Aug 9, 2011 Political
The United States had its credit rating lowered because of the economic problem involving decades of overspending. The Obama regime has been a spending machine on steroids with a trillion dollar stimulus (cost of stimulus and the interest to pay for the money we borrowed) and the 2.5 TRILLION dollar Obamacare law (and billions in other hidden costs). Add this to the greater than a trillion dollar a year deficit spending and the country has been on deficit overdrive.
The credit rating was dropped on Friday after the market closed but the Israeli market and the Asian markets took hits when they opened on Sunday (our time). The US market followed suit dropping over 600 points on Monday.
Barack Obama went on the air to reassure the public and the market dropped 200 points while he was talking.
The market has no confidence in Obama and investors are selling off in order to hold cash. The crash of the US market is sending us into a second recession and Obama has no clue how to handle this.
So we have two options here. Either Obama is totally clueless and is in way over his head or he is doing this on purpose. Obama is an student of Alinsky and of the teachings of Cloward and Piven and their strategy to take down our system. I know what I think but I will leave it to the Obama toadies to decide if he is doing this on purpose or he is clueless and in over his head.
Here is a hint; I think it is a bit of both.
All is not lost for some folks. It looks like a friend of Obama and enemy of the US made a huge sum of money on the downgrade. I imagine there are a lot of Obama friends doing well with the inside information…
As this situation gets worse expect the Obama regime to do more of what has not worked thus far.
As Obama and the career politicians in DC blame this on the TEA Party and engage in the finger pointing games the country moves closer to worse times. Inflation, high interest rates, a down stock market, high food and gas prices and increased unemployment await us and these clowns are pointing fingers. The blame game is not the way to fix problems. Let the public put the blame, the politicians need to work on solutions.
Unfortunately, the career politicians are not interested in helping us. The two parties are busy sniping at each other but working hand in hand to stay in power and enrich their lives at our expense.
The TEA Party politicians are the only ones that made promises and kept them. They are the ones with plans to keep our house in order and get us back on sound financial footing. If we had adopted their plans we would not have been downgraded and would have some breathing room.
Instead, we followed the plans of people who are increasingly seen as not having the consent of the governed or as Pat Caddell calls it, pre-revolutionary.
It is going to be a bumpy ride for a while on the Obama roller coaster. After all, he promised us fundamental transformation.
He might get more than he bargained for.
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 13, 2010 Political
By now anyone with a head and who is not trying to rewrite history over this issue knows that the Democrats are working full speed ahead to pass unpopular legislation in order to take control of our lives by controlling our health care. They want to vote for Obama’s signature legislative item but they are worried about the ramifications of passing unpopular legislation especially in an election year.
It is a double edged sword because they need to pass it now because they will lose too many seats to pass it next year. But if they pass it now they will lose even more seats and Obama will have no future agenda because Republicans will not allow anything he wants to pass. It won’t get considered. This will be the price for ramming legislation through without following the Constitution. I bet then we hear Democrats scream about being left out of the process and how ham handed the Republicans are.
Anyone who complains should be locked in the basement so we do not have to hear them again. This would include Obama.
The most recent idea coming from Democrats is to consider a bill voted on and passed if another piece of legislation is passed. This is a way to avoid voting on the unpopular bill but getting what they want passed.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law! Doug Ross
According to Constitutional Attorney Mark R Levin, this rule is unconstitutional. The House and Senate must vote on a bill and it must be sent to the president to be signed into law. So far, so good because they are voting on a bill but they are not voting on the bill that will become law and they are not voting in accordance with the Constitution:
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively… [emphasis added]
In ALL cases the bills shall be voted on by Yeahs and Nays. They cannot vote on one rule change and say it means they voted on another bill. Every BILL (singular) must be voted on with yeahs and nays. Our Founders set this up for a reason.
Of course the Constitutionality of something has never stopped Democrats from doing what they wanted but I am pretty sure there will be a lot of legal challenges to any process that does not follow the Constitution and the legal process in accordance with the law.
Note to Democrats, just because you change the rules does not mean the rules adopted are Constitutional.
