OBAMA: ECONOMIC CRISIS “NOT AS BAD AS WE THINK”…
He’s all talk, no action. What I’d like to hear is: Obama does…Obama does…Obama does. I don’t know about you, but I’m so tired of listening to the liberal media painting Obama as “the only ‘one’ who can fix our economy”. I’m seeing quite the opposite, When Obama was on the campaign trail, he kept saying we don’t need “another 8 years of Bush”. Truth be told, it wasn’t Bush that got us into this mess; it was Bill Clinton who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act that FDR put in place in 1933. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that Clinton signed into law on November 12, 1999 allowed investment and commercial banks to consolidate—big mistake! Notice that Clinton signed this into law just before he left the presidency, leaving Bush to pick up the pieces, and he’s still picking them up.
This lethal combination was announced in 1993 and finalized in 1994 by Clinton which violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act by combining insurance and securities companies for a temporary waiver process. In 1998, Citibank merged with Travelers Group, forming the conglomerate Citigroup so Clinton had to make it legal for them. The law was then passed by Clinton in 1999 to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis (I’m thinking he got some “friendly persuasion from the banking industry”). This was also the start of the sub-prime mortgages where the Democrats forced the banks to grant loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Clinton’s repeal definitely contributed to the sub-prime mortgage financial crisis. Thank you, idiotic Democrats!
Then there’s Obama, one of the lawyers who sued CitiBank in a class action lawsuit in 1994 on behalf of blacks and others from minority neighborhoods who accused CitiBank of racial discrimination in denying them mortgages: http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php?id=10112&search=source|generalcaseCat|FHorderby|caseName
Another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, certainly did nothing to stimulate the economy either. Portraying himself during the campaign as an outsider to Washington politics, he promised “a fresh approach” to governing, but his very lack of experience at the national level complicated his tenure from the start. By the end of his term, his disapproval rating reached 77% and Americans began to look toward the Republican Party again. Hmmm…Maybe history should repeat itself now.
On another note, during a recent interview with CNBC’s Squawk Box, Warren Buffett said, “The economy has fallen off a cliff. Not only has the economy slowed down, people have changed their behavior like nothing I have ever seen. Back in September, the economy was becoming a Pearl Harbor. The Feds did some things in September that were vital to keeping the place going. If they didn’t do this, you and I would be eating at McDonalds right now.”
Of course, the subject was changed to more doom-and-gloom talk after that statement. Was the Bush administration credited for helping to suppress the fire somewhat? Of course not! The Democrats and the media keep blaming Bush because they need a fall guy to divert attention away from their mistakes. Rush Limbaugh is gaining momentum as the new fall-guy-du-jour.
The media is pretty transparent. As I’ve said before, when Obama was campaigning, he and the media said we would be hitting the bread lines soon. Of course, people were still going to the movies, going shopping—you could see many cars in mall parking lots, although to a lesser degree, but I didn’t see anything as dire as they reported. Obama now says that the economic crisis “isn’t as bad as we think”. What goes down will eventually come up, and the media will then say that it is because of the mighty Obama raising his magic hand across America that “saved us from ruin”. The Obama administration, while not ruling out a follow-up to the $787 billion stimulus bill, has tried to make clear that a sequel was not in the works. Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, suggested that staffers were "preparing options" for another stimulus, but said it is too early to discuss such a move. Pelosi also suggested, during an interview with Fox News in January, that she was receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials—something Obama has indicated he does not support. Who do you think is going to win that argument? My money’s on Pitbull Pelosi…she’s the puppetmaster of the Democratic party. Obama has spent so much of our money already, and he is talking about a third round. Can America survive another round? It’s time for the government to be “shut off” from making any more “rounds”. I think we’ve been kicked in the face far too much lately. By infusing yet another stimulus tells me that the first stimulus and the omnibus package didn’t work, so why make the same mistake again?
The U.S. Congress just gave final approval to the $410 billion Omnibus bill that will boost domestic spending, loosen the trade embargo on Cuba and fund thousands of congressional pet projects known as earmarks. As Obama was signing this bill into law, he warned the U.S. Congress to stop jamming spending bills with lawmakers’ pet projects. Shouldn’t he have put his foot down and demanding this before the bill was signed?
"Let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said in discussing his decision to sign the controversial measure. "I am signing an imperfect bill because it’s necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can’t have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery," he said.
Excuse me, but shouldn’t one sign a “perfect bill” which would be more necessary for the ongoing functions of government? There would have been no opposition from the Republicans or from us, for that matter. If he was smart, he would have vetoed the bill until all earmarks were removed from it. That would have convinced us all that he was serious about “no earmarks”. By signing his name, it shows he’s in agreement, but he put on a "faux show" of issuing a “warning” to Congress. Please! His words are as empty as his promises. Be prepared to see more of “the old way of doing things”. His cabinet is full of the “old Clinton administration”. Isn’t it peculiar how the stimulus spending won’t kick in until sometime in 2011—just before election time rolls around again? Hmmm…Seems there will be a lot of “praise Obama” going around to help “stimulate” his reelection. How is this going to help us now? He doesn’t care. He’s looking ahead to 2012 when he can bask in the limelight again. He’s so transparent. All you have to do is listen to his words. He’s projecting a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion this year, but says "I can get it down to $533 billion by 2013". Of course, idiots who don’t know any better will reelect him in 2012 so he can "fulfill his prophesy". He’s arrogant and he’s cunning, but I see right through him.
