Hillary Clinton is not only trying to Save The World, Hillary Clinton is also trying to save the American and World economies.
Meanwhile Barack Obama is dead set on destructive flim-flam economic policies announced at circus rallies.
The financial markets are responding to Barack Obama’s flim-flam scams:
Financial gloom was everywhere on Tuesday.
Markets from Hong Kong to Stockholm to London staggered lower. On Wall Street, the Dow came within sight of its lowest levels in more than a decade. Financial shares were battered. And rattled investors clamored to buy rainy-day investments like gold and Treasury debt. [snip]
The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index slid 4 percent to drop below 800, which analysts said was an important trading threshold.
“If we get substantially below 800 then look out below,” said Marc Groz, chief investment officer at Topos, a hedge fund in Greenwich, Conn. [snip]
“Robust export demand had been the main support for U.S. manufacturing for many months,” Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist at MFR, wrote in a note. “Now, with economic activity weakening sharply around the world, exports are dropping like a stone, with the pace of decline set to accelerate significantly in the months ahead.”
In Europe, attention turned to the plight of lenders active in Eastern Europe after Moody’s Investors Service said it might downgrade banks with units in the region. Investors are worried about the debts owed by banks in Eastern Europe to financial institutions in West European countries, especially Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece and Italy.
* * *
In 2008 Hillary Clinton made the connection between the United States economy and the Japanese economy.
“We might be drifting into a Japanese-like situation,” Hillary Clinton told the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. “I don’t think we can work our way out of the problems we’re in, in the broad-based economy, with monetary policy alone. I think the Japanese tried that and tried that and tried that…. I don’t think we’ll have the strong growing economy we need until we have the strong energy policy, for example.” [snip]
Blame an interconnected bad banking system and deflating real estate bubble (sound familiar?) for the start of the downturn. But Japan’s policy response didn’t help matters. Clinton mentions that monetary policy didn’t work. Neither did infrastructure spending packages, something Clinton did not note in the interview. One reason those efforts did not pay off, the IIE concludes, is that they were offset by higher taxes.
Ya gotta have a policy – says Hillary. That’s right a policy on the full range of issues which mesh and coordinate with other policies.
Hopium addicts and the dullest of dim Dimocrats sell Bill Clinton’s latest bit of damning Obama with faint praise as a sign of approval. Bill Clinton’s is not a fan of rush-rush “had to do it in a hurry” policy on the run. Let the desperate Hopium addled, who trashed Bill and Hillary Clinton, fool themselves as to what Bill Clinton meant. We know a Bill Clinton slap when we see and hear one.
What’s the big difference? Why trust Bill and Hillary Clinton on economics and distrust Obama? Marc Ambinder, in an attack on Bill Clinton and protection of Barack Obama accidentally tripped on the truth:
Remember how bad that Clinton transition was? All the nominee juggling. The stronger-than-expected prerogatives of Congress? Early White House chaos? Communications problems? The point is: transitions are very hard. Maybe it’s not fair to compare them. Depending upon your point of view, Obama’s transition was stunningly efficient (thanks in large part to the Bush White House) or it vindicated the decisions that Clinton’s planners made. In late 1992, Clinton decided to focus on cabinet nominees and POLICY FIRST, and put off the organization of the White House staff until later. Some of Obama’s policy reviews, by contrast, still haven’t been completed. The White House staff had weeks to prepare, but in retrospect, the building is like a gravity field operating on energy: everything slows down, regardless of input. Metrics don’t tells us everything either; by this point in 1993, every cabinet member sans one — the Attorney General — was confirmed. [emphasis added and block letters added]
Ambinder’s protection of Obama actually highlights that Obama’s much ballyhooed “greatest transition ever” focused on the White House staff which still managed to bungle. Ambinder’s protection of Obama highlights that Bill Clinton cared and focused on POLICY. That is the difference – POLICY. Hillary Clinton cares and focuses on POLICY.
We have opposed the Obama flim-flam “stimulus” scam as well as the Bush/Obama TARP crap. Our central objection has been that the so-called “stimulus” is not SMART. None of what Obama is doing is well thought out or coordinated with economic reality. What Obama is doing makes little economic sense but only political life-saving sense for Dimocrats in 2010 and 2012.
