The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

I really don't know where some of you guys are getting this. You YOURSELVES have pointed out how bad the economy is, and done so in much more strident terms than Obama has. If anything, I think Obama is understating the many dangers involved here.

 

SS, you and I may disagree a lot, but usually I can understand your perspective. But this is just ridiculous to me. Hope, as Obama portrays it, is right where it has been, if you watch him speak. Now, the media likes to pick out his most dire statements, of course. Makes better "news". But the idea that Obama is somehow abandoning his identity and overstating how bad the economy is to get more spending in, is just ludicrous.

 

I watch the man speak everyday, and there is nothing inspirational in there since the election. I honestly feel like he is using the economy the same way Bush used 9-11. You are pretty much labeled if you don't agree with his policy ideas. He has even gotten to the point of calling out people who disagree with his policies or views and having the attack dogs called out on them (hello Rick Santelli). I am waiting for his team to start calling people unpatriotic.

[southsider2k5]

I really don't know where some of you guys are getting this. You YOURSELVES have pointed out how bad the economy is, and done so in much more strident terms than Obama has. If anything, I think Obama is understating the many dangers involved here.

 

SS, you and I may disagree a lot, but usually I can understand your perspective. But this is just ridiculous to me. Hope, as Obama portrays it, is right where it has been, if you watch him speak. Now, the media likes to pick out his most dire statements, of course. Makes better "news". But the idea that Obama is somehow abandoning his identity and overstating how bad the economy is to get more spending in, is just ludicrous.

 

ETA: I am not saying its ludicrous that he'd want to push his agenda, including its spending. Just saying that the idea of him making things appear worse than they are to get it done is not accurate.

 

I don't think I have ever said that he is making things appear worse than they are.

[clyons]

I watch the man speak everyday, and there is nothing inspirational in there since the election. I honestly feel like he is using the economy the same way Bush used 9-11. You are pretty much labeled if you don't agree with his policy ideas. He has even gotten to the point of calling out people who disagree with his policies or views and having the attack dogs called out on them (hello Rick Santelli). I am waiting for his team to start calling people unpatriotic.

 

I certainly don't watch him everyday, but I did think his address to Congress was a good Barack Obama speech, and not devoid of hope at all.

 

 

[jasonxctf]

Obama's approval ratings would be farther down as he'd be looking like a dishonest, out of touch, imbecile. And since Democrats hate Wall Street and Wall Street always gets its best returns under Republicans, that's exactly what they'd want. I mean, take a look at the stock market during the Bush years. From Jan 2001 to Jan 2009 it absolutely soared.

 

You mean going from 9.878.78 to 7,182.08 over an 8 year period is a bad thing? I thought people loved a 28% drop in nearly a decade.

[kapkomet]

I watch the man speak everyday, and there is nothing inspirational in there since the election. I honestly feel like he is using the economy the same way Bush used 9-11. You are pretty much labeled if you don't agree with his policy ideas. He has even gotten to the point of calling out people who disagree with his policies or views and having the attack dogs called out on them (hello Rick Santelli). I am waiting for his team to start calling people unpatriotic.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

But, he's a great guy with statospheric approval ratings. He has to be right about everything!

 

 

[Cknolls]

I think Dick Morris is a POS as a human being, so I'm inclined to disagree with whatever he says on general principle. He knows politics, but I'm not sure he knows economics (I admit I don't), and I think he has stretched his limited credibility in that piece.

 

The Dow was near 13,400 in November 2007. It was 9600 on Election Day and its around 7,100 now. Obama has been president for 5 weeks. Yet the stock market has "crashed" because of him and his failure to lead? I somewhat agree with his point about Obama's economic fear-mongering, but that particular point's a tough sell for me, especially coming from Dick. Seems to me that the markets had been heading south for a long time before that. Dick's great at second guessing and playing contrarian opportunist, but would things really be that different if Obama whistled Dixie? I know confidence is great and all, but how does attitude solve the underlying credit crisis?

 

ps. I love Dick's line about Obama's "failed policies." I guess if the markets don't immediately respond to them (long term consequences be damned), its okay to declare them "failures."