Here is a link to the US Constitution for those who are challenged in this area. It would be particularly nice if Politicians read this.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out because the left is worried about the interpretation of the Senate Parliamentarian when it should be worried about the Constitution.
Can they use reconciliation to fix a bill that has not been agreed upon by both chambers? Don’t know but they cannot vote for a rule and say it counts as voting for a bill.
The other interesting thing that I see is Joe Biden has a big role in this as President of the Senate. This is the guy who scolded Dick Cheney and cited the wrong part of the Constitution when discussing the role of the VP. Seems that Biden was unaware that the VP has Executive and Legislative responsibility and that this is spelled out in the Constitution (it really helps to read it).
In any event, Biden might get a chance to learn what the VP is allowed to do.
Now it would be funny to see them do all of this only to have it nullified as unconstitutional, or declared not a law because they did not vote on a BILL. They would be back to square one and a lot closer to the election. They would never get another chance and that is a good thing.
Feb 11, 2009 Political
On Monday night Barack Obama preempted regular programming in order to get on the air and scare people into supporting the future generation bankruptcy plan. After he told us of the dire consequences of inaction he took some questions. Some of those questions dealt with the second half of the TARP money and what was going to be done to ensure that it worked and there was accountability. Obama said that his Treasury Secretary Tim [Geithner] would be speaking at a press conference tomorrow [Tuesday] and would explain it all. Obama did not want to steal Geithner’s thunder.
Well, Geithner spoke and all I can say is if this is the brightest guy and the only one who could handle the problem then we are in real trouble. This specific plan that Obama said would be revealed was a very general plan with NO specifics. There was no meat to the thing. He did manage to say that access to government resources is a privilege and not a right. I want to point out that they are not government’s assets because government has none. The assets belong to the taxpayers who have them confiscated.
In any event, Geithner and the rest of the government would do well to remember his words. Access to our money is not a right. It might be legal but that does not make it right.
This plan had no substance but we were assured that they would tell it to us once they got it straight. If it takes as long for him to come up with a plan as it did for him to pay his taxes we will all be dead of old age before it is published. This is the guy who was told he had to pay taxes and was given money to do so but decided not to anyway. If he was told to and said he would (signed a paper indicating) and then did not then it must have been intentional.
Obama promised a plan and he promised Geithner would deliver it. The guy comes out today and he has no plan. He is lacking substance and the genius who was going to fix it all because he had the answers brought so little out today that he wasted our time.
Wall Street reacted unkindly. The Dow dropped around 400 points today after he “detailed” the plan.
This is the plan Obama made us wait for?
Dec 2, 2008 Political
The Stock Market Dropped 680 points yesterday and it is Barack Obama’s fault. As a matter of fact, the market has lost quite a bit since November 4th and it is all because of Obama. Obama has been the cause of other bad things as well. Manufacturing is at its lowest in 26 years and Treasury yields have plunged to their lowest ever and this is all Obama’s fault.
I know there are a few moonbats who will say this is not true and that Obama is not even in office yet (though he thinks he is) even though there are plenty who want Bush to move aside and let him in now. Democrats have never been big supporters of the Constitution so this is not a surprise. In any event, Barack Obama has to be to blame for all the bad because the moonbats are giving him credit when things are good (or at least better).
George Stephanopoulos stated that the 17% increase in the market since Obama began announcing his economic team was attributed to The One. The huge gain on the market, Obama’s doing and the report that Black Friday had an increase in spending, you guessed it, Obama is responsible. As an aside, the numbers for Black Friday will not be in until later in the week. The numbers reported were what shoppers said they spent. Like exit polling, it is better to wait for the results than to bank on what people say.
George Stephanopoulos is giving Obama credit when things are looking good so logic dictates that Obama must be responsible when things are bad. But wait, Stephanopoulos is not the only moron in the story.
USA Today reports that the actions of Barack Obama have perked up the market and that his quick actions are a jolt to the economy. I don’t find it hard to believe that Obama could do these things because he is the guy who will stop oceans from rising and will turn back global warming. Obama can feed the multitudes with a few fishes and loaves so it is not hard to believe that he can wave his hands and say the magic words (Hope and Change) and the market will respond. But once again, if he is responsible for the good then he is responsible for the bad.
