash. By contrast, lightly regulated hedge funds resisted buying toxic waste for the most part -- though they are now vulnerable to the broader credit crunch because they operate with borrowed money.

If that doesn't convince you that deregulation is the wrong scapegoat, consider this: The appetite for toxic mortgages was fueled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the super-regulated housing finance companies. Calomiris calculates that Fannie and Freddie bought more than a third of the $3 trillion in junk mortgages created during the bubble and that they did so because heavy government oversight obliged them to push money toward marginal home purchasers. There's a vigorous argument about whether Calomiris's number is too high. But everyone concedes that Fannie and Freddie poured fuel on the fire to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
So blaming deregulation for the financial mess is misguided. But it is dangerous, too, because one of the big challenges for the next president will be to defend markets against the inevitable backlash that follows this crisis. Even before finance went haywire, the Doha trade negotiations had collapsed; wage stagnation for middle-class Americans had raised legitimate questions about whom the market system served; and the food-price spike had driven many emerging economies to give up on global agricultural markets as a source of food security. Coming on top of all these challenges, the financial turmoil is bound to intensify skepticism about markets. Framing the mess as the product of deregulation will make the backlash nastier.

So here we not only have an Obama columisnt for WAPO state that deregulation was not the cause but stating WHO POURED FUEL ON THE FIRE?

Why Barney and Dodd's and Obama's bestest little friends - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

--------

Stop making generic liberal mime statements that you cant back up.

IDIOT.

Yes, funny "little tea parties" by funny little people. You liberals really crack me up.

Obama is a radical. You can see it from the friends he keeps -- like the bigot preachor he calls "family". Nevertheless a quote from one of Obama's fans:

"Democracy can not long survive... people will vote for themselves all the money in the treasury and bankrupt the nation"

Karl Marx

Markg8

Not enough proof?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0810a.asp
According to popular myth, the current financial turmoil is the result of Bush administration deregulation. One problem with that theory: there was no deregulation. The last banking deregulation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999. Oops.

----------
http://www.alternet.org/story/37251/from_investment_banking_to_policy-making/

In more recent history, Goldman Sachs co-CEO Robert Rubin instigated massive banking deregulation in the five years he served as Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration.

So now lets hear you talk about the banking deregulation under Clinton.

RM, do you mean "liberal meme?" Because i keep Marcel Marceau every time you comment.seeing

Whoa.

RM, do you mean "liberal meme?" Because I keep seeing Marcel Marceau every time you comment.

Had to re-post, sorry. Proofreading is a wonderful thing.

The article that BRIAN noted debunked the CRA-sub prime connection was an interesting read. You have to dig through their numbers, but sure enough about half (probably a bit more) of subprime loans were either directly CRA or partially CRA covered. The real issue with the CRA has more to do with the synergy of the Fannie May/CRA/atty general of the late Clinton term. Banks and the more fly-by-night lenders found that not only did subprimes keep the feds off their backs, but they could bundle them up and sell them like hotcakes to Fannie/Freddie. The lenders had no risk. The borrower had no risk either since now loans were no money down. A recipe for disaster. A disaster incubated, hatched and grown to adulthood by well intentioned but misguided government regulations.

Brian, a quick trip around the news and blogs finds the Left branding those NOT lining up to worship The One as
- chest thumping domestic terrorists
- traitors
- treasonous
- etc...etc...

Some moronic LeftWing TalkRadion host went on the Lary King Show and called for Rush Limbaugh to be executed for treason. Lary King's reaction: ZIP!

And over the last two weeks Dem Congress Critters have declared those NOT in lock-step with them to be "Un-American"

Where you been, boyo?

Mark

Lets talk about who opposed regulation

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
It's true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie - a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."

Damn, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Isnt it a shame when those intsy winsy little things called FACTS get in the way of your liberal talking points.

Bruce

"RM, do you mean "liberal meme?" Because I keep seeing Marcel Marceau every time you comment"

Mime meme. Shall I say Potato potatoe?

I will try to use the correct word next time Markg8 needs correecting (which should be about the next time he opens his mouth).

Obama tried but the Dow Jones died.

Because it tasted so good the first time going down..!

