About Me

Name: Bob Wood aka...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Carter slams Bush on market crisis

Carter slams Bush on market crisis

Quote:
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Former President Jimmy Carter said on Friday the "atrocious economic policies" of the Bush administration had caused the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Carter told reporters on a stopover in Brussels that "profligate spending," massive borrowing and dramatic tax cuts since President George W. Bush took office in 2001 were behind the market turmoil and economic crisis.

"I think it's because of the atrocious economic policies of the Bush administration," said the 84-year-old Democrat, who served in the White House from 1977-1981 during a period of high inflation and energy crisis.
...

Eight years ago, the United States had a budget surplus, low inflation and a stable, strong economy, he said.

Jimmy Carter? 
    • The man whose administration started the current mess with the birth of Fannie Mae?
    • The man who presided over double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates?
    • The man who deposed the Shah of Iran and started the Middle East turmoil from which we are still trying to extract ourselves?
    • The man who allowed our Iranian embassy to be overrun and 52 U.S. citizens to be held hostage for over 400 days?
THAT Jimmy Carter?

Well, Mr. Carter, I think senility has finally overtaken you.

Eight years ago, we had a Republican House of Representatives and a Republican Senate that had dragged ex-Prez Bill Clinton (D) kicking and screaming into a balanced budget. Do you remember "We can balance it in ten years," "We can balance it in seven years," "We might be able to balance it in eight years," "We can probably balance it in five years?"

Eight years ago, the United States had not been attacked by Islamic terrorists under the direction of Usama bin Laden - who Clinton had refused to take into custody on three occasions, and who was in our sniper's sights on at least one occasion when Clinton was too busy playing golf to be bothered with giving the order to fire.

Eight years ago, the stock market (DJIA) closed at 8900 on September 18, 2001. Prior to the implementation of the Bush tax cuts, the market dipped to 7500 in October 2002. Since then, the Dow has been on a steady climb to high of 14,000 until the election season got into full swing in October 2007, and since then we have heard a steady drumbeat of "the failed economic policies of George W. Bush" from Democrat politicians and their willing accomplices in the media.  Finally, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crises cratered the market this month. And you started it, Jimmy! And Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank exacerbated these twin crises by blocking Republican attempts to reform these two corrupt entities.

I think it's past time for you to sit down and shut up, Jimmy.
 
This is the United States of America, and we are Americans!  We will survive this current financial mess.  After all, this is nothing compared to the Great Depression.  We worked our way out of that, and we will work our way out of this little problem as well.
 
All we Americans ask - no, demand - is that government get out of our way!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Couple of Questions for Obama

Following the second McCain-Obama debate, I still have a couple of questions which popped up as I read this article.
 
Senator Obama, you have said repeatedly in your campaign that you want to repeal President Bush's across-the-board tax cuts that benefitted everyone.  When my tax bill goes up, how will that not be a tax increase?
 
Senator Obama, you said that you are going to provide an income tax cut for 95% of the American people.  How can you do that when 45% of the American people pay no income taxes?
 
Senator McCain said that your "tax increases will increase taxes on 50 percent of small business revenue."  Senator Obama, you responded that "only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year."  Do you realize that your "few percent" translates to 57 percent, and that your increases will cost jobs and raise prices?
 
Barack Obama said, "Actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."   Mr. Obama, you have proposed over $800 billion in new spending while our federal budget is $3 trillion.  Do you really think there is that much waste in the federal government, and are you really proposing to cut over 25% of the federal government?
 
During the debate, the question was asked whether or not health care was a right, a privilege or a responsibility.  You said that health care was a right.  Senator Obama, the United States Consitution defines our form of government and limits the power of government to make laws which diminish the rights of its citizens.  Where in the Constitution is the "right" to healthcare enumerated?
 
I know you are very busy trying to get elected right now.  But when you get a chance, can you get back to me on these questions?
 
Thanks.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Plain and Simple...

Liz Sidota has the right idea in mind.  McCain needs to sieze the offense.  But he probably needs to do a bit of homework first.

McCain says he was a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution.  He needs to become one again. 
By embracing true conservative principles, he would be able to effectively communicate with the masses that gave Ronaldus Magnus two landslide victories.
 
