Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

BLITZER'S BLOG: If Obama is anti-big business, why has Wall Street done so well?
December 14th, 2011
04:33 PM ET

BLITZER'S BLOG: If Obama is anti-big business, why has Wall Street done so well?

By Wolf Blitzer, CNN

(CNN) - I know that lots of critics accuse President Obama of being anti-big business. Some go so far as to suggest he’s borderline socialist.

The criticism stems from some of his own rhetoric against Wall Street, which occasionally has been over the top – as many of his own big-business Democratic fund-raisers acknowledge.

The critics also point to his desire for more intense oversight and regulation of the big banks and brokerage and investment firms.

Finally, they charge he engages in “class warfare” by insisting that “millionaires and billionaires” should see their tax rates go up. That, the critics say, will merely undermine the “job creators” and weaken the overall economy. They don’t like his efforts to promote greater “wealth distribution.”

I fully understand all the criticism. But here’s my question: If President Obama’s policies have been so anti-big business, why has Wall Street done so well since he took office?

On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the Dow Jones closed at 7,949. Now, it hovers around 12,000. That’s a pretty impressive increase.

In the past year, the value of the U.S. dollar has gone up as well, although the euro crisis has certainly played a significant role in that.

Finally, so many major American corporations are raking in record profits and sitting on trillions of dollars.

In short, big business is doing well even though the overall economy is still sluggish and unemployment is still way too high.

And those latter factors are key to his re-election prospects – not the state of big business.

Follow Wolf Blitzer on Twitter: @WolfBlitzerCNN

Post by:
Filed under: President Obama • Wall Street • Wolf Blitzer
soundoff (435 Responses)
  1. Mark

    Oh Wolf those silly facts just get in the way of hatred and rhetoric.

    December 14, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
  2. Geesam47

    Only Wall Street opposition is making the news. The fact is that Obama is getting plenty of Wall Street supoort. Given that, the President can say anything he wants to about big business. It doesn't hurt his political wallet.

    December 14, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
  3. TruthBlade

    Crediting Obama for the increase in the Dow is a little misguided. It was at 14K six months before he took office. He doesn't get the blame for the fall or credit for the partial recovery. Economically he is essentially GWB 2.0

    December 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
  4. wisiconsin101

    Wolf, that is a very good hypothesis but too bad it is wrong. Companies are still not hiring because they are waiting to see if people are going to give full control back to the socialists. Companies are a good investment today because they shed all the waste & lazy workers off payroll and downsized to meet true demand. Obama is anti company but luckily while he wasted his first 2 years on OBcare, enough republicans became elected to block any of his anti company socialist agenda. That is why investors are still investing.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
  5. Frank

    Come on, Wolf. There are systemic corrective factors at work that have zero to do with the White House. Equity markets are resilient in spite of President Obam's efforts to talk down the financial establishment. He came to office knowing little of the factors that marshal private capital or how investors think. Correlation and causality are quite different.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
  6. ndilily

    Obama is only anti-small business. He is very much pro big business and big money. Forcing 40 million Americans to buy overpriced health insurance policies should be a dead giveaway, along with the fact that the vast majority of the "stimulus" money went directly to the owners of large construction companies who do the majority of "infrastructure" work and to the big automobile manufactures. That Obama is a socialist is one of the biggest jokes. We'd be better off if he was.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  7. wisiconsin101

    Wolf, that is a very good hypothesis but too bad it is wrong. Companies are still not hiring because they are waiting to see if the crazy people are going to give full control back to the socialists. Companies are a good investment today because they shed all the waste & lazy workers off payroll and downsized to meet true demand. Obama is anti company but luckily while he wasted his first 2 years on OBcare, enough republicans became elected to block any of his anti company socialist agenda. That is why investors are still investing.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  8. socal pg

    Obama is anti – small business. he wants to strengthen large corporations and give the little guy the shaft.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
  9. Meki60

    Obama hates US business and the US and I hope he hates Blitzer

    December 14, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
  10. Dottie

    It is incomprehensible that those on Wall Street would provide over twice as much in donations to a Republican candidate - ANY Republican candidate - than for the President who supported Wall Street with the contraversial "bail out" that has kept them disgustingly wealthy in a country where over half the millions of citizens are struggling - and often failing - to meet their daily living needs due to lack of work or underemployment! I truly hope someone at CNN can bring this to the attention of Americans, and soon. One thing for sure - no one can say the bail out has loaded the donation decisions!

    December 14, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
  11. Sylvia in Colorado

    Wall Steet works despite what the President does thank God!

    December 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  12. XV

    Wolf Blitzer is a Democratic party ploitical hack pretending to be a reporter. Don't take seriously whatever he says.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  13. Entrepeneuer

    My small business is actually doing well. That said, I honestly feel I pay enough in various taxes. I pay over $100k each year in property tax, over $165k in income tax (state & federal combined) and more than $180k in various other taxes. I am just extremely concerned that someone who has never met me, is wanting me to pay more. So, when is enough enough? For this I went to college?

