About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox News market analysis: Blame Obama for bears, credit tea parties for bulls

April 18, 2009 7:33 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Weeks after suggesting that President Obama was responsible for the stock market's poor performance -- even though the Dow Jones average had been on a downward trajectory months before his inauguration -- Fox News' Brenda Buttner described the current upward trend as "a tea party rally."

94 Comments

Six weeks after saying that "[s]ome are calling" the Dow Jones industrial average's then-downward trend President Obama's "bear market," and asking, "Is it?" host Brenda Buttner introduced the April 18 edition of Fox News' Bulls & Bears by saying: "Call it a tea party rally. Wall Street's sure partying, up six weeks in a row. The bulls came out about the same time these guys started to shout, saying no to big government, big taxes, and big bailouts. Will that keep investors saying yes to stocks?" Buttner went on to ask the show's panel: "[A]fter months on its back, the market comes back the same time Americans fight back against big government. Is that a coincidence?" During the segment, Fox News on-screen text read: "Stocks Rally As 'Tea Party' Rallies Take Nation By Storm" and "Stocks Rally As 'Tea Parties' Catch Fire; Coincidence?" Buttner was not alone in suggesting that Obama was responsible for the stock market's poor performance even though the Dow Jones average was on a downward trajectory months before his inauguration; indeed, several of Buttner's Fox News colleagues referred to an "Obama bear market" in early March.

On March 7, Buttner introduced Bulls & Bears by stating: "On Main Street, more jobs wiped out; the unemployment rate now the highest in a quarter century. On Wall Street, more wealth wiped out; the Dow diving 6 percent this week, and now down 20 percent since President Obama moved into the White House. Some are calling it his bear market. Is it?" Buttner then asked contributing market analyst Tobin Smith: "[I]s this now President Obama's bear market?" Smith responded, "Boy, it is," adding, "[T]his idea that we can do everything all at one time with an unlimited, you know, budget is scaring the bejesus out of people, and until we get coherency, you know, I'm afraid that it's down 5,000, and then it's going to be his catastrophe."

Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter later stated that Obama "wants a disaster, so he can push through all these crazy Democrat ideas, like the socialized health care. This is -- they don't care. They're going to dump everything on at once. They can blame Bush for a little while, but, I mean, it's becoming pretty clearly his, and he owns it." Buttner also asked Democratic strategist Michael Brown: "Michael, but this bear was out of the cave long before President Obama even started talking about the details of his economic plan, right?" Brown replied in part, "[I]t took President Bush to put us in this mess over several years; it's going to take several years to get us out of it."

During the March 7 segment, Fox News on-screen text read: "Dow Dives 20% Since Jan 20; Is This Pres Obama's Bear Mkt?" and "Dow Down Nearly 20% Since Obama Took Office":

On the April 18 Bulls & Bears, in response to Buttner's question about whether it is a "coincidence" that "the market comes back the same time Americans fight back against big government," Fox Business host Eric Bolling stated: "Not at all," adding, "These [protestors] love their tea parties. They hate their big government. They certainly hate the taxing and spending. And you know what? The market doesn't like it, either. They like the protests." Similarly, Tobin Smith stated he "was proud to speak at the D.C. Tea Party," and added: "I love the idea that there's some correlation here, but the fact of the matter is, is that maybe, maybe, they're starting to get the idea that America does have a backbone, and maybe -- but America's got a backbone; it's the Congress that I'm worried about."

Buttner later asked Bulls & Bears commentator Gary B. Smith: "[P]art of the tea party was having voices heard. For so long, all we were hearing about was nationalizing banks and socialism and all that. Just having this out there, does that help Wall Street? Does that help the bulls?" Smith responded: "Absolutely, Brenda. You know, first of all, you heard for so many weeks and months that, you know, the whole country, you know, Obama won overwhelmingly, and it looked like, you know, we were going to go lockstep down this, you know, this socialist path." He continued: "And then we started having these tea parties," which, according to Smith, "shows that ... the normal, average American is just kind of sick of all the, you know, the tax-and-spend culture." He concluded: "So, I think it's all a good thing, and I think that it's helped the rally." Options University chief options strategist Ron Ianieri said the tea parties have "absolutely nothing to do with the market rally -- nothing," adding: "[T]he fact is, there has to be a little bit of realism here. The market has been trading with the banks and the oils. The banks and oils have rallied; the market has rallied -- simple as that."

