Obama Fiddles while the Economy Burns

The Obama administration can’t get anything right!   While the economy continues to stall after the “chosen one’s” stimulus package that was supposed to hold unemployment under 8% and create jobs, Obama is out of new ideas.  So, he is distracting us by suing the state of Arizona for trying to enforce a law that is less stringent than the federal laws.  Do you think he might be pandering to the Hispanic vote, too?  Duh!?!? 

Obama has turned, once again, to his tried-and-true tactic:  Blame the opposition for your failure.  His incompetence as the leader of the free world has never been on more display!  It is as gaudy as Christmas at FAO Schwarz!  Lashing out at Republicans in Wisconsin, he said, “We already tried the other side’s ideas.  We already know where their theories led us.”  The truth is that the “other side’s” ideas have been studiously ignored in our financial crisis and recession.  The Democratic party has controlled Congress since 2006; and earlier policies, such as the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, fueled the flames of the financial meltdown!

Now signs are not good for a continued  economic recovery.  Auto sales are down!  Home sales were down 30% last month!   Consumer Confidence has fallen sharply!  And unemployment still hovers at 9.5% or higher.  The Dems style themselves as being for the “little guy.”  But small businesses are filing for bankruptcy at a record clip; and the unemployment rate for black males is over 16%…almost 2% higher than last year.

And, the emperor’s solution:  Another stimulus package!  Ridiculous!  $700 billion in TARP, $682 billion in “economic” stimulus, $70 billion in auto aid, $1.2 trillion in Fed money-printing, $146 billion spent to prop up Freddie and Fannie…..and what do we have to show for all those taxpayer dollars?  Well, we have lost 2.2 million jobs since the stimulus package!  And our budget deficit is out of control.  The CBO reported that federal debt by YE 2010 will be 62% of GDP!

And, Pelosi thinks that unemployment checks create “jobs faster than almost any other incentive you can name.”  This lunatic is third in line to become the president!

Obama fiddles while the economy burns!  This emperor has no clothes!  This cowboy has a big hat, but no cows!  All talk, no action! The are some many clichés that apply.  Only ~120 days to the mid-terms….can America survive Obama until then!  God, I hope so!

2010….Without Doubt, Vote Them Out!

Advertisements

7 responses to “Obama Fiddles while the Economy Burns

  1. Actually, “the other side’s” ideas (deregulation of our banks, and the lack of regulation of credit default swaps (i.e., investment insurance for derivatives) are what brought us this mess in the first place. But let’ take your points in order, eh?

    First, the law suit against AZ (one that brings with it very NEGATIVE political consequences, notwithstanding what the pundits may be claiming vis-a-vis the hispanic vote) has nothing at all to do with the ongoing efforts to get our economy back on track. Put another way, our President, and our Congress for that matter are well capable and indeed expected to be able to deal with, focus on, and attempt to solve more than one problem at a time (e.g., manage two wars; deal with the economy; deal with health care; deal with immigration; etc.). Asserting that a speech on one of those issues or any other is a gambit intended to “distract” from any of the other issues is nonsense.

    Second, both Freddie and Fanny as they existed until very recently were created in 1970, under the Republican Nixon administration.

    Third, what exactly are the other side’s ideas for addressing the economic crisis in which we find ourselves? A tax cut? Hmm, less revenue, more debt, and little to show in terms of real stimulus? The fact is that a great majority of companies are now showing INCREASING profits. Why? They cut back to meet the lower levels of demand. Give them a tax cut (small or large), will not cause them to add capacity or hire, as the demand is simply not there. It will, however, give those at the top more profits, but as even Dave Stockton today admits, the trickle down theory of economics (“voodoo” as one past Republican president called it) just doesn’t work.

    I pose to you, Bob, the following rhetorical question. Consider if you will just how many more jobs would have been lost (and it does not matter whether private or public – both support our economy with employees and spending) had there not be a robust stimulus package (which TARP by the way was NOT)? Consider just how much deeper our problems would be today. Now ask yourself if we did not do enough the first time, which a great many experts assert, why let the hole just grow deeper? Asked another way, why let that investment go down the drain in the form of a continuing and even deeper recession?

    I will be the first to tell you that our debt is a critical issue – I have always been a debt hawk. But just as I may be somewhat of a a pacifist, I also know when it is time to fight. The situation with our economy today is no different. As to how deep the debt may go, consider that we are yet near where we were in the 1930s, and how we were able to successfully recover (and no, a world war is not the only means of doing so).

