FEAR. It’s the only apparatus that democrats have left to get their “stimulus” bill passed, especially as the general public becomes more aware of their idiotic plan. According to the latest poll, only 37% of the nation supports the stimulus package in its current form.
Now democrats have resorted to the drastic measures of making up statistics. Nancy Pelosi said “every month we do not have an economic recover package 500 MILLION Americans lose their jobs.” 500 million? As in 200 million more than the entire U.S. population? Could she have meant 500 thousand? That figure would still be inaccurate. It’s just smoke in mirrors, a scare tactic to make people support her.
President Obama is using the same tactics, saying if the bill isn’t passed now we will enter into a depression which “we may not be able to reverse.” But remember, this is coming from the same guy who said the national deficit doesn’t matter.
Apparently the Democratic Caucus agrees that the deficit doesn’t matter. They are spending $100,000 of taxpayer money on a trip to the country club this weekend…
Over 70% of U.S. businesses have announced freezes on hiring and/or pay increases. My employer is included in this figure, which is frequently hailed as one of the most recession-resistant companies in the world.
And it looks like the freezes will be around for a while. In the words of ADP’s CEO, this will “likely continue [...] into 2010.” Why do businesses in the United States expect this economic crisis to last so long? Isn’t the government about to pass out an $800 billion stimulus package?
Well, the Congressional Budget Office says only 25% of the money will go out this year. Most of it won’t be spent until 2011 or 2012. How is this supposed to help the economy?
It won’t. An analysis by the Wall Street Journal indicates that only 12% of the stimulus package legislation could plausibly be considered an economic stimulus. No wonder CEO’s have said they won’t be hiring for awhile.
It sure is convenient for the politicians though, as their porkbarrel money will be spent right before elections. And if you still think your government cares about you, think about what will happen to the economy when we print $800 billion dollars and just put it into circulation as if it were mana from heaven. Over the next four years, we’ll see inflation skyrocket while we are stuck with stagnant wages. But we’ll save the economics lecture for another post.
As a side note, the stimulus package could fund all of the soup kitchens in America for about 15 years if we eliminated the wasteful spending. And considering the direction that our government is taking us, this would probably be a good investment.
On September 17, 2007 at NASDAQ, Mr. Obama said that “Subprime lending started off as a good idea.” He went on to claim the condition of the real-estate market could be pinned solely on the corruption of financial institutions.
But wait a second. Since when was subprime lending a good idea?
The very definition of subprime lending states that there is a heightened risk of default, meaning these borrowers have a history of loan delinquency or default, a recorded bankruptcy, or limited debt experience. Does it sound like “a good idea” to give these people mortgages?
So why did Obama say that subprime lending was a good idea? Because he himself pressured financial institutions to make these bad loans. While working with ACORN in 1994, Obama sued Citibank because they were NOT making risky loans to unqualified individuals.
That’s right. Obama and ACORN worked together forcing financial institutions to make extremely high-risk loans. During his presidential campaign he denied all ties to ACORN, but this clearly contradicts a published statement by Chicago ACORN Leader, Toni Foulkes:
“We have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate [...]. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.”
Obama provided legal training to ACORN workers so they could intimidate banks into granting risky loans to people with low income and bad credit. Check out this video to learn more about ACORN tactics.
So how did this all come about? How can the government force banks to make bad loans? This excerpt from a CNS News Analysis sums up the answer to that question:
According to Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman and an economist with the Foundation for Economic Education, government policy is to blame.
Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the [Community Reinvestment Act] to combat ‘red-lining,’ a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”
The Clinton-Reno threat of ‘vigorous enforcement’ pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”
