Post by Rob W. Case on Aug 25, 2009 23:16:06 GMT -6
The Reality of CHANGE, on Deficits, Spending, and Bailouts
Folks, this administration is getting better and better by the moment. What do you mean, you may wonder? While President Obama’s policies continue to destroy the country, they are making more people who once described themselves as liberals or moderates and turning them more and more into staunch Conservatives. But we cannot take this for granted. We have to keep fighting for our ideals and founding principles. Many domestic liberals (regular people) have their hearts in the right place, and vote for corporate liberals (the politicians) out of their compassion. But when people realize first hand that their compassion was being exploited, and that the ones who won their hearts are screwing them over, while wasting their supporters hard earned money on buying votes for themselves, then people lose their sense of trust, and in many instances, those people become Conservatives.
Flashback:
During the 2008 presidential election, then candidate Barack Obama blamed the economic crisis of 2008 on George Bush’s policies. George W. Bush’s economic policies were simply this. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money." That was the basis of his economic policy for his entire 8 years, and they lasted until the Democrats took control of Congress in Bush’s last 2 years. Congress controls budgetary matters. Congress holds the purse strings. One thing I did not agree with, on George W. Bush’s part was the $700 billion bailout he signed in late 2008. He was tricked into doing it by Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Remember? Henry Paulson sought to have a $700 billion dollar blank check, while Bernacke used his authority to participate in this mess. Then, on top of it, Obama went to Bush and asked him to spend more money to bail out GM and more companies. Bush then said “no.”
Which Witch is Which?
It is amazing to me how President Obama opens his speeches with how bad the Bush deficit is, damns Bush’s economic policies, and calls for change from them when in reality he turns around and praises the people who influenced the Bush policies that he publicly damns, and used his authority as a Senator to influence those damnable policies himself. Huh? That’s right. The media went haywire over the deficit Bush grew after he passed his 2008 Stimulus proposal. The overwhelmingly bipartisan Stimulus Bill of 2008 (which cost $152 billion) raised the deficit to $482 billion in the summer of 08. Then, in the late fall of 2008, that $700 billion bailout that he was talked into supporting by Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson raised the deficit to $1.3 trillion.
But where was he? Where was Senator Obama? He was helping advance the very policies he damns now, and helped set in motion the policies he said he wanted change from. But there is more, much more. If you recall last year, then Senator Barack Obama expressed his disagreement with Bush over the Stimulus because he wanted more money to go to people who do not pay taxes. As he told NPR on January 23, 2008, “…it's also important to the lowest-income working Americans, that they get a break as well. They're the ones who are most likely to spend the money and most likely to spur the economy immediately. That's an area where the president, I think, has fallen short, and I think it's absolutely critical that that's reflected in any plan that is bargained for with the Democratic Congress.” Barack Obama wanted MORE than Bush. When it came down to it though, on the stimulus proposal, the Democrat Congress approved it, but Obama declined to vote on it, leaving his hands clean. On the $700 billion bailout that Bernacke and Paulson implied was an instant emergency, Obama voted for the measure, and said of it to his constituents on September 30th, 2008, “To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say step up to the plate and do what's right for this country. And to all Americans, I say this: If and when I am president of the United States, this rescue plan will not be the end of what we do to strengthen this economy, it will only be the beginning.” But again, that wasn’t enough for Mr. Obama. Obama went to the White House after the passage of the $700 billion bailout and pleaded with Bush to spend more on the auto industry, which would have aided Obama’s labor union constituents.
Remember this article?
Obama asks Bush to provide help for automakers
November 11th, 2008
www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/world/americas/11iht-11auto.17704414.html
then Bush responded with….
Dems, Bush at odds over automaker bailout
November 25, 2008
money.cnn.com/2008/11/12/news/economy/automakers/index.htm
Excerpt: Rep. Sander Levin, D-Michigan, argued that the government cannot wait until Obama takes office to shore up the industry, noting that a failure of the automobile industry would "ricochet" throughout the economy. "There's an urgency here, and it can't wait for an Obama administration," Levin said. "The president-elect has said that the auto industry is the backbone of manufacturing in this country, and we have to make sure that backbone isn't splintered in the next couple of months, before there is a new administration."
The reason why there was a sense of urgency, and why Obama wanted Bush to give more to the auto industry is so that he would be able to blame the economic impact on Bush. The sense of urgency was designed to blame Bush later on, since he at that point was the President-elect, and didn’t want those numbers to fall negatively on him. And that is exactly what he did. But now, things are not so hot. Adding to that $1.3 trillion, he added the cost of his 2009 stimulus which costs $1.2 trillion, and he is now pushing his $1.6 trillion universal health care plan to boot. But amidst this, it’s interesting that the very people who influenced Bush to sign the $700 billion last year are being re-nominated to serve under the Obama administration now.
Obama Nominates Bernanke for Second Term as Fed Chief
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:06 AM
moneynews.newsmax.com/financenews/bernanke/2009/08/25/251959.html
Excerpt: OAK BLUFFS, Massachusetts -- U.S. President Barack Obama nominated Ben Bernanke to a second term as Federal Reserve chairman on Tuesday, entrusting him with guiding the economy out of the worst downturn since the Great Depression.
Okay, so let me get this straight. Obama congratulates Bernacke with guiding us out of the “worst downturn since the Great Depression,” but blames Bush for the steps “needed” (by giving Bernacke and Paulson the tools they requested) to help guide us out of the “worst downturn since the Great Depression.” This type of deceptive double-talk is making my head spin. So much for change, huh? Or did he mean “change for the worst?” When people are stimulated positively by their emotions by someone, they are likely to fall victim to a harsh, unpleasant, and worse REALITY than they could ever imagine having at the time they think they need change. That is called falling sucker to the deception of wanting change.