The bad is that the market has lost more than it has gained since he was elected. The market is down 1476 points since the day after the election and this is all Barack Obama’s fault. It must be because little Georgie and USA Today gave him credit for the good so he is also responsible for the bad. I know that moonbats like to play the game that everything bad is Bush/Republican and everything good is Obama/Democrat but it does not work that way.
There are two choices. Bush is responsible for all of it or Obama is responsible for all of it. Now, since Bush is the President and WILL BE until 20 January at noon, it would only make sense that this is his fault. But since the (ahem) well respected media has made Obama the economy king, then it is up to people like me to ensure you know he is causing bad stuff to happen. The reality is, the policies of the Democrats caused the meltdown and the policies aimed at fixing them are making it worse.
One other piece of unfinished business. I said that Obama would be my president and that I would not act like the morons on the left did toward George Bush and I mean that. I am an American and Obama (who claims to be one but has not proven it) will be the American president so he will be my president but he will never be my leader. His being my president is as far as it goes which is more than I can say about the moonbats’ relationship with Bush. I am not looking for bipartisanship, I don’t want to play together, I don’t want to follow anything Obama wants to do, and I am not ready to make nice. I will not go bananas (like the Kos morons or the idiots at Huffington and her Hollywood nimrods) but I will be here to point out the bad things (like Obama screwing up the market even more). I will be quick to jump up and down on his supporters who give him a pass when he does things that he should not. If I don’t think you would have let Bush slide then I am not going to let you or your leader slide.
I have this take on it. For 7 years the moonbats told us that they supported the troops but not the war. I can play that game because I support my country but not the president of it.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Sep 20, 2008 Political
I don’t like the idea of taxpayer money going to bail out companies that made bad decisions any more than I like the idea of bailing out people who bought homes they could not afford. If you take bad decisions then you should have to live with the consequences. I understand why they have to bail out companies but I don’t like it. I can only hope that the companies are forced to pay the money back.
Why are politicians so gung ho to bail out the companies? They are guilty of causing the problem, (both parties share in the guilt) and now they are running to show they are on top of things when they should have been on top in 2003 when George Bush wanted to have tighter control or in 2005 when John McCain warned about increased taxpayer risk.
The major reason they are trying to get things on track is that it affects their pocketbooks. I don’t mean the donations that they were getting from the companies, which might or might not stop; I am talking about the stock they own in the failing companies.
The market storm that brought down Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., American International Group Inc. and other pillars of U.S. finance may have also blown holes in the portfolios of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry and more than 50 other members of Congress.
Pelosi, in her most recent financial disclosure form, reported that her husband owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in AIG, which ceded majority control to the U.S. government this week in exchange for $85 billion of loans.
Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, disclosed that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had more than $2 million of AIG stock at the end of 2007, when shares were worth $58.30. AIG has fallen 85 percent this week to close yesterday at $2.69. The lawmakers’ aides didn’t respond to calls seeking comment.
Altogether, 56 senators and representatives had stakes in AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns Cos. or IndyMac Bancorp Inc. — some of the biggest casualties of the market bloodbath — according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The most recent annual disclosure filings list investments as of Dec. 31, 2007, and reveal the size of holdings only within a range of values. Lawmakers may have sold shares since then. Bloomberg
When it affects their wallets they are pretty eager to react. The fact they have these holdings might be the reason they waited so long (and why Democrats opposed tighter control). When they were raking in the money they were not interested. Now that their stocks are dropping faster than Bill Clinton’s pants, they want to act.
Vote them all out. They are pointing fingers at each other but they are all guilty. Let’s show them that we are not holding one person or group responsible, we are holding them all responsible. Vote them out. These politicians are talking about bad CEOs and how they should be fired or lose their salaries for their mismanagement. I agree and to take it one step further, let’s hold Congress responsible for its mismanagement and get rid of them. They demonstrated that they don’t get it until it affects them so let’s make sure it affects them by removing them from office.