McCain has repeatedly said that "Washington spends too much."  And he is absolutely correct.  He should then list three or four of the most outrageous pork barrel expenditures he can think of off the top of his head.  In his 26 years in Congress, he can surely come up with a lot of different outrageous examples.  (My favorite was the study to determine whether a housefly executes a half-loop or a half-roll in order to land upside-down on the ceiling.)
 
McCain has said that taxes are too high.  He is right.  When it takes the combined incomes of two wage-earners in a household to pay for a roof over their heads, food on the table, gasoline in the tank, home utilities, clothing, raising a child (or children), medical and dental care, and all of the associated expenses, taxes are too high at 40-50% of income.  Our governemnt did just fine without an income tax until 1913, and ever since its enactment the government has used it to exercise control over the way we live our lives.  We have now created two, maybe three, generations of latch-key kids who do not know what it's like to come home from school each day to a loving parent.
 
The bailout bill is the largest intrusion of the federal government into the free enterprise marketplace since the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said, "... [T]his bill is nothing more than a slippery slope to Socialism."  The United States Constitution gave Congress no authority to do either, and the Law of Unintended Consequences has once again taken over.  And once again, Congress has proved that the Federal Government can not do anything as well as the private sector.  For one thing, they just don't understand the profit motive that keeps business going.  They just bailed out failure.

McCain says he will name the names of the earmarkers, and there was $110 billion worth of pork-barrell spending in the bailout.  He needs to name the guilty parties.  And while he is at it, he needs to defend President Bush's record on the current economic crisis and name the Democrats who have been feeding at Fannie's and Freddie's trough while impeding McCain's and Bush's efforts since 2003 to regulate these two behemoths.  President Reagan's 11th Commandment should still apply:  "Speak no ill of a fellow Republican."  It should be expanded to include, "Let no Lie against a fellow Republican go unchallenged."

Once he has done these things, he can really draw the distinctions between himself and The Chosen One.  McCain said of Obama, "Here's a man who has written two autobiographies, but his life is hardly an open book."  He should demand an accounting of any accomplishments on behalf of other people that Obama cares to list.  He has none. 

Obama has spent his entire career moving from one "job" to the next without accomplishing anything noteworthy.  That includes the past associations Obama cultivated with criminals, terrorists, and racists to advance his career.
 
Obama has been up to his eyeballs in ACORN and its criminal activities.  The lamestream media has neither investigated or reported on his activities and association with it.  But we do know that ACORN is busily "registering" voters - as they do every election cycle.  You would think by now they would have registered every homeless and dead person in all fifty states.  And used every vacant lot and empty storefront as an address.  I guess now they are working on every online alias and nom-de-plume...
 
And of course, McCain must relate - with everyday examples - how disastrous Obama's policies will be to each one of us.  John McCain must let the electorate know that he understands, as Ronald Reagan did, that more government is not the answer - it is the problem.
 
UPDATE:  Has everyone (including me, apparently!) forgotten that we are involved in a war against Islamic fascism?  They have not forgotten about us.  And does anyone really think that Barack Obama has ANY experience whatsoever to lead this country in a time of peril against our homeland?  He has already said that (paraphrasing), "First, I'll call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and tell them to end the war."  He does not know that the Joint Chiefs are Presidential advisors, not a part of the chain of command.  This is basic stuff.  Obama has no experience on which to judge any military advice he is given or to understand the formulation of military strategy.
 
It is a cinch that the Islamo-fascists will see him as a weak "leader", and we will see a whole new series of attacks against United States interests around the world and here at home.  With our economy in a weakened state due to the politically-correct meddling in the private markets, can we tolerate being militarily weak as well? 
 
I think not.
 
Reagan also said that peace comes through strength.  America has never been attacked because we were militarily strong.  The only attacks against America have come when it was perceived that we were weak.  And Obama, Pelosi, and Reid would once again decimate the military budgets in order to use the funds for more social programs (read, vote-buying schemes.)
 
