President Barack Hussein Obama is doing a terrific job keeping his campaign promise to create millions of jobs.  Obama has created -3.558 million jobs since taking office (Feb – Sept).

For those of you Democrats out there, that means Obama has lost 3,558,000 jobs from February through September of this year.

What I find most interesting is how job cuts spiked the month Obama was elected.  In September 2008, 321,000 jobs were cut. In October, 380,000 jobs were cut. But in November when Obama was elected, 597,000 jobs were lost.

BLS Job Cut Numbers By Month

November is when stores, restaurants, factories, and other businesses hire seasonal workers to help with the Christmas rush.  But last year, job cuts jumped 57% over the prior month when Obama was elected.

Why would businesses cut jobs after Obama was elected?  Maybe because he promised massive increases in income, investment, and other taxes.

The only thing tax increases do is push jobs overseas.  Despite a stabilized economy and job growth in other countries around the world, hundreds of thousands of jobs are still being lost in America each month because of Obama’s and the Democrats’ promised tax increases.

This is just the beginning.  Carbon taxes will increase the cost of every product and service manufactured and sold in the country.  That will have a devastating effect on aggregate demand and jobs.

People aren’t stupid.  They know that in the end this massive spending has to come from somewhere.  With a budget deficit expected to reach $9 trillion over the next 10 years, business owners know the Democrats are going to be coming after them for more and more every year.  The smart ones are setting up shop overseas and are getting out now.

The company that made the playset for President Barack Obama’s children is slashing jobs and planning to move production to China.

Article

You may remember that Obama promised to create 2 million jobs.  Then, Obama promised to create 3 million jobs.  Later, he promised to create 4.1 million jobs.  Finally a few months ago, Obama said he was going to create or “save” 600,000 jobs in 100 days.  It’s nice to see him getting more precise as he pulls numbers out of thin air.

Millions have lost their jobs since Obama took office, and millions more have lost their jobs since he was elected.  Job cuts spiked the month Obama was elected.  Why?  Because his policies are disastrous for the economy.

Higher income taxes, higher investment taxes, a likely payroll tax for healthcare, higher energy costs from carbon cap and trade taxes–businesses are not waiting for these higher costs to take effect before doing something about it.  Businesses all over the country are estimating the costs of Obama’s massive new taxes and taking evasive action now.  More will follow.

I think unemployment could hit 12% – 15% if these carbon cap taxes get enacted any time soon.  Democrats have been dragging their feet on cap and trade all summer.  The only consolation is that those who put Obama into power will be the ones hurt most by his policies.

Millions of idiots voted for Barack Obama based on his promise that he would create millions of jobs despite the fact that he had never created one himself.  It turns out that he and his Democrat cronies are doing just the opposite.

The hospitality industry is asking Democrats to tone down the anti-business rhetoric because it is bad for their business and destroys jobs.

Star Tribune Hospitality Article

Jay Witzel, CEO of Carlson Hotels Worldwide, was quoted as saying the following about the  business travel industry during testimony to the Senate:

This part of our industry has been the source of undeserved and crippling attacks in recent months.  An environment has been created in America where legitimate business travel is being questioned and cancelled. This translates into additional loss of jobs, taxes, and travel-related revenues for an industry that is already hard-hit from the general economic recession.

Yes, that makes sense.  And that is precisely why Democrats will not be able to comprehend it.

Another article discusses the 789 pending Chrysler dealership closings forced by the Obama administration and the tens-of-thousands of jobs that could be destroyed.

Star Tribune Chrysler Article

Chrysler submitted a 40-page list of pending closures to a bankruptcy court judge Thursday in response to government demands it dramatically shrink.

Economists estimate 42,000 dealership jobs could be lost in the closings, not counting thousands of related jobs at suppliers and ancillary businesses that depend on spending by dealership employees.

That’s an average of 53 jobs lost per dealership, which is a reasonable estimate.  All because of Barack Obama.

I’ve written in the past about how jobs in energy-intensive industries are bearing the brunt of job losses because of impending Democrat carbon taxes.  With Chrysler, we have irrefutable evidence that Obama is directly destroying jobs.

What is most humorous is that auto dealerships, particularly good-paying mechanic jobs, are heavily unionized.  Unions supported Obama, and now he’s destroying their jobs.

Is this what they call poetic justice?  It certainly is sweet irony.

Over two-thirds of the jobs lost since the beginning of the recession in December of 2007 have come since Obama was elected last November.  When Obama was elected, unemployment stood at 6.8%.  As of April 2009, unemployment was 8.9%–and rising.  To contrast, in February 2008 the unemployment rate was 4.8%–almost half of what it is now.

Historical Unemployment Data

I would love to meet an Obama voter who recently lost his or her job and laugh in their face.  We on the Right told you this was going to happen.  Sure enough, it is.  It is, afterall, nothing more than simple logic, which is something beyond the grasp of the Democrat mind.

As Obama is proving, sometimes change can be bad.

This is unbelievable.  The latest plan involving failing automaker General Motors would give the auto workers union members nearly half the company in lieu of a $20 billion payment into a retiree health care trust.  The government would get ownership of 50% of the company.

Basically, this is what is happening:  the auto workers bankrupted the company with outlandish demands for wages and benefits for decades, then when the company is inevitably unable to pay those benefits, the auto workers end up owning a large chunk of the company they destroyed.

That’s extortion.

