Obama's New Economic Policy, Just Like His Old Policy: Spend, Spend, Spend

Obama’s new economic is just like his old economic policy. Wall Street Journal is reporting that, in his State of the Union, Obama wants to spend more instead of less, you know, because it worked so well the last time:

President Barack Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday, sharpening his response to Republicans in Congress who are demanding deep budget cuts, people familiar with the speech said.

Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law's testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.

While proposing new spending, Mr. Obama also will lay out significant budget cuts elsewhere, people familiar with the plans say, though they will likely fall short of what Republican lawmakers have requested….

Republicans are casting the White House's pivot toward competitiveness as an excuse for bigger government and more spending. They say a surge in federal spending and a $1.3 trillion budget deficit are impeding job creation, and dramatic spending cuts are needed immediately.

In the House, Republicans are pushing to cut $100 billion from the annual budget as soon as this year. A coalition of House Republicans proposed Thursday cutting $2.5 trillion in spending over a decade, pushing nondefense discretionary spending down to 2006 levels for 10 years.

This is bad for Obama for two reasons:

1.)High deficits are part of the reason why we are in the economic trouble that we are in, today. Polls have consistently said that people want Washington to reduce the deficits and return to fiscal sanity.

2.)Unemployment rate has been stalled over the last two years, since the stimulus passed. People don’t believe that federal stimulative spending worked the first time, and they won’t like Obama doubling down with another massive stimulus package, when the only long term result will be more debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay down the road.

Why would Obama want to do this? He needs to move to the center, if he has any shot at winning in 2012. This will be seen by the voters as a sign that Obama hasn’t learned his lesson from the failure of the last stimulus and that he is still the far-left ideologue that everyone on the right and Republicans have said that he is.

Maybe he’s just saying it to appease his base but has no intention to, actually, pass new spending because he knows that the Republican-led House will never agree to it. Even if he is just appeasing his base, it won’t look good to the American people. However, if his words don’t turn into any real action and legislation, what he says on Tuesday will be long forgotten by November 2012.

Could Illinois' Loss Be NJ's Gain? On IL Trip Gov. Christie to Lure IL Businesses to NJ After Tax Hike

Following the news of a 66% temporary tax hike that the heavily Democratic Illinois Legislature passed and was quickly signed into law by Gov. Pat Quinn (D), it didn't take long for the Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie to plan a trip to Illinois. Why is he going to the Land of Lincoln? He is going there with one goal in mind, and that goal is to convince businesses who may want to avoid the tax hikes and the hostile political climate for business there to migrate to New Jersey:

Watch out, Illinois: New Jersey wants your businesses.

It is a time-honored tradition for mayors and governors of neighboring cities and states to compete for large corporations with tax breaks and other incentives. And so it was no surprise that the steep new tax increases approved this week by the governor of Illinois inspired the kind of trash talking heard more often from athletes than from state chief executives.

"Escape to Wisconsin," chortled Scott Walker, the state's Republican governor. Mitch Daniels, the Republican who runs Indiana, compared Illinois to the Simpsons - "you know, the dysfunctional family down the block?"

But New Jersey? Trenton is about 900 miles from Springfield, Ill. Jersey City is a 13-hour drive from Chicago. None of that deterred Gov. Chris Christie, a New Jersey Republican who spent much of last fall stumping around the country, from speaking up even before Gov. Patrick J. Quinn of Illinois, a Democrat, had signed the legislation.

"I'm going to Illinois," Mr. Christie said in an interview on Wednesday. "I mean soon. I'm going to Illinois, personally, and going to start talking to businesses in Illinois and get them to come to New Jersey."

In response to this story, Governor Quinn basically said: Good luck with that, and for good reason.

This will be a harder task than Christie would like it to be. Even if you taking into account the new higher tax rates in Illinois, the taxes in New Jersey still won't be lower than the taxes in Illinois, overall.

Also, the tax climate in New Jersey is so bad that it was ranked #48 in a list of the best states for businesses, when it comes to taxes. In this list that was put together by the Tax Foundation, Illinois would have dropped from #23 to #36, if the list was published today with the new tax rates. This is a huge drop, but it is still better than New Jersey.

Governor Christie knows that it will very much be an uphill climb, but he said that he has something that Gov. Quinn can't replicate:

Mr. Christie acknowledged that over all, taxes remain higher in New Jersey, but he said he could offer something more valuable, certainty.

“The pitch I’m going to make to businesses in Illinois is, ‘With Pat Quinn as your governor and this Democratic Legislature, you can guarantee this is just the beginning,’ ” Mr. Christie said. “As long as I’m governor, you’re not going to see that happen.”

I don't know how much "certainty" that Christie can give them. It is not a "certainty" that he'll be re-elected in the next election, and the next governor could be very different. Plus, the tax hikes in Illinois are "temporary" and are set to expire in four years. So, some CEOs may be worried that, if they make the move, all of the promises that Christie may make now may be broken by the next governor at the same time that the taxes are set to go back down in Illinois.

However, he is a very smart, charismatic man, and if anyone can entice companies to move there, it's him. It'll be interesting to see what companies that he will go after and if he is able convince them to make the move. The economy in New Jersey needs him to convince at least some new businesses to come to the Garden State, so that their economy will have a better chance to recover and grow.

Conservative Tax Foundation Releases a 10 Worst States For Businesses List

A new list has been released by the conservative Tax Foundation identifies what they consider the worst states to run a business. Would it shock anyone that 8-out-of-10 have leaned to the left over the past few years and 6 of them are hardcore Democratic states? Me neither:

New York
California
New Jersey
Connecticut
Ohio
Iowa
Maryland
Minnesota
Rhode Island
North Carolina

All the Tax Foundation used to come up with this list is taxes. So, basically, this just a list of the states with the highest taxes. There is no doubt that taxes have huge impact on all kinds business, but this not, by far, the only issue that can negatively affect business. Therefore, this list does need to be taken with a grain of salt, but it is still very telling.

Fed Will Intentionally Cause Inflation by Printing an Extra $600B

Ben Bernacke and the Federal Reserve are going to print up an extra $600 billion to pump into the economy. They believe that, if the intentionally create inflation, it’ll force those that have money to spend it:

The Federal Reserve escalated its efforts to get the U.S. economic recovery back on track Wednesday, again entering the realm of risky and untested policy in response to the worst downturn in generations.
The plan to pump $600 billion into the financial system is designed to stimulate the economy in large part by lowering mortgage and other interest rates.

It will cause more money to be spent but for all of the wrong reasons. More money will be spent because the dollar will be greatly devalued, and the price of all products will, also, rise, as a result.
This “quantitative easing” will cause more problems than it will solve, if it helps at all”

This looks like a solution for the wrong problem. The problem isn’t a lack of capital for investment. It’s the uncertainty of the economic and especially regulatory environment. Creating a little inflation won’t overcome that; it’s more likely to increase the uncertainty.

In fact, investors and companies will become more apprehensive about making any new investments because they will have no idea how much their investment will actually be worth, after the full effects of this self-inflicted inflation is realized.

Boehner: More Government, Less Jobs Equals Epitome of Failure For Obama

The Republican Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio blasted Obama's economic policy in an editorial in Detroit News:

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, welcomes President Obama to Michigan Thursday with a scathing critique of his economic policies.

“When President Barack Obama speaks in Holland today, I hope that instead of trying to convince the people of a city suffering from 11.8 percent unemployment that our economy is ‘moving forward,’ he will listen closely when they ask, ‘Where are the jobs?,’ Boehner wrote in an editorial that appears in Thursday’s edition of The Detroit News.

In the op-ed, Boehner said that since February 2009 the economy has lost three million private sector jobs while the federal government has added more than 400,000 jobs.

“More government, fewer jobs: This isn’t the picture of recovery; it’s the epitome of failure,” the top House Republican wrote.

Exactly!

Pelosi: Unemployment Benefits Is the Best Way to Create Jobs

Nancy Pelosi an interesting claim that handing out unemployment benefits is not just a great way to create jobs but the best way evah. Ed Morrissey breaks this absurdity down nicely:



The entire clip with the reporter’s question and her full answer can be found here.

Great News: Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY): Cap-N-Trade Will Be Good For Wall Street, Economy

In a Wall Street Journal The freshman Democratic senator from New York that replaced Hillary Clinton recently tried to put her own spin on the cap-n-trade debate:

In this turmoil, it may seem hard to imagine a financial market poised to deliver significant growth. However, a rising number of investors and financiers see one in the trading and reduction of carbon. According to financial experts, carbon permits could quickly become the world's largest commodities market, growing to as much as $3 trillion by 2020 from just over $100 billion today. With thousands of firms and energy producers buying and selling permits to emit carbon, transaction fees for exchanges and clearing alone could top nearly half a billion dollars. If Congress establishes proper oversight of a carbon market, New York's financial talent, expertise and institutions are uniquely suited to provide the tools and innovation for a new commodities market of this size. Firms wishing to invest over the long term will need to turn to our financial sector to create the emerging products and provide the capital that would allow them to make green energy investments.

An infrastructure is already beginning to form, as entities like the New York Stock Exchange, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and the new Green Exchange are developing carbon trading platforms or expanding their environmental trading desks. There are nearly 100 funds already focused on green investments.

Basically, what she is saying is that instituting a cap-n-trade policy will benefit us economically because it will be able to be traded on the market like any other commodity or stock. That sounds good in theory, but in reality, it will drive up the costs even more.