    December 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  14. McBob

    Good one Wolf! That's such an anecdotal description of what happened. What really happened was that market crashed because of the banking failure, recovered to a great degree with help from TARP, businesses are still having issues with revenue in some cases not where they were in 2009, they cut jobs like crazy to make profits and now this is being spun as Obama is really not anti-business? Come on! My explanation of why Obama is not anti-business is because he took more money from Wall Street than any other president in history. That holds as much water as the stock market increase. More lazy reporting by CNN.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  15. humtake

    I hate to bring up the obvious to debunk you so easily, but big business wasn't hurting very much during the downturn. The rich have stayed rich and gotten richer. Isn't that what the entire OWS thing is about? This is a "no duh" question and answer. I would have thought more of you.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
  16. chris

    let's listen to liberals defend liberals. like they wouldn't capitulate to the DNC and Obama. yawn.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
  17. dave

    How can this be a bias article...are you that blind to simply see that things are better since 2009...The repubs keep hammering you with negative news. The glass is half empty affect...that's their job...all you have to do is let your fingures do the walking and find the facts yourself....just as Wolf just pointed out.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  18. Justin

    "Finally, so many major American corporations are raking in record profits and sitting on trillions of dollars."

    If President Obama wasn't anti business, they would be investing their reserves in staffing and R&D rather than sitting on them. With all the new regulations that President Obama and his staff want to bring in, why would they invest that money?

    December 14, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  19. Joel, Portland

    The market was at 14,000 in January of 2008, so it has not recovered yet. It is trying to come back but this administration is doing everything to keep it down. Don't use too short of a window to measure your statistics. Most peoples accounts have been flat for a decade. Only those brave enough to invest in the spring of 2009 made a large return thus far, if they didn't lose half of it first.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
  20. John

    He isn't against big business. He's against the corporate machine screwing everyone else and not paying their fair share. Lining all of their congressional friend's pockets with our tax dollars mind you...

    December 14, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
  21. BillB

    Instead of the DOW, how about comparing how many jobs there were in Jan 2009 and now? There's a difference between making making wall street happy and making business happy and flourishing. Generally, I would think that a flourishing business would be hiring more people.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
  22. Dave

    Ha HA Ha, LOL....good one Wolf

    December 14, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  23. Mike, NH

    You assume there is a cause and effect between Obama and the stock market increase. There isn't. It went up because the recession ended as they always do. Obama had little to do with it.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  24. Brenda

    Its shocking CNN can employ you given the fact you have so little insight and such little intelligence. Giving Obama credit for the stock market rise is utterly ridiculous. He joined office when the market was in a panic....and now, after the panic has subsided (and Bush bailed out the banks/GM, Chrysler, etc....which you and the other liberals SKEWER Bush for) you give all the credit to Obama...."the chosen one". You truly are a colossal failure.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
  25. DrewG

    Obama isn't anti-Wall St, but his policies have not been small business friendly. Small biz owners are going to be the unlucky recipients of his HC bill, which has already increased my companies healthcare policy buy-in.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
  26. Eddie

    Anti-business? You must be joking. The FDA, the USDA, the DOJ, all are running over with corporate executives. The question is ludicrous.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
  27. Dale

    The unrelenting attempts by CNN to twist the facts in support of Obama's reelection is as frustrating is as Obama is harmful to the economy. All Obama has left is to promote hatred between our business leaders and the rest of us, and CNN is leading the charge.

    The daily reporting of Obama's adversaries by CNN has been reduced to little more that sugar coated venom while CNN ignores the extent with which Obama's policies have exacerbated out economic problems and extended the misery.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  28. David D.

    If he were anti-business, he would be: 1) Breaking up the "too big to fail" banks; 2) Advocating "Medicare for All" which means the end of health insurance and those companies, roughly $350 billion in overhead we don't need; 3) Preventing companies like Apple from offshoring 90% of their jobs to address our $650 billion goods trade deficit; 4) Raising taxes on corporations generally, as they only pay 1.8% GDP vs. 2.5% for the OECD average. In other words, acting like a Democrat instead of a Republican.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
  29. Joe Public

    Bravo to Blitzer for another Red Herring for the cause.

    Obama is certainly pro big business, but not in the sense Blitzer is trying to bamboozle the reader into believing. BIG business is where he gets his campaign money so he honors the age old quid pro quo. That doesn't help the economy as Blizter disingenuously implies.

    The REAL question an HONEST journalist seeking the truth would ask is rather "is Obama pro BUSINESS?" (drop the "big").

