My colleague Trey Thoelcke posted a story on Friday regarding Presidents Bush's concern that the Federal government should not "overreact" to our current economic plight for fear of doing more damage than good.

The president's concern struck me as odd because most folks having an IQ higher than their age would probably agree that President Bush overreacted in Iraq, and underreacted at home. Thus increasing the probability that we would fall into an economic quagmire that the best and brightest would have difficulty escaping.

I think I am being very generous when I say "increasing the probability" because many on the left and on the right of the political spectrum would be much more frank and say Dubya, you own this one pal!

That being said, one might argue that Bush has his rights and his lefts mixed up, as well as his rights and his wrongs. I happen to agree with the president that the federal government could overreact (and has) and do the wrong things -- with bipartisan support no doubt. For example I think the $156 billion tax rebate is very bad policy, not helping anyone and hurting everyone -- see Serious Money: Stimulate productivity not consumption. I hope anybody reading that particular Serious Money post finds it worthy of starting an e-mail storm because not enough folks understand this point.

American President George Bush announced his new budget spending plan today, and the package came out to a total of $3.1 trillion.

Today's federal budget proposal marks the first time in America's history that a budget plan has been in excess of $3 trillion. Bush claims that his budget is "good" and "solid" and that the passing of this budget will help keep the troubled American economy growing.

All in all, this budget looks to lift government spending by 6% during the fiscal year 2009, and it will probably come to no one's surprise that defense gets a nice little boost from today's budget. Bush is looking to allocate 8.2% of his spending on security, and the budget is looking to stake a $70 billion "placeholder" for war costs during 2009. The Pentagon should be pleased with its figures, as Bush is looking to allocate $515.4 billion its way... the highest allocation since WWII (and represents a 7.5% jump).

Oil prices have picked up right where they left off last week, dropping another 56 cents this morning to $88.40 a barrel, as traders continued to express concerns over a possible economic recession hitting America.

Earlier last week, it appeared as though traders were willing to overlook both a bearish inventory report and mounting concerns over a possible economic slowdown, and instead focus on the back-to-back rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. But the oil bulls left the market on Wednesday and oil is now on its third straight day of declines.

One would think that OPEC's decision to leave output unchanged, despite urging by American President George Bush to lift its production quotas, would give prices a lift, but not even this decision was enough to bring bullish sentiment back into the market. Adding to economic concerns was last week's unexpectedly weak jobs report, showing a fall of 17,000 in December payrolls.

When we looked at oil prices this morning, we noted that traders had pushed up prices on two factors; anticipation of a rate cut from the Fed, and anticipation of a possible bullish inventory report today from the U.S. Energy Department. Well, The Fed did cut rates by 50 basis, but the inventory report this week was more on the bearish side.

Traders have opted to keep oil prices in the green today, focusing on the Fed's decision instead of the the government report that showed inventories rose more than expected last week. Going into today's report, the market was expecting to see a rise of 2.3 million barrels, but what we actually saw was a bit more than 50% higher than estimates at 3.6 million barrels.

This is the sort of news that would usually lead to oil prices heading into negative territory, but not today. The 50 basis point cut from the Fed can be given credit for today's move in oil prices. Prices are currently trading up 66 cents to $92.30. At these prices, we are just about even with where we were earlier this morning before the report hit the market.

When President George Bush prepared for his final State of the Union address, his speech writers definitely had their hands full, with recession fears, and growing impatience over the Iraqi war looming on American's minds. He put on a good face, and did his best to assure Americans that all was OK, but did the American people buy it?

Bush's second term as America's 43rd president has been a rocky road. The President has dealt with low approval ratings, resulting from growing disapproval over the war in Iraq, and most recently the mortgage crisis and slowing economy. Earlier this week, he tried to reassure the country that things were in good shape, and that the country had good things to look forward to in 2008.

The main thing on the minds of most Americans right now is a possible recession getting ready to hit the country. While the President admitted that "growth is slowing," he pointed out that the benefits from a recently agreed upon stimulus package would go a long way to fight off any looming recession.

The package cleared its first hurdle recently with the House of Representatives passing a $146 billion recovery package. Now it moves on to the Senate where its future is a bit more uncertain.

