Monday, December 7, 2009

Obama takes out second mortgage on Bush's success


Is Bush's TARP a success? If not then why is Obama ready to steal from it?

Obama is jones-ing for a shopping spree and those darned Chinese seem to have put a hold on his credit card, so now he has a choice to find discipline, start paying back the money he has borrowed or start scrounging for loose change under the sofa cushions. He is going for the latter.

For a year now Obama and his fellow spend-aholics in congress have been pointing the finger at Bush for handing them a a "Huge Deficit". This was intended to deflect blame and basically say "You did it too". The challenge then is what did Bush spend money on and why? How did it work out? Who else was involved? Americans are not against government spending in and of itself, but who spent wisely? Obama's Stimulus package is gaining the reputation as a boondoggle, so who ran up the deficit needlessly?

Let's take a look at Bush's last two years in office under Democratic Rule.

I will not rehash the incredible economic challenges that Bush averted in his first year during the financial disasters that accompanied 911, but much has been made of Clinton handing Bush a Surplus and Bush leaving office with a deficit. Remember Clinton also handed Bush a Recession and through his neglect of foreign policy (especially terrorism) and his "Halfing" of our Military, the post 911 War and its costs were borne by Bush to clean up, much the way Reagan had to deal with foreign policy and economic disasters left by Carter.

Although it is true the Republican congress spent more than most conservatives felt comfortable with, after an initial increase in the deficit, beginning at the end of his first term the deficit began to drop rapidly, until in 2007 it was well with in range of dropping into double digits. Then the Democrats took control.

Although the left would have you believe Bush runs the economy out of his back pocket, the congress is in charge of spending and in this case it is Pelosi and Reid who did not offer Bush a 2009 budget:

Which party was in charge of Congress the last two years of the Bush administration? Why, yes, it was the Democrats. I have no problem blaming Republicans for runaway spending between 2001-6, but 2007-8 belongs to the Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, one of that party’s leaders. For that matter, it also includes then-Senator Barack Obama. Deficits in that period are on their hands.

That’s especially true for the final deficit number. Anticipating a Barack Obama victory in the presidential campaign, Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid never presented George Bush with a budget for FY2009. Congress passed continuing resolutions that funded federal agencies at the FY2008 level until Obama took office in January, and then handed him an omnibus spending plan that boosted federal spending for the remainder of FY2009 — and expanded the deficit. That final deficit number belongs more to Obama than it normally would have in a transition year.

But regardless, when you look at the above graph, how much of that is TARP which was caused by Democrat fiddling with mortgage and financial institutions. Yes, Bush signed TARP, but who's baby was that? On Sept. 25, 2008, when the candidates helicoptered into the White House to discuss TARP, it was reported by all in attendance that Obama represented the majority party who was writing the bill. He did all the talking and McCain, Paulsen and Bush mostly listened to the Oratory of Barack Obama. TARP was being "audibliized" by the Senator from Illinois.

But Obama through his criticism of Bush's deficit spending is being critical of the crown jewel in Bush's "Deficit spending". He is blaming Bush for TARP. He is giving responsibility to Bush for TARP.

But wait....

Suddenly this week, with Obama in search of cash, he finds some free money rolling into the Treasury, but before the money is deposited, he wants to cash those checks. Obama's compliant media is suddenly pointing out how TARP is making money. Banks are paying back early. The Deficit is going to shrink now...right?...but whose Deficit is shrinking, Bush's or Obama's? This report says it is estimated by the end of next year, all but $42 Billion of TARP will have been paid off:

The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it loaned to ailing companies during the financial crisis last year, with the portion loaned to banks showing a slight profit, according to a Treasury report.

The latest assessment of the bailout program, provided by two Treasury officials yesterday ahead of a report to Congress today, is vastly improved from the Obama administration’s estimates last summer of $341 billion in potential losses from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That estimate anticipated more bank crises.

If as Obama has conveyed that TARP was Bush's baby, then shouldn't the media be giving Bush credit for TARP?

TARP borrowed money from the Chinese, loaned it to American banks, the banks are now paying it back, we no longer owe the Chinese for it, the American Banks move on and grow, Businesses hire workers, problem solved, Thank you Mr. Bush....right?

Well, expect Obama to change his tune and take credit for TARP to contrast his miserable failure on the stimulus package, but just like a compulsive addict, expect him to raid the coffers of TARP to repeat his Stimulus mistake and then blame Bush for the returned money never getting paid back.

It is also worth noting that the $175 billion committed by the banks to pay back TARP when compared to the original $250 aloted by TARP1 leaves a single digit deficit, at least for this project alone. Bush was touted as the model of integrity for his willingness to cooperate with Obama's transition team. During the transition, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining $350 Bill for TARP, and the congress complied. So what that leaves is a very small footprint regarding the deficit from George Bush.

I think its time to reassess the Bush Deficit and consider that although his deficits were trending way down and the housing crash was thrust upon him, his handling of it may end up leaving a net impact of his final year in office a $100 billion or less deficit,....which was promptly Nuked by the New Socialist Regime.

You can expect the Propaganda machine to kick in to full force on the redefining of TARP. It will be painted as a success and an example of how big government solutions can work if given time. It will be proudly embraced as Obama's idea and Bush as a reluctant passenger. It will also be touted as grounds for a reward to be handed out for excellent performance in a lead role to Barack Obama who will take the left over hundreds of billions and formulate a dead-end jobs bill, that will push us over the brink in which case he will blame our soldiers in Afghanistan for ruining his Domestic wizardry.

