I Agree with Obama: I’d Rather Him Be a One-Term President Too! (Part 1)

I pledge a spirit of cooperation and bi-
partisanship, to reach across the aisle and
work with those despicable republicans who
are to blame for all the problems!

Prior to the State of the Union speech, Obama was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, (who had put her big girl panties on and was trying to sound like a tough reporter).

At one point Obama said, “The one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

Are you kidding me? He thinks that pissing off the public to the extent that he ends up a one-term president equals success? Maybe he should talk to Jimmy Carter on how that feels in between their discussions on their respective Nobel Peace Prizes and how much they hate anyone named Bush. However, I do agree that I would prefer Obama be a one-term president!

When Sawyer asked if he would still be able to hold to his promise about not raising taxes on anyone making over $250K, he neatly sidestepped the question by saying, "I can guarantee that the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes when the economy is still this weak." Sawyer, of course, didn’t bother to challenge Obama about his non-answer.

It was the State of the Union address that was, “about as popular as a root canal.” Over seventy minutes long, Obama’s speech meandered through the blame Bush rhetoric to his plan to save taxpayer money by spending even more taxpayer monies.

Look, I know he’s not stupid, but he is arrogant. And arrogance can sometimes stand in for stupidity.

During the State of the Union, Obama demanded a spending freeze, but then said it wouldn’t take place until 2011. “That’s the way budgets work,” he ad-libbed after some rather loud laughter erupted from the gallery. (They weren’t laughing with him either.) But then he turned around and went through a laundry list of bills (and taxes) he wanted passed, including healthcare.

Only a week ago, most democrats were administering last rites to their health care bill after the election of Scott Brown as #41, giving republicans a crucial edge to stopping the Obama taxation express and striking true fear in the hearts of democrats up for election in November. After the Massachusetts election, most presidents would have stuck a conciliatory tone. Not this president—he continued to drive in the wedge and push his unpopular agenda. 

He was a cheerleader for “changing the tone in Washington.” The problem is the tone he changed it to was (still!) whining about the Bush administration!

“So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger.”

See, in the progressive mindset, spending our tax dollars helps not hurts (unless it’s being spent on the military or other conservative ideas.) It’s counter to what logic dictates: in a down economy, you STOP spending, not spend even more. That is because in their mind, government is the solver of problems, not the free market. We’re just imbeciles who would be sitting in a corner, sucking our thumb if the government wasn’t here to help. Meanwhile, we are hemorrhaging money in amounts that will keep generations in debt.

The first thing Obama suggested, was taxing banks.

“To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.”

Which they will pass on to us, the consumer, in the form of increased fees. I hated the Wall Street bonuses as much as anyone, but the banks shouldn’t have gotten our tax monies in the first place. It certainly didn’t stop a lot of smaller banks from going out of business (and the mega banks from snapping them up.) Now he wants to charge them a “fee” (read: tax). Businesses don’t pay tax. We pay the tax—when the cost of business goes up, they pass on the costs to all of us.

Inserts mine:

“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. [Which will cause banks to cut back on making student loans.] Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years—and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. [Who’ll be paying those loans back…why WE will.] Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.”

Well, let’s just give everyone FREE tuition and be done with it. Unfortunately, students (and their parents) sometimes make bad choices. It does not make sense to take out massive loans if you’re not going into a career where you can make enough to pay them back! If you’re going to become an English, journalist (heh), social worker or basket weaving major, go to a smaller, public university and work your way through or plan to get a major scholarship.

“And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.” No, you just snuck it into the withholding tables. Did you notice the take-home amount in your paycheck went down from last year? That’s because congress lowered the threshold, raising taxes on wages across the board. So we’re back to playing word games again—it depends on what the meaning of ‘raising income taxes’ is.

(Part 2 Tuesday: Energy, Heath Care (again!) and Why was Scott Brown elected? Hint: They know the reason better than the electorate!)

