Debt: Bush v. Obama

I just did some simple research to find out the debt, Bush vs. Obama.

When Bush came into office on 1/20/01, the debt was 5.7 Trillion.
The debt when the democrats took over congress on 1/3/2007 was 8.5 Trillion.

That makes Bush responsible for approximately 2.8 Trillion of debt.

The democratic-run congress then ballooned that debt in only 2 year's time to 10.6 Trillion on January 20th, 2009, the day Barack took over.

Bush & the Republican led congress added 2.8 trillion of debt for the 6 years that they were in power, or approximately 460 billion a year.

Congress spent 2.1 Trillion over two years, or roughly 1.05 Trillion a year with the Democrats in charge and Bush as a lame duck president.

But that's nothing to what happened once Obama took office.
On January 20th of the next year, our debt was 12.3 trillion.
In one year, the Democrat-run congress with Barack at the helm gave us 1.7 Trillion of debt in one year... more then triple what the Republican led congress was racking up under Bush.

SOURCE:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Mort Zuckerman helped write Obama's speech

In one of those "that explains a lot" statements, Mort Zuckerman (US News & World Report Editor in Chief) admitted that he helped write one of President Obama's speeches.

This, in itself, is pretty damning.
More damning still is the yawn it produced in the media that covers the president.

Shouldn't someone in the media be outraged to find out that one of the EIC's of a major news organization was helping write the president's speech? Presumably before his magazine covered it?

Dow Jones Index, under Democrats

Democrats took over congress on Jan 5th, 2007.

On Jan 3rd, 2007, the DJI was at 12,800.18
That's when it started plunging downward.
On November 4th, 2008, the day that Barack was elected, the DJI was at:
9,625.28
The DJI was at 8,228 when Obama took office.

Freddie & Fannie, a brief history on financial regulation

I've been reading a lot of praise by those on the left for the Obama administration regarding their push for financial reform.

Its ironic for me to hear them blaming George Bush for 'not doing' anything. Particularly when he was the force that tried to get something done.

The New York Times was the first one to give the Bush administration credit for trying to oversee Freddie and Fannie. They did so way back on September 11, of 2003.

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

Most of us know what happened during that attempt to regulate the industry. But in case you don't, here's a short video lesson:

The Wall Street Journal was kind enough to sum up the whole sordid saga in a commentary provided by Karl Rove. Some highlights:
Because of this, the Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing.
I like to fact check, so I looked it up.
After all, if you're going to quote Karl Rove, someone isn't going to believe you. This is what the 2002 FY budget of George Bush said, in his first year in office [my emphasis in red, added]:

Uncertainties about the Federal Government’s liability
have increased in some areas. Consolidation has
increased bank size, and deregulation has allowed
banks to engage in many risky activities. Thus, the
loss to the deposit insurance funds can turn out to
be unusually large in some bad years. The potential
loss needs to be limited by large insurance reserves
and effective regulation. The large size of some GSEs
is also a potential problem. Financial trouble of a large
GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets,
affecting Federally insured entities and economic
activity.

Interesting, huh?
Its almost like... Republicans were on top of this the entire time.
Not convinced yet?
Read this quote:

There is some evidence that the mortgage industry
has seen an increase in the number of predatory loans.
Predatory loans, which carry excessive fees or other
unfair pricing structure, harm unsuspecting buyers.
Predatory loans are more prevalent in the subprime
market where conventional loans are made to higher risk
borrowers. The Government can improve mortgage market
efficiency by squeezing out predatory practices
through increased regulation and disclosure. In addition
to predatory lending, the mortgage industry also has
seen increased incidences of fraud.

Sound familiar?

Yes, the head of GM was forced out by Obama

There's been a lot of rewriting of history regarding Obama's control of GM. So I thought I'd remind people what happened.

Steve Rattner was a man without any experience in the car industry. According to New York magazine, he worked as a journalist, an investment banker, and then the head of a private equity fund.
His primary qualification for becoming the car czar was that he raised a lot of money for democrats.

This is what New York magazine said of his handling of the task force:

Six months after taking the job, Rattner (who declined to comment for this story) had helped to perform a seeming magic trick, rewriting the understanding between the car companies and the unions while bending the companies’ financiers—his friends and peers—to his will. With what seemed a cool, almost arrogant confidence—his casual dismissal of GM CEO Rick Wagoner reflected this quality—he had played a large role in restructuring the American car industry, accomplishing what few had thought possible a few months earlier, and in record time.

Still not convinced?
This was Politico at the time that it happened:

The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.

The next time that someone challenges that the administration is in charge of the auto industry, ask them what Steve Rattner's job was.