    And he clearly is not. Pro tax, pro big government spending, pro regulation, no matter how you spin it, negatively impacts business.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  30. sven

    Perhaps the measure of big business friendliness shouldn't be based on record profits or the DJIA which affect top execs and large shareholders, but rather the willingness of large corporations to engage in job-creating activities which affect us all?

    December 14, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  31. LarsV

    Sophomoric article. First, Wall Street does not equal big business. Just ask the bankers who received massive bonuses during the financial crisis. Second, when Obama took office the market was at rock bottom due to the financial crisis. The Fed responded to that crisis before Obama took office by printing tons of money and artificially pumping up stock prices during his presidency. Third, American companies are making record profits and sitting on tons of cash because they have decided to replace American labor with foreign labor and park their cash overseas. Put another way, markets have applauded companies' reactions to 1) the US's anti-business environment by rapidly relocating their operations and capital to more favorable countries, and 2) the Fed's money printing strategies. Get your facts straight Wolf.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
    • Joe Public

      Thank you for injecting some truth. Blitzer dangled a red herring and a hilarious number of people here bit.

      December 14, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Domuloid

      Spot on. And written better than I could've done it.

      December 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
  32. justin opinion

    Every president since 1913 is big business friendly, or rather, big business owned, no matter what spin they spit.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
  33. Mic

    According to the NYSE On January 18th the Dow jones industrial average closed at 12,099.30. On january 25th of 2008 it was 12207.17. The Dow began a hard slide in september of 2008 and You say wall street has done so well by recovering to 12,000 from a low of nearly ~8,000. But your wrong Wolf. The biggest part of the "growth" you point to is really just a simple repricing of stocks to something closer to actuarialy "fair" values after the panic that had caused stocks to be severly undervalued. Because of Obama and his administration the market took until febuary of 2011 to recover to its previous levels. It hasn't really grown, its recovered.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
  34. RIck

    Why pick the day he was sworn in? Lets look at the close of the market from before the election took place (after all that is the last price before we would know who won). While the market is still up, the recovery is not as impressive - up only ~20% over 3 years as opposed to the 50% suggested.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
  35. dave

    just another typical defense of President Obama for democratic spokesman Wolf Blitzer...

    December 14, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  36. Mike B.

    This is a ridiculous comparison. The stock market recovering after a huge drop does not prove anything. This is just how markets work.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
    • John Herzog

      THe stock market goes up for two reasons.....neither have to do with cyclical economic/business cycles....
      1) they go up based upon quarterly reports exceeding expectations
      2) they go up based upon how investors see the market over the next 6 months
      In either case both situations have to do with a current situation, how investors see company performance right now, and secondarily how they view the mid range business prospects ...usually 3-9 months out.
      Over the last 100 years the Dow has gone up 1.4% during GOP presidencies and 14.3 % APR during Demo presidencies, a difference of 1000%. I don't know why this happens, but it is a main reason why I vote for Demo's.

      December 14, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
  37. Apocrypha

    It's a lot easier to convince people to vote for conservative policies that haven't worked in the past if you can convince them that the alternative is socialism.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  38. op ks

    Big business has the money to turn the economy around, and they are hiring more people, but all the jobs are now in China.
    Big business and the rich need to pay more taxes. Even a stripper knows to go to the rich guy for a lap dance.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  39. Tom

    Business and Wall Street are two different things. Wall Street is like a bookie–they make money regardless of the outcome of the game. As long as there are buyers and sellers, Wall Street wins. It's a shame Wolf isn't smart enough to know that.

    Just where do people think Obama gets his donations? Contrary to legend, that money is getting funneled from Wall Street and Obama's anonymous "bundlers."

    December 14, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  40. blog

    "If President Obama’s policies have been so anti-big business, why has Wall Street done so well since he took office?" He needs rephrase that as, walstreet would be much further ahead if there were somone in the office of president other than obama.To start with, walstreet has not done as well as it should have in the three years since loser obama was installed.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
    • rep

      yeah. anyone say something like that. at almost anytime. about almost anything. how about some actual data? or facts? or references? or something other than more complete b.s.? give us a break.

      December 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm |
  41. blog

    "If President Obama’s policies have been so anti-big business, why has Wall Street done so well since he took office?" He needs rephrase that as, walstreet would much further ahead if there were somone in the office of president other than obama.To start with, walstreet has not done as well as it should have in the three years since loser obama was installed.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  42. Joe

    The economy has natural uptick swings that have historically occurred after a recession ( or panic) and have little to do with who is in office. Because of the 2008 downturn most big businesses were forced to get more lean in terms of the number of workers and in their internal processes, which lead to bottom line profit. It would have made no difference whether Obama was in office or if I had been in office, the growth in the Dow would have happened naturally. Obama did little in terms of policy to stimulate any business growth.TARP also saved many of the "big corporations" which allowed them to return to profitability and that was put in place by the previous administration. President's get to much credit for when the economy is growing and to much blame when it nose dives. Kind of a vague article here, Wolf. Then again, you are a left wing poster boy and I am not surprised that you would try to claim credit for your party on this.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  43. mike in hayward

    I don't know Blitz. Could the rise in the stock market have anything to do with stimulus money....and QE1 and QE2?

    money printed out of thin air?