 

 

But, since everyone here would agree that the stock mkt is a forward looking indicator, I believe we mark election day as Obama's Stock Market. It is down 25% since his victory. Not very optimistic. Must be the evil capitalists trying to damage the Messiah.

[Balta1701]

Obama's popularity rating has fallen 10 points in 4 weeks.

Barack's popularity rating jumped 8 points in 48 hours.

 

 

So, we can either stop playing these silly games or we can keep doing so. Obama's popularity was going to drop in Feb., because there was going to be a moderate inauguration speech bounce. Inevitable.

 

Then, Obama chimed in with a not-really-the-SOTU-so-let's-call-it-the-STFU-speech on Tuesday, and his numbers jumped right back up. Similarly inevitable.

 

Next, either this bounce will fade naturally as the speech moves in to history, barring some other amazingly Presidential looking event.

 

It's the same cute little game as with the stock market.

 

[southsider2k5]

Barack's popularity rating jumped 8 points in 48 hours.

 

 

So, we can either stop playing these silly games or we can keep doing so. Obama's popularity was going to drop in Feb., because there was going to be a moderate inauguration speech bounce. Inevitable.

 

Then, Obama chimed in with a not-really-the-SOTU-so-let's-call-it-the-STFU-speech on Tuesday, and his numbers jumped right back up. Similarly inevitable.

 

Next, either this bounce will fade naturally as the speech moves in to history, barring some other amazingly Presidential looking event.

 

It's the same cute little game as with the stock market.

 

I think it is hilarious the backlash that I am seeing from using the exact same posts and statistics that I saw for eight years under Bush. Everyone thought it was the most important information on the planet when it was about McCain and Bush. Its been 5 weeks. You all had better grow some skin or something.

 

[kapkomet]

I think it is hilarious the backlash that I am seeing from using the exact same posts and statistics that I saw for eight years under Bush. Everyone thought it was the most important information on the planet when it was about McCain and Bush. Its been 5 weeks. You all had better grow some skin or something.

A-f***ing-men. That's really at the heart of my jabs, yet there's quite a few posters here who want to dismiss s*** like this now. It's hypocritical as hell, and no, I'm not joking this time.

 

One party is just as bad as the other party, they both are at the exact opposite of extremes, there IS no center in this country anymore when it comes to politics, well to say it another way, there's no REPRESENTATION in the middle. It's either hard left or hard right... and who in the middle can be bought off from time to time.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

A-f***ing-men. That's really at the heart of my jabs, yet there's quite a few posters here who want to dismiss s*** like this now. It's hypocritical as hell, and no, I'm not joking this time.

 

One party is just as bad as the other party, they both are at the exact opposite of extremes, there IS no center in this country anymore when it comes to politics, well to say it another way, there's no REPRESENTATION in the middle. It's either hard left or hard right... and who in the middle can be bought off from time to time.

Dearest Kapkomet,

 

If you really want to find a center, perhaps you could keep your alter-ego (Kaperbole^tm) in the closet. Having reasonable debates in here might be easier if we have fewer people throwing feces around just to make a point.

 

Also, if you see yourself as something other than right-wing... on what topics do you actually agree with the left on, if any?

 

Warmest Regards,

NorthSideSox72

 

P.S.: I know this is the Republican Thread, so feel free to go-right all you'd like. Just having a hard time understanding your presence in the supposed "middle".

[kapkomet]

Dearest Kapkomet,

 

If you really want to find a center, perhaps you could keep your alter-ego (Kaperbole^tm) in the closet. Having reasonable debates in here might be easier if we have fewer people throwing feces around just to make a point.

 

Also, if you see yourself as something other than right-wing... on what topics do you actually agree with the left on, if any?

 

Warmest Regards,

NorthSideSox72

 

P.S.: I know this is the Republican Thread, so feel free to go-right all you'd like. Just having a hard time understanding your presence in the supposed "middle".

Dearest NSS,

 

If you notice, I'm actually jabbing at BOTH parties in this post, not just one.

 

You surely can't think that Obama is governing from the center, can you? Oh wait, his $13 per month tax cut is a bone for the "right"?

 

Obama has made it very clear he intends to pull in as much government power as he can. That, to me, is not governing from the center.