During the segment, Fox News aired the following on-screen text:

In addition to Buttner and Smith, several other Fox News personalities suggested there was an "Obama bear market," including:

  • During the March 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. John McCain: "The stock market has dropped 20 percent since the Obama inauguration. Can this now fairly be called the Obama bear market?" Wallace later said to Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume: "Brit, John McCain didn't want to answer the question, but I'll ask you. Is this the Obama bear market?" Hume replied in part, "Well, it's kind of a bear market within a bear market."
  • On the March 7 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox, host David Asman asked Forbes.com associate editor Jack Gage: "[T]here's all this anti-market policy online. How could the market possibly recover with all that weighing on it?" Gage replied: "Obama has his own personal bear market he's presided over with a 20-percent decline since the inauguration."
  • On the March 7 edition of Fox News' Cashin' In, host Terry Keenan asked Capitalistpig managing member Jonathan Hoenig, "The president now has the distinction of presiding over his very own bear market. Jonathan, should he be paying attention to what this market is saying?" Hoenig replied, "Absolutely, Terry. It is inexcusable for him not to be paying attention to Wall Street." He added: "[W]hen you look at the performance this year -- and my God, it has been a bloodbath -- I think there is no question that the market has zero confidence in Obama's economic policies." After Keenan responded to Fox News contributor Wayne Rogers' laughter by stating that Obama had "the worst start to an administration vis-à-vis the stock market in 90 years," Rogers stated, "I don't think it has anything to do with the stock market in the sense that you don't make policy -- he's not listening to make policy to encourage Wall Street." Astor Asset Management managing partner Rob Stein later added: "Sure he's been in office for a couple of months and the stock market hasn't performed very well. But I don't know if there's anything he could have done that would have turned the market around on a dime when he came into office."
  • On the March 6 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated: "And our headline this Friday night: Welcome to Day Number 46 of 'Obama's Bear Market.' Now, that's what some news organizations are calling it tonight as the Dow Jones industrial average actually finished up about 30 points today at the end of a disastrous week."
  • On the March 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Jeff Birnbaum, managing editor of The Washington Times' digital media operations, said: "Well, I think that we're, without question, in the Obama bear market, literally. Since he was inaugurated, there's been a 20 percent decline in the Dow Jones industrial average. That's the definition of a bear market. And, in fact, the Dow is down 30 percent since his election."

From the April 18 edition of Fox News' Bulls & Bears:

BUTTNER: Call it a tea party rally. Wall Street's sure partying, up six weeks in a row. The bulls came out about the same time these guys started to shout, saying no to big government, big taxes, and big bailouts. Will that keep investors saying yes to stocks?

Hi, everyone, I'm Brenda Buttner. This is Bulls & Bears. Let's get right down to it. Here they are, the Bulls and Bears this week: Gary B. Smith, Tobin Smith, Eric Bolling, along with Ron Ianieri with Ion Options. Welcome to everybody. OK.

Eric, after months on its back, the market comes back the same time Americans fight back against big government. Is that a coincidence?

BOLLING: Not at all, Brenda. I'm sitting here in the heartbeat of America -- Dallas, Texas. These people love their tea parties. They hate their big government. They certainly hate the taxing and spending. And you know what? The market doesn't like it, either.

They like the protests. The market showed us that, you know what? We're done with it. We will be on our feet again someday, and the market will come back as soon as Barack Obama stops the taxing and spending, for God's sake.

BUTTNER: OK. What's that guffaw there?

TOBIN SMITH: Well, first off, I was proud to speak at the D.C. Tea Party, and I can tell you that the people there were dedicated to no spending. But the people in Washington who actually have their fingers on the dough have actually raised the spending.

So, now, I love the idea that there's some correlation here, but the fact of the matter is, is that maybe, maybe, they're starting to get the idea that America does have a backbone, and maybe -- but America's got a backbone; it's the Congress that I'm worried about.

BUTTNER: Yeah, but, Gary B., I mean, part of the tea party was having voices heard. For so long, all we were hearing about was nationalizing banks and socialism and all that. Just having this out there, does that help Wall Street? Does that help the bulls?

GARY B. SMITH: Absolutely, Brenda. You know, first of all, you heard for so many weeks and months that, you know, the whole country, you know, Obama won overwhelmingly, and it looked like, you know, we were going to go lockstep down this, you know, this socialist path. And then we started having these tea parties, and you know at first people thought: Oh, you know, that's kind of silly. And, of course, the liberal media continues to blow them up as silly.

But it's not. It shows that they're -- that America has a backbone. Small business owners out there -- you know, the normal, average American is just kind of sick of all the, you know, the tax-and-spend culture. And that's even, you know, bled over to Wall Street, with all the -- you know, a lot of the financial firms in a hurry now to give back this TARP money. So, I think it's all a good thing, and I think that it's helped the rally.

BUTTNER: And, of course, these are voters, though, Ron. They do have a vote, and they may take it in a couple of years to kick out the bums.

IANIERI: Yeah, well, and you know, and hopefully they will. My only problem is, is that although I'm very happy to be an American, and I really am touched by this patriotism, it's got absolutely nothing to do with the market rally -- nothing. The market --

TOBIN SMITH: Did you get the name of the post here we're doing?

IANIERI: I understand.

TOBIN SMITH: Oh, all right.

IANIERI: No, I do understand. But the fact is, there has to be a little bit of realism here. The market has been trading with the banks and the oils. The banks and oils have rallied; the market has rallied -- simple as that.