    Again I say to you, these are complex problems, and they will not be solved with simple solutions. We can, however, learn from them and ensure they do not happen again. Unfortunately, the partisan and polarized nature of our government today driven in great measure by the talking heads will not let the civil discourse necessary to truly find and implement solutions take place, so we are all condemned to a much worse fate than were BOTH sides willing to come forward as one to deal with this crisis.

    All talk and no action? Hmm, if I recall correctly it has been the “party of no” that has ensured that very lack of action about which you now complain, not the other way around.

  2. What seems overlooked here is that the “party of no” is the only party that represents the views of the majority now! I thought democracy was about the “majority” views not a subset. I know he won the majority in 2008 before America found out what he was really about. But, it the election was today, anyone that could fog a mirror would beat Obama! He has proven himself as being incapable of governing this country. I worry that America will not survive this socialist!

  3. Here we go again. Its time to push the rope.

    1. Causes of the financial meltdown.

    Under the Clinton Administration, so-called “redlining” was outlawed. Redlining is a lending procedure used to avoid making loans in high risk neighborhoods. Lending standards were also significantly lowered as part of an effort to encourage home ownership among minority groups.

    Negative amortization loans were part of the means by which home ownership was expanded. Buyers were essentially paying teaser rate payments which would go up after 5 years (the recast period). Bus drivers suddenly were living in large homes which they could not actually afford. Once home values started to decline homeowners planning to flip their homes had difficulty doing so. Homeowners began missing payments and foreclosures began to rise. Inevitably home values started going down faster.

    Democrats (specifically Dodd and the Man Whore (Frank)) aggressively resisted tightening the reins on Fannie and Freddie. So much for the “party of no” in regard to the financial meltdown.

    2. The Arizona Immigration Law.

    Obama and the Justice Department have repeatedly misrepresented the provisions of the Arizona immigration law. The AZ law mirrors the Federal law. The noise about racial profiling is demogoguery, pure and simple. Obama’s speech on immigration was targeted at the hispanic community for political purposes. Obama wants amnesty for illegals because he thinks there are 12 million potential Democrat votes there.

    If you think Obama scheduled a prime time speech on the subject of immigration in an effort to solve this prickly issue, you are smoking something funny. Obama offered no solutions. He never does. As Bob asserted, Obama was trying to change the subject from the economy, the oil spill, healthcare, the Democrat losses in recent elections, and the other problems he has proved he is incapable of addressing.

    3. Freddie and Fannie.

    I’ve already addressed this point. However, fanny is typically a butt. So is the Dear Leader.

    4. The Other Side’s Ideas for Addressing the Economic Crisis.

    Private sector growth is dependent upon a stable business environment. A wave of new regulations is destabilizing. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have never made a payroll. They have no idea how to spur economic growth.

    Extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone would have a stimulative effect on the economy. The markets would rise. CEO’s might come out from under their desks and stop sitting on the cash on their balance sheets.

    Starve the government of its lifeblood, funding. As the Dear Leader said, “eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.”

    Profits are creeping up from dressed levels. Recovery will be here when the
    economy is expanding at pre-recession levels. Bridges, museums, and transfer payments to irresponsible states (like Michigan, California, and Illinois) will not get us there.

    5. Growth under Reagan vs. Obama.

    Since you quoted Reagan’s budget director, I assume you welcome the opportunity to compare economic expansion under Reagan’s policies versus the misguided policies of our Dear Leader. Let me know when you want to have that shootout.

    6. Unemployment Rates.

    Obama fashions himself as the African-American FDR. He wrings his hands that he inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. Obama has embarked on spending programs like FDR’s. He points to the New Deal as the reason the Country emerged from the Great Depression. Wrong!

    Unemployment in 1940 was over 14 % after nearly eight years of New Deal spending. In 1932 unemployment stood at almost 25%. Unemployment plummeted to less than 2% during the war years. New Deal, my fanny! It was the war that ended the Great Depression. I prefer tax cuts myself.

    Swordfish, I do appreciate your non-partisan commentary. I hope you appreciate my non-partisan input as well.

  4. Fred:

    No problem with the input, but the prejorative ad hominem comments don’t add much to the discussion. That said, there are some facts you may want to check out.

