Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Obama Thinks We're Retarded.

Obama is trying to say he's saving money by not spending money on the War in Iraq. While at first blush this seems to be true when you take a look at the amount and the length of time he projects the war would've lasted had he not stepped in it's obvious either he's retarded or he thinks the American people are.

Obama's budget presumes that we would spend over $100 billion ever year until 2019.
Of course we know that every troop will be out of Iraq by December 31th 2011 due to an agreement signed by former President Bush. John Boehner said "This budget is a lesson in fuzzy math,"

The high for spending in the Iraq war was $188 billion a year, but Obama's budget has the U.S. still spending 183.5 billion in 2019. Either Obama is planning on starting a third Iraq war, or he's not being honest. Of course their is still the option he's retarded.

"It's like a family trying to claim savings of $10,000 by assuming a family vacation and not taking it," said Brian Riedl, a senior federal budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Riedl said the estimate is unrealistic and allows Obama to claim massive cuts to spending that was never going to take place anyway." Obama is using these stats to say that he is heading off a $9 trillion deficit 10 years from now. Yep he thinks we're retarded.

Obama making up fake deficits and then erasing them is not change, wait yes it is, it's change for the worse. I guess since no one bothered to ask what you meant by change your still keeping your promises. It's going to be a long, long four years. I hope everyone has started hording their non-perishables.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/republicans-expected-war-savings-obama-budget-suggest-fuzzy-math/

WSJ: The Obama Economy

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html#

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Obama First Instict is usually wrong.

It seems to me that usually Obama's first choice is wrong. This goes back to the campaign Obama said in a a democratic primary debate he would meet with leaders from terrorist sponsoring countries without Pre-conditions. He later changed his answer. In the Presidential compaign Obama first blamed Georgia for being invaded by Russia. It took Obama three attempts to figure out that the bigger county was bullying the smaller country. I think a first grader would've understood what was going on faster than Obama did. Apparently this hasn't changed with Obama's cabinet picks.

Ron Kirk- Obama's choice for trade representative owes $100,00 in back taxes. This is now the fourth nominee with tax problems. It appears he will be confirmed

Tom Daschel- failed to disclose $300,000 in past income. withdrew

Timothy Geithner- failed to pay $40,000 in payroll taxes. He is now our Treasury Secretary

Nancy Killfer- Obama's pick for Chief Performance officer had tax problems. withdrew

So it appears Obama will get half of his tax cheating cabinet picks confirmed. I think I've figured out why this administration is so set on raising taxes. It's because no one in the cabinet is going to pay them anyway.

If we combine those choices with a couple of Obama's other picks such as Bill Richardson and Judd Gregg I think a pattern starts to emerge. Richarson withdrew after it was discovered he was under federal investigation into how his political donors got a transportation contract. Gregg also withdrew after he realized Obama had no intention of listening to any of his ideas and just wanted to appear bipartisan.

It should be clear to anyone that our new President's instincts are not good. He has chosen four tax cheats and a man under federal investigation to serve in his cabinet so far. This doesn't even include other very partisan choices he has made to serve in his cabinet such as Kathleen Seblius to serve as Health and Human Services secretary and Leon Panetta to head up the CIA. These are not choices that bring the country together these are choices that tear it apart.