Barack Obama: Crisismonger-In-Chief

[Shady]

First, let's go back to November, when Obama's Chief Of Staff, Rahm Emanuel said the following:

EMANUEL: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. This is an opportunity. What used to be long-term problems -- be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area -- things that we had postponed for too long that were long-term are now immediate and must be dealt with. And this crisis provides the opportunity for us, as I would say, the opportunity to do things that you could not do before.

Thanks to the good fortune of having a serious crisis placed in their laps, they've been able to accomplish the following:

An unprecedented spending bill, almost $1 trillion dollars, loaded with expansive government programs and bureaucracy, all in the guise of economic stimulus.

AND

An unprecedented move of the U.S census from the Department of Commerce where its ALWAYS been, over to the White House under their control.

It's scary stuff, and unfortunately it's probably only the beginning.

[guyser]

It's scary stuff, and unfortunately it's probably only the beginning.

Straight out of the Rep handbook- see terrorism.

[Shady]

Straight out of the Rep handbook- see terrorism.

What happened to "Change We Can Believe In?"

[BubberMiley]

What happened to "Change We Can Believe In?"

You don't think Obama is a change from the Republican rule?

[bush_cheney2004]

You don't think Obama is a change from the Republican rule?

Nope.....he wants to spend even more money than the Republicans didn't.

[scorpio]

Nope.....he wants to spend even more money than the Republicans didn't.

Don't think the bulk will be on war though.

[GostHacked]

An unprecedented spending bill, almost $1 trillion dollars, loaded with expansive government programs and bureaucracy, all in the guise of economic stimulus.

Hmmm I am still trying to find your complaints about Bush's bail out bill which came to about the same amount...... I have searched through all of MLW and can't find a single complaint from you at all.

If you can prove that to me, then this thread has some weight to it. If not, gtfo.

But I will say that these stimulus packages are all being payed by the taxpayer in the end. The reason, to get money back into the system is to provide credit for many. To make available money to lend out by the banks. As we see that is not really happening. They want to be able to lend you more money than they have. and more than what you can ever pay back.

The government is using taxpayer money to give to the banks to provide loans (at interest) to those same taxpayers who are hurting. It is a punch in the face, followed by a good hard kick in the balls.

Try this change of mindset. Credit = debt. If you use your credit, you have debt. Credit is money. Money is debt. It's like a=c kind of thing.

I bought a couple pieces of music gear last week, threw it on my VISA. That is now debt I owe. VISA makes money on the money I owe because of interest (if one does not diligently pay off the full balance on the card every month. Luckily I had my expenses payed out to me this week, I was able to pay off the VISA.

People might not understand the cost of money anymore. Since it is very electronic.

My pay gets deposited into my account. I pay for an item with my VISA or debit card. I never lay my hands on the 'money' that changed hands. I never see it, I have no idea what 800 dollars looks like in real money. And many people today are in this same boat. This will be a major problem with the current generation growing up.

The real value of money can't be known.

Bush's Bail out bill = GOOD !!!!

Obama's Stimulus package = BAD !!!

Both came to the same amount, and both are wasteful bills.

Edited February 12, 2009 by GostHacked

[sharkman]

I can't speak for others, but WRT Bush's bail out bill, it was unprecedented, somewhat scary, and done to prop up the federal banking system. Remember that? Several big banks going bankrupt, with dozens more teetering, long lines of account holders trying to get their money the hell out said banks? People screaming for the government to do something NOW because if they start going like Dominoes, there'd be no stopping them? Financial tremors felt around the world with Europe and others (you guessed it) blaming Bush?

The reason I haven't been critical about Bush's bailout is because the federal banking system was seriously teetering with weaker ones dropping. The sub-prime mortgage mess was(and is) a disaster, and like a poison pill was working its way through the system killing banks and bringing commercial credit(a completely different thing than consumer credit) to a standstill. Of course that was threatening to start a whole new level of bankruptcies at the commercial level.

Bush's bailout was done to stop an imminent disaster. It seems to have worked. Except for some greedy banker CEOs doing stupid things with some of the money (there's no accounting for greed). Here's the thing I've been wondering about recently. Why is it that we're hearing nothing about Bush's bill? The MSM is in lock step with Obama breathlessly reporting every single time he utters a word about the financial crisis. They seem to be giving the credit to Obama for the Dubya's success. Predictable, but I don't care. I just want things to evolve into a garden variety recession. But no word on the effectiveness of the previous administration's efforts on the banking system. Maybe I've just been missing it.