Almost as troubling is the fact that the government will be majority owner of GM.  The administration of Barack Obama will have direct control over the company.  How scary.

One of the biggest lies the Democratic Party has ever told–and they’ve told a lot–is that the American auto industry is failing because they didn’t make vehicles people wanted to buy.  This is completly false.  The auto industry built SUVs, minivans, and other non-tiny vehicles because people wanted them for the size, comfort, and utility they provide.

The fact is people don’t want tiny, deathtrap cars as Obama wants everyone to drive.  A man of six feet-three inches is not going to be comfortable in a small car.  Nevermind the fact that you can’t haul anything like tents, sports equipment, groceries, or much of anything else in the tiny trunks those vehicles have.

Not even Barack Obama wanted to drive a small, fuel-efficient car when he had the chance.  He purchased a roomy gas guzzler a few years back.

Barack Obama’s Gas Guzzler

In the end, this will serve to empower unions by showing that they can bankrupt companies and end up controlling them via their extortionary tactics.  The government will take majority ownership of a company that is failing and will fail even worse because the government will mandate they build cars nobody wants to buy.  And do you think a Democrat-controlled government is going to force their loyal union voters and political donors to take pay and benefit cuts to regain profitability?  No way.  The government will end up with a failing company and continue to subsidize the above-market union wages, benefits, and pensions at taxpayer expense.

If the executives at GM were smart, they would liquidate immediately.  Hundreds of thousands of workers at GM plants and GM dealerships around the country would find themselves out of work.  This is a better alternative than the government controlling a company they do not have the competence to run requiring never-ending subsidies of union workers.

AP GM Story

Much has been made of the role of the American “financial crisis” in the economic recession across the globe.  Democrats, and even our President, Barack Obama, have pointed their fingers at the United States as the source of world problems.  But they are conveniently ignoring the one crucial aspect that links all nations.

The first problem with the “America is to blame” argument is that the American “financial crisis” is largely myth.  There is no real crisis nor any shortage of loanable funds for individuals and businesses with good credit.  The United States Treasury releases a monthly report on bank lending.  All the major banks in the United States have been lending at strong levels, according to the report.  Banks have reported weakened demand for loans, which is what you would expect during a recession.  But the largest banks in the country are still lending to worthy borrowers.

Treasury Report

The U.S. Department of the Treasury today released results from its January monthly bank lending survey, showing that the nation’s largest banks continued to originate, refinance and renew loans in  January 2009 in the face of a worsening economic downturn.  Despite the worst financial crisis in decades, the survey of the top 21 recipients of government investment through the Capital Purchase Program (CPP) found that most institutions had higher originations across consumer lending categories than in December 2008.

Secondly, this argument is nothing more than an attempt to blame President George Bush for something that he had no part in creating.  Other nations around the world were experiencing economic contractions before the United States did.  Further, to insinuate that other nations’ economic problems were the result of investing in American mortgage-backed securities makes little sense.  That would have to ignore all the other investments around the globe, including mortgage-backed securities in other countries where subprime lending was active, such as England.

The biggest problem with this argument is that of timing.  If the United States was to blame for the global recession, shouldn’t the economy of the USA have been the first to experience a downturn?  Absolutely.  But this isn’t the case.  Economies in Europe such as Germany and Spain have been struggling for years, with much of the blame for that on high social services taxes.  In the mid-2000s when the United States economy was roaring with unemployment levels below 5%, some European countries such as Spain and Germany had unemployment levels of 8% to 9%.

What is the common factor between all nations of the world which could explain the global recession?  The answer:  oil.

As the price of oil rose around the world, money was diverted from consumption to pay for fuel.  This had a retarding effect on all economies.  If you factor in the high taxes in some countries, the cost of a gallon of gasoline at its peak was the equivalent of $10 per gallon.  Every dollar spent on fuel is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere in the economy to create jobs.  Naturally, this is going to harm an economy.

Only someone with a dysfunctional mind, such as a Democrat, can argue that more money spent on gasoline and less on everything else isn’t going to have a harmful impact on the economy.  But Democrats would never admit this, even if they believed it, because it would be an admission of the failures of their policies and way of thinking.  Democrats can’t accept blame any more than they can come up with good ideas.  Their answer to everything is to blame Bush.

Here’s an article from Alan Reynolds at the Cato Institute.  In the article, he points out that all but one of the recessions since World War II have come after rises in the cost of petroleum.

Article

Logically, it makes sense that a sharp increase in the cost of one factor of production lacking suitable substitutes is going to take money out of an economy and reduce economic activity.  But don’t try explaining that to a Democrat.

I was reading the news about the latest unemployment report when this nugget caught my eye.

AP Story

Many of those job cuts were in energy intensive industries…

Star Tribune Story

Workers in energy intense industries like metals or manufacturing have been hit especially hard in recent rounds of job cuts.

Why would there be lots of job cuts in energy-intensive industries when energy costs are lower now than they were one year ago?  Let me thing about this for about 1/1000th of a second…

Jobs are being slashed in energy-intensive industries because of the Democrats’ plans for a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions which is really nothing more than a carbon tax.  These carbon taxes are going to significantly raise the cost of doing business in these industries, so they are slashing jobs now in anticipation of those promised higher expenses, courtesy of the DFL.

This is unbelievably predictable; yet, Democrats are too dumb to see it.