McCain should hit him hard on both of these points.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Bailout - Part 2

This was an emergency!  I know because even most conservative pundits told me (and all of you) that our economy - yea, even the world economy - could not survive without a taxpayer-funded cash investment.  It took two weeks for Congress to deal with the "emergency" of catastrophic proportions that needed an immediate fix!  But Congress did act - eventually.  And what it did collectively is shameful!
 
The House of Representatives forgot all about the "Representatives" part of its name, and the representatives - forgetting all about their constituents' wishes and in their own infinite wisdom - fell into lockstep with the Senate and passed this turkey of a monstrosity.  Previously, the House had defeated a 100-page bill (which had replaced 42-pages, which had replaced 3-pages that the White House handed them) and passed a 450-page bill that nobody had time to read, much less study, before the vote was taken.
 
So, now everything is right with the world and its financial markets.  Right?
 
Not so fast...
 
The stock market, which had been up by $300 (DJIA) prior to the vote, closed down $157.  That is a $457 drop in the space of a few hours.  If this was supposed to be such a great thing for Wall Street, why didn't Wall Street celebrate by going through the roof?
 
Now I don't claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to such high finance.  I am just an average guy, probably like most of you.  I work everyday, I take care of things at home, I pay my bills.  If I don't have the money for something, I don't buy it!  I do have a mortgage, and I have had car payments (which thankfully have ended for the time being.)  I now can afford to save a few extra dollars every month so that maybe I won't have to make a car payment again.
 
I like simple, and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not something that lends itself to simple.  But these two institutions are not your ordinary companies.  They are Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE's), and I can find nowhere in The United States Constitution a provision for GSE's. In the "real world," companies go belly up every day.  Other companies move in and replace the vacuum left behind.  But things are different with the federal government, apparently.
 
I read somewhere that Fannie and Freddie are holding some $12 trillion in mortgages.  I assume that each of those mortgages represent some property - houses, land, office buildings - and that those things have some intrinsic value.  So, what happens if Fannie and Freddie go toes up?
 
For one thing, the government would be out of the GSE mortgage business, and that would be one less government problem that needs to be solved in the future.  Unfortunately for government, it would once again prove that the government can not run anything as efficiently and as profitably as private enterprise.  Government created this mess, and once again the taxpayer takes it in the pocketbook.
 
For another, I suspect that some of the big banks, insurance companies, mortgage giants, and Warren Buffett's of the world would have bought their assets - the mortgages representing all of that property.  Maybe they could have gotten a good deal, like $0.50 on the dollar... or less.  The private entities - unencumbered by the "political correctness" of gubmint vote-buying schemes and other corruption - would have then turned a profit on those assets, creating a taxable income which would have provided revenue to pay off the government.
 
Problem solved!  Simple!
 
Here's Congress' solution.  Already running on a $3 trillion budget for this year, soak the taxpayer for another one-fourth - $700 billion.  Prop up the corruptness at Fannie, Freddie, and within Congress itself, and life goes on.
 
And "Oh, yeah, I almost forgot!  Add on another 350 pages of pork projects that we could not get to pass on their own merit."
 
Declan McCullagh, in an excellent analysis Bailout bill loops in green tech, IRS snooping, writes about some of the non-bailout stuff that no Senator or Representative can defend to his contituents without saying "Well, it's not a perfect bill.  But sometimes you have to give up some things in order to get what you must have in the bill.  I wish we had time for me to explain it fully to you.  By the way, don't forget to vote for me on November 4th."
 
McCullagh details a lot of unrelated junk in this bill.  (Parenthetical remarks below are mine.)
  • Renewable energy tax credits (designed to prop up the wind and ethanol industries that can't survive without the taxpayers' help.)
  • Tax credits for "cellulosic biofuels" and for "carbon dioxide sequestration." (What the heck do those terms mean?)
  • An extension of an alternative fuel credit.
  • Tax credits for "new qualified plug-in electric-drive motor vehicles."
  • Bicycle commuters get a nod, as do regulations aimed at "residential top-loading clothes washers." (Clothes washers?  Bicycles?)

And the IRS gets to continue "undercover" operations against the citizenry as we try to comply with the tax laws that nobody understands - not even the IRS!  This one was dead in January 2008, but nobody bothered to bury the corpse and here it is resurrected.

