Obama Criticizes His Own Economic Policy

Barack Obama has proposed an economic policy that he lambasted as disastrous just a few months ago.

When Hillary Clinton proposed a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures in March 2008, Obama called her plan disastrous and suggested that it would reward people who made this problem worse and benefit banks that profit from high mortgage rates.

However, yesterday, a mere 7 months later, Obama has proposed -- you guessed it -- a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures.

Obama believes that banks participating in the federal bailout should temporarily postpone foreclosures for families making good-faith efforts to pay their mortgage."

And, precisely what does good-faith effort mean? Who knows?

It's rather like Obama saying he will bring the U.S. troops home responsibly. Whatever that means.

Obama says the nation needs a new ethic of responsibility, unless of course, you are responsible for paying your mortgage, in which case you will be off the hook.

Maybe Obama should switch his motto to The Change-of-Mind You Can Believe In.

Obama and His Associations - A Case in Poor Judgment

We have all heard the names Jeremiah Wright, the patently anti-American, racist preacher; William Ayers, the patently anti-American, unrepentant domestic-terrorist murderer; the left-wing radicalism of the "community" group ACORN; and Sen. Barack Obama's association with each.

I am less concerned at the moment about what-he-knew-and-when-he-knew-it about these Obama associates. And I don't think that associating with these groups makes Obama a racist, bigoted, domestic terrorist, community group.

What bothers me -- and should bother ALL Americans -- is that Obama is a blatant political opportunist, a terrible judge of character and/or a patent liar.

Worse than Obama's knowing what these parties stand for and working with them anyway, or worse than his not knowing, is that Obama didn't care what these parties stood for.

I believe that Obama saw opportunities through each of these connections to advance his political career and did not concern himself with what these parties preached nor how his association could help.

About Wright, Obama contends that he never knew about Wright's proclivities, despite their 20-year relationship.

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."

What does that say about Obama? How can you not know the hate-filled opinions of someone you've known for 20 years? Someone who is a professional public speaker, and apparently airs his hateful views frequently and with great pride (and on DVD!).

I contend that Obama associated himself with Wright and his church to establish his street cred. Remember, here is a guy who was born to a white mother, raised by his "typical white person" grandmother, and a product of Ivy League schools. He would seem to be a guy who would want for something to establish a connection with the South Side of Chicago. What better than a race-baiting, hate-monger?

And, how could Obama just get up and walk out, as so many detractors have criticized him for not doing? Walking out would have offended Wright, who would likely have the power to hurt Obama's political aspirations. So, Obama put his political gain over doing the right thing, stated with this anti-American preacher so as not to offend someone who could help him.

Obama's associated with ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a community-based organization. In addition to legitimate advocacy, ACORN is known for staging boisterous protests.

Among their initiatives, ACORN became involved in pushing the very type of mortgages to low-income borrowers that had a large impact in the current Wall Street crisis.

Obama was a trainer for ACORN, teaching ACORN tactics in voter registration drives. Interestingly, the organization is being investigated for massive voter registration fraud, including claims of signing-up an entire professional football team multiple times, registering non-existent people, and paying people to repeatedly register in dozens of communities.

Again, I believe that Obama sought out ACORN as a means to reach the grass-roots, inner-city constituency in Chicago for his eventual political campaigns.

Next is William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist whose organization, the Weather Underground, is responsible for killing police officers, bombing the Pentagon, and countless acts of wanton destruction.

Obama used his connection to Ayers through the Woods Fund of Chicago and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organizations to meet the well-heeled liberals of Chicago. Anyone launching a political career in any jurisdiction needs to meet and impress people with money and influence to contribute.

One could forgive Obama this association, were Ayers in any way repentant for his past. He is not. In interviews during the 2000s, Ayers reportedly lamented "they didn't do more" to stop the Vietnam War. Which I construe to mean more killings and destruction.

For me, these associations and others give rise to concerns that Obama puts political gain over the right-and-wrong of a given relationship. This represents a level of poor judgment that this country cannot have in a president.

How will Obama respond to in his planned meetings with the leaders of countries like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela?

What will his judgment allow him to appoint to various offices, posts, and judgeship? Consider whom he might appoint to the Supreme Court, with its likely 2 or 3 openings; Secretary of State, Attorney General, just to name a few.

If Obama has either the poor judgment or the political indifference to associate with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, will he appoint people with the country's interest in mind, or his own....

Obama's Plans to Kill the Economy and Cause a Depression

Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

In the election campaign of 2008, the economy and foreign policy are paramount with the candidates and the voters as well. The first two presidential debates focused almost exclusively in these two areas, with the second debate squarely centered on the economy as the U.S. was in the midst of a major financial meltdown.