    SHEESH, i thought this was common knowledge.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  44. Mike, Anthem AZ

    To Wolf – I don't know that one necessarily follows the other. It's very possible Big Business would have done well the past 2 years no matter who is in office. Obama and other President's generally do not impact business significantly in the short – term.
    But you certainly could point to decisions, rhetoric and regulations from this White House that caused businesses to not do as well as they could have. Undoubtedly that costs jobs.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  45. El Flaco

    Obama is pro-middle class. Business and Conservatism are anti-middle class. That is the distinction that matters.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  46. Peikovianii

    "Record profits" could be a reflection of the inflated dollars now in circulation. As a measure of inflation, why else would it now cost twice as much to buy gold, a commodity in fairly stable supply, as it did four years ago unless there were a lot more dollars chasing that gold? Govt pays its own bills with inflated dollars and taxes corporate "record profits" at accelerated rates. Same is true for high-wealth individuals. Inflation is another tax on top of your tax. Quite a scam.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  47. jean2009

    President Obama is not anti-business, if anything he is the least anti-business person in the room. Basically, business will not succeed successfully until they and banks quit sitting on capital and invest and employee more workers. People who are out of work, people who are under-employed will not feel at ease buying which creates more income and more strength in the economy. This president has worked his heart out trying to improve this economy with nothing but foot dragging, belly aching and unprecedented greed on the other side of the aisle.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  48. Darko

    You're equating Wall St. and businesses. They are not the same. The main reason Wall St. did so well was because we bought our own debt through the FED.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  49. Rich

    I get a real laugh when i think about the middle or lower class voting with the GOP as that will somehow make them some kind of fake 1%...They actually vote against their own best interest and don't even know it.This is why the right wants to cut funding for education so they can dumb down and widen their base.....sad but true

    December 14, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
  50. HarleyGuy

    Let's forget the large corporations that can survive most anything and look at smaller companies trying to survive in this economy. The stock market is manipulated to the point that values mean nothing. The back bone of America, smaller businesses that employ 2-100 employees is what is being affected the most. I own 3 retail businesses that employ a total of 125 employees. We are looking to trim that number by 10% in each store to try and stay afloat. The reduction in labor costs coupled with taxes and benefits are the single largest expense in a company. This reduction will help overcome all the new mandates and regulatory compliance costs implemented by Obama. I didn't go to college, and I never got a hand out. I worked hard for 40 years to accumulate what I have. If I was starting today I couldn't have done it. Sad for the American Dreamers. Liberalism rewards bad behavior. Look at unemployment. Hiring today is not easy. People not working don't want a job and when you find a qualfied applicant, they want to take a couple of months before they start work to relax on unemploment. We hear it day in and day out. Just had one employee resign saying she worked long enough to draw unemploment and she is going to start working at home on an internet venture. Ridiculous...

    December 14, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  51. You are surely joking

    Hey, Blitz, are you buying into this propaganda??

    Hint: if the extreme left is unhappy with pres. Obama for not cutting down corporate america, then he must not be "socialistic" enough for them. Agreed?
    When the extreme right claims he's a socialist, just consider the source. They'll say anything in their desperation. Dam..n the facts, full steam ahead - off the cliff.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  52. descarado

    Considering that Obama's real world experience consists of being a Baskin Robbins ice cream scooper, how could Barack Obama possibly be anti-business with that vast wealth of knowledge?

    December 14, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  53. Jonas

    Why is Obama called anti-big business and a socialist? Because some people of certain political persuasions don't want their hatred of this president to be diluted by the facts.

    Obama is really no better than a third-term GW Bush. He is as much in the pocket of the corporate oligarchy as any politician.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
  54. vabonp

    I think most people believe The President is anti-business because he doesn't have a clue what makes business prosper. While business needs to be controlled through meaningful regulations, band-aid measures such as Dodd-Frank do not get to the root of the banking problem and the national healthcare plan balanced on the back of business create huge anchors to business health.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
  55. blitzerFan

    Wolf –
    Why do you risk your reputation clearly defending a sitting president? You have never done this before and many people already suspected you are secretly pulling for Obama. By way of this article (and I would argue certain other of your news segments) you have officially become ... biased. As you know – that is no longer effective journalism. You now need to consider what the 60 minutes anchor had to do. Retire.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  56. DavidK