BUTTNER: Did he say realism?

From the March 7 edition of Bulls & Bears:

BUTTNER: On Main Street, more jobs wiped out; the unemployment rate now the highest in a quarter century. On Wall Street, more wealth wiped out; the Dow diving 6 percent this week, and now down 20 percent since President Obama moved into the White House. Some are calling it his bear market. Is it?

Hi everyone, I'm Brenda Buttner. This is Bulls & Bears. Let's get right down to it. Here they are, the Bulls and Bears this week: We have Gary B. Smith, Tobin Smith, Pat Dorsey, Eric Bolling, along with Democratic strategist Michael Brown. Who else we have? Ann Coulter, the best-selling author of Guilty. All right, welcome to everybody.

Toby, is this now President Obama's bear market?

SMITH: Boy, it is. And you know, the thing is, I loved when he came out and said, "Oh, I don't follow the stock market." Well, duh. Obviously, he doesn't. I mean, listen, you know, coherent ideas about how to actually get this country going would have given us 1,000 points, I think, this week. I mean, this idea that we can do everything all at one time with an unlimited, you know, budget is scaring the bejesus out of people, and until we get coherency, you know, I'm afraid that it's down 5,000, and then it's going to be his catastrophe.

BUTTNER: All right. What do you say, Ann?

COULTER: I think he wants a disaster, so he can push through all these crazy Democrat ideas, like the socialized health care. This is -- they don't care. They're going to dump everything on at once. They can blame Bush for a little while, but, I mean, it's becoming pretty clearly his, and he owns it.

I mean, all these Democrats saying, "Oh, Republicans, no ideas, you just want to cut taxes, reduce the size of government," it's like talking to a 14-year-old girl whose father has lost her [sic] job: "Oh, your idea is you cut my allowance and I get a job. That's all I ever hear: 'Get a job. Get a job.' " Well, yeah, it's better than you spending more money.

BUTTNER: OK. Michael, but this bear was out of the cave long before President Obama even started talking about the details of his economic plan, right?

BROWN: Well, obviously, this is something that clearly President Obama has inherited. And even though it's going to take several years -- I mean, it took President Bush to put us in this mess over several years; it's going to take several years to get us out of it.

Just like every time there's a Republican president, it takes a Democrat to fix the economy. Just like what happened with Bush I: President Clinton came in, gave us a surplus; Bush II came in, gave us a deficit. Now President Obama will get us a surplus --

BUTTNER: OK.

BROWN: -- at some point down the line.

SMITH: So, we need another bubble is what you're saying, because I -- 'cause the bubble we had in the Internet stocks accounted for all of these budget surpluses. So, Eric, get us another bubble, would you?

BUTTNER: Yeah, that's right. Eric, go ahead. Take that away.

BOLLING: We had the Treasury market by way of the Treasury bubble. Look, markets look forward, they don't look in reverse. Since he came out -- listen, we have a 20 percent down move since he's been in office. We've had, you know, 12 or 15 percent down in the last couple of weeks, and we've also had about 300 points down since he did come out and say --

SMITH: Yeah. "Let's buy stocks."

BOLLING: -- "Let's buy stocks here. They're cheap."

Forget about it, guys, the market looks forwards. The stock market is not looking good; the labor market -- we had 8.1 percent unemployment released this week --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's Bush's problem. That's not my problem.

BOLLING: -- not looking good; and the housing market, frankly, is on its ear right now. So forward-looking markets are very, very nervous about tax and spend.

BUTTNER: OK. Pat, are they really looking just at Washington? Aren't they looking at some of the financial firms?

From the March 7 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox:

ASMAN: Victoria, what do you think?

VICTORIA BARRET (Forbes associate editor): Yeah, I'm not as optimistic as Steve, unfortunately, because I think what's different about this one is that it's global and it's across all industries, and you have unprecedented government intervention and involvement. I mean, look at what happened over the last two weeks. Health care was a sector that was holding up, until Obama started talking about more government intervention in health care. Now, health care is down with the rest of the market.

ASMAN: So, Jack, there's all this anti-market policy online. How could the market possibly recover with all that weighing on it?

GAGE: Well, look, I believe in equal and opposite reactions, and I think you'll see, now that Obama has his own personal bear market he's presided over with a 20-percent decline since the inauguration, you will see a bounce back, akin to what Steve was talking about, with the politics changing.

I think you may see a Republican majority in 2010, and I'd look back at the Clinton presidency, when in the first two years of the Democratic Congress, the market gained only 20 percent. During the last six years of his presidency, the market tripled with the Republican Congress.

ASMAN: So, Mike, a bounce back in three years? What do you think?

From the March 7 edition of Fox News' Cashin' In:

KEENAN: The president now has the distinction of presiding over his very own bear market. Jonathan, should he be paying attention to what this market is saying?