When the Federal Reserve finishes up its two-day meeting this afternoon, it is widely expected that we will be in store for at least another 50 basis point cut, and possibly more. In anticipation for another cut, oil prices have moved higher today, picking up $0.59 to $92.23.

It was just last week that the Federal Reserve made the decision to step in with an emergency 75 basis point rate cut, but the consensus on Wall Street is that another rate cut is coming today, with the intended goal of putting a curb on America's slowing economic landscape. Oil traders appear to be banking on news of lower rates, and that has resulted in today's upward move in oil prices.

Since America is currently the world's largest oil consumer, any economic slowdown occurring in America will definitely have an impact on global oil demand. As recession fears have become more widespread since the start of the year, oil prices saw a 10%+ correction, falling from a recent $100 a barrel down to nearly $85 last week.

Oil and Gas giant Occidental Petroleum Corp. (NYSE: OXY) has had a nice 2% jump this morning following the company's announcement that its fourth quarter profit surged 56%.

It really shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that the company was able to rake in strong earnings considering just how high oil prices were during the fourth quarter. Occidental had been expected to show earnings this morning of $1.69 and surprised Wall Street with actual earnings of $1.74.

For the full year, the company posted its strongest ever yearly numbers. The full year profit came in at $5.4 billion, which is 28.9% higher than the $4.19 billion profit that the company realized in 2006.

As discussed earlier this month, U.S. President George Bush embarked on a Middle Eastern tour to urge OPEC countries to raise production at their meeting this week, but signs are starting to indicate that the next move the oil cartel makes will actually be to reduce its production output.

With oil prices recently breaking through the $100 barrier, Bush pleaded his case that unless OPEC decides to lift production that high oil prices will create slowdowns in all consuming countries this year. The administration is praying for a cut at this week's meeting, but according to the Wall Street Journal(subscription required). the oil cartel is more likely to cut production this spring if demand start to diminish.

It is a tough situation in which the cartel finds itself. With recession fears starting to spread regarding the U.S. economy, OPEC has to worry that a slowing American economy will crimp global demand. On the other hand, if they do not boost output then the impact could even worsen a potential recession and reduce demand even more.

If you can't pay back the bank, the bank takes your house or your car. If a stock you own loses its value, there's no collateral you can go after to cushion your loss. This is why Bush's debt recession will be far far worse than Clinton's equity one.

The stock market in the last year of George Bush's term is following a pattern that reminds me of the last year of Bill Clinton's. The Clinton market tumble -- where the NASDAQ fell in March 2000, rose through September 2000, and then began a straight down plunge through January 2001 -- preceded a brief recession in 2001. But I think that the Bush recession -- following Dow and broader market quakes in March 2007, August 2007, and the 14% decline since the October peak -- will be much much worse.

The reason? Clinton's recession was driven largely by a collapse in equity prices, while Bush's will be driven by an implosion in the value of debt. Before focusing on what Bush's recession might look like, it's worth remembering that Clinton's was driven by the collapse of the NASDAQ as the dot-com bubble burst. It also involved debt -- $1 trillion worth of borrowing by fiber optic network builders like Global Crossing that went bankrupt when they couldn't pay their debts as their customers, the dot-coms, went belly up.

With the prospects of a full blown recession looking more and more likely, everyone is hoping that something can be done to ward off the dreaded "R" word. Could tax rebates be the cure that we are looking to find?

One thing is for sure, no one is going to complain about getting a quick check from the government, but will rebates really be enough to keep the country out of a recession? The answer, sadly, is probably not. What they could achieve however, is to reduce the pain and the length of any recession that may occur this year.

Looking back to 2001 we get some evidence that tax rebates could at least provide some relief. When the country was headed into the 2001 recession, President Bush decided to add refund of $300 for individuals and $600 per household. The 2001 package, while not able to stave off a recession, is credited with part of the reason why the recession was so short lived.

While traveling in the Middle East today, President George Bush made his case to OPEC nations for an increase in global oil supplies. Bush stated that current high oil prices could create an economic slowdown in America and that all consuming economies could feel the pain of recent record high prices.

The statement came during the President's first visit to OPEC powerhouse Saudi Arabia, and he argued that a slowdown by consuming economies, such as the United States, would lead to less oil and gas purchases which will in turn hurt OPEC nations. Bush has also visited Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates and is doing his best to spread his view that "oil prices are very high, which is tough on our economy".