    Nice word play Wolf....No one say Obama has been bad for "Big Business". You know the knock is he's bad for small business ie Obamacare, regulations, big business bailouts. He's great for his big donors like GE.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  57. smc2009

    Blitzer, have you really completely missed the anti-business argument? The criticism of Obama being anti-business stems largely from measures that are anti-SMALL business, not big business and Wall Street, from which he has received a tremendous level of support. Small businesses have historically created over 70% of the job growth in America. Raising the corporate tax rate hurts them, not the major corporations. In order to avoid the American corporate tax, which is the second hightest in the world, small business owners can be eligible for S Corporation status under the IRS, allowing them to report corporate earnings on their personal income taxes. This now places them under the category of the "rich" who earn over $250,000, according to Obama. Why is CNN not explaining this? This article borders on propaganda.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  58. Chrisitan

    Americans are smarter than politicians don't credit them to be. Americans know that all the bad name-callings are part of the miserable game called politics, and big business has done far better under Barack than under the Bushes.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
  59. Jason

    Wolf, I hardly find this to be a sincere article. The reason big business is holding trillions of dollars is because they are afraid of what Obama wants to do with taxes and regulation. Obama also, as you point out wants to re-distribute wealth (and that is a component of socialism). The problem is when you take away the incentive for people to work hard (and get rich) by taxing them, the pot will be split more evenly but it is much smaller. That is a fact and nobody wins and the country goes in the toilet. That is a simple argument but the basis for it is rooted in fact.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
  60. epicjourney

    Obama is anti small business, same as repubs. Both parties kow-tow to big business, the bigger the better. That is why we only have 'fake' CC reform, and why Gov't still sells the middle and lower classes out to the big financial industries.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
  61. skid

    He's not anti-BIG business; he's anti-SMALL business.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
  62. Chris in SD

    Didn't you get the memo? Facts have no place in a democratic society, all that matters is what the majority of people can be led to believe

    December 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
  63. scottsman

    Hello Wolf i read your opinion but here's the other side if Wall street was allowed to fail rather than be bailed out buy the taxpayers im sure things wouldnt have been so rosy for them. when your given back billions of dollars that you would have other wise lost you would have a tendency to sit on that money rather than spend it which is why there profits are so high. i think in busness there needs to be the option to fail and right now wall street knows that failer wont happen because taxpayers will bail them out. just a thought

    December 14, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
  64. SkyKing

    Big business has to talk the talk.
    But when it comes to the bottom line, they have to walk the walk.
    Business large and small would be foolish not to do all they can to get Obama re-elected.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  65. MaryM

    Of course President Obama is NOT anti-business.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  66. EnuffAlready

    Is there a point to this opinion piece? Why not add "Approved by Obama for president" to the bottom.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
    • Jim

      Guess you'd rather have the Newster running the show – pleasssse!!!

      December 14, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
  67. adam

    The truth is, the GOP are lying through their teeth and the middle class is losing again. Democrats = support big business. GOP= support big business, but even worse and more corrupt.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  68. Griff

    "What has Wall Street to do with weapons trade around the world?? Are they selling the American dollar?? US Bonds?
    What really does Wall Street sell. 'Stability! Stability! Stability! So long as Obama keeps his nose out, that stability will stay!"

    December 14, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  69. John in Colorado

    When you dump $1 Trillion of printed dollars on the economy, the stock market will inflate. This is not real, economic-based improvement.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • Tiller In Texas

      Not a bad response to going into 2 Wars on China credit...huh???

      December 14, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
  70. longshot

    He's "so anti-big business" because the right wing base just needs an excuse (no matter the facts) to oppose everything he does. He's "so anti-big business" for the same (non)reason he's going to take away everyone's guns, or that he's a socialist, or a Muslim, or a terrorist-sympathizer, or ant-American, or anti-Christmas, or...

    December 14, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  71. Tom Howard

    The only people who think he's anti-big business are the knowledge challenged FOX viewers and the reactionaries on the right who want no rules for business, but need to control our individual lives; like most Republicans these days.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  72. GDT

    Please....what a childish assessment. Corporate profits and stock market returns aren't driven by the President. They are where they are for a lot of reasons and despite the President. How can you honestly not see that Obama is anti-business and anti-american to boot. Obama is THE reason for the poor economy. Everyone (business and consumers alike) is waiting for him to lose the next election. When that happens next November, you'll finally see things start to improve. Oh, and then CNN can get back to hammering the new'll finally be able to put your Obama cheerleader pompom's away.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  73. bill

    wolf – you can observe that through his policies that he is pro business and cognizant of the importance of business and industry and has been successful in drawing policies to make them successful, but don't go far as to insult him by implying or calling him a republican.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  74. Joe

    Wolf, Did you conveniently "forget" we had a stock market crash, just a few months prior, and recently a 2000 point gain? So all things even, the stock market has been flat for the last 3+ years. And to the "Strong" Dollar, give me a break. Our dollar is NOT stronger due to Obamas' policies, but to the fact that it is the worlds de-facto currency and the 2nd major currency – the euro, is about to collapse. Wolf, you might want to stop reading the news to the camera, and start understanding it.