HOENIG: Absolutely, Terry. It is inexcusable for him not to be paying attention to Wall Street. I mean, the truth is, what's good for Wall Street is good for America. You know, Wall Street is America. This is where free people come to trade, come to invest. It's not just that it's the fat cats -- Joe six-pack, Ma and Pa Kettle, they're very much invested in Wall Street. And when you look at the performance this year -- and my God, it has been a bloodbath -- I think there is no question that the market has zero confidence in Obama's economic policies.

KEENAN: Wayne, you're laughing, but, you know, it's the worst start to an administration vis-à-vis the stock market in 90 years.

ROGERS: Well, I don't think it has anything to do with the stock market in the sense that you don't make policy -- he's not listening to make policy to encourage Wall Street. Joe the Plumber has a lot more to do with it than, if you'll forgive me, Jonathan in his new tie. I mean, this is ridiculous to say that policy -- you base policy on what Wall Street says or does. Otherwise, you'd be ignoring all of the financial crises, you'd be ignoring oil prices, you'd be ignoring all of the other things that affect the stock market.

HOENIG: But Wayne, honestly, I mean, what's the market supposed to like? The intervention? The higher taxes? The regulation? Has anything Obama done this far been actually friendly to the markets? Friendly to capitalism?

KEENAN: Well -- well --

ROGERS: But we're not talking about whether the market -- whether Obama's friendly to the market; we're talking about Obama listening to Wall Street. He shouldn't be listening to Wall Street.

KEENAN: Well, yeah, but --

ROGERS: I mean, that's a mistake.

KEENAN: But, Rob, I mean, I listen to Wall Street. It's telling me the banking crisis isn't getting any better. It's telling me there's problems with the life insurers. It's telling me Eastern Europe is blowing up. Why shouldn't he listen to the market?

STEIN: Well, it's all about timeframe, Terry. And you've got to see what period of time you're looking at. Sure he's been in office for a couple of months and the stock market hasn't performed very well. But I don't know if there's anything he could have done that would have turned the market around on a dime when he came into office. Maybe you need to look at a different timeframe -- a quarter or two or three, before you start blaming every comment as the cause for the recent decline.

KEENAN: But the market is down 3,000 points since Election Day. Typically, when a Democrat gets in, it goes up. So there's some disconnect here, Tracy.

TRACY BYRNES (Fox Business reporter): But I think what Jonathan is trying to say -- and we've been talking about this a ton -- is that the -- people now trade on what D.C. says. They're not trading on earnings and fundamentals any more. The market ticks up and down --

HOENIG: Right.

BYRNES: -- based on the things we hear out of Washington. So, Wall Street is clearly listening to D.C. Maybe the president and his administration should be a little bit more careful about the things that they leak out, or that they mistakenly say, or the, you know, the bombshells they drop on occasion, 'cause the market clearly moves in tandem to those bombshells.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 18, 2009 7:45 pm ET)
         

      I'll be glad to credit Fox for the bulls, if you let me put "hit" at the end of it.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by News Corpse (April 19, 2009 2:27 am ET)
           

        I just want an explanation for this, when one guy disputes the group-think, Obama bashing at Fox...

        IANIERI: ...it's got absolutely nothing to do with the market rally -- nothing. The market --

        TOBIN SMITH: Did you get the name of the post here we're doing?

        So what was the "name of the post" of they were doing? Is this referring to a directive about what they could say? Hmmm...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (April 18, 2009 7:52 pm ET)
         

      This low, even for Fox.

      Everyone knows that the rally was because of 1) end of passover and 2) today is Record Store Day.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Victor Colorado (April 18, 2009 7:52 pm ET)
         

      Fox News Thinks Fox News Is Rallying America; Are They Jackasses?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by the Grey Path (April 18, 2009 8:04 pm ET)
         
      When is Fox going to report on how well my tiger preventing charm is keeping tigers away from Denver?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (April 18, 2009 8:23 pm ET)
         
      All I can say is that thier viewers are gtting DUMBER. And that is hard to do.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (April 18, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
           

        Fox News Worried it's Viewers Can't Tell a Cartoon from Fox News?

        http://digg.com/d1Ajts

        Report Abuse
        • Author by princeofwheels (April 19, 2009 6:58 pm ET)
             

          Dear juliajayne,

          Are you trying to tell me that Crusty wasn't a real candidate? You liberals are all liars. And I am going to tell my mommy what you said.

          Signed,

          SeannieTheSissyBoyTheUnrepentantUnAmericanTerroristSupporterWhoBeratesOurWarTimePresident.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (April 18, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
         

      Maybe the markets are just reacting to the millstone states threatening to secede.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (April 18, 2009 9:17 pm ET)
           

        Is yo' sayin' we is brin'in' th' ress of th' country down? Now thet jest ain't nice! Whuffo', how kin thet be when some of our denizens is Chuck No'ris an' thet cutie pie, Jedidiah W Bush? Take thet back, yo' Yankee somabitch! Fry mah hide!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (April 18, 2009 9:50 pm ET)
             

          I plead guilty to the yankee somabitch but I didn't really mean the Lone Star State. I'm pretty sure ya'll don't take as much from the feds as ya'll give. Think you guys get back 88 cents on the dollar.