Dimocrats on Big Blogs and in Congress are ignoring economic reality (and the Japanese lessons). To these Dimocrats huge spending is the solution no matter how wasteful the spending is, no matter how precarious the American economic house is. These Dimocrats will not discuss how there will be any sources of credit for the private sector as the government sucks up with massive deficits whatever credit sources are available.
Bill Clinton in in his first address before a joint session of Congress focused on the economy and economic policy. Bill Clinton focused on “four fundamental components” in his comprehensive economic plan.
Bill Clinton had a comprehensive economic plan, stupid. It was the economy, stupid.
We have noted that an uncoordinated not comprehensive economic plan will amount to a waste of money. We have noted that even if the federal government cuts taxes and increases “investment” spending it won’t matter a whit because the state governments will raise taxes and cut services and so counter whatever measures the federal government initiates.
Our “notes” have come to pass. California is on the Brink. Kansas, and its Obama enabler Kathleen Sebelius, is a mess. New financial scams, the latest an $8 billion scam, are unearthed with regularity. Neither government nor private observers can place a value on the biggest financial institutions nor value holdings. Yet, Dimocrats and Obama (in the most recent past it was now hypocrticial Republicans) pump trillions into a hole whose depth is not even measured yet.
Obama signed his Dimocrat enabled flim-flam “stimulus” scam today and the markets gave it the reception the scam deserved – down 298 as Obama scribbled his signature scam.
As the financial markets reject the Obama scams, in the smokiest of Hopium dens the recognition finally arises that Bill Clinton’s focus on policy was a positive change for Americans.
Take, for instance, Sirota’s oft-voiced disdain for Clintonism and neo-liberal economics. If your concern is for the economic well-being of the working class, than attacking Clinton is a strange place to start. Under his presidency, real household incomes for the bottom 10th percentile — a pretty good Rawlsian metric for economic well-being — increased by 17.3 percent, the largest increase of any president since the Census Bureau began compiling numbers (.pdf) on this statistic.
One can certainly raise various critiques of Clinton’s presidency, many of which I’d wholeheartedly agree with, but in broad strokes his economic program would seem to have been a tremendous success, particularly for the working poor. (Although the wealthy certianly also fared well under his presidency; growth in income was remarkably evenly distributed between all income classes under Clinton).
Too late the Hopium dens stumble from their smoky Clinton hate fog (because now they realize they need Bill and Hill to get their Mess-iah out of the mess).
The Hopium addled fools (and flim-flam man Obama himself) who trashed Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are now forced to face the historical truth from one of their Hopium pushing own:
Under Clinton, by contrast, the economy was a rising tide that lifted all boats. The poor, finally, did quite well for themselves, their incomes appreciating at about 2.5 percent annually, but the rich did just about as well — in fact, the rich did better under Clinton than they had under Reagan and Bush. The rich/poor gap, if measured as a ratio, did not increase appreciably under Clinton. The 10th percentile saw their incomes increase by about 17 percent during his tenure, and so did the 90th percentile. [snip]
For my money, the Clintonan idea of “aggressive” pro-growth policies coupled with a relatively high tax rate on the rich is an attractive one. Let the rich make their money and then tax them (and/or improve social welfare programs for the poor). But don’t do things that inhibit economic growth because you’re afraid of the redistributive effects. A good example is something like free trade. The emerging consensus among both liberal and conservative economists appears to be that while free trade does increase GDP (as has long been believed), it also has some redistributive effects; the “consensus” solution to this is to have free trade coupled with a more robust safety net. [snip]
The other potential lesson from the Clinton record, which I’ve argued may also be observable in the response of the economy to the housing crisis, is that the presence of a robust middle class in fact strongly related to the health of the economy as a whole. Note, again, that the wealthy actually did better under Clinton than they did under Reagan/Bush, even though Reagan/Bush were trying to stack the deck in favor of the wealthy.
We trust Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton because they fought against Big Media and for the economic well being of Americans with intelligence and a well thought out set of policies and plans.
We do not trust Barack Obama and his Corrupt Chicago Crime Circus because they only care about their own financial and political well being and to hell with Americans – let them freeze in the economic winter.
We have said it before and we will say it again –
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.