Your health insurance penalty is finally labeled a tax

Its too late to call this progress. It should have been labeled a tax before the health care bill was passed. But its more honest then it was before. From the NY Times:

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

What it comes down to is that the health care takeover is being challenged in court. Barack's administration can't defend taking money from the public unless they actually call it a tax.
Personally, I hope that when it goes to court, the plaintiffs will detail how the administration tried not to call it a tax, and how it was pitched to congress as something that was not a tax.

Providing health care tests for free?

You may wonder how insurance companies are going to make money. Well, I am at least. There is an ever-widening array of things that they are supposed to provide, without raising their premiums.

Here is one example from the NY Times:

The White House on Wednesday issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage for dozens of screenings, laboratory tests and other types of preventive care.

Who was the person in charge of this? HHS director Katleen Sebelius.
Welcome to the new fascism where companies have no control over what they do, or what they offer. Moreover, where they can't charge for services that they are required to provide.

Germany to increase health insurance premiums?

Now that we're on the path to government run insurance, stories are coming out about how its not working in other governments.
Let's talk about Germany, where they are raising taxes and cutting drug benifits to balance their health care program:

The measure is part of an overhaul of health care intended to plug an 11-billion euro ($13.8 billion) deficit in the public health-insurance system in 2011. It follows Cabinet agreement on June 29 to cuts in spending on drugs to reduce soaring costs to public health-insurance funds.

Neat.
Keep in mind, Germany was supposed to be one of the places where government run health care 'works'.

(Former) statements of Barack on Bin Laden

From a transcript of the second debate between McCain & Barack. October 2008:

...I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda. So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there. They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course, because that's the central front on terrorism. They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism....And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Uh huh. Please remember that he said that... our biggest national security priority.
He repeated that theme in November 12, of 2008:

President-elect Barack Obama wants to renew the U.S. commitment to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to his national security advisers.

Soooo... what happened?

An old GQ article on Obama

Sometimes, I find an article that I just want to bookmark for all eternity. Just 'cause I have a feeling that it will be relevant later on.

In September of 2007, GQ did a lengthy article on Barack. Although it is fawning at times:

One way to describe Obama is that underneath the inspirational leader who wants to change politics—and upon whom desperate Democrats, Independents, and not a few Republicans are projecting their hopes—is an ambitious, prickly, and occasionally ruthless politician. But underneath that guy is another one, an Obama who's keenly aware that presidential politics is about timing, and that at this extremely low moment in American political life, there is a need for someone—and he firmly believes that someone is him—to lift up the nation in a way no politician has in nearly half a century.

There are other areas of the interview that are downright damning

One of the riddles of the Obama campaign is, to what extent does a candidate who preaches a gospel of changing politics need to run a revolutionarily different kind of campaign? The question has gnawed at Obama since he entered the race. At his very first press conference as a candidate, a reporter asked Obama why he was employing a team of opposition researchers—aides who spend their days and nights digging up dirt on other candidates and often leaking that info, "anonymously," to the media.

But what I really thought was interesting is what he said about Iraq at the time:

"The fact of the matter is, I have the most specific plan in terms of how to get out of Iraq of any candidate," he lectured us.

Uh. Yeah. Right.

Democrats are raising money in Canada?

The next time you read about Democrats who are upset about Republicans raising money in shady ways for their campaigns, remember this story.

The Democrats went to Canada. Why? Because if you're not actually physically in the US, you aren't constrained by US election financing laws.

Sounds ridiculous, but its true. Uber reporter Lynn Sweet has the story:

The Giannoulias Democratic Illinois Senate campaign confirmed Monday--after prodding from the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee--that Alexi Giannoulias was in Canada on Sunday attending a fund-raiser at a trial lawyer convention in Vancouver that would benefit his Senate campaign.

It kinda makes sense that trial lawyers would figure out a way to escape restrictions on their fund raising.

Great article by Jonah Goldberg on Dem's lament

I don't want to quote it too much, because I don't want to spoil it. However, this line is genius:

This misplaced griping stems not from Obama's failure to "think big" but from a misreading of the political climate: Liberals thought they'd be popular.

Exactly.
The left is still trying to figure out why, even though they took over, they still aren't popular.

The New Republic, on Palin

Its pretty funny to watch the left try to figure out who Palin is. In the latest New Republic, the latest spin is that she's a media genius. Check out these two lines:

In the midst of this aggressive visibility, however, Palin keeps a tight grip on her time in the public eye.

Uh huh. She's so smart, that she keeps out of the public eye in her aggressive visibility.

The president urges patience with Iraq

Every once in a while, I run across something that I need to archive.
Like this article:

In his weekly radio address today, [the president] once again framed the war in Iraq as a battle against al-Qaeda and urged the American people to give his troop surge strategy more time to be successful. The president started off this week by giving listeners a preview of his speech at the American Legion national convention this week.