    December 14, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  75. Pete Pedro

    I would say thanks to then House minority party (Republicans) in 2009-2011 and now the majorty party (2011 – present) for keeping Obama's leftist policies in check. To give credit to Obama for a so called improving economy is just as a farce as him being awarded the Nobel Peace in 2009 for not being another George Bush as president!

    December 14, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  76. open400

    The claim that Obama is bad for business is just pure Fox News Progranda. Ask the people that work in the auto industry if Obama is anti-business. If Obama had not rescued the auto industry we might have 12-14% unemployment and the economic recovery might have taken 10-15 years. It was GOP free trade policies that wrecked the auto industry in the first place.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  77. Mike

    Thanks, Wolf. Big business is doing just fine. They are indeed making more money than they can count, expecially the oil and banking industry. Now how about some help for the ones who are really pulling the sled.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  78. Bryan

    Wall street has done well because of bail outs and the dumping of Trillions of dollars into the system. Stimul,QE1 QE2 Tarp ect.

    Most companies know the economy is weak and bieng distorded for political gain. Thats one of the reasons they are not hiring

    When you dump tuckloads of borrowed money infront of the Mall you will see sales rise. Its a shame my kids will need to pay it all back

    December 14, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  79. alberto

    If americans complain so much of unemployment of just above 8 percent,what will itely,spain and even Britain complain.were unemployment is well above 10 percent.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
  80. eldono

    Wolf, are you suggesting that there is a connection between Obama and the stock market? My basic question is...Do you believe the US is a Plutocracy?

    December 14, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
  81. Tony

    Too bad that CNN is leaning soooo left. I don't think that their opinions are objective. We are faced with a constant
    Socialist message from the media all the time. I really long for the days when reporters reported the news and did not tell the amercan people their opinions.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  82. Mike

    Wolf – The Fed tripled the money supply in the last 3 years – it's all inflation. Everything goes up when governments print (or create book entries for) massive amounts of money.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  83. Emperor Norton

    The man is echoing sentiments made by Ronald Reagan in the '80s. He's not a socialist; he's a Reagan Republican. The party's just drifted so far right that they make him look like a liberal.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  84. Tom in Illinois

    The Big O must go.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  85. Scott

    You don't really understand the stock market do you Wolf? You just want to look at one thing you can use to try and defend Obama from the justified criticism that he's anti-business and a socialist too.

    How about writing something objective about Obama once in awhile just to make it look like you are unbiased.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  86. Nofah Kingweigh

    Wall St. has done so well because Obama has merely perpetuated the last 8 years of GWB philosophy. The Teapublican party hates Obama because he is black. Plain and simple.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
  87. American Way

    Bail outs; investors; Wall Street growth; President Obama is clearly not anti-big business. If anything, he's doing everything he can to support the biggest businesses. Frankly, expecting American Companies to pay their share of the tax burden is called doing the right thing.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  88. Griff

    "I must be right! It's what isn't said, more than what is on CNN. So there is a rift in the Whitehouse between Bidon's team and the Obama regime!"

    December 14, 2011 at 5:48 pm |

    In short, big business is doing well even though the overall economy is still sluggish and unemployment is still way too high.
    now that is the American dream piss on the little guys

    December 14, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
  90. Raymond

    Dear Mr. Blitzer;

    First, I have never done this before, so I hope my comment is in good taste. I am so tired of hearing news about a government shut-down until I have had enough! Just like the "We are the World" video, politicians need to leave their egos at home and do their job in a timely manner. America has lost its top credit rating, people are still waiting for job creation, and since the World Trade Organization has lowered tariffs worldwide, Americans are still waiting for government revenue to fill the void (raise the taxes on the rich would help) but our Congress has nothing to do but say they cannot do their job at the blame of others.
    How about the American workforce take a day off (All 307 million of us) to give our government officials, corporate america, and the rich, time to think about what is right and what is wrong? This way the government officials will not have to shut down the government.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
  91. Brian

    "Finally, they charge he engages in “class warfare” by insisting that “millionaires and billionaires” should see their tax rates go up. "....................................Was Adam Smith anti-business? It was Adam Smith who came up with the progressive income tax. Smith said "rich people have too much disposable income." It's ironic how conservatives quote Adam Smith as saying "greed is good."

    December 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • smc2009

      It is the administration's definition of "rich" that is the issue. Why do you think "rich" small business owners are not hiring?

