Worst over when it comes to economy?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's springtime, and if you look really hard you might see some little signs of recovery trying to burst forth along with the daffodils. Despite taking a tumble today, stocks have pretty much been on a tear lately.
After hitting 12 year lows, the major indexes have risen for four straight weeks, with the Dow jumping more than 21 percent for its best four week run since the 1930s. It looks like Wall Street is hopeful that the economy and the financial sector are closer to stabilizing.
A key jobs report out Friday showed unemployment soared to 8.5 percent last month; but markets seemed comforted that the numbers came in as expected.
Meanwhile, there have been other glimmers of positive news on the economic front. For starters, we don't seem to be hearing about more massive layoffs every week like we were a couple months back. And, when it comes to real estate, existing home sales rose 5.1 percent in February, the largest increase in nearly six years.
Mortgage applications are also way up, jumping 30 percent one week in March, with most of these applications for people refinancing their homes. Mortgage giant Fannie Mae says its refinancing volume nearly doubled last month; and expects that number to keep growing. One official there says the results were encouraging and that expanding refinancing options is "a critical part of preventing future foreclosures and hastening recovery."
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to the economy, do you believe the worst is over?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Gingrich: Would have disabled North Korea’s missile
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to North Korea's missile launch, Newt Gingrich says he would have disabled the long-range missile before it ever left the launch pad. The Former House Speaker says too many people "do not appreciate the scale of the threat that is evolving on the planet."
Gingrich says he hasn't seen the UN do anything effective with either Iran or N. Korea.
He adds that he hasn't seen the United Nations do anything effective with either Iran or North Korea. And he's right about that.
But the UN is the route that President Obama is taking. The State Department called the launch a "provocative act" in violation of a 2006 Security Council resolution; and said North Korea's action "merits a clear, strong response" in the form of another council resolution.
However, an emergency meeting of the Security Council ended yesterday without any official reaction to North Korea. And many U.N. security council resolutions in the past have proved not to be worth the paper they're written on.
Gingrich isn't the only one questioning if the Democratic administration is tough enough on national security. While the White House insists North Korea's missile launch shows the importance of President Obama's call for "a world without nuclear weapons," critics say that's an unrealistic and dangerous position.
John Bolton, former Ambassador to the UN under President Bush, describes president Obama's no nukes call as "otherworldly." Bolton says the threat of the Security Council has no real impact on countries like North Korea and Iran. Gingrich also called the president's plan for a Global Summit on Nuclear Security "a wonderful fantasy idea," saying Russia and other nations can't be trusted.
Meanwhile, the White House is pushing back against accusations of appearing weak, suggesting that the Bush administration's tough talk toward both Iran and North Korea proved ineffective.
Here’s my question to you: Newt Gingrich says he would have disabled North Korea's missile. Is that what the U.S. should have done?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What happened to idea of bipartisanship?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Barack Obama has the biggest partisan gap in his early job approval rating of any president in the last 40 years. A new Pew Research Center poll shows 88 percent of Democrats approve of the president; but only 27 percent of Republicans think he's getting it done. That's a stunning 61 point gap.
Even George W. Bush only had a 51 point partisan gap early in his administration. Of course that was before 9/11 and the phony reasons for invading Iraq. President Clinton had a 45 point gap.
Researchers suggest this growing partisan divide is part of a long-term trend. Looking at early approval ratings for Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon, a majority of Republicans actually approved of Carter's job performance; and a majority of Democrats backed Nixon at similar points in their first terms.
When it comes to President Obama, the partisan gap is especially curious since this is someone who won the election by forming a coalition of voters from across the spectrum. Then-candidate Obama promised to bring a post-partisan brand of politics to Washington; and since his inauguration, the president has made an effort to reach out to Republicans in Congress - meeting with them privately about the economic stimulus bill, inviting them to a White House Super Bowl party, and including them in various on camera meetings at the White House. But apparently it's not working.
Here’s my question to you: What happened to the idea of bipartisanship?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments