I think most people understand that a depression of this magnitude isn't going to change overnight and the behavior of our economy does not solely hinge on Obama's actions.

However, that won't stop Republicans from trying to pre-emptively blame Obama for this latest downturn (just more of the Bush Doctrine, I suppose).

At some point, you've got nowhere to go but up--and if that happens within Obama's term, he may be looked upon as one of the greatest presidents ever.

Oh, SNAP.

So why didn't the markets crash every other time a Dem took office?

Things have never been this fragile before.

Scott Richards wrote:

Big business most definitely doesn't want him in office because their costs will rise and profits will drop significantly.  It's naive to think the market wouldn't react accordingly.

***

I don't buy it.

We're heading into a new regulatory era regardless of who gets elected President.

Actually, we're already there.  President's Bush's $700 billion bailout plan ushered us in.

I think there's a perception problem with R vs D on economy.

If we live in a perfect Republican unregulated laizez-faire free market economy, things would be like this all the time, but... so what?  That's the way of the market.  Easy come, easy go.  You lost some money?  Too bad, tough it out and earn it again. 

The problem comes when that ideology hits the reality of the average American - who, in theory, likes the idea of free market, but isn't so interested in going broke to make a point.

Which is why a balance is a great thing.  I know FDR is tutted by some here - but I love how he mixed the two - have a mostly free market where you are free to make a buck (or a million) but still have safety nets.

Nothing wrong with that.  Obama doesn't want to end the free market - no Democrat does.  He's not pushing for Socialism, he's pushing for the safety net that we should have.  The one that's been chipped away by ideology ever since FDR set it up.

"Big business most definitely doesn't want him in office because their costs will rise and profits will drop significantly.  It's naive to think the market wouldn't react accordingly."

We get this, too,  during every election cycle. If the "left" wins, it is foretold that businesses will go bankrupt, jobs will be lost, interest rates will go up etc. All according to "economic experts" who are firmly ensconced in the "right".  They treat it as if there's a natural law that when the political left gets into office, they'll tax businesses and individuals to the point of starvation. All evidence to the contrary.

What they really mean is: "if taxation or regulations mean our profit margins go from 'great' to merely 'ok' we'll lay people off and move businesses overseas to squeeze every drop of profit out of this project."  Businesses aren't being closed down only if they're not profitable enough to be sustained, but when people want more than enough.

To some small businesses added taxes have a huge effect. Which means that there's an argument to be made for differentiating tax increases so that smaller businesses aren't as affected. 

But if you make a tax to cover only Wal-Mart size companies, they'll push those same "Mom and Pop" corner stores that Wal-mart puts out of business by the hundreds in front of them, saying basically that if you tax Wal-Mart any more, you're to blame for those small business owners going out of business.

The truth is, the reason most small businesses go under is not because they're too heavily taxed, but because they're being low-balled by big business. And giving small businesses tax breaks isn't going to help if big business gets the same tax breaks, only bigger.

Big business isn't going to like the "left", because the left are going to make them pay more taxes and make their lives more difficult. But the fact that say, Democratic policies are bad for the profit margins of big business is not the same as it being bad for the country or bad for smaller businesses or consumers.

I beg to differ with Scott's theory. Historically, Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republican ones:

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/