I didn't find this recap of Jim Cramer's CNBC show interesting because of his recommendations. I found it interesting because he talks of an overall "bearishness of the market." Cramer noted that this bearishness began in the tech sector, spread to retail, and is now creeping into the food sector.

He notes that it is "remarkable to see how little enthusiasm there is ... even for companies that are doing well." An example of this lack of enthusiasm for good performers is that analysts will cut price targets on a stock, but will raise the company's earnings estimate at the same time.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says he believes we have a bit further to fall, but he'll be buying again soon after.

In a week we've gone from, "Prove it, bears -- prove how crummy it really is," to, "Bulls, give me a break -- don't bother taking the futures up, you're finished and you know it."

What caused the transformation? I think price. The realization that the moves have been so breathtaking that it converted bulls to bears literally overnight. I don't think this is the "same old bear" that is growling.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says critics of the program don't understand the simple good it does.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page launches an attack of the Cash for Clunkers campaign today, noting that we are destroying perfectly good cars for no reason and giving away thousands of dollars only to increase the federal deficit. We should give vouchers for all sorts of goodies if we are going to go down this route, they cynically point out, and they label it a Democratic giveaway.

First, let me say that if the government gives away $4 billion or $5 billion on this one, big deal. We have supported every cockamamie military project, every bogus part of stimulus -- ours amounts more to a giveaway to the only secure workers in this country (state and local employees) with a minimum of stimulus for infrastructure -- so what's wrong with one that actually mimics the successful Chinese program of forcing consumers to spend?

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says it's not too much to ask that banks have enough money to loan to customers and to pay back TARP.

Bankers who complain about having to raise more money to pay back the Troubled Asset Relief Program ought to be real careful here about their insistence that the rules have been changed.

Never did Treasury say, "If you raise this money, you can pay TARP back." What it did say was, "If you raise this money, you can stay in business."

Given that most of the banks that raised the $85 billion probably could have gone by the wayside, I don't think there's all that much to be said about the government demanding that the banks have enough money on hand to loan to customers and to pay back TARP. Is that really too high a price to pay?

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says it's just not an investable way of thinking.

Why is it such a bad idea to buy stocks if the worst is over? Why is it considered so heretical? One reason could be that there's too much moralizing going on among the stock pickers and the pundits these days. Yesterday, for example, I heard so many people blasting the government for coming to the aid of the Hartfords (NYSE: HIG) (Cramer's Take) and Lincolns (NYSE: LNC) (Cramer's Take) and Principals (NYSE: PFG) (Cramer's Take) that you would have thought that people wanted these companies to fail.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says it's a good deal, but there isn't enough risk capital about.

So TALF is dropping off -- not enough money going into the program. Not enough at all. And it worries me.

This program is integral to the turnaround thesis -- we need money to flow into these asset-backed markets. It's a sign that people aren't willing to put in more money than last month -- the program needs a push.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says a 20% move in a matter of weeks is plenty to get excited about.

So maybe today they kill it? Maybe today is the day that they keep it down? We sure have enough bigwigs saying it. Soros is saying it for certain: Bear-market recovery because we haven't turned the economy around.

Sure. Could be. But once again I point to the numbers. We just had a 21% move up. I want more of those bear-market rallies. They are better than bull-market rallies! They are faster, they give you more point appreciation and then they let you play again! Sure beats a good old-fashioned bull-market rally that might take a couple of years, maybe even three, to give you that kind of appreciation.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says if you don't want to wait for a pullback, look abroad for the next leg or find values at home.

What do you do when everyone knows we have come up too far, too fast; no one knows who is actually buying; and we are going into earnings season?

What do you do when the animal spirits are taking up the market and yet other than a handful companies -- Research In Motion (NASDAQ: RIMM) (Cramer's Take), Xilinx (NASDAQ: XLNX) (Cramer's Take), Corning (NYSE: GLW) (Cramer's Take), Best Buy (NYSE: BBY) (Cramer's Take) and Taiwan Semi (NYSE: TSM) (Cramer's Take) -- almost all companies that have spoken during the "off-season" earnings reports have been dismal?

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says it'd be easy to follow the herd and doubt the staying power of this rally, but that's not his style.

People think I am nuts . . . even more than usual. All they can talk about at the cocktail parties and the lunches and on the Street is how bad things are. They want to hide in gold. They want to hide under the bed. They think that every move is false and every rally must be sold. The negativity is so thick that even my closest friends think that I am being wishful about the turn. Oh, and heaven forbid there would be one positive article in The Wall Street Journal about this market. Just one!

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says most people are still leaning the wrong way on this market.

In August 2007 we went into a recession because of the collapse of housing. I pick August because that's when I went nuts on TV about how things were falling apart in the credit markets and you just couldn't see it yet in equities.