Let's consider that what she is describing is not unlike what the market is already with oil speculation. Because of oil speculation, the price of gas went up to $4-5 per gallon, needlessly, last summer, and the prices of everything oil-related skyrocketed, as well. The same kind of speculation could happen with the proposed "carbon market".

Carbon trading would be just as disastrous, if not more, than that. Everyone uses carbon-based energy at one time or another, especially when you consider that all of the aforementioned oil-based energy is, also, carbon-based. So, in a way, oil and its derivatives will be traded in the market not just once but twice, driving up the prices of just about everything in the process.

Obama Takes Credit For "Improving" Economy While Unemployment Rises to Just Below 10%

Obama is trying to take credit for an "improving" economy, according to the Washington Post, that is still struggling and far from out of the woods of recession:

President Obama on Saturday continued his administration's careful efforts to take credit for the slowly improving economy, using his radio address to tout the economic turnaround since world leaders met in London in April.

He goes on:

"Because of the steps taken by our nation and all nations, we can now say that we have stopped our economic freefall," the president said in the address, which is broadcast on the radio and the internet.

Now, unemployment keeps on creeping toward the dreaded 10% mark nationally (9.7% as of August), and states like California and Oregon reach the obscene number of 12.2% unemployed last month. Forty-two states have, also, lost jobs, since the end of July.

If this is "improving" according to the Washington Post, I would hate to see what the economy would look like for them to admit that it's declining under Obama..

After $1 Trillion Porkulus Bill: Nothing Has Changed

More Good news from the White House:

President Obama's chief economics forecaster said on Sunday that the country was not likely to see positive employment growth until 2010, even if the economy began to grow later this year. Speaking on C-SPAN, Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said that she expected the G.D.P. to begin growing in the fourth quarter of this year. Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, made a similar prediction last week.

But Ms. Romer also said that she expected unemployment to rise even after the economy turns, saying that the G.D.P. has to grow at a rate of about 2.5 percent before unemployment will fall. Before that happens, she said, it is "unfortunately pretty realistic" that the unemployment rate could reach 9.5 percent. A reasonable estimate for the G.D.P.'s growth rate in 2010, she said, is three percent. Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton and advised the Obama campaign, said on Sunday that the rate of growth would have to be higher - 4.5 percent - to reverse rising unemployment.

So, the almost $1 Trillion in Porkulus Bill that was supposed to save and create millions of jobs and jumpstart the economy has done absolutely nothing.

To call this a stimulus bill is a joke. Keynes himself wouldn't even call it stimulus. Most of the money hasn't been spent yet and won't be until 2010 and 2011. Again, what was the rush in getting the bill crammed down our grandchildren's throats?

This just another failure of the young Obama presidency.

What does Romer conclude will get us out of this recession:

The economic recovery, Ms. Romer said, will be driven by business investment in sectors like renewable energy rather than consumer spending. She echoed the views of other economists who expect a long-term economic shift.

So, business investment not consumer spending will bring the economy back. That's what the conservatives have been saying this whole time. Tax cuts has been proven to inspire business investment not massive government spending.

Obama Begins War on Coal, Screws Navajos Out of Previously Approved Coal Plant

This story came out a few days ago, but I just now found it as it has been buried by the Mainstream Media:

In a dramatic move yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew the air quality permit it issued last summer for the Desert Rock coal-fired power plant, which is slated to be built on the Navajo Nation in the Four Corners region just southwest of Farmington, New Mexico.

Obama can't seem to pass cap-and-trade fast enough. Instead of trying to "bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,"(aka cap-and-trade energy tax hike), he is going to use the EPA to close them with "little regard for due process or basic notions of fairness".

In closing the plant, he has severely hurt the economy of the Navajo Nation. Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley says that the government isn't exactly being “honest and truthful in its dealings with Native America”:

“I have people dying every day because of poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, gangs, and the U.S. Government is not there to adequately fund the direct service programs that cater to these needs,” he said.

Now, Obama has crippled their ability to climb out of poverty by taking away jobs from the people that the plant would have hired. So, they're stuck in poverty until Obama's EPA decides to give them the permit to open the plant. So much for creating millions of new jobs.

Congress Plans Global Warming Bills While Antartic Ice Grows, Snows Oustside Vegas, Denver (24in.) in April

Congress is contemplating putting new greenhouse gas regulations that will cripple the energy industry among others.

After President George W. Bush did little about global warming in his two terms, there is "a lot pent up demand" for action on climate, said William Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Both the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Barack Obama agree that legislation is needed to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and radically alter the nation's energy sources. They want to pass a bill by the end of the year.

So, it begins. The O-Team will try to turn our economy green. Consequences be damned!