Where are those jobs going?  Some are probably being cut for good.  As profits get pinched, either because of rising costs or declining revenues, the first thing businesses do is cut jobs.  A strong possibility is that many of these jobs are going to be outsourced overseas where the politicians are not as dumb as the American Democratic Party who are destroying their own country.

I found another interesting passage in another article.

AP Article

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 5.1 million jobs, with almost two-thirds of the losses occurring in the last five months.

What happened five months ago?  Let’s go back…March, February, January, December, November…  Five months ago Barack Obama was elected President!  Two-thirds of the job cuts since the beginning of the economic downturn came since the election of Barack Hussein Obama.

Do you think this is coincidence?  It isn’t.

Barney Frank is out talking up the need for new legistlation to prevent future mortgage crises.  The interesting thing is, he never mentions that he was responsible for the foreclosure crisis in the first place.

AP Article

The plan, which (Barney) Frank said could be voted on by the committee during the first week of May, would also bar financial institutions from securitizing 100 percent of their loans, create a “resolving authority” to help wind down failing institutions in a more orderly way, and ensure no institution becomes so indebted that it threatens the entire national financial system.

He said part of the reason the country finds itself in its current fiscal crisis is a shift from traditional bankers, who made loans but found themselves on the hook if the loans went bad, to complex financial deals that allowed mortgages to be combined and then sold — with little financial risk to those making the loans.

“If only banks made mortgage loans, there would be no crisis,” he said.

He acknowledged that part of the problem were individuals who took out loans even though they should have known they had no reasonable expectation they could pay them back. But Frank said a large part of the blame also goes to those making the loans, who also should have taken the time to figure out if the people they were lending the money to could repay the loans.

Yes, Barney.  And if idiots like you weren’t pressuring government-backed companies into making loans to people with bad credit and low incomes, we would never have had a foreclosure crisis in the first place!

Let’s look at a few Barney Frank quotes about mortgages for low income people and Fannie Mae.

From September, 2003:

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis.  The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

…Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis.  The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see.  I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound, financially, and, uh, withstand some of the disaster scenarios.  And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.  But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.

If Barney Frank got it so wrong the first time, why does he think he’s going to get it right the second time?  Will Barney Frank ever man-up and admit that he is responsible for the mortgage meltdown in the first place?

Barney Frank’s Role In Foreclosure Crisis
Barney Frank Denies Problems With Fannie Mae

Every time President Barack Hussein Obama opens his mouth, the stock market tanks. It dropped again on Monday, March 31, 2009, as his plans for the ailing American auto industry were made public, including the forced resignation of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 254.16 points, or 3.27%, to end at 7522.02. The S&P 500 fell 28.41 points, or 3.48%, to finish at 787.53.

How much more proof does one need to see that Obama is bad for the stock market and the economy? Literally, every time he opens his mouth, the market tanks.

Last week, the market was up because of Obama’s transfer-of-wealth plan for Wall Street. Obama wants to lend upwards of $1 trillion to investors at enticingly low interest rates so they can buy up banks’ “toxic assets” to clear them off of balance sheets with the government bearing most, if not all, of the risk of loss. The market reacted favorably, which you would expect given the potential transfer of wealth involved, moving up over 6.5% the first trading day following the announcement of the plan.

If you take money from group X and give it to group Y, the value of group Y is going to increase. That is what a transfer of wealth does. It increases the value of one group at the expense of another group. No real wealth is created in such situations. That is why the market rose on March 23, 2009. It is nothing more than a transfer of wealth to Wall Street.

One investment company CEO summed up the rally correctly.

NY Times Article

“This is the free-money rally,” said Barry Ritholtz, chief executive of Fusion IQ, an investment and research firm. “Traders like the fact that there’s a boatload of cash headed their way.”

A boatload of cash is right. This reeks of a payback to Wall Street. Obama was the largest recipient of campaign contributions from Wall Street employees during the 2008 Presidential campaign. He has a long history of using his influence to get taxpayer money for his financial backers. He is doing it again. Obama is still as crooked as he ever was. He just has a larger pool of money to dole out as paybacks now that he’s the President of the United States.  And all of it is borrowed from future generations.

Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd was caught in a lie.  He originally denied having anything to do with inserting language into the Obama stimulus bill exempting restrictions on bonuses of bailed-out companies prior to February 11, 2009.  Yesterday, Dodd admitted that he did insert that language into the bill at the urging of the Obama administration.

Dodd was quoted by ABC News as saying:

I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate passed amendment. But I did so at the request of administration officials who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG.

Interestingly, Dodd is the single largest recipient of political contributions from AIG employees and their family members.  There also happens to be an AIG office in Connecticut, the state that Dodd represents, which houses the AIG Financial Products headquarters and has several people working in it who are recipients of the $163 million in bonus money.

You may remember Obama railing against executive bonuses in the past.  Do you really think that members of his administration would pressure Congress into inserting bonus exemption language into the stimulus bill without his knowledge or consent?  Absolutely not.  Obama had to have known about this before the news broke, which means that the outrage he expressed earlier this week was fake.

This past Monday (March 16th, 2009), President Obama expressed his anger at the AIG bonuses, saying the following:

I do want to comment on the news about executive bonuses at AIG. I think some of you have heard a little bit about this over the last few days. This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed. Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?