          And I know how unpopular Perry is. Chuck might like him, but I know Willie don't. I would never want to lose a state that gave us you, Snoopy, Janis, Buddy, Willie and Lyle.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by juliajayne (April 18, 2009 10:15 pm ET)
               

            Don't fergit Molly Ivins. 

            P.s. I'm a Yankee somabitch too. NY and Pa. ;-)

            Report Abuse
        • Author by zamfir273114 (April 18, 2009 11:00 pm ET)
             

          It's not nice to make fun of ebonics Juliajayne.  People can't help how they are raised or educated.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (April 18, 2009 11:21 pm ET)
               

            Don't be dopey.  She was talk'n like Jackie Gleason/Sheriff as chasing beer tot'n Burt Reynolds, you sombit#h!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by juliajayne (April 19, 2009 1:10 am ET)
                 

              He's jes' bein' a mother trucker, Mary. And he don wan 'is beer neither. ;-)

               

              Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 20, 2009 8:38 am ET)
               

            It's not nice to make fun of ebonics Juliajayne.

            You're right. That's why she wasn't doing it. Why do you masquerade as a player of the pan flute? That's not too nice, either.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (April 18, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
         
      Neil Cavuto has been saying stuff like this for years. During elections especially, he routinely explains bad economic performance on "fears the Democrats may win in November" or something to that effect. I heard this kind of "reasoning" growing up in a former Red State all of the time. No one seemed to notice back then that Bill Clinton was able to preside over a tripling of the stock market and more recently that GWB presided over one that actually shrunk over his 8 years. We can believe the Cavuto's of the world or our own eyes.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (April 18, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
           

        not just Cavuto. Entire Media. In 2004, it was 'The terrorists want Kerry to win'.

        Anod now the stupid tea party is reposnsible for the Dow going up two months in a row.

        How about for the next six months Fox hosts tea parties whenever they want, whenever they want and takes the responsibility for Dow going up or down?

        I dont not think so. They want to hang on to the 20% and bloat the 20 to 80.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jjamele2880 (April 18, 2009 9:40 pm ET)
         

      "Tea Parties Take Nation By Storm"- you gotta admit, that's very funny.

      Wait, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be funny? Oh dear....

      But almost 1 out of every 1000 Americans may have attended a tea party!  If that's not a Revolution, what is?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (April 18, 2009 11:24 pm ET)
           

        Yeah, they looked like revolutionaries, with those tea bags dangling from their ears.  Lot of tea bag wasters don't know how to get their little selves out of hot water, much less the country. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (April 19, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
             

          Hey, give them some credit. They singlehandedly drove up the price of lipton stock with all the tea they bought. My wallet thanks them.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 20, 2009 8:41 am ET)
               

            I don't know. There weren't enough people at the "tea parties" to affect the price one way or the other.

            Maybe Lipton paid them to buy someone else's brand. If I were the Lipton Tea Company, I wouldn't want to be associated with those morans.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by aceman41 (April 18, 2009 9:46 pm ET)
         

      It is one thing to degrade Obama's policies. It's another thing to steal credit for what he does.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (April 18, 2009 9:55 pm ET)
         
      In fairness, shares of Lipton and Salada made a sudden jump.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (April 18, 2009 10:11 pm ET)
         

      here's the job creation rate of every president going back to truman.  bush 2 is the worst by far.  and the much maligned carter did not do so badly.

      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (April 18, 2009 10:58 pm ET)
         
      Still fascinates me that the working class can be subdued into protesting the upper income types deserve a tax cut. Dumb.........and dumber.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anebriated199 (April 19, 2009 11:48 pm ET)
           

        "Upper income types" you to must hate the rich, who are you going to work for if all the rich people leave the country? The government? Can you say duh!!!

        And raising taxes on the rich is the stupidest thing for obama to do. You think the people working for the rich are going to get their raises, benefits, expenses, free lunch, etc? But he has to raise taxes on those the rich you say, why is that? Oh yeah to pay off the programs he is going to create to save the world, right? Or maybe to pay off the huge debt he is going to leave us with after his 4 years is over? 

         Are you mad at the rich people? They are thiefs who take from the weak and con their way through life?  If you beleive that you are dumber than dumb.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 20, 2009 8:43 am ET)
             

          "Upper income types" you to must hate the rich, who are you going to work for if all the rich people leave the country? The government? Can you say duh!!!

          I think you just said it for us.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anebriated199 (April 20, 2009 11:11 am ET)
               

            Yes easy to refute left winger, I am defending the wealthy. If not for the rich who would you work for? You libs never answer questions do you? And when taxed higher the wealthy have less money to invest which hurts the private sector. I think the fair tax is the best solution.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (April 20, 2009 6:25 pm ET)
                 

              Nature abhors a vacuum. If the rich went away other people would step right in their place.  Nobody is so important or amazing that they cannot be replaced.  That is why Atlas Shrugged is just a fantasy. Any wealthy person who thinks otherwise really needs to get over his/herself.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by wolf kotenberg (April 20, 2009 7:51 pm ET)
                 

              I am guessing we never answer questions to your liking. The companies that get wealthy are the ones that pay their workers well and invest at least three percent of their revenue in research and development. The ones that get in trouble are the ones making very high wages and benefits for the CEO's that don't add to the core competency of subject company. And quit framing your argument into left wing and right wing Rush Limbaugh definition.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (April 20, 2009 10:47 am ET)
             

          And raising taxes on the rich is the stupidest thing for obama to do.

          He's just letting the tax vacation end for the rich.  Can you really defend the success of Bush's tax cuts?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (April 20, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
               

            Yeah, just look at all those jobs created as a result of Bush's tax cuts! Just LOOK at 'em!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wolf kotenberg (April 20, 2009 7:53 pm ET)
                 

              they need three engine corporate jets to get to the locations where they created jobs.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by historygeek001 (April 20, 2009 11:10 am ET)
             

          I still can't tell if you honestly believe the nonsense you're spouting or if you're parodying the wingnuts. 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (April 20, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
             

          I work for a corporation with thousands of shareholders some of whom are likely very wealthy but certainly not all.  I realize most people are employeed by small businesses but the vast majority of those will not be have a tax increase under Obama.  I don't forsee job losses as a result of Obama's tax plan being a problem.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by wolf kotenberg (April 20, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
             

           Are you mad at the rich people? They are thiefs who take from the weak and con their way through life?  If you beleive that you are dumber than dumb.

          Madoff comes to mind right away. So does Abramof. So does Bush.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by rkcomments (April 18, 2009 11:12 pm ET)
         

      Ms. Buttner, her panelists and her family members who watch her show are probably the only people on this planet buying her nonsense. Anybody who is watching Brenda Buttner on FNC on a Saturday morning needs to get a life. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (April 18, 2009 11:39 pm ET)
         
      again, can today's right wing republicans take responsibility for something they actually did?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (April 19, 2009 12:01 am ET)
           

        Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (April 19, 2009 12:55 am ET)
           

        Only if you can find something they actually DID..Don't waste your time,

        Snoop, I know how  dangerous and scary this is but try thinking like a RightWinger. It is cold and dark place full of lies but when you want to come back home, click your remote three times(Fox News will disappear) and say, "Don't teabag me."  You'll be home is an instant.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (April 19, 2009 9:42 am ET)
           

        Today? Probably not.  But 10 years ago, they did help Clinton balance the budget. (Remember all spending bills originate in Congress.)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (April 19, 2009 10:11 am ET)
             

          NO they didnt. They passed the tax increase on upper income Americans WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE. So NO they dont get ANY credit for the balanced budget.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (April 19, 2009 11:28 am ET)
               

            How could they pass a tax increase without a single Republican vote? As I recall, the Republicans held the majority in the House, so there would have had to been some give and take for it to happen, conference committees, etc.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by oscar the grouch (April 19, 2009 11:32 am ET)
                 

              Sorry, the tax increase was before R majority in Congress, but balanced budgets came in later.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (April 19, 2009 1:10 pm ET)
                   

                the republicans still don't get credit for the clinton balanced budgets because if they would have had their way, they would have eventually reversed those tax increases on the wealthy and the only thing that stopped them was the veto that clinton would have used.  but when bush came in, that's what happened and we went right back to deficits.

                it's not that i give either party much credit, particularly now, but the answer to everything is not tax cuts for the wealthy.  if you look at the link i provided above, bush had an average of 375,000 jobs created per year during his administration, the worst since records began being kept after ww2.  and as i've pointed out before, we are letting far too much money, up to 22,000 dollars in some cases, be sheltered from taxes by putting it into retirement funds.  that not only removes all that from taxation now [generally it's taxed at a lower rate later], but it removes it from the economy because it's not money being spent now and recirculated.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by oscar the grouch (April 19, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
                     

                  Most of that retirement money is in the economy, stocks, bonds, etc.  And if you are worried about putting your money in a traditional IRA where it doesn't get taxed until retirement, you are certainly free to use a Roth.  Are you saying people shouldn't be saving for retirement, that we should all be dependent only on SS in our declining years?  Unfortunately, some people will not save without incentive and that is one of the things that has gotten this country collectively in the mess it is in.

                  I agree that Rs messed it up by not sticking to the discipline of the 1995-2000 period. There was a looming recession in early 2001 that did need to be addressed, however once war was the choice, tax cuts (for all) should have been recinded.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mefirst (April 19, 2009 9:59 pm ET)
                       

                    no i didn't say anything like we should only depend on social security.  i said we are allowing "too much" money now to be sheltered from tax, 22000 is too much.  you can still put money into an ira and still save after your have paid taxes on other income.  there is no law that says your can't put money into savings after you're paid tax on it.  it's not either or.