 

I'm honestly so tired of the whole thing. George W. Bush was the most evil motherf***er who ever lived to those on the left. The funny thing is I don't consider Obama the equivalent, because I don't see things that way. But, I do see it as he's doing what he said he would, and it's certainly not "governence from the center". He said he would govern this way, and people are now surprised by all the governmental programs he's trying to take out of the public sector?

 

One more thought: if Obama is so damn smart, why are all these people crying about "bipartisanship" and all pissed off when they don't get GOP votes, (except those who get paid off, but that's another story entirely)? That's all a part of this "postering".

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Dearest NSS,

 

If you notice, I'm actually jabbing at BOTH parties in this post, not just one.

 

You surely can't think that Obama is governing from the center, can you? Oh wait, his $13 per month tax cut is a bone for the "right"?

 

Obama has made it very clear he intends to pull in as much government power as he can. That, to me, is not governing from the center.

 

I'm honestly so tired of the whole thing. George W. Bush was the most evil motherf***er who ever lived to those on the left. The funny thing is I don't consider Obama the equivalent, because I don't see things that way. But, I do see it as he's doing what he said he would, and it's certainly not "governence from the center". He said he would govern this way, and people are now surprised by all the governmental programs he's trying to take out of the public sector?

 

One more thought: if Obama is so damn smart, why are all these people crying about "bipartisanship" and all pissed off when they don't get GOP votes, (except those who get paid off, but that's another story entirely)? That's all a part of this "postering".

No, Obama is not governing from the center. No one does. I think he's closer to the center than Bush was, but, I think he's further from the center than Clinton was.

 

I just think it is interesting that the same people who said the Bush-bashers were over the top, are now going way, way over the top about Obama.

 

And yes, he's doing pretty much what he said he'd do. But not entirely. He's gone back on some things (telecom immunity), and he's already broken promises (breaking his own XO about cabinet members and lobbying).

 

Here is the thing, though. Overall, so far, I'd give Obama a 5 or 6 on a scale of 10 for performance. I have major doubts about the stimulus bill and TARP, and the way they were and are being implemented, I really dislike that he broke his own damn executive order, and some of his tax increases are assinine and counterproductive (as I've said before). But he's also already accomplished some things he promised he'd address, about Gitmo, about alternative energy... look through his first few executive orders, there is some good stuff in there that he promised.

 

Now, people may not agree with me on this, and they may disagree that some of these accomplishments are good things. But I really can't see how anyone could think he's been worse (so far) than Bush, or that he is somehow rooting for the economy to get worse, or be in denial of the fact that no President since WWII has come into office with a country in a greater set of crises (economy worst in decades, still in 2 wars, massive government debt and problems, etc.). I'd just like people to have some perspective, instead of just throwing s*** from their side of the aisle.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I just think it is interesting that the same people who said the Bush-bashers were over the top, are now going way, way over the top about Obama.

Payback is a b****.

[EvilMonkey]

I'd just like people to have some perspective, instead of just throwing s*** from their side of the aisle.

The dems had 8 years to do that, not sure it happened even once. Why so suprised that it isn't happening now?

[NorthSideSox72]

Payback is a b****.

 

Thank you for illustrating my point. Are we 12 year olds or something? I saw some dude on the board post like that before, so, I'm going to do it now? That isn't discussion, its venting.

 

Also, your "payback" effects everyone in here, even though only a couple people may have even come close to doing this from the other side.

 

The dems had 8 years to do that, not sure it happened even once. Why so suprised that it isn't happening now?

 

Not surprised - disappointed. There is a difference.

 

I guess GOP = Dem.

 

[BigSqwert]

Obama's popularity rating has fallen 10 points in 4 weeks.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116077/Obama-Jo...First-Time.aspx

Well that didn't last long.

[kapkomet]

My point more is there's a large amount of people, including some on here, who voted for Obama because they thought he'd "govern from the center"... and there's people honestly surprised that he's MUCH further left then they thought he was. Well, DUH! As I said, he's doing exactly what he said he would. I don't know why people are surprised at a $2T deficit on top of what's already there.

 

Furthermore, to SS's post about the polls - my god, we've been listening to this s*** for 8 years... then when Obama goes down, meh, no big deal, it doesn't mean anything... that's hypocritical considering we've put up with the plethera of vomit for the last 8 years. How many times does Balta get to say "God those last 8 years sucked" and he gets a free pass? Hee, hee, that's SO funny!

 

You want the truth? This whole forum is a cesspool of "payback" and "gotcha", myself included. There's about 2% good discussion and 98% elephant dung in here now. It's almost to the point where it just needs to go away. Balta's posts, as an example, are well thought out talking points from the liberal perspective (read: blogs). He's never, ever going to change his mind about what he thinks. The whole back and forth with SS, while interesting, will change neither minds, and in fact, it's almost cockiness to "prove" one's policy or thought is better then the other. There's a lot of veiled hyperbole (damn near every post, actually), from just about everyone. We all know who will say what, and it just gets posted in different words, over and over.

 

I don't mean to pick on Balta, you, SS, or anyone else personally, rather the screen name that associates the thoughts here. With this, I just need to stop posting in here, because I understand you're sick of my stupid posts, and even I'm getting sick of myself.

 

I'm out.

[Balta1701]

My point more is there's a large amount of people, including some on here, who voted for Obama because they thought he'd "govern from the center"... and there's people honestly surprised that he's MUCH further left then they thought he was. Well, DUH! As I said, he's doing exactly what he said he would. I don't know why people are surprised at a $2T deficit on top of what's already there.

 

Furthermore, to SS's post about the polls - my god, we've been listening to this s*** for 8 years... then when Obama goes down, meh, no big deal, it doesn't mean anything... that's hypocritical considering we've put up with the plethera of vomit for the last 8 years. How many times does Balta get to say "God those last 8 years sucked" and he gets a free pass? Hee, hee, that's SO funny!

 

You want the truth? This whole forum is a cesspool of "payback" and "gotcha", myself included. There's about 2% good discussion and 98% elephant dung in here now. It's almost to the point where it just needs to go away. Balta's posts, as an example, are well thought out talking points from the liberal perspective (read: blogs). He's never, ever going to change his mind about what he thinks. The whole back and forth with SS, while interesting, will change neither minds, and in fact, it's almost cockiness to "prove" one's policy or thought is better then the other. There's a lot of veiled hyperbole (damn near every post, actually), from just about everyone. We all know who will say what, and it just gets posted in different words, over and over.

 

I don't mean to pick on Balta, you, SS, or anyone else personally, rather the screen name that associates the thoughts here. With this, I just need to stop posting in here, because I understand you're sick of my stupid posts, and even I'm getting sick of myself.

 

I'm out.

Just want to say something about why I post here in response to this. Can I be grating sometimes? of course. But then again, do you think that no one on the other side winds up grating on me?

 

When one spends time debating politics, or hell, Baseball, whatever you want, there's going to be people who disagree with positions you take. You're going to get annoyed with it sometimes. You'll read something and say "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard". You'll think someone is totally wrong. But sometimes, you actually learn something. I'll be the first to admit that not only have I learned things in discussions with 2k5 that I didn't know/didn't understand before, my own thinking has been altered in ways that I feel allow me to understand the discussion better. So no, I'm probably not going to agree with 2k5 ever on the financial situation. And I'll have a fundamentally different interpretation of polling data than you guys will. And I'll cite different sources than you. But that doesn't mean I don't find it valuable.

 

At points, yes, it certainly can get frustrating. I gave up running my own blog and just dropped off the face of the internets in 2004 after GWB won his 2nd term because I just couldn't deal with it and it was just frustrating as all Hell. You guys are on the outs now, and I remember exactly how that felt.

 

But here's the interesting thing...I'd still be happy to sit down with any of y'all and drink a beer. Or catch a Sox game. Whatever. Because people are going to look at the world in different ways. People look at data in different ways. If things get on a person's nerves too much, or if its no longer entertaining or educational, then it can reach a point where it's not worth it to keep up the discussion. For me, it's not personal. People can have honest disagreements, people can get on each other's nerves, people can piss other people off, but it's only worth what you feel like you get out of it.