In the last six months, AIG has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury. And I’ve asked Secretary Geithner to use that leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole. I want everybody to be clear that Secretary Geithner has been on the case. He’s working to resolve this matter with the new CEO, Edward Liddy — who, by the way, everybody needs to understand came on board after the contracts that led to these bonuses were agreed to last year.

AIG can justify the outrage, idiot President, because it was you and your administration who pressured Chris Dodd to put language in your stimulus bill to exempt these bonuses from any restrictions.  Obama later added in his speech:

Excuse me, I’m choked up with anger here.

That Obama is a shameless liar.  He expresses outrage over something that he and his administration are responsible for.  Not only are they responsible for it, but they lobbied Congress to make it happen.  Congress was trying to prevent these types of bonuses from happening until the Obama administration stepped in.

Barack Obama is responsible for the bonuses at AIG.  He lied through his teeth when he acted shocked, surprised, and angry because he was the one behind it.

Barack Obama, President of the United States, is a liar.

The Washington Post is reporting that executives of Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored enterprise that Democrats destroyed, are in line to receive big fat retention bonuses approved by the government.

Fannie Mae is still losing billions from the days when Democrats pressured them to facilitate mortgage loans to those with low incomes and poor credit. The bailouts of Fannie Mae and its sister company Freddie Mac are expected to cost the American taxpayers hundreds-of-billions of dollars.

The bonuses for the executive are:

• Michael Williams – Chief Operating Officer:  $611,000
• David Hisey – Chief Financial Officer:  $517,000
• Thomas Lund – Executive Vice President:  $470,000
• Kenneth Bacon – Executive Vice President:  $470,000

For more on the Democrats role in destroying Fannie Mae, please see the following:

Democrats To Blame For Housing And Financial Crises

Democrat Barney Frank Interview With 60 Minutes

General Motors has announced that liquidation of the company is the most probable outcome should the company be forced into bankruptcy court.  That means that GM would cease to exist.  All employees of the company would be out of work.  Employees at suppliers and GM dealerships would lose their jobs, too.  We are talking about the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

As always, Democrats are to blame.

The Auto Workers Union has refused to take concessions that would enable GM to cut their expenses and regain profitability.  Democrats in Congress could come to the rescue, but they don’t want to anger the unions, who are big supporters of the DFL with votes and money.

A law could probably be passed invalidating existing union contracts.  That way, GM could either renegotiate with the unions to cut their expenses or get rid of their unionized workforce altogether and hire lower-cost replacements.

But Democrats remain as uncooperative as ever.  They will allow the unions to destroy the entire American auto industry instead of passing a law to enable the companies to survive.  The DFL would lose hundreds-of-million of dollars in support from the unions if they did anything to invalidate the contracts.  They need the union money and, perhaps more importantly, they need the votes.  That is why Democrats in Congress are sitting on their hands.

AP Article

Detroit Free Press Article

For all the outrage expressed by President Barack Obama and the Democrats regarding AIG’s payment of $163 million in bonuses, it turns out that the Obama administration knew about it for a long time.  Not only that, but these bonuses were approved by the government.

NY Times Article

President Obama and his top economic advisers scrambled to calm a nationwide furor on Monday over bonuses paid at the American International Group, even as administration officials acknowledged they had known about the issue for months.

AIG executives say they got approval from the government to award the bonuses.  Nobody in the Obama administration should act surprised.

But that won’t stop DFLers from engaging in phony political posturing.  Now Democrats are faking outrage over the bonuses and spewing venomous rhetoric.  They are promising to take away the money from the recipients via a special law targeting them with excessive taxation.

Democrat Charles “Chuck” Schumer said the following today about the bonuses:

They should voluntarily return them. If they don’t, we plan to tax virtually all of it.

Washington Post Article

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV) said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said they would unveil a proposal by tomorrow that would tax up to 98 percent of the bonus money.

How nice.  You are doing your job and expect compensation as contractually agreed beforehand and the Democrats come along and promise to steal everything you earned even though they knew about the bonuses months ago.

This is yet another example of the phoniness of the Obama administration and of Democrats in general.  They knew about the bonuses all along and now they pretend to be upset about it after news stories got the public all enraged.

Sensible people knew that Barack Obama would be bad for the economy.  We knew that he would end up pushing companies overseas with his anti-business “populist” rhetoric, his interference in the free market, and his oppressive taxation policies and regulations.  Now we have proof.

This Reuters article discusses how companies are moving to Switzerland to get away from Obama.

Reuters Article

…A wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland — mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama’s tax-seeking administration.

Over the past six months companies including offshore drilling contractors Noble Corp and Transocean, energy-focused engineering group Foster Wheeler and oilfield services company Weatherfield International have all announced plans to shift domicile to Switzerland.

President Barack Obama is destroying the economy.  Just watch.  You will see more U.S. corporations relocating their headquarters overseas to get away from Obama and the Democrats.  This was predicted, and now it is happening.

Just when you think Democrat Representative from Massachusetts Barney Frank can’t get any dumber, he opens his mouth to prove otherwise.

A couple of weeks ago, speaking about the future of failed government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Rep. Frank was quoted by the New York Times as saying:

There is a commitment to restructure these companies, and we are going to want to retain a hand in the things that matter, like affordable housing and making sure that the housing economy doesn’t become a threat to the entire economy again.

Frank still can’t figure out that it was his policies and the policies of other Democrats to make loans to low income people and those with poor credit which resulted in the massive failures of Fannie and Freddie in the first place.  It was Frank and his DFL allies who blocked Republican efforts to regulate the two to prevent a catastrophic failure from occurring.  And now Frank wants to do the same thing all over again.