Obama's bill is entirely different, and it should be. It can be described as an effort to kick start the economy. A "stimulus" bill to get companies hiring with infrastructure projects started, etc. But that's not what it actually is as it turns out.

No doubt you've heard of some of the odd items in this bill: a waterpark in Florida, some kind of condom program, a make over for the national mall, a major upgrade for patient data sharing in the medical industry are a few that I know of. These are not infrastructure job creating projects. When you really get to the nitty gritty, they are democrat pet projects with no emphasis on jobs created. Yes, a few have been cut to give the appearance of a negotiation in the process, but it doesn't change what the outcome will be. When you see that 170 million was spent on the inauguration during this time of financial crisis, you wonder what in hell is going on.

The other thing is, the majority of the money won't be spent this year. Many projects are into 2011 and 2012. If it's such an emergency, why aren't they frontloading it in the first year? Are we facing a depression, or just a whole lot of fearmongering? Waiting until 2012 sounds like a whole lotta love for the next presidential election year. Just saying.

So, Obama's bill doesn't address the situation. The US needs JOBS. NOW. If they spend the majority of the money in year 2,3 and 4, it doesn't address the immediate crisis. Obama is saying one thing to get Americans to support the bill, and then doing another.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Straight out of the Rep handbook- see terrorism.

Yep!

Read Naomi Klein's new book:

The Rise of Disaster Socialism!

[GostHacked]

Sharkman

Your support of Bush is evident, with many threads you show much love and support for Bush. So I don't think you are being critical of Obama's stimulus package when you were not critical of Bush's bail out package which the Democratic congress/senate approved and had just as much pork in it ....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10049551-38.html

This item caught my eye

Loans from Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund $50 billion

Now that is a long term loan.

http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/30454404.html

Pork barrel "pet projects" and tax breaks from individual congressmen and senators included in the bailout bill add up to nearly $100 billion, and you won't believe where all that money is going.

lolololol .. then ...

Then there's the $148 million in tax breaks for companies that make wool, the $192 million for rum producers in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and $239 million to help fisherman in Alaska struggling to recover from the Exxon Valdez oil spill nearly 20 years ago.

There's $100 million included to help the owners of several car race tracks, and $478 million to assist those struggling film and television producers in Hollywood.

And that's just a drop in the $100 billion bucket.

And you are right ,,, there is no accounting for greed .. actually there is ... a bail out and an equally expensive stimulus package prove exactly the greed you are talking about.

[sharkman]

Okay, I don't support any of the pork in the Bush bill, and I am greatly disappointed to hear it contains such. Yes, I do support Bush, although I have been critical of his administration's high spending ways in the past before the crisis.

What about you? Are you okay with Obama's pork but not Bush's? You made no comment on the difference of the bills(one to avoid a bank meltdown, one to kick start an economy) so am I to assume that you agree with it and the idea that Obama's bill doesn't address the problem?

[stevoh]

I don't know about you, but I would certainly rather pay for new school construction, infastructure and tax breaks than billions further bailing out irresponsible companies that even now, JUST DON'T SEEM TO GET IT.

In my opinion some of those companies (including the big 3) should have been allowed to fail, and the bailout money should have gone to the laid off workers in retraining or other benefits that would allow them to find work in other areas.

When you say your company is just moments from going bankrupt one second, and then say you somehow deserve a huge bonus because your "section" actually made money, YOU DESERVE NOTHING. I don't care how much your little section made, if the overall company goes bankrupt, YOU WOULD STILL GET NOTHING.

Edited February 12, 2009 by stevoh

[Shady]

Hmmm I am still trying to find your complaints about Bush's bail out bill which came to about the same amount...... I have searched through all of MLW and can't find a single complaint from you at all.

Hmmm, I guess that's the same number of complaints I find on your behalf of Obama's bailout bill.

And if there was a Bush bailout plan, I would have definitely criticized it. Unfortunately, the only plan you seem to be referencing, is this one: Pic 1

To summarize:

Pelosi/Reid/Paulson bill = BAD!!!