Following the Geithner Money Train: Paying Back Your Own Tax Dollars

Have you checked your credit cards’ interest rates recently? I hope you have been reading those changes in the TOS that Citibank, Chase and others have sent. You remember them…the companies that took your tax dollars as a bailout. Now that congress has passed so-called “credit card reform,” we get to reap the fruit of their labor: A huge jump in interest rates, fees, minimum payments and a reduction of credit limits in anticipation of new regulations that go into effect in February.

See, while congress told the public how they wanted to help consumers out, they gave the banks and agencies plenty of time to hike up interest rates and other fees in anticipation of other restrictions. All this while people are struggling to make ends meet and there’s double-digit unemployment. Most of what this bill has accomplished is making it harder for consumers to get out of debt.

While we’re at it, let’s quit the lie that republicans are for big business and democrats are for the little guy. Face it: Members of both parties are out for themselves. They both like to help banks and financial institutions because it benefits their campaign contributions. Look at either candidate in the 2008 presidential election. Both had significant campaign contributions from those in financial institutions.* Senator John McCain took money from donors in these institutions. His top five donors (just over 1.4 million) were financial institutions Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co. Goldman Sachs was President Obama’s largest private donor at almost one million. With the exception of Merrill Lynch, the same financial institutions donated to the Obama campaign at almost two million. (*Note: Donations don’t come technically from the organizations, but from the organization's PAC, its individual members, employees or owners and those individuals' immediate families.)

All of these institutions (Bank of America later purchased Merrill Lynch) took TARP money. All, except Citigroup, are reported as having paid the money back. But these banks, and others who spent the most money lobbying, were the ones who got the bailout money. And, although they claimed they needed these bailouts to make loans, lending declined after the bailout of these same institutions! Several paid back the loans only when it became evident that they wouldn’t be able to hand out huge annual bonuses.

You’d think all these money woes would mean income for the employees fell. Not so. In fact, Wall Street Journal reports Goldman Sachs’ projected compensation per employee for 2009 will average $743,112!

So Sachs is doing well, but that’s no surprise. Look who’s guarding the treasury hen house: Timmy “TurboTax” Geithner, former president of the Federal Reserve (who blamed TurboTax® for underpaying his own taxes). Later this month, Congress will question Geithner about emails involving deals between AIG and Goldman Sachs. Emails showing the New York Federal Reserve withholding information about AIG’s funneling taxpayer’s bailout money they had received over to Goldman Sachs and others. Initially, neither Geithner, previously accused of suspiciously close ties to Sachs, nor the Federal Reserve would name the banks benefiting, from “AIG's ‘backdoor bailouts.’”

At the same time, under the watch of the Federal Reserve, a competitor to Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, was allowed to fail while AIG was proclaimed “too big to fail.” AIG’s $170 billion bailout allowed them to repay a 12.6 billion debt to Goldman Sachs. In fact, at the time of his nomination, Geithner was questioned about these ties. The questions are not going to be any friendlier this time around.

“Lawmakers reacted angrily Friday to revelations in e-mails sent in late 2008 and early 2009 between lawyers for the New York Fed and American International Group Inc. The exchanges show the New York Fed wanted AIG to withhold information about deals that sent billions from the taxpayer bailout of AIG to Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Societe Generale and other major banks.”

Isn’t that the way criminals launder money? Or maybe it’s a case of Goldman Sachs wanting to make sure they got their investment back before AIG went tits up.

I anticipate in the next week or so and right around the time of these hearings, we’ll start hearing a crescendo of consumers who just opened their Christmas bills and found their interest rate jumped from the teens to the twenties or more. Citigroup claims it just costs more to do business. This is bull—this writer opted out (i.e., canceled) my card. I had that card for almost 20 years. Back then, the prime lending rate was three times what it is now and yet my interest rate was lower then, even though I have a better rating now.

Citigroup has also recently announced that it will raise the billions needed to pay back the taxpayer loans. And although their stock price jumped slightly at the announcement they would be selling stock, being that it’s worth less than $5 a share, the idea is absurd. Not to mention that to sell, you have to have someone who actually wants to buy it. It will be interesting to see if there are any takers and their identity. However, it means that you’ll likely be paying back loans of your tax dollars, with more of your own money.

But isn’t that what Ponzi schemes are all about?