Having the economy top-most on the voters minds should, and seems to be, benefiting Sen. Barack Obama; polls show the American people favor Barack as the savior of the country's economic future.

However, will Obama's policies fix the flagging economy or make it worse?

Sen. John McCain is trying, albeit likely too late, to charge that Obama's formula for economic recovery will not work, and will in fact plunge the economy deeper into recession, or worse.

A collective of 100 "distinguished and experienced" economists have signed onto a letter, released by the John McCain campaign, stating that Obama's policies will -- and already have -- hurt the U.S. economy.

These economists all agree:

• Obama's dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans.
• His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay,
• His mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance (would reduce employment and take-home pay).

"Economic analysis and historical experience show that (Obama's proposals)... would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. (H)is proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession."

Obama plans to increase taxes on the "wealthy" -- including most small businesses, capital gains, oil, and other sources in order to finance a stimulus package for the, um non-wealthy, despite the fact that the Bush stimulus package from earlier this year has had limited impact on the economy.

"What we're seeing is a mild recession interrupted here by a rebate program," said David Wyss, chief economist for the rating agency Standard & Poor's in New York this week. "Once they (consumers) finish spending these checks, we'll head down again." (paragrah 11)

Most historians agree: An increase in the tax rates and additional barriers to trade, which raised tarriffs on lower-priced imported goods, helped prolong the Great Depression. (paragraph 14)

Surprisingly, Obama also plans to fight for increased restriction and regulation on trade. He opposes the planned Columbia free-trade agreement and the signed Central American Free Trade Agreement for fear that these pacts will not "spread good labor and environmental standards around the world."

Free trade, say the 100 economists, "make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes." In addition, they write, International trade is "a powerful source of strength in a weak economy."

If this is true, is Obama really willing to cause more pain to the "families and individuals with low incomes" in America in an attempt to "spread good labor and environmental standards" to those in other countries?

According to these experts:

• Obama's opposition to trade agreements (with Colombia and Central America and renegotiating NAFTA) would block the creation of jobs for Americans these treaties would likely product.
• His opposition to trade treaties would reduce imports that would make goods available to Americans at lower prices, particularly hurting low-income families and individuals.
  

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund agrees: "Most of the leading economists (during the Great Depression) opposed (restricting free trade); both Congress and President Hoover went along with the protectionist hysteria. As a result, the Great Depression was probably deepened and extended for years."

If history is a guide, then one must ask: Will Obama's economic plans kill the economy and even cause a depression?

Is there any wonder that as Sen. Barack Obama's odds of winning the U.S. presidency are increasing, the stock market in plunging? Or is that just a coincidence?

McCain and Obama Battle to a Draw; Obama Draws Himself as Clueless

I am sorry, but I cannot see myself climbing aboard the Obama Change Train to Nowhere.

I watched the entire U.S. Presidential debate in Memphis last night, and despite what the talking heads on television and in newsprint said, Obama did not win. I am not sure if McCain won either, though.

What I saw is that Obama is still clueless. Sen. Obama (D-IL) still has no plan to fix the economy, improve healthcare, or defend the country. His every policy seems hinged on raising taxes and alternative fuels. The economy can be fixed through alternative fuels, our national defense can be improved through alternative fuels. There, put up a few solar panels and all our problems are solved.

I also saw throughout the evening, that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was trying to be positive and constructive, uplifting and encouraging, with statement like: My friends, we are going through tough times, but together we can make it.

Alternatively, Obama maintained a negative and insulting tone throughout the event. We have problems in this country and they are due to President Bush's policies to which McCain subscribed.

Obama is still running against George Bush, mentioning Bush's policies or stating the "last eight years" at least 10 times in his 40-odd minutes. Sorry, Barack, W ain't running this time out.

Then, after insinuating McCain into every problem faced by the country, Obama literally turns around and said people are not interested in politicians pointing fingers at each other. Barack, take your own advice.

When asked about fixing the economy, Obama could still not offer a solid plan; mentioning only that he would raise taxes on the "wealthy." It is only fair, he said; he wouldn't promise this income-shifting would fix the economy or help the country in anyway. But it is "fair." Barack, the U.S. government is not there to determine what salary and lifestyle is "fair."

And, despite what most -- if not all -- financial experts have been telling us over the past several days, Obama assures us that the economy will not get worse in the short term.

He laments that "ordinary families" are in trouble of losing their homes. Sorry, Barack, most "ordinary families" are not in trouble with their homes; 96% or mortgages are being paid with no problems.

He promises to offset his billions in new spending by using a "scalpel" to make cuts. But, unlike McCain, Obama has yet to name a single area where he would cut the budget. (McCain was not much better here, mentioning only a spending freeze, cutting wasteful defense spending, and vetoing earmarks.)

Obama seems to know how to run an oil company better than the industry professionals can, mandating that the oil companies drill on more of their oil fields or they will lose them. Drill where I want, when I want, and how I want or we will break your leases and take your land.

His health care plan in still a mystery. He deems that access to health care is a human "right," Sorry, Barack, health care is the result of people's hard work and talent. No one has the right to the hard work and talent of anyone else.

If we have insurance and are happy with it, he promises, we will get to keep it. Gee thanks, Barack. Now that's leadership. But, if you cannot afford insurance, you may just get fined. He will require health insurance for kids and fine you if you don't. What if you can't afford it?

In the foreign policy section of the debate, Obama made the single most outrageous statement I have ever heard in a debate before.

Never has there been a nation in the history of the world that saw it's economy decline and maintained its military superiority.

I have never heard a serious presidential candidate diminish the American military before, especially in a time of war!

We should send support troop to Darfur, even though we have no national interest. "Moral issues," he said, "When genocide is happening and we stand idly by, it diminishes us." We must consider genocide in other countries as part of U.S. national interest. Is it only "fair," Barack?

Unless the moral issue is in Iraq.

A retired member of the military asked a question. McCain walked over to the man and laid his hand on the man's shoulder in thanks for his service; Obama muttered "We honor your service and are grateful for it," in a flat, emotionless tone as he walked to the center of the stage to speak. And this is the man you want as Commander-in-Chief?

On a number of occasions, Barack lambasted McCain for non-policies. "It was you singing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran," he accused McCain, as though it were officially part of the Republican platform.

There is a difference between a policy and a joke, Obama Barack; although when you speak, it is hard to tell....

Obama Tells the World: We Have Lost Our Military Superiority

Folks, I have been watching presidential debates for 20 years; tonight I heard the single most offensive and destructive comments I have ever heard from a presidential candidate.

During a time of war, Barack Obama told the world "Never has there been a nation in the history of the world that saw it's economy decline and maintained its military superiority."

Why the HELL would he say something like that? What the HELL is he trying to say?

We have troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and he has the audacity to suggest that we cannot maintain military superiority.

Or, does this mean, as president he would not try to maintain our military?

And you people want to call this man Commander in Chief?

Barney Frank Sadly Wrong About Racism Charge

Don't it make my blue state bluer.....

Sorry, Barney Frank; you are just plain wrong.

U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is on an extended rant, doing all he can to dismiss any level of blame for the current financial crisis from himself and his politics.

Like a good Liberal, Frank is quick to call the Republicans racist for criticizing the low-income lending that helped cause the financial collapse.

"They get to take things out on poor people," said the intrepid representative from tony Newton, MA. "The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either..."

Frank sticks his foot further into his mouth by calling claims that low-income loans helped cause the Wall Street meltdown "bizarre."

It is truly sad when a politician is so blinded by his own prejudices and his own agenda that he cannot or will not see the root of a problem.

This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with banks being forced to lend money to people who could not afford the loan to satisfy the legal requirements placed on them by politicians.

Why in the world would a bank loan money to someone who could not afford the loan, unless there was some external pressure and/or a guarantee that the loan would be backed by someone else? Unlike the U.S. government, banks are in the business to earn money, not give it away.

He continues his partisan blathering by claiming that Republican's made no attempt at reforms that could have prevented the meltdown, ignoring efforts in 2005 by Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John McCain (R-AZ), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and John Sununu (R-NH) to reform Fannie and Freddie. And, he conveniently neglects to mention that it was the Democrat-controlled Senate that refused to allow this bill to come to a vote.

He declines to mention his own resistance to a President Bush plan in 2003 to provide new oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, fearing that "we will see (less) in terms of affordable housing."

But, not surprisingly, Frank has a vested interest in seeing these agencies absolved of blame and further regulation, having received "more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989." Further, he may have had a serious conflict-of-interest, stemming from reportedly having a close personal relationship with a Fannie Mae executive at the time.

"The guys on Wall Street," preached Frank, "if they never earned another nickel, would live better than they have any right to live."

I find it pretty frightening when an elected official decides he should be the determinant of how people "have any right to live."

We are living in scary times, indeed.

Finanaical Bailout Has Remarkable Effect on Economy

Well, it's a damn fine thing we passed that $700 Billion "bail-out" measure last week. It has had a remarkable impact.

Downward!

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped nearly 800 points to 9561.32. The first time the average fell below 10,000 since 2004.

The credit markets and banks are still not loaning money; banks are begging for cash from the government (that means you and me!), in the form of $900 billion in "loans;" and individual states are coming forward for "bailouts" (everything starts in California).

I don't know what that all really means, but it ain't good.

This guy knows what this really means, and he agrees with me:

“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”

But, have no fear, gentle readers, President Bush tells us everything is hunky-dory, it is just "going to take awhile."

So, as long as you don't plan on retiring in the next couple of years, you might be OK.

So, thanks Barney Frank, et. al. You really saved the day this time.

And you want these guys running healthcare in this country????

John McCain the Hypocrite or Did He Blow It Big Time??

For a candidate who has built his presidential campaign on fighting earmarks and other bits of political pork-barrel spending, John McCain is either a hypocrite or missed a huge opportunity by voting for this nightmare of a "economic recovery" package.

As I have railed at before, and again, and yet again, this recovery package is one part economic fixes and three parts "crap sandwich."

AND MCCAIN VOTED FOR IT!!!

This document was a giant 450 pages earmark!

It might have been a cynical maneuver, but it would have won McCain big points had he stood up and said NO!. He could easily have done some quiet internal polls of his senate brethren, determined that it would pass easily, then came out and screamed about the pork.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the bill in its current condition. This goes well beyond economic recovery to include some of the most opportunistic hand-outs to special interests and pounds of irrelevant pork! Fellow Senators, give me a clean economic recovery bill and I will support it! In its current form I cannot!

How hard would that have been?

Has "The Maverick" been tamed? Is this race over?

A huge opportunity missed to help prevent the utterance of the following: President Barack Obama.

Will Congress Save Us From the "Bailout"?

I know I am just spinning wheels here, but I urge the U.S. House of Representatives to recast the "Emergency Economic Stabilization" bill H.R. 1424 into an actual "bailout" measure.

Crop out "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," and lose the rest. This section consists of only 111 pages out of 451, leaving 340 pages of tax breaks and other gimmes to myriad special interests and dis-interests that have been analyzed ad nauseum by honest journalists and reporters.

I can't agree less with the "solution" to the economic mess that the entire legislature is considering: handing $700 billion dollars to one person to dole out any way he see fit.

But, if you are going to pass this solution anyway, at least take out the parts that have nothing to do with Wall Street, mortgages, and the banking industry.

Pass a bailout-only bill. The country deserves honest solutions to the problems we face. You will have plenty of time later to throw softballs to your friends and lobbyists.

Force the Senate to re-vote on the bailout-only portion of the bill and see how they respond. If this is such a dire crisis, why would Senators need earmarked incentives to sign onto a solution?

Show the Senate and the American people that you take this issue seriously enough to evaluate the bailout on its merits, not What's in it for me?.


Do what is right for the country and solve the problem you are setting out to solve.

Senators Approve Pork-Laden "Bailout" Bill

I don't know why I am surprised.

Barack Obama ridiculed John McCain last week for not being able to multi-task. And when a politician multi-tasks, I guess, this is what we get as a result.

Our intrepid U.S. Senators worked into the evening to craft a bail out bill that will help stem the fiscal crisis in the U.S. They wanted to help not just Wall Street, but Main Street, too.

They ended up helping pretty much every special interest group short of NAMBLA.





Here is just a partial list of the crucial items in Senate bill H.R. 1424 that Wall Street was crying out for.

• tax deductions for computer donations (pg. 291), food donations (pg. 293) and book donations (pg.294)
• tax breaks for filmmakers and TV producers (pg. 298)
• tax exemptions for children's wooden bow and arrows -- not those phony laminate types either (pg. 300)
• duty extension for wool products -- worsted wool and combed wool both! (pg. 295)
• caps on excise taxes for Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum (pg 280)
  
• tax breaks on cost recovery for restaurant improvements and "certain" retail space (pg. 274)

But, thankfully, they refused to include tax breaks for really big toy arrows. Hey, at least the senators had the children in mind.

And I love this piece of congressional magic -- they are going to turn anyone who receives a settlement from the Exxon Valdez accident into a fisherman (pg. 302). That will help that single-mother in the Bronx pay her mortgage.

My company will do well: they are extending the "Indian Employment Credit;" we have a number of good folks from India working here!

In this "economic recovery package," only 111 of 451 pages are dedicated to economic recovery!

I could write 451 pages of my own on the audacity of the senate to give one person the power to dole out $700 billion dollars to pretty much whomever he wants.

The Secretary is authorized... to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary. (pg. 6)

So the secretary of the U.S. treasury can buy any "troubled asset" as long as he determines it appropriate and abides by his own policies. Now that's oversight!

I don't know about you, but I will sleep better knowing that my 401K will mushroom now that we have extended tax breaks for economic development in America Samoa (pg 279).

Phew!