Go to PDF Version | Go to Recent Issues
To save time in the future, you may select one of the preferences below. You may update your eIBD preferences at any time by going into My IBD and selecting Update Your eIBD Preferences.
Set Web-Based Version as Default Set PDF Version as Default Set Recent Issues as Default
Get QuoteSearch Site
Daily Graphs Online
Economy: The latest economic data make it clear that President Obama's policies aren't helping the country get stronger. Rather, they're smothering what should have been a solid recovery.
Real GDP climbed a less-than-expected 2.8% in final quarter of 2011, and just 1.7% for the entire year, down from 3% in 2010. The trend of subpar growth under Obama continues.
To get a better sense of how bad Obama's recovery is, consider this: Under Obama, real GDP has climbed a total of just 6% in the two-and-a-half years since the recession ended in June 2009.
By comparison, real GDP had grown 16% by this point in the Reagan recovery, after the very deep and painful 1981-82 recession.
Had Obama's recovery been as powerful as Reagan's, the economic pie would be $1.2 trillion bigger today.
And had job growth under Obama kept pace with job growth during the Reagan recovery, there would be 10 million — yes 10 million — more people with jobs today.
So what explains the difference between these two recoveries? Obama and his legion of liberal defenders claim the last recession was so deep that we're just now getting back on our feet.
Plus, they claim that a financial crisis invariably causes a slow recovery.
Neither excuse holds water. First, the 1981-82 recession was almost as long (16 months vs. 18 months), and as deep (unemployment was actually higher, peaking at 10.8% in that earlier recession).
But even that didn't stop a rip-roaring comeback.
Second, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta report found: "U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007-2008."
Plus, nobody at the time expected the Reagan recovery to be as fast and as powerful as it was.
So what's different? The presidents' policies.
Reagan enacted sweeping and permanent tax cuts, aggressively eliminated or reduced regulations, reined in domestic spending, and championed the private sector.
Obama's approach has been the opposite — a huge increase in regulations; meager, targeted and temporary tax cuts; a massive increase in size and scope of the federal government; and a barrage of invective against businessmen and the wealthy. Obama has bashed Reagan's approach, saying that cutting taxes and regulations "has never worked" to spur growth.
Obama might think the U.S. is "getting stronger," as he put it in his State of the Union speech, and maybe it is, a little. But if he keeps choking it with his misguided policies, it will never be as strong as it could be, or should be.
Energy: In yet another "Solyndra," a car battery maker that got $118 million in stimulus funds has declared bankruptcy. Once again, when this administration picks corporate winners, the taxpayers become losers. A year ago, Vice President Joe Biden toured the Ener1 Inc. battery factory in ...
Greed: Rich businessman Mitt Romney gave more than 16% of his income to charity last year. A few years back, Barack and Michelle Obama gave less than 1% of theirs. Aren't Republicans supposed to be the heartless ones? According to their tax returns, the Obamas gave to charitable causes just $10,772 ...
Newt Gingrich said a mouthful in December when he described this year's presidential contest as "the most important election since 1860." As it turns out, a significant majority of Americans agree with him. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of those surveyed in this month's IBD/TIPP Poll believe the vote in ...
Had I been asked to deliver the State of the Union address, it would not have delayed your dinner plans: "The State of our Union is broke, heading for bankrupt, and total collapse shortly thereafter. Thank you and good night! You've been a terrific crowd!" I gather that Americans prefer something ...
Politics: President Obama has unveiled a new task force to "investigate" America's banks. But he's just pinning blame for bad economic choices on the victims of job-killing mandates, while throwing a bone to his political base. Nobody was happier than the leftists of MoveOn.org when the president ...
Posted By: Kywildcat(30) on 1/30/2012 | 12:08 AM ET
TomMI. Interesting. So it's NOT a moral issue for you but you resent the Kerrys and Kennedys (only dems must skirt the system of course) and feel great sympathy for those of us that earn it. No different than how i feel. Those making $1m plus a year should pay the same rate as everyone else...what is the econ argument for bigger loopholes for uber rich? Wont solve everything but can be part of an overall solution for a stronger balance sheet. That was the original point. GTFU? Amusing.
Posted By: Tom in Michigan(10100) on 1/29/2012 | 10:40 PM ET
There is no "morality" in the tax code and thinking this way is childish. If you expropriated all the wealth of the "super wealthy," you wouldn't dent one year's worth of the deficit. Indeed, the top 1% of households have AGI of $343,927 minimum. They also paid contributed about 37% of all taxes paid in 2010. The VAST majority of those in the top 1% EARN their measly 300-large-unlike the Kennedy's who inherited it and the Kerrys who married it. GTFU.
Posted By: Prosanity(1420) on 1/29/2012 | 4:06 PM ET
I'd love to see the Fed have a "mission statement" with a long term goal of reducing FIT to close to zero, and have an annual citizens' audit of funding for essential services (military, interstate commerce, reasonable regs on banking/investment, etc.) State of Union speech should be full disclosure of state of Budget! More power the states.
Posted By: Prosanity(1420) on 1/29/2012 | 3:58 PM ET
Cat, I'm with u on the rates; it should be FAIR, not on what some tin pot despot commands, but in % terms. And the modus operandi s/b towards lower, which means keeping Fed Gov lean and trim. But same rates for all on earned income & same rates, but as low as possible on cap gains. Job creators/risk takers s/b both rewarded ... and allowed to fail, so that we learn from mistakes.
Posted By: Kywildcat(30) on 1/29/2012 | 3:33 PM ET
Prosanity: i guess better way to put it on taxes...make sure super wealthy paying their taxes. Romney, buffett all the same bracket of mid teens because they get more breaks than everyone else. Equally immoral in my opinion to not pay at least same rate as others. Give the incentives to other brackets who will actually spend $$. Close all those loopholes and we're on the right track. Or raise rates and dont close loopholes. But need revenue. No party shown it can lead in last 15 years. 3rd p
To participate in Community areas, please Sign In or Register
Register
Without exception, sell your stock if it drops 7% - 8% below your purchase price.
Read Full Article »