OPEC will next meet on February 1 to discuss the possibility of increasing supplies. Bush is not the only one in the Middle East pleading their case for OPEC's lifting of their quotas. U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman headed to the Middle East yesterday to push for increased output from the cartel.

The New York Times reports that President Bush -- whose visit to Jerusalem this week is likely to roil the energy markets -- is considering what to do about the U.S. economy. Although the cheerleader in him says "the markets are strong and solid", the tax cutter in him sees an opportunity to cut taxes as a way to face "economic challenges" due to rising oil prices, the home mortgage crisis and a weakening job market.

Bush certainly listed some of the right problems. Oil prices have quadrupled from $24 a barrel to $95.60 since he took office. Two million people are expected to lose their homes due to foreclosure by the end of 2008. And the unemployment rate rose to 5%. He just happened to exclude other problems from his list -- like a dollar that's down 60%, $9 trillion in government borrowing, and hundreds of billions in Federal budget deficits -- because they make it harder for him to argue for tax cuts.

These are all problems as are rising food prices and health care costs. But I think the problem that most concerns the typical citizen is the high price of oil. 149,000 people responded to a poll of most worrisome consumer trends and high oil prices got 55% of the votes -- second most important with 23% was the subprime crisis. I was surprised by how much people are worried about oil prices but if you have to make a choice between driving to work or heating your home, high oil prices could be a big worry.

The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] adds a new wrinkle to the story of efforts by subprime mortgage lender Ameriquest to use campaign cash to curry favor with the government. Ameriquest's parent, ACC Capital Holdings, has paid $325 million to settle regulators' claims that it charged excessively high mortgage rates and didn't adequately disclose loan risks. The Journal's story today highlights the $20.5 million Ameriquest spent at the state and federal government levels to block legislation that would have limited its predatory lending practices.

But as I posted in August, Ameriquest's cash helped boost the fortunes of president Bush. Bush, who used home ownership politics to get re-elected, received $7.8 million from Ameriquest for his 2004 reelection campaign, his inauguration and for Laura Bush's library foundation.

Ameriquest's most interesting pay-to-play technique was to give Rolling Stones tickets and cash to state legislators. For instance, according to the Journal, "Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaigns received at least $1.4 million, along with stacks of tickets to a Rolling Stones concert that were used to lure big donors." And Ameriquest also handed out Rolling Stones tickets to state legislators in Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and California.

What did Ameriquest get for all its giving?

After reviewing Wednesday's post, Bush administration pushing dollar down or allowing it to fall? IMF chief sounds alarm, I thought of one more point that is of paramount importance. Either many people are ignoring or do not understand how a devalued dollar facilitates our giving away the country wholesale, even if in the short term it appears to help with our trade deficit.

This concept does not seem to have resonated in Washington and, along with his advisers, our president is either ignorant or avoiding the issue altogether because he does not want to discuss the remedy: everyone tightening their belt financially and taking some economic pain.

Warren Buffett has sounded the alarm many times about this subject, and I will, too. When the dollar falls in value, say 30% (each currency varies), that gives foreign investors 30% more buying power here. Yes, it is true they buy more when our goods and services are "on sale" (and we buy less of theirs). However, what if instead of buying perishables, they buy income-producing property and companies. As long as this trend continues, they would be wise to buy more and more.

A simple example: They buy a company that makes widgets in the United States. They are able to sell (export) more widgets along with their American counterparts because of the devalued dollar. Who makes a higher return on invested capital? The foreign investor, of course, because they paid 30% less for the widget company!

After a sluggish start to the week, oil prices have once again gained momentum and moved to the upside in today's action. Prices so far today have risen by $1.31 a barrel to $81.61.

At the start of the week, the market dropped a bit after concerns over a storm in the Gulf of Mexico abated. At that time, analysts were coming out of the woodwork claiming that prices were due for a big drop, the argument being that the recent price increase was unwarranted and unsustainable.

I raised doubts on their views by stating there were a couple of factors that were out of anyone's control that would push prices higher if and when they took place. One of these uncontrollable, yet inevitable, factors the market would be forced to deal with was geo-political tensions that could erupt at any time without warning. This is happening now and is a big reason prices are moving back to the upside in today's market.