Back in August of 2007, Barron's Bill Alpert slammed Jim Cramer's stock-picking abilities in a cover story (subscription required). At the time, Alpert reported that "Over the past two years, viewers holding Cramer's stocks would be up 12% while the Dow rose 22% and the S&P 500 16%, according to a record of 1,300 of the CNBC star's Buy recommendations compiled by YourMoneyWatch.com, a Website run by a retired stock analyst and loyal Cramer-watcher."

Now Alpert is back for more. In the latest issue of Barron's, he writes (subscription required) that "Cramer's recommendations underperform the market by most measures. From May to December of last year, for example, the market lost about 30%. Heeding Cramer's Buys and Sells would have added another five percentage points to that loss, according to our latest tally."

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says it's a quick way to ensure growth in the face of generics competition.

Pfizer's (NYSE: PFE) (Cramer's Take) moves suddenly make sense. You lay off your scientists, you buy the better group at Wyeth (NYSE: WYE) (Cramer's Take) , you get Wyeth's franchise and you slash the sales budget, and voila, you have growth.

That's the greatness of the pharma industry. You need mergers, especially when Obama has made it clear that he's not going to be in the camp of stifling generic competition, of which Pfizer faces the brunt of.

It is why I recommended Forest Labs (NYSE: FRX) (Cramer's Take) last night -- believe me, that's the cheapest. I own Bristol-Myers (NYSE: BMY) (Cramer's Take) because BMY looks like Wyeth with a bigger dividend and a great cancer franchise.

Celgene (NASDAQ: CELG) (Cramer's Take) too -- Celgene was approached not that long ago when it was much higher. CELG's another way to replenish.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says recent purchases at Bank of America and JPMorgan are a good sign, but they don't solve everything.

Fool me once? Remember when Bob Steel bought a million shares of Wachovia? I went nuts over that purchase, mouthing all the usual shibboleths: Insiders sell for a million reasons, but they only buy for one reason -- to make money.

I remind myself of that because, obviously, not all buys in the open market by insiders are equal. Ken Lewis' buy of 200,000 shares of Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) (Cramer's Take) may be a vote of confidence, along with buys by other board members, but what if it is all Steel? It certainly doesn't match the amount that Steel bought.

So the jury's out. How about Jamie Dimon's buy of 500,000 JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM) (Cramer's Take) shares slightly below the current price here? Better. More money. And in Dimon's case, a welcome reprieve from his own bashing 10 points higher when he was interviewed by Erin Burnett of CNBC. More conviction.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says that it should have been obvious to many more hedge fund managers that things were going totally awry.

Something better go up besides job losses and Treasuries. The central theme of everything post the Lehman Brothers imbroglio is that everything goes down: corporate and municipal debt, M&A, stocks, commodities (particularly oil and copper), industrial production, retail sales, car sales, home sales, you name it.

In that world, no one can make money, except people who are short everything, and, judging from most hedge fund returns, that ain't working either. I mean, where is it written that hedge funds should be taking losses in this environment and gating themselves? I would suspect that cautious or negative hedge funds should be up huge in this environment. That's what they are paid to do.

If they aren't up huge, maybe the managers should come up with another calling.

I look at this because when I examine the newspapers and web sites this morning, I realize that there are instruments to short pretty much everything that's out there, from bank debt and commercial mortgages to residential mortgages and commodities. Yet, day after day, I read about these hedge funds that have to gate people, and I wonder why they all had such a long-side bias.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says that CIT's approval as a bank holding company means anyone with a lending business can make it.

CIT Group (NYSE:CIT) made it to the finish line. They became a bank. After a sickening and seemingly endless slide for this lender, to $4 from $30, the whole way down with nothing but rosy projections, the company made it to bank holding company status and now it will be able to survive. Who knows, the company might even thrive, which makes that last stock offering seem pretty delectable.

The issue for me now is you are nothing if you are not a bank. You can see the ramifications of making this reckless lender -- it can say otherwise, but aren't we tired of all the say "otherwises" at this point; it's just better to admit it -- a bank. It means that anyone, no matter how profligate, no matter how wasted, can make it, if it has some sort of lending business.

I ask, why? What is the government's interest in saving Citigroup (NYSE: C)? Why bother? Should we look for other companies that lend and give them protection?

How about Las Vegas Sands (NYSE: LVS) )? When you go there you can borrow money. Prime candidate for it, I believe.

I know I was thrilled when all of those life insurers got around the law by buying little banks. That was good judgment in action.

The real worry, of course, is that without bank status, like the status of the utilities, how can you finance your way through this period? Can we make troubled retailers banks? If someone has a retail charge card, like Macy's (NYSE: M) ), isn't that the same as American Express (NYSE:AXP). Tons of retailers have charge cards and they are all candidates for bank status as they get in trouble. Neiman Marcus should have bank status.