It seems that Democrats aren’t smart enough to not make the same mistakes repeatedly.  Lab rats learn from their mistakes.  But not Democrats.

For more on the Democrats’ role in the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, please see:

Democrats To Blame For Housing And Financial Crises

Democrat Barney Frank Interview With 60 Minutes

What the hell is wrong with those New Englanders?  Why do they keep electing morons like Barney Frank to positions of power?  Must be something in the water.

The stock market was set to rise an impressive amount today, that is, until idiot-in-chief Barack Obama opened his ugly mouth causing a huge sell-off–yet again.

Prior to Obama’s comments, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) was up a healthy 2.2%.  Shortly after Obama’s public comments expressing “outrage” over bonuses at AIG, the gargantuan insurance company that received $170 billion in a taxpayer-funded bailout, and giving details on his small business lending program, the market started trending downward, erasing all of the day’s gains.

You can literally trace the decline of the market to the time of Obama’s comments!  The man is a fool!

The market was up early due to statements made by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the economy would likely recover by the end of this year or early next year on last night’s edition of 60 Minutes on CBS.

Then, Obama opened his foolish mouth.  Every time Obama opens his mouth, the stock market tanks.  You can literally track the decline of the market to the minutes following Obama’s comments or policy announcements with each policy his administration announces.

Last week, the market rallied after whispers of better-than-expect performance at Citigroup and other banks.  Obama had nothing to do with last week’s market rally, but he had everything to do with today’s decline and the tanking of the market since he was elected in November.

The Dow finished today at 7216.97, down 7.01 points, or 0.10%.  Prior to Obama’s comments, the Dow was up nearly 160 points.

All the other indices did more poorly.  The S&P 500 finished down 2.66 points, or 0.35%, ending at 753.89.  The technology-laden NASDAQ ended down 27.48 points, or 1.92%, to close at 1404.02.  The Russell 2000 was down 1.71%, shedding 6.73 points to finish at 386.36.  The Wilshire 5000 dropped 42.95 points, or 0.56%, to end at 7573.97.

All the aforementioned market indices were up with strong gains until Obama opened his mouth.  If this isn’t proof that the stock market does not like Obama, nothing is.

Anyone who thought that Barack Obama and his massive tax increases on investment, incomes, and energy would be good for the economy is a fool.

The fact of the matter is that job losses have accelerated since the election of Obama and many economists don’t think those jobs will ever come back.

NY Times Article

Since the recession began, the economy has eliminated a net total of roughly 4.4 million jobs, with more than half of those positions — some 2.6 million — disappearing in the last four months alone. (Since Obama was elected.) This rapid deterioration has prompted talk that some industries are being partly dismantled.

“These jobs aren’t coming back,” said John E. Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia in Charlotte, N.C. “A lot of production either isn’t going to happen at all, or it’s going to happen somewhere other than the United States.

Gosh, who in the world could possibly have imagined that businesses would take their jobs and flee the country in the face of higher taxes, carbon caps, threats of punitive “windfall taxes”, nationalization, and multi-trillion dollar federal budget deficits?  Uh, how about anyone with a brain could have predicted this.

The stock market is the barometer of the economy.  Every time Obama opens his mouth to announce a new policy, the stock market tanks by 3% to 5%.  There’s a reason for that, you know.

Look at the American auto industry.  Why are they going bankrupt?  Because of Democrats and their symbiotic relationship with unions who bankroll them and support them with votes who extorted money out of the auto companies for decades.  Unions will destroy themselves in the process of destroying their employers instead of taking pay and benefit cuts.

Also from the NY Times article:

“There was a huge increase in uncertainty and a huge hit to confidence which caused a large rethinking among businesses,” said Ethan Harris, co-head of United States economics research at Barclays Capital.

And who is causing that uncertainty and lack of confidence?  Barack Obama, that’s who.

What is going to be most interesting is to see how many jobs are being shipped overseas since the election of Barack Obama.  I’ll bet it’s a lot.

The idiot-in-chief Barack Obama promised to turn the economy around with his empty platitudes and hollow rhetoric.  His speeches written by professional speechwriters and read off of teleprompters convinced millions of mindless fools that he had the qualifications necessary to turn the economy around despite no education in Business, Economics, Finance, nor any experience in those areas, either.

So, how has the market responded to Barack Obama?  Very poorly.

Today, the market suffered another major setback because of Obama.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 299.64 points, or 4.24%, to close at 6763.29.  The S&P 500 lost 34.27 points, or 4.66%, to close at 700.72.

Here’s an interesting quote from a market professional about Obama’s plans. Mark Travis, president and CEO at Intrepid Capital Funds, said in a CNN.com article:

The administration is hemming and hawing and still not being clear about exactly what they are going to do and how it’s going to work.

That is because Barack Obama doesn’t have a clue about how to turn the economy around and, in fact, his plans are economically disastrous.  One only needs to look at the market reaction to his plans to see positive proof of that.  The market doesn’t tank on good news.  But the market tanks every time Obama opens his mouth and announces one of his plans–every single time!

We are now at levels not seen since 1997 thanks to President Obama and his Democrat cronies.  When Obama was elected, the market tanked for two straight days.  When he was inaugurated, the market dropped.  When his stimulus plan passed Congress, the market sank.  When he announced his foreclosure rescue plan, the market tanked.  When he announced his budget proposal for 2010, the market tanked.

