It's a bit hard not to tie these contrasting headlines together. The president must be reaching for an even worse unemployment number this year, in hopes of sounding like a populist. What the hell has happened with Paul Volcker? Wasn't he the magician at the Fed under Reagan? On another note, I'm of the firm belief (more research needed), that every time a recession occurs in our country, Democrats control the House.
Elections = consequences.
From the AP (with racial wording, hmm?)
President Barack Obama spooked the market Thursday, after asking Congress for limits on how large big banks can be and to end some of the risky trading large financial companies have used in recent quarters to boost profits.
The Dow is trying to bounce back after losing 213 points Thursday and 336 points, or 3.1 percent, during the past two trading sessions. The losses have erased all the early gains seen in 2010.
Yes, Obama, the anti-capitalist. (Marx would be proud, no?)
(Obama) is viewed favorably by (only) 27 percent of U.S. investors. In an October poll, 32 percent in the U.S. held a positive impression.
“Investors no longer feel they can trust their instincts to take risks,” said poll respondent David Young, a managing director for a broker dealer in New York. Young cited Obama’s efforts to trim bonuses and earnings, make health care his top priority over jobs and plans to tax “the rich or advantaged.”
So when you are taking the free markets on a death-spiral joy ride, why stop with cretin 2009 efforts?
The global banking industry was thrown into turmoil on Thursday after President Barack Obama , responding to public rage over the financial crisis, proposed the most far-reaching overhaul of Wall Street since the 1930s.
The measures, which require congressional approval, hark back to the response to the 1929 stock market crash that ushered in the Glass-Steagall Act, separating commercial and investment banking, which remained in law until 1999.
Others accused the White House of adopting a populist message to divert attention away from the blow delivered by the Democrats’ defeat in the Senate race in Massachusetts.
And segway to this from Reuters pondering (now Senator elect) Scott Brown:
Stocks are likely to rally if Republicans pull off a victory in Massachusetts' Senate election on Tuesday, on hopes that it would slow down President Obama's sweeping reform program, especially with respect to healthcare.
Financial stocks would also gain as a Republican victory could slam the brakes on Obama's legislation to tighten regulations of the U.S. financial industry. In Massachusetts, Coakley has demonstrated a position of wanting to regulate the sector.
"Financials will have more resistance to regulations," said Matt Havens, partner at Global Vision Advisors in Hingham, Massachusetts.
The Republican win would also be positive for the U.S. dollar in the long run as a more divided Congress generally produces diverse policies.
To borrow from AT, voting Democrat causes cancer... and unemployment.