      December 14, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • Cole Gabaldon

      Adam Smith would be the first person to say that government lacks the right to seek wealth redistribution, that Governments should not overstep their authority by seeking to fully break down the gap between rich and poor. Rather the "invisable hand" would lead us to market efficency. The role of government is to ensure that the market operates honestly so that no one gets an unfair advantage. It should also ensure that excessive profits are not made from the necessities of the poor.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • Joe Public

      Fact Fail.

      Adam Smith did not support PROGRESSIVE taxation, he supported PROPORTIONAL taxation. In modern terms, this is FLAT, not graduated tax.

      His words: " proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

      December 14, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • Paulie

      I certainly would not say Obama and or democrats are pro-business.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • James

      You should read Wealth of Nations some time.
      He favored taxes in proportion to revenue, everyone pays the same proportion of their individual revenue, revenues differ, thus the rich pay more, the poor pay less. That is called a flat tax.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • Jim

      I suggest big business is guilty of treason with massive job outsourcing and the disasterous effect on low and middle class
      families = who's kidding who? Suggest everyone watch the documentary "Inside Job"

      December 14, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
  92. Patriot Awesome

    Nice one Wolf. Very astute observations and I mean that sincerely.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  93. joep199

    why shouldn't big business be doing well? It controls the Congress, and there isn't anything Obama can do about that.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
    • Manumission

      Uh, read the Constitution. The President has veto power. He can reject anything the Congress passes which would require a re-vote with more than a majority approving.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • kelly

      nice dodging the issue. the answer is obama is very pro business. you're welcome.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
  94. Tony T

    Stock prices do not go up and down with administration moves. But jobs certainly do. And most corporations are just going to sit and wait until OB is gone before they do anything.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • Andy Hakes

      Oh wow. Do you really think that the Obama administration is what's holding back corporations from hiring? Very naive perspective....businesses add jobs to meet pending or current demand. Do you really think that a Republican led administration is going to be the catalyst for hiring? Perhaps your "fair and balanced" news source really isn't.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
    • James, AL

      Tony T,
      where have you been? Remember the 6,000,000 plus jobs lost during the eight years before President Obama got into office and this was when the corporations and the rich had the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So, if tax cuts and political parties are the difference, it seems the republicans should have had a windfall of jobs during the Bush administration. On your first statement, well, you are just totally naive if you think that presidential policies don't have an impact on the stock markets.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
    • Dale

      And rightly the should sit things out. Their role in our society is to provide goods and services at a price people are willing to pay. Obama and his buddies have heaped oppressive expenses upon them that their overseas competitors do not have to bear. Until out businesses can be competitive there is no point.

      Solyndra is a perfect example of the results fo the Obama business modes, a business that attempted to enter a market for which it was not competitive. The government spent 500 million dollars that we did not have. Printing that money fuels inflation which ultimately taxes every savings account held by every individual in this country. Businesses that want to survive have to sit tight until Obama is gone, or they will go the way of Solyndra, and the people that work for those businesses will be unemployed.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
    • Grand Oil Party

      You are a fool if you believe that. What move do you think any president can make to create demand and thus hiring? Deregulate the oil industry? Well demand for oil is still down because there are no jobs. Oil companies will do great though because investors (i.e. people will the money to invest) will gain from shares going up. Same with lumber – no one can buy a house but if a lumber company cuts down all the trees in Oregon, then it is sitting on "assets" it can show to stock investors. This still does nothing for demand outside of very niche markets. The majority of companies will not hire until demand is increased for their products or if an earthquake takes out all of China's factories. Presidents do not control the market.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
    • 40 acres

      Gosh Tony, thanks for the tip. And here I thought employment went up and down along with demand.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
    • Noah

      I thought government doesn't create jobs? thats why we can't have any more stimulus right? only businesses create jobs

      December 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • MaryM

      Tony, you know that is just BS. Business' will not sit on anything if the demand is there. And where I live there is LOTS of demand and business is good.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
    • Pjb

      Where is your memory, Bush's lame duck year the stock market plunged into the depth of the abyss and the economy was shedding jobs by the thousands. WhAt, did you leave the country

      December 14, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Jason

      Another tired and baseless Republican talking point. "Companies aren't hiring because of 'uncertianty' over [insert whatever Republicans don't like]". That's been debunked by numerous surveys of corporate activity. The reason companies aren't hiring is weak aggregate demand and improved productivity and efficiency.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Mark C

      Actually, half-wit, stock prices quite obviously do go up and down with changes in adminstrations. Under Bush, they went down. Under Obama, they've gone up.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • Chuck

      By that rationale, stock prices are not influenced by layoffs and companies ability to keep costs down by laying off, or not hiring? Wow, where did you go to school. Give the money back.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
  95. Harrold jones

    Obviously because President Obama ISN'T anti big business .