Syndicated radio talker Neal Boortz listed a lot more of what is wrong with this law (now that President Bush has signed it within minutes of passage.)  And last Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh linked us to the entire bill.  My head hurts from trying to read this thing.
 
In all fairness, I should point out that President George W. Bush sounded the alarm bells on this looming problem in 2003.  Bush proposed tighter controls on Fannie and Freddie at that time.  But the Democrats were still having a hissy-fit over the "stolen" election of 2000, and he was summarily dismissed by the likes of Barney Frank, D-MA, in the House and Chris Dodd, D-IL, in the Senate.  The latter two said there was no problem, and we must have believed them.  Nothing happened.  Until now.
 
Now we have turned over $700 billion to "rescue" the two GSE's, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, one man with three months to go on the job, with the oversight of Frank and Dodd, are going to correct the problem. Paulson says, "We may even turn a profit for the taxpayers."  I pray that it will happen.  I don't expect it to happen.
 
Take another look at McCullagh's article, and pay particular attention to the failed entities that our government has propped up with our tax dollars.  Now look down at your family's financial stake in these companies.
 
$17,000 plus.
 
Did you get your stock certificates yet?
 
Me, neither...
 
And California - the bastion of liberal thought and "good government" - is waiting in the wings and begging Wahington, DC for $7 billion to pay its bills.  Who will be next?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

$700 Billion Bailout

I - like many of you, no doubt - have read and heard a lot of reasons why we MUST have the $700 billion bailout passed immediately, if not sooner.  Otherwise, the world as we know it will come to an end.  Isn't that pretty much what Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said almost two weeks ago?
 
Well, it's been all of that time, and the world is still here.  Which is not to say it will continue.  I may not be smart enough to know any better.
 
But how about our United States Senate?  This is supposedly the most important economic "rescue" legislation in our generation (if not in history!), and the Senate just grafts it into a "pork bill" that the Senate had already passed, but the House of Representatives never got around to voting on.  The New York Post has the story:

Stuffed into the 451- page bill are more than $1.7 billion worth of targeted tax breaks to be doled out for a sty full of eyebrow-raising purposes over the next decade...
 
The Congressional Budget Office said the package of breaks - including obvious pork and some more defensible tax-relief measures - will add about $112 billion to budget deficits over the next five years because the bill doesn't contain enough offsetting revenue hikes to keep the budget balanced.

As if the budget was ever balanced in recent history!
 
But the Senate could not even give the bailout its own legislation, but had to add it to something else they want to pass.  And this is supposed to be the most important legislation of our time?
 
And should we really be turning over $700 billion to entities overseen by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-IL, and Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA?  Aren't they the ones who were in charge when the trouble started?
 
Once again, it looks like we have the best government money can buy!  Sheesh!
Tags: Bailout  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Biden At The Debate

Biden said in the debate:

IFILL: Sen. Biden, you voted for this bankruptcy bill. Sen. Obama voted against it. Some people have said that mortgage- holders really paid the price.

BIDEN: Well, mortgage-holders didn't pay the price. Only 10 percent of the people who are -- have been affected by this whole switch from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 -- it gets complicated.

...with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.

That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under.


Great!  Let's all go out, buy million dollar houses, and declare bankruptcy.  When the judge finds out that we can only afford a $100,000 house, we're home free!

Biden only misses one point:  It is NOT my house until I pay off the mortgage!  Until then, it belongs to the mortgage company.  Where are the mortgage companies going to get the $900,000 difference?

If Biden's plan were to take effect, you could watch the mortgage industry disappear!  And the home-building, lumber, sawmill, plumbing, roofing, electrical, and all related industries.
 
Another Note:  Senator Biden, for all of his 35 years experience in the Senate, also seemed to miss the Constitutional role of the Vice-President.  He also said that the Executive Branch is defined in Article 1 of The Constitution.  Sorry, Senator, but that's Article 2.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wow! That was fast!

That was a fast hour and a half!
 
Sarah did real well!  As a former broadcaster (almost totally recovered now!), I have found the news (spin) over the last week regarding Governor Palin to be a setup.
 
Yes, a setup. 
 