“I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded, when it went to the polls in November.”
--President Barack Obama
Folks, this administration is getting better and better by the moment. What do you mean, you may wonder? While President Obama’s policies continue to destroy the country, they are making more people who once described themselves as liberals or moderates and turning them more and more into staunch Conservatives. But we cannot take this for granted. We have to keep fighting for our ideals and founding principles. Many domestic liberals (regular people) have their hearts in the right place, and vote for corporate liberals (the politicians) out of their compassion. But when people realize first hand that their compassion was being exploited, and that the ones who won their hearts are screwing them over, while wasting their supporters hard earned money on buying votes for themselves, then people lose their sense of trust, and in many instances, those people become Conservatives.
Flashback:
During the 2008 presidential election, then candidate Barack Obama blamed the economic crisis of 2008 on George Bush’s policies. George W. Bush’s economic policies were simply this. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money." That was the basis of his economic policy for his entire 8 years, and they lasted until the Democrats took control of Congress in Bush’s last 2 years. Congress controls budgetary matters. Congress holds the purse strings. One thing I did not agree with, on George W. Bush’s part was the $700 billion bailout he signed in late 2008. He was tricked into doing it by Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Remember? Henry Paulson sought to have a $700 billion dollar blank check, while Bernacke used his authority to participate in this mess. Then, on top of it, Obama went to Bush and asked him to spend more money to bail out GM and more companies. Bush then said “no.”
Which Witch is Which?
It is amazing to me how President Obama opens his speeches with how bad the Bush deficit is, damns Bush’s economic policies, and calls for change from them when in reality he turns around and praises the people who influenced the Bush policies that he publicly damns, and used his authority as a Senator to influence those damnable policies himself. Huh? That’s right. The media went haywire over the deficit Bush grew after he passed his 2008 Stimulus proposal. The overwhelmingly bipartisan Stimulus Bill of 2008 (which cost $152 billion) raised the deficit to $482 billion in the summer of 08. Then, in the late fall of 2008, that $700 billion bailout that he was talked into supporting by Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson raised the deficit to $1.3 trillion.
But where was he? Where was Senator Obama? He was helping advance the very policies he damns now, and helped set in motion the policies he said he wanted change from. But there is more, much more. If you recall last year, then Senator Barack Obama expressed his disagreement with Bush over the Stimulus because he wanted more money to go to people who do not pay taxes. As he told NPR on January 23, 2008, “…it's also important to the lowest-income working Americans, that they get a break as well. They're the ones who are most likely to spend the money and most likely to spur the economy immediately. That's an area where the president, I think, has fallen short, and I think it's absolutely critical that that's reflected in any plan that is bargained for with the Democratic Congress.” Barack Obama wanted MORE than Bush. When it came down to it though, on the stimulus proposal, the Democrat Congress approved it, but Obama declined to vote on it, leaving his hands clean. On the $700 billion bailout that Bernacke and Paulson implied was an instant emergency, Obama voted for the measure, and said of it to his constituents on September 30th, 2008, “To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say step up to the plate and do what's right for this country. And to all Americans, I say this: If and when I am president of the United States, this rescue plan will not be the end of what we do to strengthen this economy, it will only be the beginning.” But again, that wasn’t enough for Mr. Obama. Obama went to the White House after the passage of the $700 billion bailout and pleaded with Bush to spend more on the auto industry, which would have aided Obama’s labor union constituents.
Remember this article?
Obama asks Bush to provide help for automakers
November 11th, 2008
www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/world/americas/11iht-11auto.17704414.html
then Bush responded with….
Dems, Bush at odds over automaker bailout
November 25, 2008
money.cnn.com/2008/11/12/news/economy/automakers/index.htm
Excerpt: Rep. Sander Levin, D-Michigan, argued that the government cannot wait until Obama takes office to shore up the industry, noting that a failure of the automobile industry would "ricochet" throughout the economy. "There's an urgency here, and it can't wait for an Obama administration," Levin said. "The president-elect has said that the auto industry is the backbone of manufacturing in this country, and we have to make sure that backbone isn't splintered in the next couple of months, before there is a new administration."
The reason why there was a sense of urgency, and why Obama wanted Bush to give more to the auto industry is so that he would be able to blame the economic impact on Bush. The sense of urgency was designed to blame Bush later on, since he at that point was the President-elect, and didn’t want those numbers to fall negatively on him. And that is exactly what he did. But now, things are not so hot. Adding to that $1.3 trillion, he added the cost of his 2009 stimulus which costs $1.2 trillion, and he is now pushing his $1.6 trillion universal health care plan to boot. But amidst this, it’s interesting that the very people who influenced Bush to sign the $700 billion last year are being re-nominated to serve under the Obama administration now.
Obama Nominates Bernanke for Second Term as Fed Chief
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:06 AM
moneynews.newsmax.com/financenews/bernanke/2009/08/25/251959.html
Excerpt: OAK BLUFFS, Massachusetts -- U.S. President Barack Obama nominated Ben Bernanke to a second term as Federal Reserve chairman on Tuesday, entrusting him with guiding the economy out of the worst downturn since the Great Depression.
Okay, so let me get this straight. Obama congratulates Bernacke with guiding us out of the “worst downturn since the Great Depression,” but blames Bush for the steps “needed” (by giving Bernacke and Paulson the tools they requested) to help guide us out of the “worst downturn since the Great Depression.” This type of deceptive double-talk is making my head spin. So much for change, huh? Or did he mean “change for the worst?” When people are stimulated positively by their emotions by someone, they are likely to fall victim to a harsh, unpleasant, and worse REALITY than they could ever imagine having at the time they think they need change. That is called falling sucker to the deception of wanting change.
“I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded, when it went to the polls in November.”
--President Barack Obama