    December 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  96. Sam I Am

    Generally Obama hates business but if your on his donor list he will tolerate you.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • wadinThruBS

      You just HAD to find a way to spin it to keep your hate in play.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
    • Joe Public

      Painfully but precisely correct.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
    • Dave

      Wow... Wolf, great question. Too bad Jon Stewart the COMEDIAN addressed this at length months ago with with one of his guests. It would be funny if Jon brought this up tonight on his show.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • Grand Oil Party

      You think Gingrich is just super nice to business for free? Wake up and smell the two-party corruption buddy.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • sharky

      Shhhhhhh you are not supposed to speak the most possible fact.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
    • C Anderson

      You have to be kidding me. Any 1st term President wants a 2nd term. The best chance to obtain the 2nd term is if businesses are doing well, unemployment is low and the economy grows. To do this you have to appreciate business as our country's businesses are the backbone of our economy. To say that any President doesn't like business is to suggest that he is somehow self destructive and I think even the most unqualified of Presidential candidates isn't self destructive, let alone our current President.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
  97. Matt


    You and your guests are so bias against anyone or any thought that isn't in line with the Obama White House. Why do you and your guests behave like this ? Gloria is the worst, she is so bias against Republicans. How as a journalist do you let this happen ?


    December 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • Cati

      Biased, not bias, would be correct. You need remedial grammar. It's so hard to take someone seriously when their grammar makes them look uneducated.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • Stopthemadness

      I can tell you why we like him he supports the little guy. Do you think because you don't like something every one else has to fall in line with you? Apparently you do ....... Which makes you an obvious republican. You are so busy trying to play the blame game but I don't see you trying to work in peace. If you were so concerned with the way people acted you wouldn't act just like them. Save your hatred of people for your mind and try to grow some common sense as long as you and any other political party thinker continue to hate each other nothing will ever get better.

      IN OTHER WORDS QUIT BEING A PARTY LINE THINKER AND USE YOUR OWN MIND. And until then nothing will get better We are the UNITED states with no unity we are bound to fail.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • dave

      Do you watch Fox News?? You would be pressed to see one Democratic analyst...and when you do, they all team up on him/her...including the anchor....

      December 14, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
    • Jason


      That's a conveniently gratuitous criticism. Claim bias, then offer not a shred of evidence. Maybe you are simply looking for a journalist to reinforce your world view.


      December 14, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Trent

      Can you provide examples of the bias?

      December 14, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • Mark C

      Hey Einstein, the word is "biased." Go back to fourth grade.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • Herk

      Truth hurts dosen't.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
    • John Nemesh

      Maybe it has something to do with the LIES that the GOP spouts out as "news". Maybe its Republicans defining the "rich" as "job creators". Maybe it has something to do with the general SLIMY tactics of the Republicans and their inability to tolerate TRUTH. Just a thought.

      December 14, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • Mike H

      Oh Christ Matt, never mind. That's "in some fashion that tells the rest of us that YOU'RE literate enough to even vote." You have to clean up your stuff, man, if you want people on these forums to take you seriously.

      December 14, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
  98. kevin c

    Finally someone can see that the President has done a good job of turning things around, it's corprate greed that has taken the profits and not reinvested by hiring .that why they need to be taxed .

    December 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • smc2009

      Do you not realize that when you propose raising corporate taxes you are proposing raising taxes on small, family-owned businesses who comprise the majority of corporations in America and who have historically created the majority of jobs? Do CNN readers know absolutely nothing about American business other than what they are told by the Obama administration and CNN? How frightening.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
      • rose5352

        HAHAHAHA!! Love this. I'm working for a company that bragged of their 8 trillion dollar profit in the 3rd quarter and is STILL laying off. Job creators, indeed. I'm voting Democratic again in 2012. My grandfather, many, many years ago said republicans are only in it for the rich man and all these years later it's still true, only much worse.

        December 14, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
    • Andy

      obama has done a great job since he became president n this proves why...

      December 14, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
  99. Nash

    This is a great question Wolf. You should pose this question to the critics of the President. Maybe they know something we don't.

    December 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  100. Greg, Ontario

    Now that's the Wolf we all know and trust. Actually pointing out the facts with no real negative or positive spin. To debate the point the problem is with the banks. Their state or viability is actually an illusion with the back up reserves in the Fed that they can draw on. Ron Paul has been telling you for years about this Fed printing money and why it's so wrong.

    December 14, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
    • Dan5404

      The GOP wants no regulations on banks, the same thing that got us where we are for the most part. That's why they filibustered to prevent approval of a head for the oversight department, even though they generally like him. Certain parts of the financial world are ripping off the public, including veterans, with unbelieveably high interest, for millions.This department was created especially to control such practices, but the GOP doesn't even want such a department.

      December 14, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
1 2 3

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.