Some major figures in the Obama Administration will be gone soon, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tim Geithner, and press secretary Robert Gibbs. In fact, Biden, Geithner, and Gibbs will be shoved out. Mrs. Clinton will leave because she's become invisible and irrelevant, a Secretary-of-State in name only.
Hawaii political analyst Jill Rethman and I both wrote (see below for yesterday's column) that Hillary's tenure as Sec. of State will be a short one. On Biden's coming resignation for "health reasons," he is a human gaffe machine and, as such, major liability to the Obama crowd. In his comments yesterday on supposed health care "savings," the V-P appeared ill and lifeless.
Robert Gibbs? He may limp along for a few more months. Warren Buffet blasted Geithner this morning on ABC, and that is very bad news for the hapless Treasury Secretary -- of course, Buffet was an important early supporter of Obama.
The only thing more "troubled" than the TARP program is Geithner himself, a man clearly out of his league. As unemployment continues to skyrocket, Obama and Axelrod will need to look for a scapegoat, and odds are that Geithner will be "their man."
If both cap-and-trade and healthcare reform fail this summer, the designated scapegoat in that case could be Rahm Emanuel. He could either lose his job, or much of his power.
The dropping of Biden as V-P nominee was a real possiblity during the general election campaign. What saved Biden's role was the collapse of the economy, which occurred around Sept. 15 and eradicated McCain-Palin's lead in the polls. If Obama had then replaced Biden with Hillary, she would have spent the next four years in "an undisclosed location."
I also believe Bernanke is in trouble in the Fed. Jim Demint and others are calling for an "audit" of the Fed, which would be about as pretty as nude pictures of Barbara Mikulsi.
I'm sure Hillary is delivering some ultimatums, now that she must recognize Obama's goal is to shut her up and marginalize both her and Bill Clinton. Of course, the MSM responds to all these emerging developments by drooling out of both sides of its mouth.
Showing posts with label Timothy Geithner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Timothy Geithner. Show all posts
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Three Men Control America's Money
Who controls the volume (supply) of money in America (note Garfield's point below)? That power rests mainly in the hands of three men: Barack Hussein Obama, Timothy Geithner, and Ben Bernanke (head of the Federal Reserve). At the G20 Summit, Obama suggested he might want to turn that power over to other nations, a very, very bad idea, as the Founding Fathers would tell Obama.
"The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the revolutionary war."
--Benjamin Franklin
"All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."
--John Adams
"Whoever controls the volume of money in our Country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
-- James A Garfield (Assassinated President of the United States)
One of our challlenges -- and one of Sarah Palin's -- is the fact that we're all "nice" people. Well, Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel are NOT nice. They are not good. They are not moral. They are not fans of "right reason" and the Western tradition. They are agents of political mass destruction. We need to make sure that, in the battle for the presidency, "the last man standing" (and, of course, I mean "the last woman") is Sarah Palin.
I wrote today on my other blog how Obama, with his wild spending, is throwing his own children, Sasha and Malia, under the bus, undermining their chances to realize The American Dream. Sarah cares about her children. If Obama cares about his, he has a funny way of showing it. In fact, I believe deeply he cares about one thing on earth, and "its" initials are BHO.
The real enemies of our country -- North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and some others -- are going to "love" having Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. President. His solution to evil nations is to attempt to talk them into submission. In that effort, he will fail, and it will put our country in danger.
"The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the revolutionary war."
--Benjamin Franklin
"All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."
--John Adams
"Whoever controls the volume of money in our Country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
-- James A Garfield (Assassinated President of the United States)
One of our challlenges -- and one of Sarah Palin's -- is the fact that we're all "nice" people. Well, Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel are NOT nice. They are not good. They are not moral. They are not fans of "right reason" and the Western tradition. They are agents of political mass destruction. We need to make sure that, in the battle for the presidency, "the last man standing" (and, of course, I mean "the last woman") is Sarah Palin.
I wrote today on my other blog how Obama, with his wild spending, is throwing his own children, Sasha and Malia, under the bus, undermining their chances to realize The American Dream. Sarah cares about her children. If Obama cares about his, he has a funny way of showing it. In fact, I believe deeply he cares about one thing on earth, and "its" initials are BHO.
The real enemies of our country -- North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and some others -- are going to "love" having Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. President. His solution to evil nations is to attempt to talk them into submission. In that effort, he will fail, and it will put our country in danger.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Barack Obama: Bankrupting the Nation
Handing money out to AIG is "like donating blood at a morgue." (Troy Dunn)
Him: "Look, he's giving us all money just like he primised."
Her: "He has your wallet."
Him: "Look, he's giving us all money just like he primised."Her: "He has your wallet."
Financial expert Troy Dunn says, "It's like donating blood at a morgue." He's talking about the government's stupid decision to throw more cash at hapless AIG.
In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- in the sidebar at the upper right.)
Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.
Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%..
What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.
Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.
Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.
GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.
GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.
What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.
What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?
What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners in listed shares of all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation. (Citigroup, once the most valuable financial institution in the world now has its stock trading at $1.03 per share.)
This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."
About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."
If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.
Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning." Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.
[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]
In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- in the sidebar at the upper right.)
Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.
Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%..
What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.
Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.
Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.
GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.
GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.
What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.
What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?
What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners in listed shares of all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation. (Citigroup, once the most valuable financial institution in the world now has its stock trading at $1.03 per share.)
This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."
About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."
If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.
Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning." Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.
[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]
Monday, February 9, 2009
Barack Obama's "Nameless, Unreasoning Fear"
The motto of the woman pictured below is "Serve the people." To find out what Obama's motto could be, scroll down
Most Americans remember a part of Franklin Roosevelt's Depression-era remarks about fear. Yes, he did say in his 1st Inaugural, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself," but that's not the whole statement. It went this way, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself . . . nameless, unreasoning fear." The final three words, starting with "nameless," are extremely important.
Granted, there are situations in which fear is appropriate -- for example, if you wake up and see a hungry grizzly bear climbing through your bedroom window. In a case like that, there's nothing unreasonable about fear. (After the initial surge of terror, of course, the most important thing you can do is to calm down and decide -- reason -- quickly about how you're going to get out of the situation. In other words, act like Captain "Sully," not like Nervous Nellie.
Barack Obama has told us that, without his (potentially catastrophic) Stimulus Bill, we will face a financial "catastrophe." How he knows that -- the reasoning part -- remains unclear. So, why did he appeal to one of our primal instincts? Because he knows -- or at least his speech guru Aexlrod knows -- that fear sells. Scare people half to death and many of them will do your bidding.
The last thing Obama wants his audiences to do is have reasoned responses to his rhetoric. When he tells us, for example, that "95% of the American people are going to get a tax cut," he is lying to us. He knows that nearly 50% of American wage earners (and their immediate dependents) don't pay federal income taxes.
When they get their $500 or $1000 "tax cut" from the Treasury -- and yes, Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle who didn't pay their taxes, will get one -- it will not be a tax refund. Instead, it will be a welfare check. In other words, Obama will be putting half the population on what our grandparents used to call the "dole," welfare. As Obama told Joe the Plumber, it's not about stimulus, but rather about "redistribution of wealth."
Why do such a damaging thing? Because Axelrod/Obama know that dependent people are reliable providers of votes in future elections. When the government basically "owns" someone, he or she expresses gratitude by voting for bigger and bigger government. Sadly, though, he or she is no longer a free, independent citizen.
Thus, we have FDR, along with all other great American leaders, arguing against reliance on "nameless, unreasoning fear." In contrast, we have Obama and his minions relying completely on fear because reason isn't on their side. As every tyrant knows, fear is his most powerful ally.
Gov. Sarah Palin's motto is "Serve the people." In contrast, Obama's seems to be: "Scare the people."
In today's difficult times, we will still sing "God bless America." Yet the more appropriate phrase might be "God help America." In fact, God generally blesses our land most abundantly when the vast majority of Americans do everything in their power to help themselves, their families, and their communities.
Most Americans remember a part of Franklin Roosevelt's Depression-era remarks about fear. Yes, he did say in his 1st Inaugural, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself," but that's not the whole statement. It went this way, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself . . . nameless, unreasoning fear." The final three words, starting with "nameless," are extremely important.
Granted, there are situations in which fear is appropriate -- for example, if you wake up and see a hungry grizzly bear climbing through your bedroom window. In a case like that, there's nothing unreasonable about fear. (After the initial surge of terror, of course, the most important thing you can do is to calm down and decide -- reason -- quickly about how you're going to get out of the situation. In other words, act like Captain "Sully," not like Nervous Nellie.
Barack Obama has told us that, without his (potentially catastrophic) Stimulus Bill, we will face a financial "catastrophe." How he knows that -- the reasoning part -- remains unclear. So, why did he appeal to one of our primal instincts? Because he knows -- or at least his speech guru Aexlrod knows -- that fear sells. Scare people half to death and many of them will do your bidding.
The last thing Obama wants his audiences to do is have reasoned responses to his rhetoric. When he tells us, for example, that "95% of the American people are going to get a tax cut," he is lying to us. He knows that nearly 50% of American wage earners (and their immediate dependents) don't pay federal income taxes.
When they get their $500 or $1000 "tax cut" from the Treasury -- and yes, Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle who didn't pay their taxes, will get one -- it will not be a tax refund. Instead, it will be a welfare check. In other words, Obama will be putting half the population on what our grandparents used to call the "dole," welfare. As Obama told Joe the Plumber, it's not about stimulus, but rather about "redistribution of wealth."
Why do such a damaging thing? Because Axelrod/Obama know that dependent people are reliable providers of votes in future elections. When the government basically "owns" someone, he or she expresses gratitude by voting for bigger and bigger government. Sadly, though, he or she is no longer a free, independent citizen.
Thus, we have FDR, along with all other great American leaders, arguing against reliance on "nameless, unreasoning fear." In contrast, we have Obama and his minions relying completely on fear because reason isn't on their side. As every tyrant knows, fear is his most powerful ally.
Gov. Sarah Palin's motto is "Serve the people." In contrast, Obama's seems to be: "Scare the people."
In today's difficult times, we will still sing "God bless America." Yet the more appropriate phrase might be "God help America." In fact, God generally blesses our land most abundantly when the vast majority of Americans do everything in their power to help themselves, their families, and their communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