Do you see a pattern here?

See our previous posts in the Barack Obama category for examples of how the market tanks every time the idiot opens his mouth.

Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA)

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  9625.28
• 03/02/2009 (Today):  6763.29
• Obama effect:  -2861.99 points, -29.73%

S&P 500

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  1005.75
• 03/02/2009 (Today):  700.82
• Obama effect:  -304.93 points, -30.32%

Wilshire 5000

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  10105.20
• 03/02/2009 (Today):  7056.16
• Obama effect:  -3049.04 points, -30.17%

Russell 2000

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  545.97
• 03/02/2009 (Today):  367.80
• Obama effect:  -178.17 points, -32.63%

NASDAQ

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  1780.12
• 03/02/2009 (Today):  1322.85
• Obama effect:  -457.27 points, -25.69%

Why is the stock market going down?  Why doesn’t the stock market like Barack Obama?  It is because his plans are bad for the economy.  His carbon taxes will raise costs for businesses meaning smaller profits and thus lower stock values since stock values are based on profits.  Carbon taxes will also raise the cost of energy for consumers, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend to create jobs.  Millions of jobs will be shipped overseas where businesses aren’t burdened by the Democrats’ taxes and regulations.

Obama’s taxes on incomes and investment will kill jobs, too.  People don’t invest in risky projects to have all of their money taxed away. Mathematically, investment values must drop when anything reduces the rate of return, including higher taxes.  So it is no surprise that the market is dropping because of Obama.  In fact, it is a mathematical necessity.

Everything that Barack Obama is doing is designed to destroy the economy and kill jobs.  As the stock market gets lower and lower, Democrats point to it as evidence that the free market doesn’t work.  Then, they argue that their brand of socialism is necessary and the only thing that can save the economy that they are destroying.

Do you see a pattern here, too?

The market was down significantly again today.  Yesterday the market tanked because of Obama’s tax and spending plans.  Today could be a partial continuation of that, or it could be a reaction to his Iraq speech, or it could be a reaction to his grabbing an ownership stake in Citigroup.  Whatever the reason for the sinking stock market, one thing is clear:  Barack Obama is to blame for it.  Every time he opens his mouth or does anything, the market falls.  Major market drops are correlated to his policy announcements.

The Dow ended the day down 119.15 points, or 1.66%, to settle at 7062.93.  The S&P 500 did much worse on a percentage basis, falling points 17.74, or 2.36%, to end at 735.09.

Let’s look at the closing values today versus the day Obama was elected and see just how bad for the economy Obama is.

On November 4th, 2008, election day, the Dow closed at 9625.28.  Since Obama was elected, the Dow has lost 2562.35 points, a total of 26.62%.

The S&P 500 closed at 1005.75 on election day.  Since Black Tuesday, it has lost 270.66 points, or 26.91%.

This is just the beginning.  Obama’s tax increases and carbon caps are going to be devastating to the economy and will push millions of jobs overseas.  Too bad Obamabots are too damn stupid to realize it.  Oh, but they are eagerly anticipating all the welfare benefits they are going to get with money borrowed from future generations.

Every time Obama opens his mouth (literally), the stock market tanks.  The market sank again today, the day Obama released his fiscal year 2010 budget proposal which includes a $1.75 trillion one-year deficit.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 88.81 points, or 1.22%, to settle at 7182.08.  The S&P 500 fared worse, losing 12.07 points, or 1.58% to end the day with a value of 752.83.

If Obama keeps opening mouth, soon there won’t be any stock market left!

The stock market lost just over 1% again today following Barack Obama’s prime time speech last night.

Every time Obama opens his mouth, the market tanks.  It’s true.  But don’t expect the traditional news media to report that.  They want you to think that Obama is “turning the economy around”.  But I’ve got news for you:  the stock market is the barometer of the economy.  When a President proposes something good for the economy, the market rises, not drops.

The Dow finished down 80.05 points, or 1.09%, to finish at 7270.89.  The S&P 500 shed 8.24 points, or 1.07%, to end the day at 764.90.  At one point early in the day, the Dow was down nearly 200 points before making up losses.

As for Obama’s speech, here is an article about the man pulling Obama’s strings, or at least, pulling the strings that control Obama’s mouth.  His name is Jon Favreau, and he is the person who tells Obama what to say and how to say it.  You see, Obama cannot think for himself.

Jon Favreau US News & World Report Article

Friends say that when the deadline for a big speech looms, Favreau will devote himself to researching and writing for 16-hour stretches at a time.

His most recent challenge was Obama’s inaugural address. As Favreau prepared it, he listened to recordings of past inaugural addresses and sought advice from Peggy Noonan, one of President Ronald Reagan’s most celebrated speechwriters and a Favreau favorite. One of Favreau’s assistants researched various crises in U.S. history, and still another interviewed historians and passed their insights on to Favs.

The address turned into a somber description of the nation’s current economic crisis, coupled with a promise to take fast action to get the economy moving. It wasn’t a speech for the ages, but it did capture the moment, which is what Obama wanted.

Barack Obama’s secret to success:  a good speech writer and good teleprompters.  Obama’s words are not his own, and they are not reflective of his thoughts.