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (April 20, 2009 6:32 pm ET)
                     

                  I give the Republicans some credit.  Although it is true they would have reversed the tax increases, they also resisted efforts to increase some spending more than what some Democrats wanted at the time. When one party controls Congress and the other controls the Whitehouse, generally less money is spent than when one party has total control.  This has been demonstrated in many studies - especially of state legislatures.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by layman26 (April 19, 2009 8:00 am ET)
         
      Maybe Fox is right and the rally is a response to something other than the Obama administration's policies. I would suggest it is more likely a response to the Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Awards. Afterall, Nick has a larger more loyal audience in a better target demographic and more credability, and did not invest as much in promotion as Fox did with their Tea Parties.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (April 19, 2009 9:45 am ET)
           

        I put the rally square on a certain Pro Basketball team that made the playoffs this yeare for the first time in a half dozen years and a certain Major League baseball team that is off its best start since the record tying year several years ago.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (April 19, 2009 10:48 am ET)
             

          Ouch, if you're referring to the Blazers....

          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (April 19, 2009 11:29 am ET)
               

            Didn't look very good last night. Think they are a couple of years away yet, but out of small steps.............

            Report Abuse
    • Author by jjamele2880 (April 19, 2009 10:31 am ET)
         

      You might as well argue that the Republicans helped FDR get us out of the Depression.  The economic recovery of the 1990s stemmed directly from the Clinton tax increase of 1993, which not one single GOP House member supported, and which was used as a rallying point to return the Republicans to power in that chamber a year later.

      "All spending bills originate in the House..." right.  So tell your GOP friends to stop blaming the out of control spending from 2001 to 2007 on the Democrats.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (April 19, 2009 11:31 am ET)
           

        Don't think I have the ear of RashL Blimpo, Shamity, etal.  Too damn independent, I guess.  Don't buy into their "insider" programs, so I think my email to them goes to junk.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (April 19, 2009 6:43 pm ET)
             

          True Oscar I doubt they listen to you. You just arent looney enough. You could try to ramp up the crazy in the first couple of paragraphs then slip in some reason, but it probably wouldnt work

          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (April 19, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
               

            What's the salutation to Blimpo? Dittos or something like that?  May give it a try.  Thanks for the tip.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by anebriated199 (April 20, 2009 12:00 am ET)
           

        Read  http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=991

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 20, 2009 8:46 am ET)
             

          You're allowed your own opinion, but you are not allowed your own truth.

          And "Conservative truth" may be the former, but it's nowhere near the latter.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anebriated199 (April 20, 2009 10:23 am ET)
               

            The war got us out of the great depression, not FDR's new deal. As stated the new deal failed miserably as will obama's version of it. That is what history tells us and obama is not listening.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (April 20, 2009 6:40 pm ET)
                 

              The war still demonstrates Keynesian deficit spending even if you don't believe in the New Deal - which I would argue was statistically successful. GDP increased and unemployment decreased 5 out of the New Deal's 6 years - after 4 straight years of shrinking GDP and unemployment increases under Hoover. I think it is pure fantasy to call that a miserable failure.

              I don't know if the policies still apply today, but you obviously need to revisit the stats on The New Deal.

              Do you think WWII was a tax cut? a difference in monetary policy? Is there another description of how it helped economically? Oh yeah, massive deficit spending that Keynes originally called for in The New Deal, but did not actually get until the early 40's.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (April 20, 2009 10:49 am ET)
             

          Consider the positive impact of military spending over domestic spending.

          I stopped reading after that line.  Do you really believe that drivel?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anebriated199 (April 20, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
               

            WWII got us out of depression, not new deal.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (April 20, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
                 

              Military vs. Domestic makes no difference.  It is all government deficit spending to Keynes.  You are not too wittingly proving the worth of Keynesianism.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (April 21, 2009 6:30 am ET)
                   

                Exactly while some kinds of spending have a better return than others if the government just went out and BURRIED money where it would be  found THAT would stimulate the economy so making some arbitrary distinction between the two is just trying to create an argument for his agenda that does not exist in reality.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (April 19, 2009 10:55 am ET)
         

      These right-wingers live in an alternate universe.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (April 19, 2009 11:38 am ET)
         

      Well, let's see. if there were 2000 tea parties and only 300,000 showed up, that would be an average of 150 people at each tea party. IF there were 300,000 total and last election there were 119,000 or so votes cast, that would mean 2.5% of the voters protested. You have to figure some were there because Fox told them to come and did not know what they were protesting as you can tell from some of the interviews that were done, I would say the tea party was a bust. And to say the market is going up because of tea parties is just plain stupid and typical Fox spin. Market is going up because there are some good buying opportunities out there. DUH!!!!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anebriated199 (April 20, 2009 12:06 am ET)
           

        Why are you so concerned whether it was a bust or not? It is the right of any american citizen to voice their opinion however they choose. Why are you happy to say it was a bust, if you listened to obama he has taken note of it, why don't you?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 20, 2009 8:47 am ET)
             

          It got precisely the "note" it deserved: almost none.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anebriated199 (April 20, 2009 10:15 am ET)
               

            He said he was going to simplify the tax code, and cut federal programs, I would say he took note "so easy to refute leftwingers" haha.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (April 20, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
                 

              I am glad Obama is doing it.  Politically it helps Obama by making him look willing to listen and compromise - even when he does not need to. When the Tea-baggers continue to show their hatred for Obama - as we know they will, it only marginalizes them further.  Most people are really turned off by the extreme rhetoric of these guys.  I think they have a few good points, but they just look, talk and act so crazy and rabid.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by secondgate (April 19, 2009 5:28 pm ET)
         

      Fox News market analysis.

      You forgot to put quotations around the word analysis. That was so god-awful, even for Fox.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by robrob (April 19, 2009 6:48 pm ET)
         
      Obama has been in office now not quite three months and already FOX is blaming him for the market situation. If five months from now there were another terrorist attack on US soil (God forbid), would FOX blame Obama? Did FOX blame Bush for 9/11?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anebriated199 (April 20, 2009 12:31 am ET)
           

        Yes to the first and no to the second. He is cutting defense spending and releasing documents that do no good for our CIA, he says it is not a political decision, but he is lying. What would happen if your favorite team showed your opponent their playbook? This is not good whether we use the techniques again or not, the enemy now knows our mindset on interrogation and know they will not be harmed. I feel less safe every day that passes under obama. Bush was not great, but he did protect this country.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (April 20, 2009 8:41 am ET)
             

          Bush didn't protect this country.  He actually failed horribly in the biggest national security breakdown in history.  Bush never heard of terrorism before it smacked him upside the head.  He never uttered the word, he never thought about it, he never did the slightest, tiniest thing to combat it.

          I'd forgive Bush for 9/11 if he would have had two terrorism-prevention thoughts to rub together in his entire life prior to it.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 20, 2009 8:48 am ET)
             

          The only thing Bush protected was Cheney's deferred Halliburton salary.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by historygeek001 (April 20, 2009 11:17 am ET)
             

          Obama INCREASED defense spending by $21 billion.  Bush's policies, according to his own intelligence agencies, made us LESS safe.  You're blathering.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by rkcomments (April 20, 2009 12:43 am ET)
           

        I agree. Even until November of last year Rove was on TV blaming the economic problems on the 'recession that Bush had inherited' from Clinton. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by gutterblaster (April 19, 2009 9:19 pm ET)
         

      Well FOX news did have tens of people at the tea parties. so remember to change the station and give them the time they deserve!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by welterwill998306 (April 19, 2009 9:19 pm ET)
         
      Wow its really scary how long people with that kind of crooked logic,have been in power . Their agenda is pretty shallow to say the least"regain the strength of the republican party at any and all costs". The dow has been going up since Obamas inauguration and Yes it is hillarious that they bring it up in a quik and timely fashion on their precious tea party day.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dadre (April 20, 2009 1:07 am ET)
         

      It's funny how to Republicans nothing was George Bush's fault for 9 months and nothing was Obama's fault for about 9 minutes after he said so help me God. We have to remember that 911 was Clinton's fault and Bush inherited it.(wink wink nudge)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (April 20, 2009 8:22 am ET)
           

        The republicans gave Obama negative 9 months.

        The 2008 economy was Obama's fault because the market knew we'd be turning socialist.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (April 21, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
             

          heh heh.  That must be the only thing the market knew (other than how to self-destruct...)

          Report Abuse
    • Author by SMTDL (April 20, 2009 11:18 am ET)
         

      The market is down today(sofar)..Can't wait to see Fox'x spin on it!!!What will be the reason..no tea parties today???

      Or it must  must be Obama speaking to Chavez...

      Bank of America is reporting a big profit today..geeeeeeeee what's gonna happen now..why.. why??

      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (April 20, 2009 11:48 am ET)
         

      I do credit the Tea Parties for bull.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mike404 (April 20, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
         
      The market did tank when BO became president. That is becasue the market (a living, breathing entity) does not respond well to socialistic policies from our president. It's a well-known fact that markets don't like socialism, ergo, markets don't like Barry's policies and freefall whenever he opens his mouth.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (April 20, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
           

        The market started tanking well before the election.  I suppose you never heard/read about the banking crisis.  Well, you see it turns out the market did not like de-regulation so much.  I think you are more than a little confused here.

        How do you explain the market going up for the last two straight months?  Did Obama keep his mouth shut that whole time?  Are you really this dense?  My God, you must listen to Fox all of the time.  They are the only people who expect their audience to believe that drivel. No half-way educated person could possibly believe what you just wrote. Seriously.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by TheSarge (April 20, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
         

      Wait a second.... does that news ticker read: "Tea Parties Catch Fire?"

      Don't tell me they've started burning books now?

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.