This coming week, lawmakers begin hearings on an energy and global warming bill that could revolutionize how the country produces and uses energy. It also could reduce, for the first time, the pollution responsible for heating up the planet.

Both sides of the debate on global warming are poised to clash over the legislation after the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday said rising sea levels, increased flooding and more intense heat waves and storms that come with climate change are a threat to public health and safety. The agency predicted that warming will worsen other pollution problems such as smog.

They followed this unproven theory with outright misrepresentation.

Every year since 2001 has been among the 10 warmest years on record. Sea ice in the Arctic and glaciers worldwide are melting.

From 2001 to 2006 may have been warmer, but the last two years have been getting progressively cooler not warmer. Research shows that while ice is melting in some parts of the Artic it is growing in others.

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

They go on to explain that while the west coast is melting the east is growing.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

So, basically they gained in the east what they've lost in the west. Let me check the math:

-2+2=0

Yep, it's basically a wash.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual. "Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

In addition, reports from a few months ago say that the ice level is about the same as it was in 1979. (See link below.)

Back to the upcoming debate in Washington over the new economy-strangling regulations on emissions:

Then there is the question whether the public will have the appetite to accept higher energy prices for a benefit that will not be seen for many years. Climate change ranks low on many voters' priority lists.

I have that answer for you.

No, we can't take a repeat of $4-5 p/ gallon gas. That was one thing that started this crisis last year. It caused a huge consumer backlash. Why would the Democrats force the price of energy up intentionally?

These regulations are too damaging to the economy to enact all at once especially to prevent something that many scientist don't believe is really happening. There is as much evidence disproving the theory as there is supporting it.

We do need to get off fossil fuels so that we won't be so dependent on countries that hate us, but it should be more of a gradual shift.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://realtrueamerican.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-ice-ice-baby.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/congress-considers-far-reaching-global-warming/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ohio Democrat Promotes FDR's New Deal Even After It's Debunked Numerous Times

Flashback to 2004 UCLA Study

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan| 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-

LSMS368

---------------------------------
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
---------------------------------

My Thoughts

What were the causes of the extension of the Great Depression? Strong unions, protectionism, overly meddlesome government intervention, and higher taxes. Now Obama wants to do much of the same failed policies. As much as FDR sent, they couldn't get out of it. FDR's treasury secretary even said in his memoires that they spent and they spent, but it did nothing but increase the debt.

Democrats like Brown want to keep trying to revise history. They want to make people believe that the New Deal was the greatest economic strategy of all time, but reality is much different.

They want to keep blaming Republican strategies for everything that is going wrong with the economy now. However, they conveniently leave out the Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act's role and Bill Clinton's expansion of the CRA. They ignore Congressmen like Barney Franks, Maxine Waters, and CChris Dodd's coverup of the inadequacy of AIG, Fannie & Freddie, and Contrywide.

They barely acknowledge that the UAW needs to make some concessions to keep Detroit's Big 3 afloat. They don't admit that the reason that they are in this predicament is as much the union's fault as it is the CEO's. They want to just keep on blaming the big, bad rich white guys.

It wasn't the deregulation that was the main problem. It was the overregulation by the Democrats making the banks give loans that couldn't afford it.

Another Poll That David Axelrod and Obama Will Ignore: Democrats Fall Heavily on Economic Support

On Economic Issues, Voter Trust in Democrats Is Falling Democrats are still trusted more than Republicans to handle the economy by a 44% to 39% margin, but their advantage on the issue has been slipping steadily since November.

In the first poll conducted after Barack Obama was elected president, the Democrats held a 15-point lead over the GOP on economic issues. In December, their lead dropped to 12 points. In January, prior to Obama's inauguration, Democrats held a nine-point lead on the issue.

Support for the $800-billion-plus economic stimulus plan put forth by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen over the past month. Although the plan has passed the House and the Senate, the overwhelming majority of voters are not confident that Congress knows what it's doing with regards to the economy . The Senate and House versions of the stimulus plan will now be the subject of a joint conference to work out a package that both chambers can agree on.

A separate survey released today showed that 67% of voters think they could do a better job than Congress on handling the current economic crisis.

When it comes to taxes, voters say they trust the GOP more by a 44% to 41%, after the parties were tied on the issue in January. Related polling on the stimulus package showed that most voters wanted to see a plan with more tax cuts and less government spending.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://rasmussenreports.getmobile.com/site?t=IsefKerrHlXN0VJFjye.tg&sid=rassenreports-feblzqlu&tcid=QWC205b1727fbd943ef94d6027192061e64
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts
How much do you bet that this will be totally ignored by the Democrats? They were all over the one Gallup poll that favored them. However, they ignore the many more against them.

The GOP is making a major comeback in all of the major issues that is most important to people today.