Stocks were up today, nearly erasing yesterday’s losses.  The Dow was up 236.16 points, or 3.32%;  the S&P 500 was up 29.81 points, or 4.01%.  But why was the market up today?

Yesterday, the market dropped in reaction to news about Obama’s economic and tax plans made public over the weekend.  Today, the market was up because of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s testimony to the Senate Banking Committee that he believes the economy will bottom out this year and rebound in 2010.  Also contributing to the market uptick today was Bernanke’s comments that the government had no plans to nationalize banks.

When Obama speaks, the market tanks.  When Bernanke speaks, the market jumps.  Too bad Obama plans to replace Bernanke when his four-year term expires in 2010.  I’ll bet the market will tank when Obama does that, too.  The market drops like a rock every time Obama does or says anything!

Reuters Article

TheStreet.com Article

I’m speculating as to whether or not the news media will give President Obama credit for today’s appreciation in the stock market.  They don’t tell the truth about him being responsible when the market sinks, so they’ll probably spin this to Obama’s advantage.

One out of every five residents of Los Angeles County, CA, are on some sort of public assistance.

What a bunch of losers!  Is it any wonder that area votes so heavily Democratic?  Obama got 70% of the vote in Los Angeles County.

LA Times Welfare Parasites Article

Do you want to know what I find most interesting?  It’s that there is a lot of entertainment industry money out in the Los Angeles area.  Why aren’t these rich liberals like Barbara Streisand, Zach Braff, Jennifer Aniston, and many, many others putting away their Porsches and giving a sizeable chunk of their own money to help those they pretend to care about?  Time and time again they have asked for tax increases.  So why don’t they voluntarily tax themselves and give some of their millions away?

Massive dependence on the welfare system is what you would expect with unchecked illegal immigration, isn’t it?  Don’t worry, this is just the tip of the iceberg.  It won’t be long until Obama and the Democrats are ramming amnesty for illegal immigrants down our throats again.  This time, it will pass.  Then we’ll have millions more people to take care of.

Every time Barack Obama opens his ugly mouth, the stock market tanks. The idiot-in-chief is responsible for the loss of trillions of dollars of wealth since he was elected.  And he doesn’t even care!

Yesterday morning, while replying to a reader’s comment, I told him that the market was going to tank again today in response to information about Obama’s plans that hit the news this weekend.  I was right.  The market did plunge again today, thanks to Barack Obama.

It’s common sense, really, something that Democrat voters lack.  If they had any, they would never have voted for Barack Obama in the first place.

Today, February 23, 2009 (02/23/2009), the market had another terrible day.  Here are the point and percentage losses for five of the most commonly quoted stock indexes.

Dow: -250.89 points, -3.41%.

S&P 500: -26.72 points, -3.47%.

Wilshire 5000: -274.40 points, -3.54%.

Russell 2000: -16.38 points, -3.99%.

NASDAQ: -53.51 points, -3.71%.

Hundreds of billions in wealth disappeared today.  Barack Obama is to blame.  Why is Obama to blame?  Because news of his plans hit the media this past weekend.  Today’s Wall Street bloodbath is the predictable reaction to Obama’s plans.  Before we look at the Obama news that drove the market to lows not seen since 1997, let’s look at the Obama effect on the market since the day he was elected. Below are the closing values of the particular index by date.

Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA),

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  9625.28
• 02/23/2009 (Today):  7114.78

Since the day Obama was elected (Black Tuesday, in more ways than one), the Dow has lost 2,510.50 points, or 26.08%.

S&P 500

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  1005.75
• 02/23/2009 (Today):  743.33

Since Black Tuesday, the Standard & Poor’s 500 index has lost 262 points, or 26.09%.

Wilshire 5000

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  10105.20
• 02/23/2009 (Today):  7475.31

The Wilshire 5000 Composite Index is off 2629.89 points, or 26.03% since Obama won the election.

Russell 2000

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  545.97
• 02/23/2009 (Today):  394.58

This index is down 151.39 points, or 27.73% since election day.

NASDAQ

• 11/04/2008 (Election Day):  1780.12
• 02/23/2009 (Today):  1387.72

The technology-heavy NASDAQ index is down 392.4 points, or 22.04% since Black Tuesday.

Have you seen Obama apologize or indicate any concern over the plunging stock market?  No.  That’s because the more the stock market sinks, the more people will need him, the easier he will get his desired socialism, and the more power he will have over our lives.

It’s about control.

Why the market tanked

The reason for the huge sell-off today can be summed up in two words: Barack Obama.

Over the weekend, more of Obama’s agenda was made available to the public.  Suffice it to say, the market doesn’t have confidence in Obama and is downright afraid of the damage he intends to do to the economy during a difficult time.

Obama Budget & Tax Increases Article

In that article are the basic worn-out liberal objectives of more taxation on the “rich” and higher taxes on investments.

Also included in that article is Obama’s plan to run $1 trillion budget deficits through fiscal year 2011, not including the current fiscal year 2009, during which the deficit is expected to approach $2 trillion.  You may recall that Obama criticized Bush many times for not holding the line on Congressional spending, letting the deficit get out of control.  But you haven’t seen anything yet!

From the article:

Obama said he is determined to “get exploding deficits under control” and said his budget request is “sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don’t, and restoring fiscal discipline.”

Reducing the deficit, he said, is critical: “We can’t generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control.”