This feels like an Orwellian Science Fiction story about Dystopian thugs sucking dry any form of life that pops its head up from the decaying wasteland.

Obama is playing out the Mortgage crisis on a macro scale, by cashing in the equity of Bush's TARP so he can plunge further into debt by indulging in his personal addiction that destroys himself and anyone around him. When the Chinese loan sharks come, they will ask why he took out a Second mortgage on his house when they had accepted it as collateral.

I wonder if the Obamas are still ashamed to be Americans, because I am feeling pretty humiliated right now.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Democrats: Lie to me and tell me you want more war

We often hear the left make morally relative arguments between what the left does and what the right does. I think Obama's war rhetoric exposes a key difference between GOP candidates and Democrat politicians. Democrats expect their candidates to lie. They want them to lie. In fact they are willing to build an entire false personage of a candidate, if they think it will help hoodwink those bitter clingers in flyover country.

Here is Byron York discussing the phenomenon regarding Democrats former support of the Afghan war and their new found opposition to the war:

“There isn’t any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected,” said chief Obama rival — and now Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton at a debate in April 2008. “It has not gotten the resources that it needs.”

Other top Democrats adopted the get-tough approach, at least when it came time to campaign. In September 2006, as she was leading the effort that would result in Democrats taking over the House and her becoming speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said George W. Bush “took his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. “We had a presence over there the past few years, but not to the extent that we needed to get the job done,” Pelosi said. The phrase “took his eye off the ball” became a Democratic mantra about the supposed neglect of Afghanistan — a situation that would be remedied by electing ready-to-fight Democrats.

But now, with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan. “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently. There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.

It is in that atmosphere that Obama makes his West Point speech. He had to make certain promises to get elected. Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office. So he is sending more troops. But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.

This is not new for Democrats and their expectations of thier own leaders. When George W. Bush says "God Bless America", they claim he is conversing with Jehovah in the back room and is mixing church and state. When Obama quotes scripture endlessly in his speeches, they consider it poetic and grandiliquent, but after a lengthy analysis of his Church going habits, most Americans accepted the idea that he spent twenty years in a church that he either wasn't listening, didn't care, or was there to conduct business rather than get in touch with his essence he "didn't mean it".

If anyone doubts that, let's see what his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright thinks of him; the man that should understand Obama's inner most moral virtues and vices:

WRIGHT: What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They've said, "You're a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected."

Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. They have a different person to whom they're accountable.

As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That's what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.

I am not running for office. I am hoping to be vice president.


When Obama says he opposes gay marriage,...where is Hollywood?

Oh, yeah...? ..."He didn't mean it"

When he tells America I won't raise taxes,..

When he says he won't cut medicare,...

When he says he will get tough with Iran if negotiations don't work...

All Lies.

The lie runs deep to the center of the New Left. In the 1970s, when a leftist had a T shirt that said War is never the answer, you could debate them on the silliness of the statement and the leftists nearly always found refuge in the admission that if US soil were attacked as it was at Pearl Harbor, we would fight back and they would support such a war. Sometimes they would even exclaim that they would gladly join the military and shoot 'em up. This scenario seemed quite unlikely to them since they labored under the misconception that only a suicidal lunatic would attack a nuclear power like the US.

Well, 911 called their bluff. The psychological meltdown in the minds of many on the left pushed them into a fantasy world of denial and lies. Some brave souls admitted that they had been wrong. Most on the left proved what their 30 year old promises had been meant to cover up and that is that they are really narcissistic, self absorbed cowards. Did Democrats run to the recruiting centers? hardly. Polls show that since 911, about 12% of the military is made up of Democrats. The Ivy league and the Northeast are dramatically under represented. We were attacked and they did not support it. Some did for the moment, but the Nutroots opposed Afghanistan from the outset. And what good is a temporary support of our troops. That was part of the debate too, remember? Supporters of the war said, "If we are going to war, it can't be a momentary support, we must support our troops fully if we send them".

These questions need answers:

Were hippies motivated by cowardice in the 1960s and 1970s?

Do Democrats really lack the sincerity and backbone to protect this country?

Is Obama lying now when he says in 18 months he will base his decisions on "conditions on the ground"?

I think the answer to all three of those questions is "YES". If the answer is yes, Democrats have forfeited their ability to lead.

The difference between the Dems and the GOP is Reagan said trust the common sense of the common man in America and give Americans the right to make the choices in their lives that are best for them. The Democrats believe they are members of an elite that needs to deceive the dumber yokels that are not in on the big secret.

When Obama promises something in a speech, they look to each other knowingly and say, "Don't worry, he doesn't mean it."

What congressman Joe Wilson said regarding the statement Obama made about whether Illegal Aliens would be covered by his Health care plan, Wilson was almost bodily removed from the chamber for making a true statement, considering Illegals are still in the bill. What was Wilson's crime? When the Democrats all turned to each other and nodded, "He's lying ya know, and a damn good liar he is",...Joe Wilson committed the crime of saying out loud what every person in that room, especially the Democrats, was saying to themselves. Wilson's crime was airing Washington's dirty laundry, its trade secrets to the common folks.

They all like the lies, as long as you and I never know.