    1. The percentage of loans affected by the outlawing of “redlining” (which was basically racist, as it had little to do with ability to pay) was less than 5%. As to negative amoritization loans and the like, those were implemented in great measure during the 2000-2008 time period and were a product of the housing boom in place at the time. It was the lack of any regulation of these types of loans, and, more critically, the lack of capitalization requirements for institutions issuing credit default swaps (e.g, AIG) which acted as insurance for the derivatives created by the bundling of these loans that led to the collapse. Put another way, had capitalization requirements been in place AIG would have been unable to provide insurance for these derivative investments to the unlimited extent they did. Thus, the derivatives themselves would have had to have been more credit/investment worth, and thus working up the chain the mortgages themselves that bundled up were the basis for the derivatives would have been subject to higher credit requirements. As things were, however, anyone could get a loan because the mortgage broker was going to sell it within minute. Why care about whether it would ever be paid off? And the buyer of the loan was going to bundle it, and sell it again. And that buyer was going to insure it with credit default swaps. So why was this chain ever allowed to occur? Simple – when the Bush administration reviewed credit default swaps they determined that as they were not called “insurance” they would not be subject to the capitalization requirements otherwise required of insurance. Why? Simply because they weren’t called credit default swaps. Go figure.

    2. I happen to believe the AZ law is constitutional, as it was revised. They just f’d up the first time around. As to the law suit (based on federal supremecy under the constitution), that is really a practical issue. Does it make any sense to have 50 different immigration policies? Do we even today have the federal resources to manage a state law similar to AZ’s? That said, we have an immigration problem that has to be addressed, both as to effectively stopping others from entering and dealing with those already here. But to suggest that President Obama wants to grant amnesty because that means 12m democratic voters is absurd. First, amnesty does not necessarily mean citizenship, nor is anyone proposing such other than after many years and many hurdles for those who might some day be eligible. Certainly not in time for the 2012 election.

    BTW, we have lots and lots of problems in this country. Talking about one does not mean the others do not exist, nor that they, too, must be addressed. If otherwise were the case why didn’t President Bush talk only about our war on terrorism and nothing else for his eight years in office? Oh, that’s right – there were indeed other matters to be addressed, and properly were addressed at the same time. There is nothing different today in this respect, and for one I applaud President Obama for standing up and dealing with this issue, notwithstanding the Republican response that they are unwilling to deal with the issue in any way for the rest of 2010, and likely longer.

    3. Grow up. He is our president, elected under our democracy. Your name calling speaks more about you than it will ever about him.

    5. There is no way to compare the economic situation in place today to that which existed in 1980. That said, I do recall that Reagn after cutting taxes was equally responsible for the largest tax increase in the country’s history.

    6. You seem to have forgotten a bit of history. Most economists agree that the decision to cease the stimulous measures implemented by FDR led to an unnecessary extension of the depression.

    Look, a tax cut would affect me as well as you. Who doesn’t want to have more money in his pocket at the end of the day. But the fact of the matter is that our deficit has been out of control for ten years, not just the last 18 months. Clinton left Bush with a surplus, and it was quickly gone. There is enough blame to go around to both sides of Congress on this one. But a tax cut now would only add to our debt and do little to stimulate real growth. That is a fact, and the reality that Stockton came to long ago. Wishing otherwise were the case does not make it so.

    On a more personal note, how about going forward we keep this a bit more respectful? I don’t appreciate the “pushing the rope” commentarydirected my way any more than you would my calling you a narrow minded, beady-eyed pig porker. Bob has created a nice forum here for some of us who might have a different perspective on things to share our thoughts. I’d hate to see it spoiled.

  5. You like the phrase ad hominem. You seem to think it applies to negative references to people/politicians you like. Your attacks on Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck are simply objective observations. Could it be that you are projecting?

    You must have been to liberal-speak school. Most economists agree (stimulus spending is good)…The consensus among scientists is (global warming is settled science)…Tax cuts caused the deficit (not profligate spending)…Obamacare will reduce the deficit (when pigs fly)…Obama is not a socialist (he’s just been hanging around with them for over twenty years)…Illegal (i.e.- not legal) immigration can only be stopped through a comprehensive solution (amnesty for the lawbreakers).

    You bought into the hope and change rhetoric. I did not. It is not surprising to me that Obama is feckless as POTUS. Obama could not have secured a job as a CEO in any major corporation in the world given his lack of experience.

    John McCain wasn’t much of a candidate. He was my last choice among the Republican contenders. No one can ever question his loyalties. No one can question his intentions. That is more than can be said of the current occupant of the White House. I don’t get all tingling when Obama stands up and lies to the American people about taxes, healthcare, immigration, stimulus, jobs saved, jobs offered (Sestak, Romanoff).

    I will agree with you on one thing. Obama is neither dear nor a leader. He is trying to fundamentally change America. The majority of Americans want him stopped before it is too late. Count me among them.

  6. Fredie:

    Rather than discuss and debate using facts and logic you have chosen instead to make this personal. I’m not interested.

  7. Projecting again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s