I thought it was interesting to hear the president urge for more time. Especially considering that at the time the president was asking for more time, Senator Obama was criticizing the war.

You see, this was President Bush, in August of 2007.

To be fair to Obama, I have to quote him at length:

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq's leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.

That's not all he said. Please read the complete speech.
Its also important to note that this was not a one time position of the president. A month later, in September 12, 2007, he said:

I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.

My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war; by taking a new approach to press for a new accord on reconciliation within Iraq; by talking to all of Iraq's neighbors to press for a compact in the region; and by confronting the human costs of this war.

First, we need to immediately begin the responsible removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war. Our troops have performed brilliantly. They brought Saddam Hussein to justice. They have fought for over four years to give Iraqis a chance for a better future. But they cannot - and should not - bear the responsibility for resolving the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war.

It is now July of 2010.
As Barack said, "...I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006."
He basically opposed it until he was in office.
Now I wouldn't blame him if he actually turned around and said, "You know what? President Bush was right to stay in Iraq"
But Barack won't do that. Its not that he isn't smart enough to realize that Bush was right. Clearly, he does. Its either that his ego is too big for him to realize it, or he drowned himself in his own pronouncements that Bush was wrong that he made people believe him. And now, he can't admit it, or Bush looks smarter then he is.

There are a lot of people that I do not want as my leader. The very first category is the one who cannot admit when they were clearly wrong.

Post Office = The future of health care

Whenever I speak to people about the upcoming health care takeover, I bring up the United States Post Office. I don't think that you can get a greater idea of what we're in for with government health care then the post office.

Think about it. You wait in line, usually for 15 minutes, just to send a package. The person behind the desk usually has an attitude that normally runs the gamut between indifference and incompetence. They move at a snails pace because they can never get fired.
We've all had this experience. Yet, some people defend the USPS as an example of efficiency.

CBS has an article about the current crisis in the USPS. Despite government oversight (or more likely, from it) the USPS:

Kearney said the agency is facing a $7 billion loss in 2011. The rate increase will bring in an extra $2.5 billion, meaning it still faces a $4.7 billion loss.

This is a government run agency that has the worst customer service of any organization that I've ever run into. In my opinion, its just a peek of what we should expect out of government run health care in the future.

Under fire, for dancing

The way I look at it: if you are wearing Kevlar as part of your normal everyday job of representing my country, you are entitled to occasionally blow off steam.

Some of our troops in Afghanistan, performing Lady GaGa's Telephone.

The rumor is that these men are now receiving some criticism for this. I hope that isn't true.

I also hope that Lady GaGa goes over there and performs in person for them. They have a great sense of humor.
Stay safe guys.

Did Barack tell the truth?

When the Blagojevich scandal broke, the White House went into full spin mode about how they were 'investigating' everything, and that they'd let us know right away what they came up with.

Of course, they never found any evidence that the WH did anything wrong. Go figure.
From Time magazine:

This all seemed rather open and shut. Since the press had no information suggesting otherwise, President Obama was allowed to move on from the scandal. But recent testimony in the Blagojevich trial suggests that Craig's report and Obama's effort at transparency failed to tell the entire story.

On Tuesday, an Illinois union leader, Thomas Balanoff, testified that he received a phone call the day before the election from President Obama to discuss Valerie Jarrett and the Senate seat. Balanoff would serve as a go-between, connecting the Obama inner circle to the Blagojevich inner circle.

Remember how there was no one at all, according to the WH, that had any knowledge of any deal? Well, that's if you don't include the president's attempt to get a friend into a senate seat.

This is typical Chicago politics. Which means that its corrupt, for those of you who are not from Chicago.

Health Care Bill makes ERs more crowded

Thus, another fallacy of the health care bill falls to pieces. From USA Today:

People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.

The big question for me is:
Why didn't any of the press say this BEFORE the health care bill was passed? This was a huge fallacy that was presented by the president to sell health care. Shouldn't someone have called bullshit on him?

No, the health care bill will not make things cheaper for everyone. In fact, we'll be putting our grandchildren in debt.
Yes, you will be taxed if you do not buy insurance. Its a government mandate.
It will not promote cost savings. Nothing that is mandatory will create savings.

This is a giant boondoggle, and the quicker its killed, the better.

Beck connects Soros to our current oil crisis

I hate conspiracy theories. But this administration gives me pause. Particularly when I see things like this...

Hannity summing up Barack's unemployment incompetence

With guest Newt Gingritch, the two talk about how the stimulus bill was completely ineffective.