Other than FY2009, when has the United States ever run a $1 trillion budget deficit?  How can you jack up the deficit through massive spending on welfare programs then portray yourself to be cutting the deficit in half?  It would still be 2.5 times what the last budget signed by Bush was at.  This guy actually believes his own BS!

I especially like this passage from that article:

Even some nonpartisan observers question the wisdom of announcing a plan to raise taxes in the midst of a recession.

We are talking about Democrats.  Nothing they do is wise.  In fact, everything they do is pretty foolish.  That is why the market has been tanking under Obama.

The only objective of Obama’s that I can agree with is cutting spending on the wars.  But then, only if it is possible without jeopardizing anything.

Also this weekend news broke of the Obama administration’s plan to put everyone on some sort of healthcare plan, including putting tens-of-millions on government programs at taxpayer expense.  Healthcare and insurance company stocks could be expected to take a severe blow because of this.  Investors are probably wondering who Obama is going to target for tax increases next to pay for this, helping to push stocks down.

The government cannot keep racking-up trillions of dollars in debt.  The government cannot provide cradle-to-grave welfare benefits for everyone.  Obama and the Democrats do not seem to understand that.  The market knows that eventually that money is going to have to be repaid.  And the market also knows that the Democrats will be coming after them for it.  If the country doesn’t go bankrupt first, that is.  And that won’t be good for the stock market, either.

All of this is helping push the stock market down further.  As the market goes down, Democrats point to it and say, “Look, the sinking stock market is proof that the free market does not work.  You better let us Democrats control everything.”

Democrats are causing the problems in the economy so they can have a justification to advance their socialist agenda using the problems they created as the rationale.

Democrats keep telling the lie that banks are not lending money and that is the reason for the weak economy, dropping home values, and justification for nationalization of the banking sector.  But that just is not true.

Banks are still lending plenty of money to people with good credit.  They may not be originating loans to people with poor credit like they did in the past, which is a good thing, but people with good credit, such as myself, are still able to get loans. A few weeks ago, I called a car dealership and asked them if people with good credit could get financing.  I was told yes.

According to the Treasury, bank lending was up in December of 2008 from the prior month.  The Treasury said that loan activity was “resilient”.  Wells Fargo originated $48.2 billion in loans, Bank of America originated $44.6 billion, and JP Morgan Chase made $28.3 billion in loans.  These banks also extended in the neighborhood of $50 billion in loans or lines of credit to commercial businesses.

So why do Democrats keep lying about banks not lending money?  Is it because they are trying to justify nationalization of banks to further their socialist agenda?  That’s what I think.

Bloomberg Bank Lending Article

The stock market dropped again yesterday (02/20/2009) thanks to Democrats, leaving tens-of-millions of Americans, including fixed-income retirees, poorer.  Democrat Senator from Connecticut Christopher Dodd made some reckless comments that banks might have to be nationalized, causing owners of bank shares to dump them, driving values to new lows.

The Obama administration did not deny that banks might be nationalized, which further spooked the market.

NY Times Article

Despite somber assurances from the White House that the industry is sound, shares of bank companies plunged to new lows Friday on fears that some of the nation’s largest banks, including Citigroup and Bank of America, eventually could be nationalized.

Though both companies said that was not the case, investors pointed to a seemingly offhand remark by Senator Christopher J. Dodd – to the effect that the administration might assume ownership of certain banks for a short time – as cause for concern.

The Obama administration has provided few details about its plans to shore up troubled lenders, sowing confusion in the markets and inside the banks about its intentions.

President Obama has provided few concrete details about any of his plans.  That’s mainly because he doesn’t have any real ideas. But that is to be expected from an incompetent empty suit with no experience and no qualifications to be President.  We must also consider that the few plans Obama has had, namely the stimulus package and mortgage rescue plan, have actually caused the stock market to drop further.  Maybe that is why he isn’t offering details.

Everything Obama says about pretty much any topic is nothing but empty platitudes and meaningless populist rhetoric.  Obama’s hollow statements aren’t going to inspire confidence in the market or in the economy.  His words may convince millions of mindless people to vote for him, but they aren’t going to get anything accomplished and are not going to turn the economy around.

(I’m beginning to understand why Obama refused to release his college transcripts.  If he got good grades, he would want people to see them.)

As for Dodd’s comments, you may recall that idiot Democratic Party Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer destroyed IndyMac bank in July of 2008 by leaking documents to the press indicating his concern that the bank might fail.  Instead of things playing out naturally, which included IndyMac surviving intact or being sold to another bank, Schumer’s actions caused a massive bank run resulting in failure–which would not have occurred if Schumer kept his opinions to himself.  According to the FDIC failed bank list, 25 banks failed in 2008.  Of those bank failures, there was only one bank run, and that was caused by Schumer.

In early January of this year, Indy Mac was sold to a private investment group for $13.9 billion.  Because of Schumer’s Democrat stupidity, the taxpayers lost billions of dollars.

MSNBC Article

The failure of IndyMac, which had $32 billion in assets, was the second-largest last year, trailing only the September failure of Washington Mutual Inc. Losses to the FDIC’s bank insurance fund are expected to range between $8.5 billion and $9.4 billion.

And now Chris Dodd is shooting off his big mouth much like Schumer did last year.  Maybe Democrats are purposely trying to destroy the banking sector and the economy so they can nationalize everything and control every aspect of our lives.

Loose lips sink ships.  They can also sink the stock market, destroy banks, and potentially destroy the economy, too.