For over a week now, we have been hearing the press tell us that she is a novice and a dummy with no political experience.  We have been hearing that Senator Joe Biden - with his YEARS of experience would take her apart and wipe the floor with her.  We have seen her "incompetent" answers (edited, of course) to Charlie Gibson's and Katie Couric's questioning.  A self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
Well, the MSM was right! 
 
We viewers who watched an unedited Sarah Palin tonight are just too stupid and un-nuanced to recognize what the MSM has been telling us.
 
Shame on us all...
 
What we saw tonight was that Sarah Palin is all of us.  She has the same day-to-day problems all of us face, she talks in complete sentences just like us, and she says take me or leave me just the way I am - just like us.
 
She has been on the national stage for just over a month, and she has been very well briefed on the foreign policy things that she needed to know.  She obviously had watched Biden's performance in the Democrat debates and quoted him to his face without Biden laying a glove on her in rebuttal.
 
Let's face it, though.  Palin is not running for President, no matter how much fear the MSM shovels our way about McCain's age or "health problems" with the implication that McCain will attain his eternal reward prior to completing his elected term.  There is no reason to believe the MSM's assessment.  But if there were, I saw a Sarah Palin who will begin a training program on November 5 to make her ready to take over, if necessary.
 
And I have no doubt she is up to the task ahead.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's All Over!

It's 6:15 pm EDT, the news is on, and I am depressed!

McCain has pulled out of Michigan (no more advertising, canceled event next week) and Sarah Palin has lost the debate...

She's obviously not qualified...

McCain voted for the bailout "pork" bill...

And the polls are all in Obama's favor...

Obama wins!

Isn't this pretty much what we heard about Republicans in 2000 and 2004?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The First Presidential Debate

Admittedly, I am opposed to Obama, but I can't say I am all that excited about McCain, either.

He did not articulate what caused the current financial crisis when Obama left him an opening with "the failed policies of the last eight years." He could have - and should have - pounced on the long history that stretches back to 90's and social engineering through a government-run "private" enterprise. And he should have said that government has no business in this market under our Constitution and the fact that he was among the first to call attention to its abuses. He could have even named names...

He should have hammered Obama on taxes.
    • Obama said that McCain wanted to lower corporate taxes, and McCain should have lowered the boom on who actually pays corporate taxes.
    • Obama said that he was going to lower taxes for 95% of American workers. That is impossible, since about 40-45% of workers don't pay income taxes at all!
    • McCain should have been even more forceful on Obama's spending plans - almost $1 trillion dollars in new programs! When Obama said he was going to close corporate loopholes to pay for them, McCain should have pointed out that there are not a trillion dollars of loopholes left. He should have nailed him on the nationalization of healthcare.
    • Obama never listed a single item in his spending agenda that he could cut in light of the $700 billion bailout package. McCain should have pounced on this as typical of the tax-and-spend liberal crowd.
When he got to foreign policy, McCain did okay. He obviously knows his stuff.

McCain spent far too much time bashing Republicans, and never once took on the Democrats. Granted, the Republicans squandered their majority in both houses of Congress, and I don't think they deserved to hold it. But when the titular head of your party bashes you, it doesn't really inspire a whole lot of confidence.

There are certainly areas in which the Democrats should shoulder their share of the blame.  The Dems are also responsible for the current energy situation. The Democrats even thought it was more important to take an August vacation - instead of taking action - while the American people paid $4.00 per gallon for gasoline that fuels the engine of our economy.

They imposed the ban on off-shore drilling, the creation of the Grand Escalante Staircase National Monument (which put tremendous amounts of low-sulfur coal out of reach to mining for power generation), the creation of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (and the ban on drilling for oil and natural gas there), the piling on of endless regulations that have kept us from building a nuclear power plant or oil refinery in over thirty years, among other things that are much more important than saying that we don't need another "stubborn" President.
 
Best one-liner of the night:
McCain just said, in regard to sitting down and talking to our adversaries (Iran, Korea, Syria) without preconditions, "I will not set the White House visitors schedule before I am elected. Heck, I don't even have a seal, yet!"

McCain limped home with this one, in my humble opinion. But just barely.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »