My PC crashed the day before Obama's "jobs" speech, where we discovered that our spendthrift President wants to fork over another $450 billion in hard-earned taxpayer cash for Stimulus II, the American Jobs Act. Because the federal government doesn't actually pay for anything anymore, the bill for Obama's latest spend-o-rama will come due on some future date, to be paid by some future put-upon taxpaying schlub, assuming there are any taxpayers left by then. Oh wait. I nearly forgot. Obama said every penny of Stimulus II is paid for. It's easy to forget that, mainly because Obama didn't say how it will be paid for. He just waved his magic future spending cut wand and commanded the congressional Super Committee to add another $450 billion to the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts the bipartisan committee will never agree upon. No problem. Heck, I don't know why Obama didn't just order that committee to cut $14.6 trillion from future spending and payoff the entire national debt. That would really solve our problems…but only if you believe in magic like Obama does. Using Obama's "it's all paid for because I told them to pay for it later" (ill) logic, everything the federal government has ever done is paid for, because it all will be paid by someone, somehow, someday. The two trillion dollar question is HOW, but our President can't be bothered with such trivialities, not when there's an election to win.

While I was off the grid, our feckless President urged Congress to pass his jobs bill immediately. He took to the campaign trail, leading his shrinking base in choruses of "pass the bill", even though the bill hadn't even been presented to Congress yet. The Prez ain't much of a details guy. We are seeing more evidence of that as we learn the White House pressured the OMB to approve the Solyndra deal in time for VP Biden's photo op, despite the OMB's objections, and despite a credit agency's estimate that Solyndra would run out of money in September 2011, which is exactly what did happen. That cost the put-upon taxpaying schlubs another half billion bucks, but it almost seems like we're talking about Monopoly money these days, the numbers are so large. I remember a time when a half billion dollars seemed like a lot of money, but that was before the Great Fiscal Insanity descended on America like a plague of locusts. Nowadays, a half billion dollars sounds almost like spare change. I'm sure all you put-upon taxpaying schlubs out there can cough up that much dough, can't you ? After all, you are the backstop for every collosal waste of money that any politician in Washington D.C. can dream up.

The Prez is out on the trail, talking about all those infrastructure jobs again, all those roads and bridges that are falling apart. I wonder how that can be the case after Obama's $817 billion Stimulus I allegedly addressed that very same problem over the last two years. I mean, the Department Of Transportation's entire 2011 budget is only $79 billion. After Stimulus I, those "shovel-ready projects" should have fixed us up, no ? The President's words today say otherwise, but I guess y'all aren't supposed to remember what Obama said last year or the year before. If you do remember, the White House will call it a smear, which you can report to Obama's internet snitch line. When I'm finished with this post, maybe I'll report myself. Then again, I don't want the Feds raiding my house like I was some kind of Gibson wood-buying desperado. Perhaps I'll make a donation to the Re-elect Clueless Obama campaign instead. A very small donation.

If I do report myself to Obama's snitch line, I guess I better have some advice for the President, so here it is….Mr. President, we don't need another $450 billion in temporary stimulus measures that will wear off a year from now. That will change nothing over the long haul. All it will do is put us put-upon taxpaying schlubs even deeper in debt. What we need are permanent changes to help our businesses thrive and succeed in today's world. Nothing else will work. Get some new economists. The ones you have don't seem to get it, just like you don't get it. Our jobs don't come from the government. Our jobs come from the business sector. Stop treating business like it's your enemy. It isn't. It's the golden goose, and killing it is never a good idea.

Anyone still wondering who is the forgotten man ? If so, it's you, the taxpayers. You are the people who must pay for all this spending madness. The big spenders in Washington D.C. care not a whit for you. They are abusing you at every turn. They take your hard-earned dollars and hand it over to their cronies without a thought given to how it will affect you, the people. Your government isn't serving you. It's robbing you blind. Future generations will suffer because of it, and the big spenders don't care anything about them either. The people are being sold down the river so the big government types can throw your money at any constituency it thinks will garner them some votes. They have divided the nation against itself for the same purpose. Things have deteriorated to a point where everybody in this country has their hand out, looking for the government to bail them out. It's pathetic. It's not the America I love, and it sure isn't just the so-called welfare queens doing it. It's everyone. It's all the corporate CEO's, Wall Street, banks, foreign governments, the United Nations, unions, the military-industrial complex, farmers, health-care hucksters, etc. It's all the lobbyists, lawyers, activist groups, cronies, campaign donators, even the government bailing out itself at taxpayer expense. It's Democrats and Republicans doing it. Everyone expects to be subsidized by the American taxpayer. It's endemic. It's everyone. And we have stood by and let it all happen. It's time to wake up, America, because our time is running out.

I was reading a New York Times article about how Chrysler was repaying it's bailout loans six years early. This prompted the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to praise the Great And Powerful President Oz-bama for saving the Chrysler car company against the wishes of the evil Republican flying monkeys. Presumably, the flying monkeys wanted to kill Chrysler so they could laugh maniacally from atop their piles of ill-gotten gold at all the misery and pain they were able to inflict on Americans, because that's just the way evil Republican flying monkeys roll. They get off on inflicting pain and suffering, because, you know, they're E-V-I-L, along the lines of Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies.

I mention Dr. Evil only because he will most likely be the Republican nominee for President in 2012, unless Sarah Palin enters the race and out-evils him (speaking of Palin, some harebrained MSNBC talking head tried to accuse Palin of a criime for putting an American flag on the side of her tour bus. No kidding. Apparently, Palin Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well).

The DNC said the evil Republican flying monkeys wanted to "let Detroit go bankrupt". Ah, I curse those evil monkey sob's !!!……Hey, wait a minute !!! Chrysler DID go through bankruptcy in 2009, after securing over $13 billion in bailouts from the American taxpayers. Oh well. I guess the DNC can't be bothered with fact-checking when they have a shot at some good old evil Republican flying monkey bashing. The DNC has elections to win. This is certainly no time for the truth. The DNC might also have mentioned that the initial $4 billion bailout loan to Chrysler was made by the Bush administration, not the Great And Powerful Oz-bama, but I suppose that is another inconvenient truth, best swept under the rug.

Here's what the New York Times reported about the Chrysler loan repayment:

Chrysler paid back on Tuesday $7.6 billion in loans from the American and Canadian governments, paving the way for its Italian partner, Fiat, to increase its control over the Detroit carmaker.

The repayment of loans and interest owed to the United States Treasury and Export Development Canada is a significant milestone in Chrysler’s methodical comeback from bankruptcy in 2009.

Now the company’s revival will enter a new phase that depends heavily on its alliance with Fiat, which on Tuesday increased its stake in Chrysler to 46 percent, from 30 percent.

Fiat will most likely increase its ownership to 51 percent by the end of the year. Terms of Chrysler’s federal bailout allow the Italian company to gain an additional 5 percent interest when a prototype of a new fuel-efficient compact car is ready for production in the United States

That's great news about Chrysler repaying it's loan and all, but did anyone else notice that Chrysler will become a foreign-owned company as a result ??? The American taxpayers put up $13 billion to bailout an American company so it could become an Italian company ? [insert curse word here]

The Great And Powerful Oz-bama released a statement calling Chrysler's repayment a "significant milestone", and went on to say he wouldn't let Detroit die, even though it took some tough decisions and yadda, yadda…

What's more interesting here is how Chrysler "paid back" it's bailouts. First, Oz-bama forgave the $4 billion in loans that Bush gave Chrysler, along with $3.2 billion in bankruptcy financing. See how great Chrysler is doing in "paying us back" already ??? Then, as mentioned before, Fiat bought Chrysler stock at a reduced price, which raised $1.3 billion for Chrysler (and will end with Fiat owning the majority stake in Chrysler). Then, Chrysler pulled the General Motors trick, paying off one loan while acquiring another government loan (known as a "wash"). Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has signaled approval of a new $3.5 billion loan for Chrysler. Chrysler acquired most of the rest of the money by taking out bank loans.

To sum up, American taxpayers gave Chrysler $13 billion so it could pay back about $4 billion to date, and end up being owned by a foreign company. Chrysler will never pay back more than half the money. Chrysler went through bankruptcy in spite of the bailouts (which is what the evil Republican flying monkeys suggested in the first place). This is the "success" Obama wants to trumpet. [insert curse word here] Btw, Chrysler's entire company is worth $4.8 billion, less than the money the taxpayers have already lost. But I hear Italy is thrilled.

On a related note, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is talking about all the jobs that were saved in Detroit due to the bailouts. That is something to be happy about, but unemployment in Detroit is still 11.3%, far above the national average, and from January 2009 when Oz-bama became President to now, Detroit has actually lost jobs.

Maybe I'll start listening to those evil Republican flying monkeys. At least with them, I don't feel like I'm watching David Copperfield's act. With Oz-bama, it always seems to be smoke and mirrors, where things magically disappear.

Liberals, after 8 years of complaining about President Bush running up the federal debt (as did I), and after 20+ years of complaining about President Reagan running up a relatively minor amount of debt (Obama ran up nearly as much debt in his first year as Reagan did in two full terms), now wholly embrace Democrats running up the debt at a pace unmatched in American history. Obama makes Bush look like an amateur debt runner-upper by comparison, but I see no outcry from liberals over this. Liberals have completely switched course, completely switched arguments. Now, they demonize Republicans for insisting additional federal spending be paid for (as demanded by the Democrats own PAYGO legislation, which liberals trumpet. Go figure). Somebody will have to explain this to me, because I can't make any sense of it whatsoever.

Liberals babble on about tax cuts for the rich or something, but that doesn't make much sense either. If the Bush tax cuts for the rich were reversed, it would only add around $50 billion per year in federal revenue (the amount is arguable. Could be less. Could be more). Reversing the Bush tax cuts would barely make a dent in our yearly trillion+ dollar deficits. Reversing the Bush tax cuts wouldn't even offset the additional federal spending and borrowing announced in the last week, not to mention that nearly all economists agree raising taxes during a recession is a really bad idea. History agrees, though Obama and his Democratic Superfriends do not. I call them Suprefriends because they have superhuman powers that normal people do not possess. For example, they can turn borrowing $1.5 trillion per year into a GOOD thing. Bush could NEVER have gotten away with that, being a mere mortal and (ick) Republican. The Superfriends can also pass PAYGO and then completely ignore it without generating so much as a peep of protest from the mainstream media. The Superfriends can even praise themselves for passing PAYGO months AFTER completely ignoring it, and the peepless media still doesn't peep. Instead, the media continues peeping about whether there might be a racist among the millions of Tea Party members. They've been peeping for, let's see, about 17 months over that one, because, you know, President Obama is black (well, half-black. Close enough, I guess). Maybe the Tea Partiers should come out with a statement saying they are only protesting Obama's white half. Maybe that would please the race-based liberal media's sensibilities.

But I digress. This post is supposed to be about spending money we don't have, which has become the preferred way of life for Obama and his Superfriends (Shazzam ! Responsibility gone !). Here are a couple weekly updates on the Superfriends Spend-a-Palooza Spectacular:

1) After decades of Congress ripping off the Social Security Trust Fund, Social Security finds itself in the red this year (I'm sure there's no connection there, lol. The Superfriends tell me there isn't, but still, I'm suspicious. I don't have superpowers, but I can add and subtract). Congress says it is going to dip into the $2.54 trillion SS Trust Fund to make up for a $41 billion SS payout shortage this year. Here's Allan Sloan of the Washington Post to explain how it will work:

This year's cash deficit, the first since the early 1980s and the biggest ever, means the government will have to borrow money to redeem some of the Treasury securities in the trust fund. Even at a time when Uncle Sam is borrowing $1.5 trillion a year to keep his checks from bouncing, $41 billion is real money.

Question: Golly gee, Mr. WaPo reporter, why would we have to borrow money to get the SS funds when there's $2.54 trillion in the Trust Fund ?

Answer: Because there isn't anything in the Trust Fund. Congress spent those funds long, long ago, you rubes. You've been swindled by your own government. Still want to hand your health care over to them ?

Thus, $41 billion is added to the deficit to coverup the SS scam.

(Note – Everyone should read and understand the information in the previous link about SS, especially those liberal folks who've been foolishly arguing with me about SS for years.)

2). A few weeks after Obama and his Superfriends passed a financial regulation reform bill that they laughably claimed would prevent future bailouts, they passed….more bailouts. This time it is $26.1 billion to bail out state workers and Medicaid. Obama said the bill will save the jobs of 300,000 teachers and other government workers, such as police officers. Unlike previous Dem bills, this bill is actually paid for (golf clap), because the Democrats didn't have enough votes in the Senate to pass it without paying for it, as they desired. Their Shazzam ! Responsibility gone ! magic didn't work this time. They needed a couple Republican votes. Thus, the Dems paid for the funding by closing tax loopholes on multinational corporations (raising taxes) and….cutting funding for food stamps ??? I have to admit, this took me by surprise. I can think of a hundred ways to cut government spending, but cutting the food stamp program never occurred to me. The Dems are taking from the poor to give to the middle class. Specifically, they are giving to the unions.

I always wonder why, instead of bailing out the public employees unions, we can't cut some of their pay and/or benefits to avoid the layoffs. After all, they work for us, the taxpayers, and public employees already earn twice as much as private sector employees. Why should we bail them out ? The entire setup is nothing more than the poorer private sector folks bailing out the wealthier public sector folks, the same as with cutting food stamps. It's perverse.

But instead of cutting public employee pay back a little to keep teachers on the job, the government plays the same old tune. They scare the hell out of the public by threatening to lay off a bunch of teachers and police officers, and then the "benevolent" government pretends they are coming to the rescue, usually by raising taxes. What they are really doing is catering to the Democratic base, the public employees unions, at the expense of other (usually poorer) taxpayers. This partially explains why American education costs are skyrocketing, without a corresponding improvement in the quality of that education. One way or another, the government still works it's Shazzam ! Responsibility gone ! magic on us…and we sit back and take it like the marks we are.

If there's any bright side…november isn't that far away.

Reading several recent news stories, it occurred to me that other countries understand what made America great better than we do these days, or at least better than our current leadership does. There are several lessons we need to relearn.

The first lesson comes from a news item I read about how China will soon overtake the United States as the world's leading manufacturer. It is forecasted to happen next year, ending America's 110-year run as the world's leader (which is how we became an economic powerhouse). China has learned from America that producing goods leads to solid economic growth and jobs. America has increasingly become a consumer-based service economy, and lately our leaders are acting like it's the government that produces economic growth and jobs, a falsehood. In a free country like ours, the government, the public sector, actually consumes wealth for the most part. As I mentioned in a recent post, China, as a result of it's market-based reforms, has become the world's largest creditor nation, while we have become the largest debtor nation.

The next lesson comes from, of all places, a former communist country, Russia. Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian President, sees an opportunity for Russia to take a prominent place in what he calls a new world economic order, which he says will rise out of the ashes of the financial crisis and end the heyday of western, and particularly American, dominance. Listen to what Medvedev is proposing for Russia:

Mr Medvedev laid out a series of new initiatives that aim to boost its attractiveness as an investment destination. “Russia needs a real investment boom”, in order to achieve its modernisation goals, he said. To stimulate that, Mr Medvedev announced Moscow would introduce zero taxation on capital gains for companies working on long-term investments starting from January next year and said Russia was improving the legal system to provide better protection for businesses against the long arm of bureaucracy.

Mr Medvedev said the state would concentrate its efforts on fostering a good business climate. “No matter how many state-owned companies we have, modernization will happen, above all, through private business. And only if there is competition,” he said. “The state should not tear down the apples from the tree of economics. What the government should do is help grow our apple orchard, develop our economic environment.”

Mr Medvedev said he was cutting the list of strategic enterprises five fold in order to reduce the role of the state in the economy and foster more private initiatives.

Russia is proposing pro-growth, private sector, business-friendly policies with less interference from the state to grow it's economy. In America, Obama is proposing quite the opposite – bigger government, anti-business, centralized control, and ever more regulation.

Since when did Russia understand market economics better than the United States Of America ? Why are we letting that happen ?

The final lessons come from our neighbor to the north, Canada, and it comes from another unexpected source, Canada's Liberal Party. First, one must understand that Canada's Liberal Party is actually their center-left party. What we call liberal (left-wing) in America is called the New Democratic Party in Canada. The Canadian Liberal Party is liberal on most social issues, but have made several smart conservative moves on fiscal issues, as pointed out in this Associated Press article.

The first lesson concerns how Canada largely avoided the banking crisis that devastated America and Europe:

The banks are stable because, in part, they're more regulated. As the U.S. and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries over the last 15 years, Canada refused to do so. The banks also aren't as leveraged as their U.S. or European peers.

There was no mortgage meltdown or subprime crisis in Canada. Banks don't package mortgages and sell them to the private market, so they need to be sure their borrowers can pay back the loans.

In Canada's concentrated banking system, five major banks dominate the market and regulators know each of the top bank executives personally.

Notice that even though Canada is dominated by large banks, which we have been calling "too big to fail" in this country, there was no housing meltdown, because Canada doesn't bundle and securitize mortgages like we do. The Canadian banks don't sell their mortgages like we do. Canadian banks HAVE to know their customers can pay back their loans. The survival of the Canadian banks depends on it. That's the way the mortgage market used to work in America as well, until our government changed all the rules and let secondary mortgage entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Wall Street investment firms into the mortgage game, which incentivized our mortgage lenders to hand out loans like penny candy and then sell them. The government actually took these steps in the guise of lessening risk, one of the great ironies of all time.

Speaking of Fannie Mae, it is now primarily owned by the government (the taxpayers), and Fannie, along with other government mortgage entities, are still buying and selling houses like crazy, selling them for pennies on the dollar. The cost to taxpayers is $146 billion and rising. Before it's all said and done, Fannie Mae will be the single largest receiver of taxpayer bailouts.

And the recent financial regulation reform bill EXCLUDED Fannie Mae from it's reform. Great work, Congress. As usual, it was partisan politics over practical reality. The financial reform package leaves the secondary mortgage market TOTALLY in place, despite the ludicrous dog and pony show the Democrats put on to claim they were "ending bailouts forever," and "ending too big to fail." God, they think we're stupid. Fannie Mae is the biggest of the "too big to fail" in the mortgage market. As one realtor said in the article linked above, "we're all working for the government now."

The other lesson from Canada's Liberal Party concerns how it balanced it's budget. This one will make Obamamaniacs roll over in the graves they are digging for our country:

[Canadian] Liberals took office facing a $30 billion deficit. Moody's downgraded Canada's credit rating twice. About 36 percent of the government's revenue went toward servicing debt.

"Our situation was dire. Canada was in a lot of trouble at that point," Martin said. "If we were going to preserve our health care and our education system we had to do it."

As finance minister, he slashed spending. A weak currency and a booming U.S. economy also helped Martin balance the books. In the 1998 budget the government estimated that about 55 percent of the deficit reduction came from economic growth and 35 percent from spending cuts.

"The rest of the world certainly thinks we're the model to follow," said Martin, who was prime minister from 2003 to 2006. "I've been asked by a lot of countries as to how to go about it."

Canada eliminated it's deficit via economic growth policies and spending cuts. Are you listening, Mr. Obama ? Are you listening American liberals ?

Let's summarize the lessons we've learned today from other countries, which happen to be lessons America knew for a long, long time but appear to have forgotten. In order to restore America, we should – cut taxes on investment, cut government spending, enact pro-growth, business-friendly policies, restore our manufacturing sector, stop politicizing the mortgage market to "increase home ownership," and replace it instead with the old way of making mortgage loans, under which banks were highly incentivized to make responsible loans to qualified individuals. We should do everything we can to help the private sector, instead of growing government to the point that it strangles our economy.

That's what we should do, and it also happens to be what I've been advocating on this blog (gosh, I'm so smart. Allow me to pause a moment to pat myself on the back).

But instead we have the Obamamaniac in charge, doing the precise opposite, following the failing quasi-socialist European big government entitlement model that has the West collapsing under mountains of debt, as I pointed out in my recent post, Living On Borrowed Time.

It's not too late, America, but our time is running out. If you remember anything as you cast your ballots come november, remember that.

Or, we can send our President back to school for an Economics 101 course, and hope for the best.

Let's start with this heartbreaking three minute video from ABC News, showing state/local governments and citizens trying to take matters into their own hands to stem the oil spill tide. These folks are tired of waiting for the federal government to give them permission to prevent the destruction of their ecosystems (I apologize for the thirty second commercial up front):

Keep in mind that it's been two months since the oil spill started, and these folks are still waiting for various government approvals for vessels, containment boom, skimmers, etc. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal spent a week and a half trying to get local working barges to start vacuuming oil out of the state's oil-saturated waters. It began working, until the feds shut the barges down. This is also from ABC News:

The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

…the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

The governor said he didn't have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard's decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns.

"They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible," he said. But "every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer."

In Alabama Thursday, Gov. Bob Riley said that he's had problems with the Coast Guard, too.

Riley, R-Ala., asked the Coast Guard to find ocean boom tall enough to handle strong waves and protect his shoreline.

The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."

Big government bureaucracy in action. Or maybe I should say big government regulation in action. One department fights another department, and the result is inertia. It's a good thing President Obama announced he would appoint an oil recovery czar to oversee the cleanup. The President made this announcement five days ago, 55 days after the oil spill began.

The same slow motion, bureaucratic red tape phenomenon is at work on the international level. A couple days ago, the State Department released a chart showing the status of all the assistance countries from all over the world have offered us to deal with the spill. Look at the chart. Almost all of that assistance is still pending approval by our federal government.

But not to worry, folks. Our President assured us he has been on top of the oil spill since "day one." You can see for yourself how our President flew into action from day one at this link, where Obama's schedule since the oil spill has included at least six rounds of golf, playing basketball, working out at the gym, and numerous White House parties. I guess there are many ways to deal with the worst environmental crisis in U.S. history, and this is Barack Barry H****** Obama Soetoro's way.

A blogger at hotair.com reminds us that the federal government of the United States is the "largest, best-funded organization in human history." It has over two million civilian employees, not to mention the nearly three million active and reserve military personnel, yet it flops around like an oil-soaked bird, helpless to deal with a two-foot wide oil leak in the ocean, and hamstrung in dealing with the aftermath. I'm going to let hotair describe the rest:

Indulging the urge of politicians to increase their power and wealth produces a government that spends all its time feeding, instead of doing the things it’s supposed to be doing. It is blinded by hunger, and uninterested in duties that yield no direct political reward. The lavishly funded agency in charge of regulating offshore drilling scarcely bothered to inspect the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. It’s painfully obvious that the Administration didn’t notice the Gulf crisis until it became a political problem. Our vast government apparatus was completely unaware of a large supply of containment boom until Jake Tapper, an ABC reporter, told them about it.

Even now, as oil begins fouling the coasts of our Gulf states, the federal government is entirely focused on shielding itself from blame, and taking advantage of the crisis to absorb more money. Out on the high-octane open waters, they’re shutting down oil-skimming barges over trivial bureaucratic issues. Bobby Jindal, the desperate governor of Louisiana, has taken to ignoring the comatose federal giant slumped across his coast, and getting things done on his own. Unable to think rationally or compare costs to benefits, the government panicked and shut down offshore drilling… just as previous generations threw hysterical fits, and killed nuclear power and DDT. We’re spending an awful lot of our children’s money on this government, and getting very little value in return.

No Presidential speech could obscure the fact that incalculable, perhaps irreversible damage has already been done, while union politics prompted the President to ignore valuable offers of assistance from foreign ships. Innovative strategies for dealing with the oil gather cobwebs while the Administration focuses on the really important task of securing a $20 billion down payment on a massive new slush fund. Of course Obama and the Democrats will steal much of this money, the same way they robbed the taxpayers for political cash and called it a “stimulus.” The reptilian Bart Stupak has already floated the idea of raiding the BP fund for health care money.

What is exposed is the administration's endless political calculations, and endless appetite for power and money. When Rep. Barton referred to Obama's takeover of $20 billion of BP's funds as a "shakedown," my only reaction was, what else is new ? Why should BP be any different ? American taxpayers get shaken down at every turn. We were shaken down for the Wall Street bailouts, the bank bailouts, the housing bailouts, the state and local government bailouts, the GM bailout…..we've had our Social Security and Medicare funds plundered by the federal government…we bailout foreign governments….we're running up so much debt to feed the maw of government that it's threatening our very future…

I'm used to shakedowns. Obama came into office PROMISING to shake us down, so why are we surprised when he does it ? As he told Joe the Plumber, "I want to spread your wealth around." Was anyone listening ??? Hello ??? THAT is a shakedown, and that's exactly what he and his cronies have done. So, when Obama bypasses federal law and the court system to grab $20 billion from BP to spend as HE sees fit….what did you expect ? Of course, I'm not saying BP shouldn't be liable. They definitely should, but…what happened to due process, the rule of law, and all those folks who were complaining about unitary executive action during the Bush years ? I don't hear them complaining now.

And as far as Obama shakedowns go….you ain't seen nuthin' yet. He's only been in office for 17 months. Think about that for a minute.

UPDATE – Obama countered the oil spill by attending the Washington Nationals baseball game on friday night, and showed yet more crisis leadership by playing a round of golf with VP Joe Biden on saturday. (link)

The United States of America is the biggest debtor nation in the world.

China is the biggest creditor nation in the world.

We owe China over $900 billion. We owe Japan nearly that much. Our total foreign debt owed is $3.96 trillion (link).

Our total federal debt is over $13 trillion, and climbing at a rate of about $1.7 million every minute of every day. In the 2010 federal budget, the government is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Our federal debt is nearly equal to our GDP.

The federal government owes about $4.4 trillion to itself, mainly due to Congress stealing money from Social Security and Medicare surpluses (though Congress calls this "borrowing," the government has no funds on hand to repay this money. The funds come from you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer). Both Social Security and Medicare face enormous future unfunded liabilities, meaning the government has made commitments to fund those programs without allocating any money to fund them.

A recent article by Pat Buchanan said our government now consumes 40% of our GDP. That's 40% and growing, because ObamaCare kicks in soon. The growth of government threatens to choke America to death with debt. Every year, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars go to no government program or service. Instead, they go to pay interest on our debt. That money goes to China and others. The interest on the debt is growing by leaps and bounds along with the debt.

Given this bleak economic picture, and even bleaker forecast for the future (Obama is on a path to add $9 trillion more to the debt at the same time the baby boomers retire and start demanding funds from those unfunded entitlement liabilities), our government has decided to, in it's infinite "wisdom"……..bailout everyone in sight and jack federal spending up to unprecedented levels.

This brings me to our two major politicial parties – the Tweedledumbocrats and the Tweedlegops. The Tweedledumbs look at our unsustainable fiscal outlook and say, 'we need to spend and tax more !" This is equivalent to saying the problem with the Titanic was that the hole from the iceberg wasn't big enough. The Tweedlegop has a different strategy. They say "we need to cut taxes !" The Tweedlegop also says "we should cut spending !," which is the painfully obvious correct solution, but can anyone remember the Tweedlegop EVER actually doing that ? They did slow the rate of spending growth during the Clinton years, but if they ever actually cut spending, I must have been asleep that year. Even slowing the rate of spending growth flew out the window during the Bush years. The effect of GOP leadership has also been to make the hole in the Titanic bigger. You could even say the Tweedlegop has been worse, at least until Obama showed up and abandoned all fiscal reason. The Tweedledumbs 'tax and spend' policy may be marginally less terrible than the Tweedlegops 'tax cut and spend' policy. The difference really isn't worth arguing, however, because both policies lead us to bankruptcy.

Thus, we have two failed political parties contending to see who we will elect to fail us next. The Tweedledumbs blame everything on the Tweedlegop, and vice versa. The majority of pols are either in denial about our debt problem, or they are inveterate liars and hypocrites. I vote for the liars and hypocrites explanation, not that this should be news to anyone. We've all known this for a long time.

So what do we do as citizens who care about our country ?

I'd say we should elect Libertarians and Tea Party candidates to see what they'll do in office, but realistically, that's not going to happen in big enough numbers to effect change quickly. Even if we elected somebody completely different as President who would start attacking the debt problem, say, Ron Paul, he'd still have to deal with a Tweedle-de-dee Congress that would oppose him at nearly every turn. Ron Paul, a Libertarian disguised as a Republican, is even opposed by his own Tweedlegop party much of the time.

The only thing we can do is elect politicians who promise to cut spending and limit government, and hope they live up to their word. There aren't many such candidates in the Tweedledumb party, but there are a few. There are more of them in the Tweedlegop party, so that's the best place to look for fiscally conservative candidates for now, until the Tweedledumbs reject the liberal wing that dominates their party. The liberals are easy to spot. They are the ones saying we don't spend ENOUGH money. They point to the big government quasi-socialist entitlement countries of Europe as the models of compassionate liberalism, that represent the sum of all that is good and noble.

Here's the big problem with that.

As I mentioned earlier, the United States is the single biggest debtor nation, but that's in dollars, in the sheer volume of our debt. If you look at the liberals favored European big government quasi-socialist countries, you'll see that they are even worse off than we are. We've all seen the financial meltdown and subsequent rioting in Greece on our teevees, but check out the top debtor nations when compared to their GDP's. The second column from the left is the percentage of debt compared to GOP:

Europe is awash in debt. It's borrowed time is running out even faster than ours. This is not the model we want to follow. This list reads like a book called The Fall Of Western Civilization. The debt problem goes far beyond our country, and if we keep going on our current trajectory, what happens if China and other creditor countries decide they don't want to risk lending us more money ? I'll leave that as an open question for now.

In this discussion, I must again mention the dumbest economist in the world, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, who writes for the New York Times. In a recent article Krugman wrote called We Are Not Greece, he actually tries to say we shouldn't worry about our debt (told you he was dumb). Here's why Krugman thinks debt is groovy, and people like me are fearmongers:

The U.S. economy has been growing since last summer, thanks to fiscal stimulus and expansionary policies by the Federal Reserve. I wish that growth were faster; still, it’s finally producing job gains — and it’s also showing up in revenues. Right now we’re on track to match Congressional Budget Office projections of a substantial rise in tax receipts. Put those projections together with the Obama administration’s policies, and they imply a sharp fall in the budget deficit over the next few years.

I don't know how to describe the above paragraph from Krugmen, other than to say it is 100% pure unadulterated bull excrement. Yes, the economy has been growing, but IT IS THE CBO WHO IS PROJECTING OBAMA'S $9 TRILLION DEBT RUNUP. The CBO has factored economic growth into it's projections already. The "sharp fall in the budget deficit over the next few years" of which Krugman speaks will still leave us with annual deficits larger than any we've had in the history of our country prior to 2008, in the neighborhood of $700-800 billion. That won't help us in any way. It leaves us on the direct path to failure.

But that isn't the worst part of Krugman's deception. He has another ace up his sleeve. Here's why he believes we are not caught in the same debt trap as Greece:

Greece, on the other hand, is caught in a trap. During the good years, when capital was flooding in, Greek costs and prices got far out of line with the rest of Europe. If Greece still had its own currency, it could restore competitiveness through devaluation. But since it doesn’t, and since leaving the euro is still considered unthinkable, Greece faces years of grinding deflation and low or zero economic growth. So the only way to reduce deficits is through savage budget cuts, and investors are skeptical about whether those cuts will actually happen.

You see, according to Krugman, because we have our own currency, the dollar, we can merely devalue the dollar to relieve our debt. This is known as monetizing the debt (printing a bunch more money). What Krugman the Nobel winner would have us do is to make the dollar worth a whole lot less. That in turn would make our debt worth less. It's genius, right ! WRONG. What Krugman doesn't bother to tell us is that devaluing the dollar also makes all our paychecks worth a whole lot less, our savings worth a whole lot less, and makes all our assets worth a whole lot less. He also doesn't bother to tell us that it would make all our goods and services cost a whole lot more, because it would take a lot more devalued dollars to buy them. This is how Krugman would "fix" our debt problem, by impoverishing us. I've never bothered to check exactly what Krugman won his Nobel Prize in economics for, but after this claptrap, he should have to give it back. Krugman isn't advancing any sensible economic theory, he's advancing progressive doubletalk. The sad part is that many innocent NY Times readers will be fooled by his nonsense.

Still, this administration continues with it's non-stop spendathon. Obama is proposing another bailout, this time of state and local governments, aka, the unions. Obama wants $50 billion for this bailout. Keep in mind that hundreds of billions of dollars already went to the states in Obama's Porkulus package. We have another Tweedledumb, Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), who has introduced legislation to bail out union pension funds with taxpayer dollars to the tune of $165 billion.

As for Greece, we're bailing them out too (we don't have the money, so I guess we can borrow it from China.) The European Union and International Monetary Fund (IMF) is bailing Greece out to the tune of a trillion bucks. The United States is committed to paying 17% of the IMF portion, which could put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for over $50 billion more.

But, hey, it's only money (money we don't have). The dumbest economist on the planet, Paul Krugman, says not to worry.

And the mainstream media keeps trying to condemn the Tea Party movement, endlessly wondering why it sprang up now, and falsely calling it racist and violent. Here's a newsflash media, and it comes from former President Bill Clinton – it's the economy, stupid !

I feel like I'm living in an episode of the Twilight Zone. Please, let's return to reality, before it's too late.

On April 16, 2010, the Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil fraud suit against Goldman Sachs, alleging that the Wall Street investment bank sold mortgage-backed securities to investors that were secretly designed to fail. About a week later, A Senate subcommittee investigating the financial crisis released internal Goldman Sachs e-mails that seemed to support the SEC's allegations that Goldman Sachs was simultaneously selling the securities and betting against them. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich), the chairman of that committee, said "Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market."

I find myself in the unenviable position of offering a partial defense of Goldman Sachs at this point. Imagine for a moment that you work at Goldman Sachs, and have been selling mortgage-backed securities for years. Those securities were very profitable, ever since 1999 Clinton administration legislation (introduced by Republicans and with more Republican than Democratic support in Congress) allowed investment banks like Goldman Sachs into the mortgage market, which was previously illegal. From 1999 forward, a huge housing market bubble was created, and in 2007 that bubble began to burst. Housing prices began to fall dramatically, as did the value of those mortgage-backed securities. If you worked at Goldman Sachs in 2007, wasn't it the smart move to bet against the mortgage market by short-selling on the futures of those securities ? We all know now that it certainly was the smart move. The short-selling of those securities was not illegal. In fact, it's the essence of what Wall Street does. It buys and sells based upon market conditions, and market conditions CHANGE. As Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, wrote in one of the released e-mails, the firm "lost money" on the housing market, "then made more than we lost because of shorts." In another e-mail, Goldman's Chief Financial Officer wrote of making $50 million in one day via short-selling. In another e-mail, Goldman executives wrote about how one subprime lender was facing "wipeout," and another's demise was "imminent." Another executive said "sounds like we will make some serious money," by short-selling.

If there was any fraud at Goldman Sachs, it wasn't because they were selling short, it was because they were selling short without advising their customers to do the same. They were still selling the mortgage-backed securities they were betting against. That determination will be left to the courts.

This leads me to the next part of Sen. Carl Levin's statement condemning Goldman Sachs:

"Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not simply market-makers, they were self-interested promoters of risky and complicated financial schemes that helped trigger the crisis," Levin said. "They bundled toxic mortgages into complex financial instruments, got the credit rating agencies to label them as AAA securities, and sold them to investors, magnifying and spreading risk throughout the financial system, and all too often betting against the instruments they sold and profiting at the expense of their clients."

Sounds pretty bad, but let's put it in perspective. Goldman Sachs did about $500 MILLION worth of residential mortgage business in 2007, less than 1% of the firm's business. By contrast, the quasi-government agency Fannie Mae's mortgage portfolio was in excess of $700 BILLION as of August 2008. Fannie Mae was the largest bundler and securitizer of mortgage loans in the country, BY FAR. Goldman Sachs is a small fish by comparison. Where are Sen. Levin's condemnations of Fannie Mae ??? Fannie (and her little brother Freddie Mac) kept bundling and selling those "toxic mortgages" right up until the moment the financial system imploded. Fannie Mae executives knew the market was collapsing. Where are the fraud charges against Fannie ? There are none, and to add insult to injury, Fannie Mae is exempted from regulation under the financial regulation reform legislation working it's way through Congress. In addition, Fannie Mae, as a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE), was also exempt from regulations in place for private financial institutions. For example, private firms had to maintain a capital/asset ratio of greater than or equal to 3%. A GSE like Fannie did not, placing it a greater risk than the private firms, thus placing the entire housing sector at significantly greater risk.

Btw, to my knowledge, the so-called financial regulation reform under consideration does NOT prohibit investment firms like Goldman Sachs from remaining in the mortgage market (though Goldman Sachs has become a bank holding company now). It does not re-implement the laws in place from the Great Depression (Glass-Steagal) up until the 1999 Clinton legislation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley). Fannie Mae has now gone into government consevatorship, but there are no plans to liquidate it. A July 30, 2008 law enabling expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increased the national debt ceiling by $800 billion. In other words, the taxpayers are massively on the hook for the excessive risks placed on our financial system by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were/are effectively run by the government. THAT is the systemic risk, not Goldman Sachs.

But our politicians tell us we're supposed to be really angry at Goldman Sachs, and with tons of media reinforcement, we have largely bought into the misdirection. I even bought into it myself, more than I should have. I apologize for actually believing anything any politician ever says. I should know better by now. We're supposed to be angry at Wall Street, with good reason, but why the hell aren't we angry at the government who did this to us ?

There's a lot wrong with the incestuous relationship between Goldman Sachs and the federal government. No question there. Goldman Sachs received over $12 billion in TARP money it didn't need (Goldman Sachs made a net profit of $13.39 billion in 2009 and also made a profit in 2008). Goldman Sachs repaid it's TARP loan plus interest within several months of receving it. Many of the banks getting TARP funds didn't need them, and were forced to take them. The government was playing a good game of charades with those bailouts.

The latest estimate of the bank bailout losses is down to $87 billion. The single largest loss is the GSE's, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($85 billion). The second largest loss is the help given to homeowners facing foreclosure ($49 billion). Next is AIG ($48 billion). Then General Motors ($28 billion). The private financial institutions have repaid their TARP loans plus interest, actually MAKING A PROFIT for the Treasury of $115 billion, offsetting the real losses.

So tell me, who should we be the most angry at…banks who made the risky loans the government wanted them to make (to increase homeownership so the politicians could pat themselves on the back)…or the government (both parties), who set the entire financial house of cards in motion, who legislated the financial crisis into existence, and who constantly demonize the private sector while never placing any responsibility on itself for it's massive irresponsibility ? That government irresponsibility ($12.8 trillion national debt, unrestrained spending, and exploding unfunded entitlement liabilities) has placed the entire future of the country at systemic and excessive risk.

Placing complete confidence in politicians to do the right thing is like relying on a referee who has bet on the game he's officiating to call the game fairly. Odds are pretty good that won't happen. The odds are even greater that politicians who are vying for re-election and partisan power over the entire country are not going to be honest. Much greater. Off the charts. Question everything they do and say, especially the ones who are currently IN power. They are the most dangerous.

A couple days ago, General Motors and the Obama administration (which are the same thing now) touted GM's repayment of it's bailout money:

"This is the new pace of GM today. GM's ability to pay back the loans ahead of schedule is a sign that our plan is working." – GM Chief Executive Ed Whitaker, hand-picked for the job by President Obama.

"What a difference a year makes. Just about a year ago, the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse. Today, General Motors announced that it has repaid its $6.7 billion loan to the U.S. government in full five years ahead of schedule." – White House economic advisor Larry Summers

"We are encouraged that GM has repaid its debt well ahead of schedule and confident that the company is on a strong path to viability." – US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner

Everything's coming up roses, eh ?

Not so fast. As it turns out, GM paid down it's TARP loan with…other TARP money. Here's Senator Tom Carper (D-Del) questioning Neil Barofsky, the overseer of TARP bailout funds:

It’s good news in that they’re reducing their debt,” Barofsky said of the accelerated GM payments, “but they’re doing it by taking other available TARP money.”…

“It sounds like it’s kind of like taking money out of one pocket and putting in the other,” said Carper, who got a nod of agreement from Barofsky.

“The way that payment is going to be made is by drawing down on an equity facility of other TARP money.”

So, GM didn't really payoff it's debt, it merely shuffled TARP funds around and pretended it had repaid it's bailout funds. Not to mention the fact that GM was bailed out to the tune of $50 BILLION. The $6.7 billion fictitious repayment is only a fraction of that. Most of the money was used to give the U.S. government a 60% shareholder stake in Government Motors, er, I mean General Motors.

Is it troublesome that the Obama administration, GM, and the Treasury Deparment are lying about this ? Or have we become accustomed to such dishonest behavior from an administration that is elevating it's creepy factor practically by the day ? Has anyone else noticed that this government is ALL ABOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND EXPANSION ? It seems nearly every move this administration makes is designed to increase that control.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to Geithner yesterday, blasting the Obama administration for it's political shell game. In that letter, Grassley may have uncovered the reason for the dishonesty of GM and the Obama administration, as follows:

Following the April 20, 2010, hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, where Treasury’s decision to exempt GM from the bank TARP excise tax was questioned and GM’s refusal to testify was noted, it is odd that GM suddenly drew down on the TARP escrow and accelerated the repayment of the remaining balance of GM’s outstanding TARP loans.

You see, in the Obama administration, you are either a) one of the privileged "good" guys entitled to special treatment, or you are b) one of the "bad" guys to be demonized and punished. The designation of "good" or "bad" depends on whether you support Obama or not. It reeks of cronyism, and it's all very….Chicago-like, which is where Obama and most of his inner circle come from.

Hope and change, suckers.

The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Heard - “Imagine if somebody were to really sit down with Osama Bin Laden and say, ‘listen man,what is it that you’re so angry at me about that you’re willing to have people strap bombs to themselves, or get inside of airplanes and fly them into buildings.’ That would be the miracle if we can get, sit down and talk to our enemies and find a way for them to hear us.” – Hollywood actor Matthew Modine

Alrighty then. Even though Modine is a big-time Hollywood movie star who has made such great films as…um, let's see…well, I can't think of one right now….he's an airhead. Here's an idea. Let's airdrop the airhead actor into Waziristan and have him serve as the ambassador of peace and love in dialogues with Osama Bin Laden. The later video that would surface of Modine's beheading would serve as a learning lesson to all like-minded naive liberal douchebags.

Note to Modine – it is well-documented why Bin Laden hates us. Maybe you'd know why if you didn't have your head stuck so far up your own blowhole. Btw, Matty, one of the reasons Bin Laden hates us is because of our culture, as portrayed in HOLLYWOOD MOVIES. Bin Laden would love to have YOUR head on a stick.
===
Dumbest Statement Of The Week - This comes from our Treasury Secretary, Tim 'TurboTax' Geithner. From Fox News:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday it's "deeply unfair" that some financial institutions that got taxpayer-paid bailouts are emerging in better shape from the recession than millions of ordinary Americans. He acknowledged public outrage over that and said people watched with disdain as Washington protected high-risk banks and investment houses, even as the national unemployment rate was soaring to double-digit levels for the first time in a generation. But in a nationally broadcast interview, Geithner also argued that President Obama had no choice when confronted with a financial crisis. "As the president has said, we had to do some very unpopular things," Geithner said. "People looked at what had happened."

"It's not fair. It's deeply unfair," he said. "He (Obama) had to decide whether he was going to act to fix it or stand back … and that would have been calamitous for the American economy."

As great as it is to have TurboTax Tim pedaling disinformation for Obama, I'd be remiss not to point out that the TARP program, which bailed out those financial institutions, came from President Bush, not President Obama. Obama's contribution to the recovery was the stimulus package. Geithner didn't mention that in his statement, but he did say the following:

The secretary agreed that the national jobless rate — now at 9.7 percent — is "still terribly high and is going to stay unacceptably high for a very long time" because of the damage caused by the recession.

Um, if unemployment is going to stay unacceptably high for a very long time, doesn't that mean Obama's contribution, the $876 billion stimulus package, didn't work ?
===
Liberals vs. Conservatives - This is from an e-mail I received from a friend, original source unknown. It seems worth repeating now:

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
If a liberal is down-and-out, he demands that somebody else take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that the talk show host be removed from the air.

If a conservative doesn't believe in God, he doesn't go to church.
If a liberal doesn't believe in God, he demands that all mentions of God be removed from the public arena.

If a conservative decides he needs health insurance, he goes shopping
for it, or figures out what he needs to do to afford it.
If a liberal decides he needs health insurance, he demands that someone else provide it for him at their expense.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it to his friends so they can have a good laugh.
If a liberal reads this, he will delete it because he's offended.

It's no surprise that liberals want to be called progressives these days. There's not much about them that evokes the root meaning of the word "liberal," which is "liberty," aka, "freedom." Liberals are all about coercion. "Progressive" coercion, of course. They know they can't do it all at once, or America would rise up against them. Instead, they take incremental progressive steps towards totalitarianism, or as Soviet premier Nikita Kruschev once put it, "Oh you Americans! You're so gullible! We'll spoon feed you socialism until you're Communists and don't even know it." That's the endgame of progressivism. When we are all dependent on the government for our survival, they have won. Checkmate. Freedom gone. Friedrich Hayek called it The Road To Serfdom.
===

From Bloomberg Press:

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

"I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”

The free-market system ? I must have a far different idea of what constitutes the free-market system than our President does. In my version of the free market system, companies like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan don't get to have the taxpayers bail them out when their risky business schemes run amok and result in massive losses for their companies, as well as for the financial system in general. When those companies get bailed out, that isn't the free-market system, it's the welfare state. Perhaps Obama the wealth redistributor has the two confused. Maybe he thinks the welfare state IS the free-market system. As for me, I'm not even too crazy about what the welfare state does to poor people in this country. I'm certainly not going to advocate it for the wealthy.

Let's examine these "savvy businessmen" that President Obama knows, the men whom Obama doesn't begrudge their multi-million dollar bonuses.

We'll start with JPMorgan. You may remember them for a "savvy" little derivative they cooked up in 1994 known as the credit default swap (CDS). The thinking behind the CDS went like this – J.P. Morgan loaned out huge amounts of money in 1994, tens of billions of dollars. By federal law, J.P. Morgan had to keep huge capital reserves on hand in case some of those loans went bad. So the "savvy businessmen" at J.P. Morgan designed a way to free up those capital reserves and mitigate their loan risk at the same time. A third party would serve as an insurance company to guarantee the loans in return for regular premium payments from the banks. The CDS was born, and within a few years, CDS business was booming big time. You may also remember the third party who served as the insurance company for the credit default swaps. It is known as AIG.

As always, it's important to remember that George W. Bush was the President in the 1990's when the CDS's were created and became popular, because everything is Bush's fault.

In fairness to Obama's acquaintance Jamie Dimon, he wasn't at JPMorgan when the CDS was created. Nope. But a few years after the CDS became the hot new financial instrument, Dimon and a partner formed the largest financial conglomerate the world had ever seen. That company was Citigroup. Dimon went on to become CEO of Bank One in 2000, and President of JPMorgan in 2004. He is also on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and following the real estate crash, credit crisis, and financial system collapse brought on by massive overleveraging on derivatives like the JPMorgan-created CDS, Dimon of the NY Federal Reserve made decisions to lend Dimon of JPMorgan $55 billion to bail out Bear Stearns. Nice work if you can get it. Then JPMorgan bought Washington Mutual. Too big to fail became too bigger to fail.

Here are the bailouts given to Jamie Dimon's various companies:
Citigroup – $45 billion ($25 billion has not yet been repaid) plus additional federal aid
Bank One – merged with JPMorgan in 2004 when Dimon became President of JPMorgan
JPMorgan – $25 billion (all repaid)

And the insurance company, AIG ? They have been bailed out and given other federal aid to the tune of $180 billion. $45 billion of AIG's bailout money has not been repaid, but it was recently announced that AIG is paying their employees $100 million more in bonuses. And the money AIG received from the government went to pay the insurance claims of other banks, like CDS creator JPMorgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, etc.

These are some "savvy" mo-fos alright, as long as the American taxpayers serve as THEIR insurance company, insulating the "savvy" schemers against all losses and responsibility for their own actions. Who could ever begrudge multi-million dollar bonuses for such upstanding men as these ? These "savvy" turds really flesh out the old saying 'laughing all the way to the bank.' And the bank is us, the American people. Another word for us is the 'marks.' The banks make their profits from us in the first place, and then when the banks lose the money, we pay again to bail them out. And that is the greatest scheme of all, stamped with a seal of approval by the federal government.

Now let's turn to Goldman Sachs, who got a nifty little $10 billion bailout, all of which has been repaid. Goldman Sachs also got $12.9 billion of the AIG bailout money, more than any other firm, according to the NY Times. Lots of "savvy businessmen" at Goldman Sachs too. Remember who told America that the financial system was on the brink of collapse, and that we needed to pony up $700 billion for TARP ? That was Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who coincidentally was the former CEO of…drumroll please…Goldman Sachs. Small world, isn't it ? Paulson left Goldman Sachs in 2006 to become the Treasury Secretary, near the apex of of the housing bubble. Paulson was at Goldman Sachs for 32 years. Maybe HE should have seen the financial troubles coming, don't ya think ? When guys like Paulson or current Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, tell us how much they hated the bailouts, it comes across as more than a tad disingenuous. These were the guys who watched the financial world spin out of control and didn't say squat until it all blew up in their faces. As Paulson said yesterday, "I do not get concerned about the second guessing, because this was very complicated. It's very hard for people to understand the technicalities." Sure Hank, whatever. Why should anyone second-guess the actions of Goldman Sachs or the rest of the Wall Street gamblers ? Btw, Paulson, overseer of the largest financial bailout in American history, considers himself a champion of the free market. I guess shame is not a trait these guys possess.

When Obama's "savvy businessman" Lloyd Blankfein took over for Paulson as the CEO of Goldman Sachs in 2006, he earned the big bucks right away, as the housing bubble peaked. The risky derivatives financial scheme was paying off nicely at that time. Blankfein earned over $53 million in 2006, and over $53 million again in 2007.

Finally, we should get to WHY Obama calls these men "savvy" and doesn't "begrudge" them their bonuses, while he continually demonizes others who engaged in the exact same business practices…..

Could it be because Goldman Sachs was the largest private donor to Obama's campaign, donating nearly $1 million ? Goldman Sachs was Obama's second largest donor overall. JPMorgan was sixth on the Obama campaign donation list. Standing in third place is Harvard University (every single person mentioned by name in this post attended Harvard University. Another big coincidence, eh ?).

These might be "savvy" men, but they certainly think the rest of us are a bunch of dummies. Maybe they're right, because we keep letting them get away with it.

Btw, credit default swaps, the trading of credit default swaps, and maybe even the insider trading of credit default swaps IS STILL LEGAL. Suckers.

AIG should be dissolved. Goldman Sachs should be broken up and sold. Citigroup should be broken up and sold. THAT is how the free market is supposed to work, no matter what our President might believe.

Here's Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), talking about job losses:

“…misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since [the President] took office, the country has lost 3.2 million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover…Job losses are taking a real toll on the financial security of American families…According to today’s survey, while the national unemployment rate dropped slightly, it still stands at a near record high."

Pelosi is being pretty hard on President Obama here, isn't she ?

No, not a bit. Pelosi wasn't talking about Obama. The words I quoted above are from August 2003, and San Fran Nan was talking about President Bush's "misguided economic policies." After Bush had been in office 19 months, Pelosi was castigating the President for an unemployment rate of 6.1%, caused mainly by the recession Bush inherited and 9/11. If Bush implemented any "misguided economic policies" that negatively affected unemployment, then Pelosi must be referring to Bush's across-the-board tax cuts for all taxpayers, though that doesn't make any sense. Tax cuts would only assuage rising unemployment, not add to it. Ask Obama, he cut taxes in his stimulus package to assuage rising unemployment.

Now, let me give you the statement Pelosi did make about the current job situation, with unemployment at 9.7% (actually waaaay higher) and a Democratic President at the helm who presided over more than 4 million job losses in his first 12 months in office:

"Today's jobs report marks a welcome step in the right direction for our economy and our families: the unemployment rate is going down. The Recovery Act, which Congress passed one year ago to pull our economy back from the brink of collapse, has already created or saved nearly 2 million jobs so far. Yet our work is far from over. This recession that President Obama inherited has taken the worst toll on our job market since World War II.

Here we have a tale of two Presidents – they both inherited recessions. They both presided over an economy shedding jobs during their first year in office….Notice how Pelosi treats the two Presidents exactly the same, lol. Just kidding. That's the opposite of what Pelosi did. She blamed Bush for recessionary circumstances beyond his control and cast Bush's jobs performance in the worst possible light, while she gave credit to President Obama for recessionary circumstances beyond his control and cast Obama's jobs performance in the best possible light. That's the politicization of jobs.

That's also why I hate most politicians with a passion, and wouldn't trust them to feed my cat while I was out of town, much less trust them to run the country.

It's not only Democrats who politicize jobs, of course. The Republicans are doing their level best to blame job losses on Obama now, and they continually cite Obama's guarantee that unemployment would not rise above 8% if the stimulus package was passed. Okay, so Obama miscalculated. So what ? Who didn't miscalculate the size of this recession ? Almost everyone did, or at least everyone who had it in their power to do something about it. In any case, it's not like Obama was elected President due to his expertise in economics. He was elected due to his soarting rhetoric, not his record of achievement. He didn't have a record of achievement. He's learning on the job right now. That's OUR fault, not his.

I don't blame the job losses on President Obama. It's unfair to do so, any more than it was to blame the 2001-2002 job losses on Bush. If I have any criticism of Obama on jobs, it would probably be his obsession with health care reform in his first year when there were more pressing economic matters. Also, the uncertainty surrounding the future of health care makes the private sector unsure and hesitant. Business people like to know what their costs and risks are prior to making financial commitments, and Obama has introduced a significant amount of uncertainty into the private sector. We don't know what health care will cost. We don't know what energy will cost. We don't know where taxes will be. We don't know what regulations will be put into place. He's subsidizing one company and not another. And lately, since the Massachusetts election, Obama's policies seem like a patchwork quilt of confusion. He's trying to be a liberal, a moderate, and a conservative all at the same time. It almost seems like he's campaigning instead of leading. All his promises come with expiration dates, and a lot of his rhetoric seems tied to the previous day's news cycle, never a good sign for a President. Obama has added more uncertainty to already extremely uncertain times. Then he wonders why banks are hesitant to loan money, after the banks just got devastated from making questionable loans. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see why they are hesitant now.

But the job losses ? No, those are not Obama's fault, just as the majority of the decrease in the job losses have little to do with Obama either, though he'd like you to believe otherwise. They have more to do with the overall stabilization of the economy. We hit bottom (for now), that's all. You can credit TARP and other bailouts and rescue efforts for stabilizing the financial system and the economy, and you can credit the stimulus package for stopping an even worse hemorrhaging of jobs if you wish, even though we can't measure it. I'm sure over $350 billion spent in stimulus so far had some effect, even if it didn't "save or create 2 million jobs" as the President claims. In fact, if we have to give someone the most credit for stopping the financial collapse and therefore saving jobs, it's probably the Fed, who committed $6.4 trillion to the financial rescue effort. Yes, you heard that number correctly. That's $6.4 TRILLION. If you want to get really depressed, go to this CNN Money link for a list of all the financial rescue efforts. In total, THE GOVERNMENT HAS COMMITTED OVER $11 TRILLION. Thus, using the word "credit" to talk about job loss reductions is a mixed blessing at best. The government cures are almost as bad as the disease, maybe worse.

Not that there's anything to worry about.

Democrats have been telling us that Harry Reid's comments about President Barack Obama were NOT racist. Reid said Obama could become President because he was "light skinned" and had "no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one." Dems also tell us that Bill Clinton's remarks about Barack Obama were NOT racist. Clinton told Ted Kennedy that "a few years ago, this guy [Obama] would have been getting us coffee." Dems also tell us that VP Joe Biden's comments about Obama were NOT racist. Biden said Obama was "clean" and "articulate." In trying to make sense of these new standards for non-racism the Democrats have created, it suddenly hit me…..I am light skinned with no Negro dialect unless I want to have one (aka, white). I'm also clean, articulate enough, and I know how to make coffee……………..OMG ! I'm qualified to be President Of The United States ! Plus, I have a few qualities our current Prez does not have. I have worked extensively in the private sector and have run a successful business. Holy cats ! Maybe I'm OVER-qualified.
===
For anyone who did not see John Stossel's program about crony capitalism on the Fox Business Network last night, you really missed something. The program will air again on friday. Don't miss it, even though the depravity of our federal government, exposed by Stossel, might make you ill. You will see how big government works hand-in-hand with big business to distort the free market, discourage innovation, beat down the little guy, and rape the taxpayers in the process. You will see how the government picks winners and losers in business. Some of the winners are – big tobacco, big pharma, big health insurance, one window company over all the others, big toy companies. See how big business writes the government regulations that benefit themselves. It is absolutely perverse, and as always, the ONLY solution is to limit government power over our lives.
===
Related to Stossel's story about crony capitalism, some people might want to rethink labeling President Obama as a socialist, or at least amend it. In light of how Obama and company are either taking over or micromanaging business and the market, consider the following definition (which doesn't apply only to Obama and the Democrats, not by a long shot. That party called the Republicans does it too).

Fascism – a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.

Sound familiar ?
===
After the government bailed out every big business in sight over the last 16 months or so (see – fascism and crony capitalism), President Demagogue Obama gave a speech last night where he pretended to be a friend to the people (lol) by calling for a new tax on the banks. Here's President Demagogue Obama:

"We want our money bank and we are going to get it," [Obama] said, surrounded by members of his economic team.

Obama said his commitment is to "recover every single dime the American people are owed. And my determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people."

Sounds good, right ? After all, we're only punishing those mean old bankers. How can that not be good ?

Here's how. First, most of the large banks have already paid back those TARP funds with interest, resulting in a net profit for the taxpayers, yet they will still be hit with Obama's new tax. Second, don't forget that many banks were forced to accept TARP funds from the government, even when they didn't want them. They will be hit with Obama's new tax too. Third, the ones who will really pay the bank tax are THE CUSTOMERS OF THE BANKS, in other words, the taxpayers themselves. Obama will be getting our money back by TAXING US more. Fourth, it wasn't only banks that received bailout funds. There's GM, GE, Fannie Mae, etc. Where is their tax ? Thanks, President Demagogue, but no thanks.

Obama continued:

"Our country has endured the deepest recession we've faced in generations, and much of the turmoil was caused by irresponsibility on the part of banks and financial institutions,"

Yes, much of the turmoil was caused by irresponsible lending on the part of banks and financial institutions…………….but why can't anyone on Capitol Hill ever fess up to the fact that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTED AND ENCOURAGED THEM TO DO IT ? The entire financial house of cards surrounding the housing market and the credit crisis was legislated into existence by the freaking Congress of the United States, starting all the way back in the Carter administration and never stopping. Prior to Congress manipulating the market, we had usury laws. We didn't have subprime mortgages. We didn't have Fannie Mae securitizing, bundling, and selling half the loans in the country. We didn't have commercial banks in the mortgage market. We didn't have Congress fining banks and denying mergers for not making enough loans to poor people. When is a presidential administration or a Congress going to admit that they brought the whole recession into existence with their boneheaded policies to "help" people ? Damn, they must think we're stupid.

Btw, President Demagogue. The country is $12 trillion in debt, and you are on target to add another $9-10 trillion to that number. WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK. So do our children, whose futures you are mortgaging. You can start by not spending all our money in the first place, you phony populist mouthbreather.
===
Maybe we need a dark-skinned black person for President. One with a Negro dialect who can add two plus two and come up with four. That would be a great improvement.

There is something unseemly about a President who is as unceasingly partisan as is Barack Obama. I don't think I've ever heard this President give a speech where he wasn't shifting blame away from himself and his party, even when it flies directly in the face of the facts. That's one reason many speak of Obama as being in permanent campaign mode (another reason is that Obama IS in permanent campaign mode). Obama has changed the presidential motto from 'the buck stops here' to 'pass the buck.' The President's recent comments about the TARP program serve as a perfect example. Speaking of using the $200 billion in leftover TARP funds for job creation, Obama said this:

"There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits on the one hand, and investing in job creation and economic growth on the other, but this is a false choice."

By "there are those," of course, Obama means Republicans, but that bit of partisanship isn't even the point. There is no "choice" regarding what to do with leftover TARP funds, much less a "false" one. By law, unused TARP funds must be used to pay down the deficit. All Republicans are doing is pointing that out. Obama knows this, but he is engaging in some sleight of hand (TARP magic) to make it appear otherwise. There are no actual savings associated with the leftover TARP funds, because those funds were never spent in the first place, not to mention that all TARP funds came from borrowed or newly printed money. The ONLY thing Obama is doing here is spending nearly $70 billion more for his jobs program. That can be weighed on it's own merits. The President can spare us all the partisan smoke and mirrors.

Next up on the Obama Disingenuous Hit Parade is this statement about TARP from the same speech:

"We were forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve."

First of all, The Obama administration didn't take the steps to pass TARP. The Bush Administration passed it. As I remember it, Bush was a member of the "opposition party." Bush's Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, was the driving force in getting TARP passed. More Republicans in Congress voted for TARP than voted against it, so there was some "help" from them too. Also, the Democrats controlled Congress for nearly two years before the financial crisis happened, so I'd really like to know what "decision-making that led to this crisis" the Democrats were against, including Obama himself, who was in the Senate at the time. Finally, when Obama says Bush "decided to hand it over to others to solve," did Bush have some other choice ? What was he supposed to do, "decide" that Obama couldn't takeover the presidency until after Bush solved the crisis ? I don't think so. And if Obama was so unhappy with the "decision-making that led to the crisis," why did he appoint Tim Geithner as Secretary of the Treausry and leave Ben Bernanke as the Federal Reserve Chairman ? Those two were instrumental in that decision-making. In summary, Obama's statement is complete partisan garbage.

Later in that same speech, Obama contradicted his own words by admitting that TARP was "launched hastily under the last administration," and argued the policy was flawed (even though Obama repeatedly says Obama saved the financial system with that same policy). If you recall, Obama "hastily" voted FOR the "flawed" TARP bill while he was in the Senate. Obama is some piece of work.

As even the Associated Press is beginning to point out, Obama likes to take both sides of the argument, claiming credit for things he did not do, while at the same time blaming others for things of which Obama approved. This is commonly known as nonsense, and we should expect something better from our President.

- One nice thing about Bill Clinton's presidency was that you could oppose his policies without being called a racist (mostly).

- People who think Bush went into Iraq to enrich Halliburton have no right to complain about the Birthers.

- When you go looking for "code words" for racism, aren't you just making stuff up ?

- When I talk about Obama's huge first year deficit ($1.8 trillion) on this blog, why do liberals always bring up Bush's deficits to excuse Obama's ? (Note to libs – By doing that, you aren't countering my argument. You are only making the argument that Obama is worse than Bush).

- Obama can offer health insurance to 30-45 million more people with health care reform, or he can reduce health care costs, but he can't do both at the same time.

- Obama's health care reform offers less choice, not more choice.

- Only Democrats think Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican party.

- Why is it that when liberals call conservatives racists nearly non-stop, nothing ever happens to those liberals, but when Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist one time, 20 advertisers are pressured into dropping their ads from Beck's show ?

- The only point being made by those people who are carrying guns outside events at which the President is speaking is that the gun carriers are oblivious morons.

- Is there any doubt at all that House Democrats are seeking the financial records of health insurance companies in order to demonize those companies ?

- Why is it okay for Congress to buy private jets with taxpayer dollars, but it's not okay for CEO's to fly private jets to Washington D.C. after being bailed out with taxpayer dollars ?

- Why would we want the federal government, an organization that is nearly $12 trillion in debt (and counting), to run our health care system, which represents 17% of our economy ?

- The "Obama is Hitler" signs must stop, because Obama is not like Hitler – he's much more like a combination of Saul Alinsky and P.T. Barnum. (Note to liberal media – that Obama-Hitler "I've Changed" sign you idiots at MSNBC, NBC, and CNN keep attributing to right wingers came from a Lyndon Larouche group, a communist group. Is even a tiny bit of journalistic integrity too much to ask ?)

- Speaking of Saul Alinsky, doesn't Obama's playbook seem awfully close to Alinsky's Rules For Radicals (pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it) ?

- MSNBC is such a biased organization that they actually edited out the fact that it was a black man who was carrying the AR-15 outside an Obama event, so MSNBC could peddle it's racist angle to the story.

- In the interesting political poll of the week, Gallup polling showed that conservatives outnumber liberals almost two to one when it comes to political ideology, yet Democrats have a sizeable lead over Republicans in party affiliation. (In other words, conservative doesn't always equate to Republican. I can identify with that).

- If you want to know why the health care public option was in, then it was out, then it was back in again….it's because up to 100 House Democrats said it better be back in again.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to construct a hypothetical set of circumstances. Let's say our country was in the midst of a severe recession, that unemployment was rising rapidly as millions of jobs were being lost, that average people were having an increasingly difficult time getting by, that our industries were having a difficult time competing, that the value of the dollar was dropping, that we were up to our ears in debt……

Okay, that isn't hypothetical at all. That's what is actually happening.

Now, in response to this not-so-hypothetical set of crisis circumstances, what would you think of our government if it passed legislation that would bring about massive tax increases, that would make it even more difficult for our industries to compete, that would cause more job losses, that would raise energy costs dramatically, that would increase the price of practically every product consumers purchase, that would put the average person much further in the hole, and that wouldn't even provide the desired benefit of said legislation ???? (link)

I'd call that government destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd want that government replaced for working against the interests of the American people. That's what I'm thinking today after the House of Representatives passed Cap-And-Trade legislation by a narrow vote of 219-212.

The Cap-and-Trade bill, also known as Waxman-Markey, also known as The American Clean Energy And Security Act, also known as the Let Them Eat Cake Act, is a 1,200 page monstrosity that nobody in the House had time to read, because the final version of the bill wasn't posted until the night before friday's vote, and a 300 page amendment was added at 3:00am on the day of the vote. I seem to remember President Obama saying something about having the most transparent administration EVAH !…….I guess Congress didn't get the memo on that, because they are operating like cat burglars in the dead of night.

Here's a quick rundown of the bad guys and the good guys in the House. The bad guys voting FOR the destruction of America included 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The good guys voting AGAINST destruction included 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans. You can find a complete vote tally here. I'd like to single out Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for praise for standing against this bill. I've maligned Mr. Kucinich in the past, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about him. He seems to be one of the few in the House who actually stands on his principles. That's noteworthy to me, even if I often disagree with him. The fact that 44 Democrats voted against this bill shows us that the Dems know Cap-And-Trade is a really bad idea, but lots of Democrats caved to pressure from the White House. El Presidente badly wants more control over all aspects of America, and this bill puts him in the express lane toward acquiring that control (but he believe in free markets ! lol).

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." – Congressman Steve King (R-IOWA).

I picked the above quote not only because a guy named King must be right, but because he mentioned Spain. What happened in Spain ?

Spain already implemented cap-and-trade, and has the most far-reaching renewable energy agenda in the European Union. The result ? Unemployment is at 18% in Spain (double the EU average), and there have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. In addition, tons of subsidies are required for green energy initiatives to be competitive. The wind industry jobs created in Spain have come at a cost of $1.4 million PER JOB. (link)

Gee, who wouldn't want to emulate such "success" ???

But my favorite comment on the cap-and-trade legislation came from Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who when asked why he spent an hour reading portions of the bill aloud on the House floor, said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s–t." (link)

Even those who are in favor of restricting carbon emissions know that this cap-and-trade bill is, um, crap. Here's one such person, billionaire Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway:

"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved." (link)

Speaking of restricting carbon emissions, which is the stated purpose of cap-and-trade (all it's negative and destructive effects are just icing on the cake), exactly how much of an effect on global warming will this cap-and-trade bill have ? (for the sake of brevity, I'm assuming here that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of global warming, an assumption that is itself a source of controversy).

Washington Post writer Martin Feldstein lays it out in an article called Cap-And-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

Waxman-Markey will have NO EFFECT on global warming, but it will have the "benefit" of further destroying our country.

In spite of all this, there are many American corporations ready to jump on the green bandwagon and profit from the carbon credit trading frenzy that El Presidente is trying to unleash on us. You're even familiar with some of these corporations – AIG, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, General Electric…you know, the GOOD corporations that we've all come to know and love so much during the recession. They are ready to jump on the manufactured energy bubble and rake in the big bucks. That these same companies are all recipients of government bailouts is just a big old coincidence, I'm sure. Too bad Enron isn't around any longer. Those guys knew how to run an energy bubble. I bet most of you didn't even know that General Electric got a bailout. Somehow, that hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media very much. Not only did GE get a bailout, they got a $139 billion bailout, second in size to AIG's bailout. Yet somehow, the enormous GE bailout hasn't been mentioned or condemned by major television networks like……NBC, nor by NBC's retarded cable stepchildren over at MSNBC (aka, The Obama Channel). I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that General Electric OWNS NBC, or the fact that GE is deeply in bed with the Obama administration. I'm sure that can't be it. Everyone knows MSNBC is a group of highly dedicated professional journalists who would never compromise their integrity or ideals for…….LOL. Oh, man. I can't finish this sentence. Sometime I even crack myself up.

But make sure you contact GE for all your carbon credit trading needs. They are primed and ready for all their cap-and-trade lobbying to start paying dividends.

As for you, America, I hope you like cake, because if you don't rise up and stop this Cap-And-Trade disaster in the Senate, cake is all you'll have left. And maybe some government cheese to go with it, if you're lucky.

In the last nine months, we have learned a great deal about how "free market" economics in America really works. With all the bailouts of financial institutions (TARP), automobile companies (TARP), and federal/state/local governments (Stimulus package), it has become clear that our economic model is – profits are privatized (paid to investors), and losses are socialized (borne by taxpayers).

Not that this model applies to everyone. It doesn't. It only applies to the wealthy and powerful, those in the "too big to fail" category. For the non-powerful, the rules are the same as always. If mom and pop's bakery goes under, mom and pop still take the entire loss. The taxpayer's don't prop them up. Mom and pop assume the entire risk for the success or failure of their business. Only the big boys like Citigroup, AIG, GM, Chrysler, and Government get to operate in risk-free mode (nice work if you can get it). In fact, mom and pop not only have to bear the burden for their own business, they have to bear the burden for the big boys as well, because mom and pop are the taxpayers ameliorating risk for the wealthy and powerful. If GM loses, it comes out of mom and pop's pocket (thus giving new meaning to the old saying, 'As GM goes, so goes America.' That has never been more literally true than it is today). When GM (Government Motors) loses, mom and pop taxpayer have to pony up $62 billion and counting. If GM should turn around and start making money again someday, don't hold your breath waiting for mom and pop taxpayer to get paid back. Mark my words, that will NEVER happen. Chrysler's loan from taxpayers has already been forgiven (link). As part of GM's bankruptcy, $15.4 billion in loans from the taxpayer have been forgiven (link). President Obama has referred to GM's loan forgiveness as a "gift." In return for the "gift," the government gets to own a car company. Kewl. I'd say the taxpayers get to own a car company, but we all know that isn't true. The taxpayers don't really own squat. Remember the rule – profits are privatized, losses are socialized. If GM ever returns to profitability, Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer will never see a dime of it. There won't be any dividend checks coming their way.

In America, just like in the mob, you are either connected or you're not. Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayers are NOT connected, therefore they don't get a cut of the loot. In America, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer are the marks. They don't get a cut, they only get the shakedown. In the case of GM, it's realy simple to figure out who's connected and who's not. Just look at the terms of the bankruptcy, which were handed down by diktat from the Don Fed-leone. Here's the new ownership of GM following bankruptcy:

Don Fed-leone (the federal government) gets a 60% ownership stake in GM.

Shareholders get virtually wiped out.

Of particular interest is the difference in terms between the bondholders and the union, both of whom are unsecured GM creditors. The bondholders got 10% for $28 billion in GM holdings, and the union got 17.5% for $20 billion in GM holdings. In addition, the union gets preferred stock. The bondholders do not. Preferred stockholders get paid first and are guaranteed dividends. The union got a MUCH better bankruptcy deal than the bondholders did. Why ?

Because the unions are more connected, that's why. They helped get President Obama elected, remember ? As Obama himself said, "I owe those unions." Don Fed-leone repays favors when it can.

Go here for a half-decent summary of GM's bankruptcy.

Btw, taxpayers. You get to back GM's warranties too.

We might have to rewrite the terms of bankruptcy law after this, because no such terms have ever been granted in bankruptcy before. This Presidential administration continues to move into uncharted waters of governmental authoritarianism. Uncharted for America, at least. Other countries operate like this all the time. Countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and China.

But not to worry, the government assures us that it doesn't really want to own or run automobile companies. The government assures us this is only temporary.

Like when the government took over Amtrak.

38 years ago.

Which the government still runs.

And which loses money every single year.

One guess who pays for those losses.

Why, you do, Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer.

You're the mark.

Baffle 'em with you-know-what.

If Washington D.C. has a credo, that must surely be it. The media isn't far behind.

But before I get into that, I'd like to take a moment to thank President Obama for saving us all from last week's swine flu pandemic (worldwide epidemic). Just think, if Bush was still the President, we'd probably all be dead now. Plus, Obama saved the country for the bargain basement price of $1.5 billion, which hasn't even been spent yet. Oh man, that Obama is GOOD.

The media was speculating today that the recession has bottomed out, because we only LOST 539,000 jobs in April. This rosy optimism came because the experts had predicted job losses of over 600,000. The media left out that the government hired 66,000 people to do the census, and the government hired many others as well (which accounts for almost the entire difference between the projections and the actual job numbers). Those government jobs are all on the taxpayer dime, of course, and add nothing to economic growth. The private sector is still hemorrhaging jobs as fast as ever, but I guess the media is looking for something positive to hand their hat on, because Obama is the president now, and that means CHANGE has come. Call me crazy, but I'll say the recession is over when we start CREATING jobs instead of losing them. The media's optimism comes in spite of the fact that GDP shrunk by 6.1% in the first quarter, and that we're $11 trillion in debt, and that we'll be running a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and that we have massive deficits projected as far as the eye can see, and that Obama is projected to double the national debt in four years and triple it in eight years, and that unemployment is 8.9%, the highest in 25 years, and that we had a Treasury bond auction with demand so weak that we had to pay higher interest rates just to continue selling our long-term debt (which will raise Obama's deficit and debt projections even higher), and that our industrial base is vanishing, and that what's left of it is collapsing, and that we have massive unfunded entitlement liabilities looming on the horizon (growing at the rate of $2 trillion yearly), and that most of our state governments are broke, and that many banks failed the stress tests (they need $75 billion more bailout dollars, with more surely to come), and that credit still isn't flowing after $700 billion spent on TARP, and that companies all across the country are cutting back the hours of the workers they are retaining, and that if you add the folks who have fallen off the unemployment rolls to the unemployed numbers, unemployment comes out close to 15%, and that the federal government is spending dollars it doesn't have at an all-time record pace, and that the government is printing trillions of dollars out of thin air, and that the government has committed a total of $12 trillion thus far in fighting the recession, and that on top of that, Obama wants to raise energy prices through the roof and create lots more entitlements…………

I guess other than that, happy days are here again.

Oh yeah, and we're still fighting two wars, Obama has no idea what to do with the Gitmo prisoners, we're funneling money to Hamas, we're pondering whether to charge Bushco with war crimes, Pelosi's STILL lying about her knowledge of waterboarding even after the leaked CIA information proves she lied her butt off, Obama is looking for a Supreme Court Justice who is "empathetic" to certain groups as opposed to one who follows the law, the price index is rising in while we're in the depths of recession, Iran is almost certain to have nuclear weapons soon, the Pakistan government is in jeopardy (and Pakistan has nukes, which just maybe could be a problem if the Taliban gets their hands on)…

But other than that, everything's coming up roses.

Plus, Obama cut $17 billion from the budget. Golf clap for Obama. What the media left out of that story was that Obama isn't reducing the deficit by that $17 billion, oh no, he's going to use that money for OTHER government programs, so the net savings to taxpayers is ZERO. This is what passes for fiscal responsibility in the new Obama CHANGE era.

But it's all good. Thar's a new sheriff in town, and he reads that thar teleprompter REAL good.

Never mind that in order to avert fiscal armaggedon, Obama is going to have to come up with a tax increase of proportions never before contemplated in this country's history. By my reckoning, it will have to be at least $2 trillion per year to cover the deficits, interest on the debt, and the unfunded entitlements. It's either that or make drastic government spending cuts, and you know our new sheriff ain't 'bout to do that. Only them thar rightwing extremist fellas talk that kind o' crazy talk.

Welcome to the age of universal government.

I've gone on several rants on this blog previously about what a Ponzi scheme Social Security is. I now realize I've been thinking too small. It isn't just SS that is a Ponzi scheme. It's our entire federal government, and that Ponzi scheme is unraveling. The new funds required from the taxpayers can no longer keep up with the demand for funds the federal government requires. Like all Ponzi schemes, even one on as grand a scale as our government, it is destined to collapse.

But remember, put your hand over your mouth when you cough, and wash your hands frequently. Then everything should be fine.

An increasing number of banks and Wall Street firms that took bailout funds from the government under the TARP program want to give the money bank. One problem – the government won't let them. I'm not kidding.

"It should be called 'TRAP,' not TARP," said Brian Garrett, chief executive of Bank of the Bay in San Francisco, who is trying to return bailout funding. "Giving it back is harder than getting it."

Question – If the companies want to give the money back, did they really need the money in the first place ???

These companies say the burdens government is imposing on them harm their capacity for growth, and also sends their top financial talent to firms that aren't suffering under the government's TARP restrictions. In other words, the non-TARP receivers can still operate under the rules of the free market. TARP babies cannot.

In related news, House Financial Services Committee head Barney Frank (D-MA) has approved the introduction of the Pay For Performance Act Of 2009, that will allow the government to control the pay of ALL employees of companies that receive government assistance. As you may remember, back in february, the liar extraordinaire Frank, one of the prime enablers of the financial crisis, was longing to restrict the compensation of all financial companies, not just TARP receipients.

Fedzilla marches on, at warp speed.

If you want to see a classic example of how our government acts outside the law, watch this video with Glenn Beck ripping Connecticut's Attorney General a new one over the AIG bonuses. The good stuff starts about 1:30 into the video. Watch the AG squirm and stutter for 11 minutes as Beck continually asks him what law allows Connecticut's AG to take back the AIG bonuses (the eventual answer – there isn't one).

After watching Beck destroy this government clown, I only hope Beck, who lives in Connecticut, has his own financial house in locked-down airtight order. Then again, it doesn't really matter. If the government wants you, the government will get you.

Let me be clear: "The United States government has no interest or intention of running GM." – President Barack Obama

And then Obama forced GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, told Chrysler it has to merge with Fiat or go into bankruptcy, and told GM it better restructure or it will go into bankruptcy too. link

The government IS running GM, and Chrysler too. Here is what the government wants it's auto companies to do:

"I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars." – President Obama

By "clean cars," Obama means cars like GM's Chevrolet Volt, an electric car with a small internal combustion engine that will be used only to recharge the Volt's battery. There's one tiny problem with the Volt – the compact four seater will cost an estimated $40,000, pricing itself out of the market. There is one way for the Volt to be competitive, however. If gas prices skyrocket far beyond the current level of $2.00 per gallon, the Volt becomes a more attractive option. If gas prices stay low, well, India is producing the Nano, a car that will sell for $2,900. Which car do you think will sell more if gas is two bucks ? If Obama truly wants to revolutionize the auto industry, he has to force gas prices through the roof. Wait for that to happen. It won't be long.

Obama says neither GM nor Chrysler currently have viable business plans. He's probably right about that. Obama has given GM 60 days to come up with a new business plan that requires concessions from all involved. He's given Chrylser 30 days to work out it's merger with Fiat. The White House has sent government teams in to assist in formulating the new plans (but the government isn't running the auto companies. Right).

Also, guess who's paying for GM and Chrysler's warranties during this indefinite restructuring period ? YOU are, Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer:

A fund will be set up equal to 125 percent of the total cost to pay for warranty service. The automakers will contribute 15 percent while the government will provide 110 percent, with the money coming from the economic stabilization funds. A separate company will hold the funds and pay the claims even if one of the auto manufacturers goes into bankruptcy or goes out of business.

It sounds to me like GM and Chrysler are probably going into bankruptcy. Why else would the government need to back their warranties ? If this is the case, we could have saved the taxpayers over $20 billion in auto bailouts by putting the companies into bankruptcy last fall. Oh, well. What's $20 billion these days ? Chicken feed. We talk in trillions now. Our government is very adept at running businesses.

Finally, word is that when GM's outgoing CEO Wagoner was forced to resign, his retirement plan kicked in to the tune of $20 million. Sweet. Wagoner gets $20 million after his company lost $80 billion over the last four years. I don't know if I'm supposed to be outraged about this or not. I'm outraged about so much these days that outrage seems like the normal state. Maybe I'll call Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) so he can tell me how I should feel. Frank has already threatened AIG workers, so he seems like the guy to ask. My pitchfork is sharpened and ready for action. I'll try to get Rick Wagoner's home address so we can form a mob to foment violence against his family, like that ACORN group did to the AIG people. It's the new American way.

Congress gets very upset when TARP bailout money goes to corporate employee bonuses, corporate jet rides, and corporate golf tournaments.

What Congress doesn't get so very upset about is when TARP bailout money goes to Congress, in the form of campaign contributions.

In recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Bank of America (which got $15 billion in bailout money) sent out $24,500 in the first two months of 2009, including $1,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and another $15,000 to members of the House and Senate banking panels. Citigroup ($25 billion) dished out $29,620, including $2,500 to House GOPWhip Eric Cantor, who also got $10,000 from UBS which, while not a TARP recipient, got $5 billion in bailout funds as an AIG "counterparty." "This certainly appears to be a case of TARP funds being recycled into campaign contributions," says Brett Kappell, a D.C. lawyer who tracks donations. (A spokesman for Cantor did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said it's his "policy to accept legal contributions.")

In addition, TARP fund recipients paid $114 million in political contributions and lobbying efforts in 2008.

Some of the top recipients of contributions from companies receiving TARP money are the same members of Congress who chair committees charged with regulating the financial sector and overseeing the effectiveness of this unprecedented government program. They include Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (he received $854,200 from the companies in the 2008 election cycle, including money to his presidential campaign) and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chair of the Senate Finance Committee (he received $279,000). In total, members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Senate Finance Committee and House Financial Services Committee received $5.2 million from TARP recipients in the 2007-2008 election cycle. President Obama collected at least $4.3 million from employees at these companies for his presidential campaign.

The companies making the biggest political donations just so happened to be the same companies that received the largest TARP bailouts. What a coincidence.

The companies giving the most to fund lawmakers' campaigns and spending the most on lobbying efforts were also those that received the most TARP money to help them stay afloat. This includes General Motors, which spent $15 million between campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures and got $10.4 billion (more than all other companies), Bank of America (and the investment company it bought last year, Merrill Lynch), which spent $14.5 million to play politics and received $45 billion from the bailout bill; and American International Group (AIG), which spent $10.6 million and was paid out $40 billion. Citigroup was also one of the largest spenders to see a big result: between lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions, the company spent $12.5 million and got $50 billion.

For a complete list of TARP recipients that spent money on campaign contributions and lobbying, see the above link.

While I'm sure all our congressional members have the very highest ethical standards (LOL. Sometimes I crack myself up), this information makes it look like taxpayer dollars were for sale to the highest bidder.

Just like always.

Maybe the campaign contributions made these companies too big to fail.

FYI – Bank of America, receiver of $45 billion in TARP funds, MADE A PROFIT in 2008. So did Goldman Sachs. So did Morgan Stanley. Hmmm. Citigroup lost a lot of money in 2008, but over the last five years, has made a five year net profit of about $39 billion. All these companies made a bundle if you look back beyond the fourth quarter of 2008. They all made HUGE profits for years prior.

Get the picture ? These companies are not only to big to fail, they're too big to suffer even a one quarter loss before the government takes money from us peons to prop up the earnings statements of the big boys.

THEY are too big for the government to let fail. WE are too small for the government to give a damn about.