Obama/Pelosi/Reid Stimulus bill = WORSE!!!

you were not critical of Bush's bail out package

The so-called Bush bailout was written by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They control congress, they write the legislation. Pic 2 (that's the actual signing photo-op from back in the fall)

Edited February 12, 2009 by Shady

[sharkman]

The so-called Bush bailout was written by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They control congress, they write the legislation. Pic 2 (that's the actual signing photo-op from back in the fall)

Wow, that slipped by me without notice. Kind of sad really. Pelosi and crew got a big round of pork from the first bill, and like greedy pigs aren't satisfied with one go round at the trough. Obama's effort is worse.

Stevo, I agree with your statement in whole. Here's the thing, you've got Obama lecturing CEOs and bankers for bonuses and such, and then you've got Obama funding all kinds of crap projects in his bill. It smells. Also, the man's inauguration cost $170,000,000. He's not walking the walk.

[GostHacked]

Okay, I don't support any of the pork in the Bush bill, and I am greatly disappointed to hear it contains such.

It might be because you were not paying attention.

Yes, I do support Bush, although I have been critical of his administration's high spending ways in the past before the crisis.

Everyone should always be critical of all spending. It does not matter who is in charge. Governments waste money on monumental scales. Canada's government is proof of that. We need 3 or more parties full of idiots to run the country, not just two. We make it more complicated.

What about you? Are you okay with Obama's pork but not Bush's? You made no comment on the difference of the bills(one to avoid a bank meltdown, one to kick start an economy) so am I to assume that you agree with it and the idea that Obama's bill doesn't address the problem?

Pork is pork, and should be cut no matter what. Wastefull spending is stupid, no matter if you are a Rep or a Dem. And give it time, Presidents don't run the country. Bush did not run the country, and neither will Obama.

But I do agree with you that these stimulus packages are worthless. It is applauding bad behavior and bad business practices. If the US is a true capitolistic society, then you would have seen more banks fail. Survival of the fittest has always been the law of the land. Bail outs don't help the strong and stable, being strong and stable means you wont have to worry about it.

Shady

And if there was a Bush bailout plan, I would have definitely criticized it. Unfortunately, the only plan you seem to be referencing, is this one: Pic 1

To summarize:

You had your chance to criticize it. You had a couple months to criticize it. Sure it was written by Pelosu and Ried, lol stupid Democrats. ... Bush could have vetoed it but he was one of the strongest supporters of a bail out package. You could even say it was bi-partisan !!!

Stevoh

I don't know about you, but I would certainly rather pay for new school construction, infastructure and tax breaks than billions further bailing out irresponsible companies that even now, JUST DON'T SEEM TO GET IT.

Agreed. Bail out package = new corporate jets!!!

That seems to be the difference here between these two bills. One is to bail out failing institutions, and the other is to help failing institutions. .... wait.

[sharkman]

Gost, you haven't mentioned this, but it looks like you aren't buying the reason Bush signed his bailout bill, to save the banks. Do you believe the banks were in trouble? It certainly appeared that way to me, many were teetering and 5 or 6 went bankrupt. I believe that had nothing been done there would have been a fair chance of the banking system crashing in the US.

[GostHacked]

Gost, you haven't mentioned this, but it looks like you aren't buying the reason Bush signed his bailout bill, to save the banks. Do you believe the banks were in trouble? It certainly appeared that way to me, many were teetering and 5 or 6 went bankrupt. I believe that had nothing been done there would have been a fair chance of the banking system crashing in the US.

No, I don't buy (lol) his reason of saving the banks. If they were in trouble, you gotta ask yourself, why bail out a bank that is about to fail? How did the bank ever get into this mess in the first place? Why are we using taxpayer money to put back into these bad banks because they have no capitol to lend out. This is a like a small bandage to keep your arm connected to your body.

Let the banks fail. This will give rise to better more stable banks and a banking system. It would be like the bank bailing me out because I can't pay back the loan I acquired to purchase something.

I'd be ok with it if I knew the banks and the people running them would actually learn from these mistakes and change their ways, but those nice new shiney jets told me otherwise. And why did some of these CEO's get 'performance bonuses' when the banks were about to go tits up? I don't get a raise or a bonus if I did less than what was required to begin with.

I understand the cost of a bank failing, but, the stronger and more stable shall survive giving rise to a better and more stable economy. Sure it will be hard for awhile. but is that not prefered over handing out all this money just to have that bank fail or get bought up anyways and still run the risk of collapsing?

Where did all the money go? And better yet, where is the money comming from?