A graphical presentation of how Obama is fixing the economy, in chronological order.
Click images for full sizes.
Summary of how the market dives everytime Obama is on top:
Snapshots in time:
Last November 3, the Dow Jones was at 9,320. Then a Marxist punk was elected President of the USA. At close today, the Dow was at 7,182. That’s a drop of 18.59 points per day since the election. At this rate, it will hit zero in 386 days — just over a year.
Oops, above video removed… So have this one instead:
Watch the Dow Jones Index tank as Obama opens his mouth and speaks about his plans for America.
Truly Change we can believe in:
He will fix the world!
———————————
See also:
It’s no wonder Wall Street gave Obama a Big Fat “F” for his first month in office.
And also:
TWO WEEKS AFTER OBAMA WINS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: MARKET DOWN 1628 POINTS SINCE ELECTION:
PRESIDENT OBAMA:
———————————–
Editorial cartoons below the fold.
From The Ryskind Sketchbook:
Via Michelle Malkin, it’s Barack Urkel Obama:
Tags: Obama crash, Obama deficit, Obama Dow, Obama economy, Obama Fail, Obama market, Obama Porkulus, Obama shares, Obama Stimulus
THE SCOTTTCAST 
February 27, 09 at 2:02 pm
If this isn’t a “depression”, it sure as hell is depressing.
By the way, I like your blog.. nice job. I even linked ya over at my site.
March 2, 09 at 11:15 pm
[…] HOT Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Market tumbles after Obama takes officeObama Speaketh, Stock Market CrashethThe TRUTH is a lagging indicator (c)Obama Emphasizes Reform, Offers Hope Amid Economic […]
March 3, 09 at 5:13 am
Give me a call guys, 800 451 5466 EXT. 2271
March 3, 09 at 2:05 pm
ridiculously exaggerated.
No fan of obama but america is in the middle of a depression. The market would have nosedived no matter who was in the white house. Even if jesus christ himself was elected president and descended from heaven into the oval office, the market wouldn’t have been much higher than it is now.
On the upside, at least Jesus’ “community feeding” programmes would be more succesful than Obama’s leading to savings on welfare…..LOL!
March 3, 09 at 2:33 pm
Perhaps exaggerated, but one can’t deny the uncanny coincidence of the market tanking every time Obama does anything.
When past Presidents ascended to the White House, the market would rise or fall directly in response. Obama’s effect was the worst in history.
Compare when Reagan took office in 1980, it was during a recession that was worse than today’s current one, yet the market actually improved. Or Roosevelt’s terms during the Great Depression – again, market improvement.
Market shifts by President
Wouldn’t the market at least slow its death spiral if people had confidence in Obama?
Agree with you on the Jesus Christ thing though… If Jesus came down, everyone would be selling like crazy COS IT’S DOOMSDAY NOW BABY!!!!!
March 3, 09 at 2:41 pm
Just dropping by.Btw, you website have great content!
______________________________
Why this one-minute therapy is being suppressed in the U.S. while more than 15,000 European doctors have been using it to heal millions of patients
March 4, 09 at 9:36 am
[…] Education, Simple reality, Truth — cmblake6 @ 18:36 I’m going to send you over to Scott Thongs place. He’s got a tremendous post about the Stock Market, and its reaction to TEH […]
March 4, 09 at 9:55 am
“Compare when Reagan took office in 1980, it was during a recession that was worse than today’s current one, yet the market actually improved. Or Roosevelt’s terms during the Great Depression – again, market improvement.”
Nope. Wrong answer.
In 1980, investor confidence in wall street and its leaders was nowhere even NEAR as badly shaken as it is today.
Rooselvelt during the Great Depression is not a good example either, as, although circumstances are not as dire, the Great Depression actually began in 1929, 3 years before Rooselvelt took office!! Whereas this recession began less than a year before Obama was sworn in…..
March 4, 09 at 10:21 am
It’s arguable which was worse. I agree that investor confidence is badly shaken – and it doesn’t help to have the current President gleefully announcing his plans to tax businesses large and small (the definition of which depends upon his whims), and even everyone who trades on the stock market. But of course, the current recession still has a ways to go before it pans out. (See last paragraph for more on that though.)
Roosevelt is a poignant example, I and many others feel, because Obama is taking the same route as he did – massive spending, nationalisation and redistribution of wealth to combat recession. Roosevelt’s strategy possibly turned that moderate recession into the Great Depression. Obama looks to be doing the same now.
If the Stimulus Bill were not passed, the current recession was estimated to pan out by end-2009.
Who knows now with Obama’s shopping spree. On that, the CBO says the Stimulus will actually worsen the situation.
Check out my latest images btw!
March 4, 09 at 3:21 pm
Great Post Scott!!! BO hasn’t done much but scare investors with his gloom and doom talk. Manipulation through “generating fear”… isn’t that what the moonbats screech at conservatives when we present them with the reality of what’s really going on with this guy???
March 4, 09 at 3:54 pm
“Roosevelt is a poignant example, I and many others feel, because Obama is taking the same route as he did – massive spending, nationalisation and redistribution of wealth to combat recession. Roosevelt’s strategy possibly turned that moderate recession into the Great Depression. Obama looks to be doing the same now.”
Man, I really have to question your tenuous grip on reality. Obama can’t even hold a candle to Roosevelt.
1st, there is NO consensus that Roosevelt’s New Deal prolonged the GD (which by the way, was already a Depression). 2ndly, the New Deal was sorely needed thanks to Intervention from the (so-called) Big Man Upstairs. You may have heard on the ecological disaster also known as the “dust bowl”. Thousands would have starved without Teddy’s federal aid.
Btw, I do agree Obama has waaay too much Pork (esp for a former Muslim) in his Spendulus bill, however, blaming him solely for the market dropping is bollocks. Btw, mentioning Reagan, this economic crisis had its roots in policies enacted during his time….
March 4, 09 at 4:05 pm
There is no consensus that Roosevelt had a positive, not negative, effect either.
Do explain how Reagan era policies caused the crisis. I thought it was due to Clinton signing the 1999 Community Reinvestment Act and the Democrat Congress opposing Bush’s call to reform Fannie and Freddie 17 times in 2008 alone.
But I’m sure that’s just me.
March 4, 09 at 9:44 pm
Yes, but there is a clear consensus that without Roosevelt’s timely federal aid, thousands would have starved/been impoverished thanks to an “act of God”. (Some “God”, eh).
As for Reagan: http://hnn.us/articles/53527.html
I’m not going to appropriate 100% of the blame on anybody (unlike the usual ultra-right/ultra-left nutcases who see the world in shades of us vs them) but Reagans ultra-liberalized economic policies with little government regulation was the first step on the road to hell.
March 5, 09 at 9:12 am
Oh wow, slip in a cheap shot against religion. Nice. Stay classy, dude.
Reagan’s policies created a massive increase in jobs for the time (16 million over his two terms) – exactly what Obama is trying – and failing – to do (his insistence on pushing ‘green’ energy industry will cause even more haemmorhaging). Perhaps Reaganomics were taken a bit too far, but it took government meddling to push the situation over the edge (pressuring banks to give out risky loans to shaky borrowers, providing a bailout safety net that encouraged recklessness, and refusal to heed clear warning signs. – http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/01/lest_we_forget_2.html
Consider also that Bushonomics managed to achieve quite a great deal, even despite the spending for the Iraq War:
In short, IMHO the worst parts of both extremes joined forces to crash the train.
But I agree that complete deregulation is not the way to go. Hey, Conservatives support tough laws and rules for crime, abortion, etc. They should have the same for finance, yes?
March 5, 09 at 8:00 pm
“From 2004 to 2007 there was a steady decline in the budget deficit from $412.7 billion in 2004 to $162 billion in 2007.”
The 2004 deficit reached $413 billion, a record. Still, its real size was masked by the fact that Bush shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It’s like pretending you’re richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion “nominal” deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565 billion.
Bush continued this stealth siphoning of the Social Security trust fund throughout the remainder of his presidency to make it look as if he was reducing the federal deficit each year by an additional $150 billion. I wouldn’t really consider that accurate or ethical accounting practices, especially when the Baby Boomers’ Social Security benefits are coming due for payment.
This is also why some politicians support putting Social Security in a “lockbox”. To prevent this accounting manuever from happening further.
Interestingly, this idea originated in 1983 with Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan borrowing billions from the SS Trust Fund to offset the swelling deficit from tax cuts and increased military spending. Then they raised Social Security withholding tax by some ungodly number.
I don’t really have time to address all the other issues with Reaganomics and the $4 trillion national debt left after its 12 year reign. So much for fiscal responsibility!
March 6, 09 at 9:19 am
Indeed, that is part of why the Republicans lost the 2008 Election – their frontmen had betrayed the core principles of Conservatism, particularly fiscal conservatism. Worse still was the running of a ‘moderate centrist’ candidate who appealed to neither the left, nor the right, nor the centre.
(Let me tell you that Conservatives mourned when Fred Thompson pulled out of the running. They mourned again when Mitt Romney quit the race. They mourned once more when only McCain was left. I can tell you that before Palin came along, many Conservatives weren’t going to vote for McCain – they were merely going to vote against Obama!)
Is it any wonder that the addition of Sarah Palin suddenly got Conservatives fired up and cheering more for her than McCain? Perhaps she was a political lightweight (insofar as playing the Washington game), but as the only truly Conservative candidate in the race, she automatically received all the pent-up emotion of red America.
But looking at McCain’s loss and the current trillion dollar money-flushing exercise of the winner, in retrospect running former businessman Mitt Romney as candidate for President/VP might have spared the nation a great deal of coming suffering…
March 8, 09 at 12:42 pm
Agree totally with Scott in the above.
Foolish voters chose the big Zero and they’ll have much more to rue over their mistake.
The Fakir Zero can’t actually speak without his teleprompter.
Watch this : http://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-needs-teleprompter-everywhere
And the bugger is credited with ‘oratorial skill’ while being so disconnect between mouth and brain!
March 9, 09 at 11:18 pm
Obama lied and the economy died.
March 10, 09 at 9:54 am
Wall Street at 12 year low.
April 11, 10 at 3:42 pm
lets don’t blame this on the president after all he has to clean up former president bushes 8 year run i mean come on this man not only got a rested for d u i but president bush own mother try ed to grown him making his mind that of a 8 year old and also
i thank he’s doing a wonderful job go new president and
now with that said don’t miss the last few days of the dime store sell by gross207 on eBay to see this sell where all items start for a nickel with a nickel shipping look up gross207
best regards gross207 on eBay
February 2, 12 at 10:02 pm
Hello, I am trying to find the original location of a photo you posted in this blog entry, the “jobless rates soar” newspaper photo and I was wondering if you know where you found that photo or who owned it so I could license it. If you could get back to me ASAP as this is a time sensitive issue that would be great. Thanks so much.
Allison Grant
February 3, 12 at 10:00 am
The main source was from http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/03/08/pic-of-the-day-132/ but even there doesn’t mention what paper it is…