Obama: Economic crisis ‘not as bad as we think’
Mar 12 06:49 PM US/Eastern
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is "not as bad as we think" and his plans will speed recovery.
Challenged to provide encouragement as the nation’s "confidence builder in chief," Obama said Americans shouldn’t be whipsawed by bursts of either bad or good news and he was "highly optimistic" about the long term.
The president’s proposals for major health care, energy and education changes in the midst of economic hard times faced skepticism from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, as senators questioned his budget outlook and the deficits it envisions in the middle of the next decade. But Obama, speaking to top executives of the Business Roundtable, expressed an optimistic vision and called for patience.
Richard Parsons, chairman of beleaguered Citigroup Inc., asked if Obama could offer some help in a national battle "between confidence and fear."
"A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooohh, we’re down on the dumps," Obama said. "And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment. I am the object in chief of this varying assessment."
"I don’t think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say," Obama added. "Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They’re not as bad as we think they are now."
"And my long-term projections are highly optimistic, if we take care of some of these long-term structural problems."
But in Congress, Obama’s budget plans were meeting resistance.
Sen. Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee called the track of future deficits "unsustainable" and singled out Obama’s proposal for adding $634 billion in health care spending over the next 10 years.
"Some of us have a real pause about the notion of putting substantially more money into the health care system when we’ve already got a bloated system," said Conrad, D-N.D.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, testifying before Conrad’s committee, also encountered blunt questions about the administration’s plans for shoring up the nation’s banks. He reiterated the administration’s goal to lay out a private-public partnership to make up to $1 trillion in financing available to help banks clear their books of toxic, mortgage-related assets that have led to a national credit freeze.
Geithner hinted more money might be required beyond the existing $700 billion financial rescue fund. "We certainly can start with the resources we have," he said.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., played down talk that Democrats would consider a second economic stimulus bill.
"I know that people have made suggestions that we should be ready to do something, but I really would like to see this stimulus package play out," Pelosi said. "It’s just not something that, right now, is in the cards," she added later.
The flurry of comments illustrated the complicated moving parts confronting Washington as the economy continues to decline, credit remains clogged and a new president advances broad and expensive initiatives. The money set aside to address those needs so far has been staggering—$787 billion for an economic stimulus designed to save and create jobs, the $700 billion approved by Congress for the financial rescue package and hundreds of billions more through programs from the Federal Reserve Bank.
On top of that, Obama wants to overhaul health care, reduce greenhouse-gas pollution and undertake major changes in energy policy. He’s projecting a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion this year, by far the largest in history, but says he can get it down to $533 billion by 2013.
"I am not choosing to address these additional challenges just because I feel like it, or because I’m a glutton for punishment," Obama told the Business Roundtable, a group of top business executives. "I am doing so because they are fundamental to our economic growth, and to ensuring that we don’t have more crises like this in the future."
Obama said his health and energy changes would build a foundation for lasting recovery, arguing that the current economic crisis was precipitated by an "illusion of prosperity." He told the business leaders he wants government to "right the ship" and then "let private enterprise do its magic."
Critics of Obama’s budget, such as Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., complained that the spending blueprint does not tackle the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare. Geithner said the administration intends to confront higher health care costs with broad changes that will lower Medicare spending.
Geithner is at the center of Obama’s economic policy, advocating for its budget proposals and tax policies, as well as the rescue program for the financial sector. He faced questions on all those fronts before heading to London for talks Friday and Saturday with finance officials from the Group of 20 nations.
Obama’s budget would raise taxes, starting in 2011, on individuals earning more than $200,000 and on households earning more than $250,000. Geithner said the increases would kick in after the economy was expected to be in recovery.
But he sidestepped a question by Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, about whether the administration would let the increases take effect if the economy had not recovered in two years. "We have to watch how the economy evolves," Geithner said.
On Thursday, Wall Street extended its rally to a third day, and Conrad took note because the markets have not always responded well to Geithner’s public utterances. "You’ve done a superb job," Conrad joked as the hearing came to a close shortly after noon. "Markets are up over 100."
The Dow Jones industrials rose 239.66 points for the day on a string of hopeful news, apparently unconnected to Geithner. At the White House, the administration conferred with state officials about how the $787 billion in stimulus money will go out.
Vice President Joe Biden opened the meeting by warning state officials that if they misuse money from the stimulus package, they should not expect more help from the federal government for a long time.
"If we don’t get this right, folks, this is the end of the ability to convince Congress that anything should go to the states," Biden said.
Added Obama: "If we see money being misspent, we’re going to put a stop to it."