The major U.S. stock market indexes have fared quite well lately -- they showed modest gains again today -- which reminded me of an editorial the Wall Street Journal ran in early March 2009. President Obama had been in office for about five weeks, and the WSJ decided it was time to blame him for the struggling stock market.
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.
As far as the paper's editorial board was concerned at the time this was published, the facts were simply irrefutable: investors got a look at "the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance," and then the stock market fell. There was no doubt about the causal relationship.
Indeed, over the first seven weeks of the Obama presidency, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, just one of many Wall Street indexes, dropped from 7,949.08 to 6,547.04. For many conservatives, no other proof was needed to indict the White House's economic policies.
Karl Rove and Lou Dobbs made this argument, at the time, and so did Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fred Barnes. John Boehner also pushed the line, and it was one of Mitt Romney's favorite talking points for a while, too.
That was nearly three years ago. Now, under an administration conservatives are convinced is socialist, the markets have soared, and the S&P is up about 58%. The NASDAQ has reached heights unseen since the Clinton era, and the Dow Jones has roughly doubled in value since March 2009.
To be clear, the value of a stock market index is hardly the best metric for measuring the strength of the economy. Indeed, it isn't even close. But putting that aside, it's not unreasonable to expect a degree of consistency. If Wall Street doldrums were evidence of Obama's failures, should stock market gains be seen as proof of the administration's successes?
If not, why not?
Leave a Comment:
Never let facts get in the way of a good talking point.
Fox - Factfree Organized eXibition.
WSJ is part of the Murdoch empire. Nuff said.
Ditto Fox "News" - purchased from Hearst corporation by Newscorp when Hearst divested itself of its racist components just prior to Opra.
Thanks to Steve Benen for an appropriately timed reminder.
The right's "faux outrage du jour" of yesterday and yesteryear are quickly forgotten by the traditional media as Republicans and Republican sympathizers continually manufacture new reasons to be outraged. So, thank goodness that we have Benen looking back to further enlighten us on what utter hacks these people are.
Your post Mr. Benen reminds me that I never want to be a neighbor of the ill-tempered folks you mention above (members of the WSJ editorial board, Karl Rove, Lou Dodds, Hannity and the rest of the listed intellectual ne'erdowells who politicize everything they can)! My lawn mower would more than likely disappear. My home would be eggless and sugarless, and I'd have to listen to the constant stream of equivocations regarding even the banal issues we all face. Oh, the horror!
The dishonest people you name-drop above only want to play a game if they hold a two-headed coin, and force their perceived adversaries to choose tails when tossed in the air, only to land on a heads! They, perhaps, ask their partners after sex, was that good for me?
They are capable of nothing more as they are enveloped in the petard of their own egotism! -Kevo
Why not? Well, to admit such would show honesty. (And for those who haven't been paying attention the last, oh, 30 years or so, honesty is not a GOP strong suit.)
Stocks fell in early 2009 because mortgages and rents paid to banking and investment firms stopped being paid when 4 million immigrants began to leave the country in 2007 after Bush made Mexicans and Asians illegal with these two gems.
President Bush signed into law H.R. 3648, The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007, to help banks struggling because of revenue losses caused by hostile immigration policy (loan modification program).
Banks began a massive stock selloff in 2009 because of massive revenue losses that began in 2008 because the loan modification program failed to correct revenue losses caused by the Patriot Act and Real ID Act when Mexicans fled the country.
Canadians were not criminalized by the Patriot Act (it is only against the law to be Mexican and Asian).
DWA in California is one of the more remarkable Republican legacies (Driving While Asian).
If the stock market goes above the 13,000 ceiling, then Obama can crow all he wants and thumb his nose at the republican naysayers. Even if it cracks it by a point, it will be a big deal, a big first and a big victory.
And if people vote in a repub president et al, and the market slides, I hope the WSJ will print an equally scathing critique of the new president's policies. Oh wait - only in a parallel universe!
They will say to sit and wait til the next term for things to start righting themselves. And maybe that would be true. It was not Morning in America at the end of Reagan's last term!
When the facts don't co-operate, make up you own. So far Obama is a Muslim Socialist who was not born here and has colonial views, wants to destroy our country, raises taxes, increases regulations ( some on banks and such, but has reviewed and removed some deemed unnecessary for businesses ) and has made the economy worse. All are false, but when the truth won't work....
The total lack of co-operation of anything he proposes, even Republican sponsored ideas shows how much the Republicans care about our country. The criteria is if it is proposed by Obama oppose it. Don't even consider if it is a good idea for the country. The goal is to get the white house back. This is not good for the country. If the current white house is doing a good job, and I think it is considering total opposition, then it should be supported, not trashed for political gain.
I certainly cannot see how unleashing unregulated free market ideology again is the right thing to do. The hole that was dug by this ideology is slowly getting better, my God, let's not go back to how we got there. But that's what the Republicans think is the right idea.
Although there are many films showing the problems created by this, watching the movie wall street again would be a good idea. The banks and investors are at the heart of our problems. I couldn't help but think how much Gordon Gekko reminds me of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.
In evidence of which, it turns out that in the long run, birtherism is alive and well, and stronger than before, even after Obama released his long-form birth certificate. Lies run around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots.
The GOP and right wingers have proved one thing these past few years: they have endless supplies of made-up stuff to pour out of their well-funded outlets.
But, surprise, surprise! They are getting so predictable and SOOO boring, that no one is going to pay attention to them soon.
I hope you are correct. One would think that the repetitiousness of the GOP/RW talking points would make them ridiculous, but there seem to be large numbers of non-thinking people with very short memories. Unfortunately, they do vote.
"should stock market gains be seen as proof of the administration's successes?"
Of course not, you silly boy. The reason the stock market rose is because of the republican governors. Didn't you know that? But don't take my word for it. Ask Whosis in VA. He'll tell you.
Because it ruins the preferred narrative.
Many, many, times, and as late as three years into the Bush presidency, Hannity was still calling it the "Clinton recession."
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b91585.html