If you recall about 12-24 months ago, the markets were in the neighborhood of 11K to 13K and unemployment in the 4-6% range,and the Pelosi, Reid, et al, cabal was screaming how "we're in a recession! they're all McJobs!".
This is called a self fulfulling prophecy. They have reaped what they have sown. It is known wherefrom this came. The CRA. Fannie, Freddie, Barney, Maxine, Chris, Chuck... Don't think for a minute that we aren't trying to inform and engage that percentage that was well meaning but gullible during that charade of a campaign.
The buyers' remorse crowd is growing and informing itself too.
The assaults on the Constitution, The playground diplomacy, the retreads, the unvetted, the sidling up to enemies, all are being marked.

RM

As I keep reminding people around here, Barney Frank was the ranking MINORITY member of the House Banking Committee in 2005, and Dodd was the MINORITY member in the corresponding Senate committee.

If there had been enough votes on the MAJORITY REPUBLICAN side, the said reform would have passed despite Frank's and Dodd's opposition.

If the reform of 2005 had been a priority for the Republican administration, they could have made sure that it passed the Republican House and the Republican Senate. But they didn't.

Could this "reform attempt" have been a CYA move?

Actually, what is so bad about the market crashing ? I am averaging into S&P 500 in my 401k at record low prices and when I retire in 35 years I will be wealthy.

In fact, I pray every day for the stock market to crash even more so I can scoop up some shares.

The only people who are suffering are baby boomers who really deserve to anyway. They used up all the oil, got unrealistic retirement promises from corporation and government and are about to use up the social security to smitherines. So, it is only fair that I get to scoop up their stocks and their real estate at a heavy discount.

"Could this "reform attempt" have been a CYA move?"

You'd do better to ask yourself this:

Could this "attempt to block" reform have been a CYA move?

The most obvious answer is usually the correct one.

Thanks for your advice, Oyster, but I fail to see how one explanation is more obvious than the other.

Ahh! Dodd and his cronies in the Senate threatened a filibuster concerning any legislation that concerned Freddie or Fanny. Frank stated on committee in July of 08, less then a year ago that Freddie and Fanny are doing very well. But Brucy wants to know if GW was playing CYA? Bruce you are a trub blue partisan. ww

Let's see:

1) Republican lawmakers address the lack of regulation and oversight of the GSEs as problematic.

2) Democrat lawmakers exclaim that there is nothing to indicate there are any problems. Everything is just fine.

Which one looks like a CYA attempt to you?

Nope. Nothing obvious there. Rather we should devote time to figuring out how addressing a problem before it gets out of hand is somehow nefarious.

Great article! I wholeheartedly agree with you.

My HOPE is that Obama is somehow marginalized or removed from office before 2012. Our country can't afford him.

Obama lied unemployment multiplied

Brian:
Do you mean, can you take a time-trend analysis average of multiple data points, pick the single lowest data point gathered recently, and then project that backwards in time, superseding all other data, to establish a "hover" around that low data point?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

#92
What a pathetic, mean-spirited comment! You are one of those who believe that there is a finite amount of wealth and the only way you can get yours is to take it from someone else - go take an economics course, for heaven sake.
G

In fact, I pray every day for the stock market to crash even more so I can scoop up some shares.

Pfff! This little shilly went to market...etc. Talk about living in denial! You know, as well as those with any minute amount of common sense, how tragically misplaced that type of greed would be. Give it up while you're still safe in the dark ages!

There is a finite amount of wealth. That is by definition -- there is a finite amount of stock. Everyone wants to buy stocks low and sell high. So, when I buy low it means someone is losing money. When I buy high it means that I am overpaying.

There is a finite amount of wealth.

You don't understand the concept of real wealth. Real wealth is the result of man's ability to think applied to the sphere of production and trade. Reason, ultimately, is the source of all wealth. As capitalism is the only social system that on principle leaves man free to think, capitalism is only system of wealth creation.

Paper wealth (stocks, bonds, dollar bills, etc.) is only of value if it can be used to purchase real wealth. Real wealth is something of value that helps you support your life, i.e., food, housing, transportation, etc. Real wealth, by definition, is infinite. It is only limited by what a rational man can conceive.

Grace

Do some research on how George Soros, Liberal ICON, made his money.