 

I enjoy posting here, I enjoy these debates, and I enjoy presenting opinions, having them challenged, and then having someone else fire back. That's why I'm still here, and I think that's why we put this as a separate forum in the first place.

[kapkomet]

I will reply to this for the rest of the filibusterites - as I said, it's not personal, I said that in my post. I'm honestly just tired. A lot of that probably has to do with what all is going on in my life. I may disagree with people here, but as you said, I would always welcome them around me (I'd certainly buy a beer, hang out, whatever - when I get a job, that is... hehe) because I know they do care about what goes on in our country, and our baseball team.

 

It's just better that I don't sit here and respond with smart ass responses because it just leads to more cynicism. I don't want to add to that anymore, and that's why I'm taking a break for a while. I'll read, but I don't need to add to the BS. That's all I'm saying... at least for a while.

 

I need to get my own crap together. If I get upset at this, it isn't worth it.

[southsider2k5]

Just want to say something about why I post here in response to this. Can I be grating sometimes? of course. But then again, do you think that no one on the other side winds up grating on me?

 

When one spends time debating politics, or hell, Baseball, whatever you want, there's going to be people who disagree with positions you take. You're going to get annoyed with it sometimes. You'll read something and say "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard". You'll think someone is totally wrong. But sometimes, you actually learn something. I'll be the first to admit that not only have I learned things in discussions with 2k5 that I didn't know/didn't understand before, my own thinking has been altered in ways that I feel allow me to understand the discussion better. So no, I'm probably not going to agree with 2k5 ever on the financial situation. And I'll have a fundamentally different interpretation of polling data than you guys will. And I'll cite different sources than you. But that doesn't mean I don't find it valuable.

 

At points, yes, it certainly can get frustrating. I gave up running my own blog and just dropped off the face of the internets in 2004 after GWB won his 2nd term because I just couldn't deal with it and it was just frustrating as all Hell. You guys are on the outs now, and I remember exactly how that felt.

 

But here's the interesting thing...I'd still be happy to sit down with any of y'all and drink a beer. Or catch a Sox game. Whatever. Because people are going to look at the world in different ways. People look at data in different ways. If things get on a person's nerves too much, or if its no longer entertaining or educational, then it can reach a point where it's not worth it to keep up the discussion. For me, it's not personal. People can have honest disagreements, people can get on each other's nerves, people can piss other people off, but it's only worth what you feel like you get out of it.

 

I enjoy posting here, I enjoy these debates, and I enjoy presenting opinions, having them challenged, and then having someone else fire back. That's why I'm still here, and I think that's why we put this as a separate forum in the first place.

 

AH PERSONAL ATTACK!!! BAN HIM, BAN HIM!!!!

 

I just want to throw out that none of this is personal to me. If Balta came into Chicago, I'd buy the first beer. As a matter of a fact, I really hope to see him, Sqwert, and AHB (and anyone else I like to argue with in here) at a game this summer. Except for Kap, he's a real Chip!

[mr_genius]

No, Obama is not governing from the center. No one does. I think he's closer to the center than Bush was, but, I think he's further from the center than Clinton was.

 

I just think it is interesting that the same people who said the Bush-bashers were over the top, are now going way, way over the top about Obama.

 

Unfortunately, Bush and Obama are about equal in quality from what I've seen. Neither are anywhere near the political center, that is a given.

[Balta1701]

Unfortunately, Bush and Obama are about equal in quality from what I've seen. Neither are anywhere near the political center, that is a given.

I have a number of problems with the logic behind this variety of statement, but I'll focus on one here; the person making it is giving himself or herself the permission to valiantly declare what exactly the political center is, and declaring that that position fixed and invariable with time. Not only does it grant the person making the judgment an awful lot of ability to discern the realities of the universe, but it also assumes a fairly rigid definition of the political center.

[mr_genius]

I have a number of problems with the logic behind this variety of statement, but I'll focus on one here; the person making it is giving himself or herself the permission to valiantly declare what exactly the political center is, and declaring that that position fixed and invariable with time. Not only does it grant the person making the judgment an awful lot of ability to discern the realities of the universe, but it also assumes a fairly rigid definition of the political center.

 

Well, that goes along the lines of why the use of "In my opinion" is redundant within many posts.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-na...0,7925305.story

 

Rep. Grace F. Napolitano has collected at least $158,000 in interest on loan she made to her campaign

The FEC allowed the Democrat from Norwalk to charge an 18% interest rate on $150,000 she lent her campaign.

By Andrew Zajac

February 14, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) has collected tens of thousands of dollars in personal income by charging double-digit interest on money she lent her campaign 11 years ago and soliciting donations from Washington lobbyists at "debt retirement" fundraisers.

 

Napolitano, 72, has taken advantage of a 1998 Federal Election Commission ruling that authorized her to lend $150,000 to her campaign at 18% interest, accepting her argument that the money was from a retirement fund subject to an early withdrawal penalty equivalent to that rate. She lowered the interest on the loan to 10% in mid-2006.

 

FEC rulings have given candidates the latitude to charge a "commercially reasonable rate" of interest for personal loans to campaign committees, said commission spokeswoman Judith Ingram.

 

Lawmakers aren't allowed to convert campaign funds to personal use, but laws governing the subject are arcane, Ingram said. "You have to look carefully at the regulations and see when and if that's taken place," she said.

 

Napolitano spokesman Christopher Honey declined to comment on the loan and said that Napolitano would not speak to a reporter about it.

 

Napolitano's campaign finance forms indicate that she has collected more than $158,000 in interest on the loan since 2001 and has reduced the principal by about $65,000.

 

The loan was first reported Friday by Bloomberg News, which said the congresswoman had paid herself $221,780 in interest since 1998. Napolitano held at least one fundraiser each in 2007 and 2008 to collect money for the loan, according to campaign records.

 

Both were hosted by 21st Century Group Inc., a Capitol Hill lobbying firm whose clients include several transportation interests.

 

Napolitano is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is chairwoman of the water and power subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee.

 

Both fundraisers were hosted by 21st Century lobbyist Jocelyn Hong, who could not be reached for comment.

 

An invitation to an April 30, 2007, fundraiser promised a "Traditional, Home-Style Mexican Breakfast" and invited political action committee checks of $1,500 or personal donations of $500, payable to the "Napolitano for Congress '1998 Primary Debt Retirement.' "

 

Napolitano occupies a safe Democratic seat and has never garnered less than 68% of the vote in her six House campaigns.

 

A former office worker at Ford Motor Co., Napolitano made the loan to her campaign during her first run for Congress, withdrawing it from a stock retirement account she held with the automaker.

 

The accrued interest payments have since become the largest asset she lists on her annual financial disclosure statement.

 

The 1998 FEC ruling, made in response to a complaint by her primary opponent, James Casso, stated the rate was high but permissible because of the circumstances outlined by Napolitano.

 

Napolitano's case is unusual if only because she used her relatively modest income to justify the high interest rate, said Kent Cooper, a retired chief of public disclosure at the FEC.

 

In Congress, "most of the time you're dealing with extremely wealthy people," Cooper said.

 

He said that lobbyists tend to contribute to fundraisers for debt retirement because "they know it's really helping the member."

 

Napolitano's most recent filing, on Jan. 31, indicated a due date on the loan of Dec. 31, 2008, but still listed a balance of $85,272.

 

Her campaign committee previously listed a due date of Dec. 31, 2002, but in early 2004, she extended the payment deadline.

 

FEC spokeswoman Ingram said she did not know if the loan was considered past due according to FEC reporting requirements or if there was a sanction for an arrearage.

 

"The analogy we would draw is payments by a campaign to a vendor. Those agreements are outside the FEC. How the commissioners would react if someone filed a complaint in this case, I don't know," Ingram said.

 

Invitations to the Napolitano debt retirement events were faxed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, but the committee otherwise had no role in the events, according to spokeswoman Jen Crider.

 

"As far as looking over shoulders, that's not the role of the DCCC," Crider said.

[southsider2k5]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

 

The Obama Economy

As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.

 

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

 

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

[Review & Outlook]

 

The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

 

And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

 

Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

 

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

 

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

 

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

 

AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

 

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

 

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

 

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

 

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.