« Miss California Punished for Not Endorsing State-Sanctioned Depravity | Main | A Postcard From Pelosiland »

In lieu of an open thread:

Iowahawk discovers Napolitano's lost screenplay.

"This is Pinewood Lane, in Anytown, USA. A street probably a lot like yours. Happy citizens enjoying the bounty of living in this great land of ours. At 1102 we find the Baxters -- Mom and Pop, teen twins Bobby and Debbie, little Susie and Grandpa. A typical family who knows what it means to be an American. Why, here comes Gus the Mailman! I wonder what he's got in his mailbag for the Baxters?

How about that -- it's a mortgage bailout for Pop, an NEA grant for Mom's transgressive performance art collective, and guaranteed student loan applications for the twins. They're off to State U next fall to study Lacanian Semiotics, you know. And for Gramps, a letter from Medicare -- they've finally approved that gender reassignment surgery he's always wanted."

but Obama made a campaign promise to cut taxes and lower spending.......

he already cut my taxes by 18 cents a week and now he is going to lower spending by $100 out of every 3.55 million....

he is just doing what he promised!!!!

Is that a view of Michael Moore - looking down on him from directly above?

Small circle being his head.
Medium circle - his chin
Large circle - his belly.

That black dot, Im assuming is his brain.

It's fitting somehow that this graphic resembles a setting sun.

No, the black dot isnt Moore's brain, its the shriveled remains of his black soul leaving his body.

To be fair its $10/week, not 18 cents. Im spending $5 a week on lottery tix and $10 every two weeks on a pizza. Im stimulating the economy !!! Woo woo!!

Mandible Claw, I saw that Iowahawk thingy. Some ambitious people should film it and post it on YouTube.

blue, redo your math. its $100 for every 3.55 TRILLION of spending

sorry, thats 35.5 BILLION

Ya know, I think the graphic is key - it
1) grabs the eye - nosey wanderers browsing will see the orange and "slow"
2) even moonbats can read pictures

Now, if we could just get a pie chart of how exactly the 9000 pork projects stimulated the economy I think we may just have a winner!

Even if he cut $100 Million from the government every day for the rest of the year... his cuts would still be less than 1% of his total spending.

How did we get here? Oh yeah! 8 years of Bush.

Cant blame Bush for Obama's massive spending that has bigger deficits in 1 year than Bush spent in his first 4 years.

Obama makes Bush look a fiscal conservative (ok, he wasnt one, but $2 trillion single year deficits make it look that way)

TARP was passed under Bush, not Obama.

Obama has not been in office for a year.

Yes, it was Bush - Not Obama.

From Wiki - you can read the rest there.

On November 12, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson indicated that reviving the securitization market for consumer credit would be a new priority in the second allotment[11][12]

On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the United Auto Workers.

On January 15, 2009, the Treasury issued interim final rules for reporting and record keeping requirements under the executive compensation standards of the CPP.[13]

On January 21, 2009, the Treasury announced new regulations regarding disclosure and mitigation of conflicts of interest in its TARP contracting [14]

On February 5, 2009, the Senate approved changes to the TARP which prohibit firms receiving TARP funds from paying bonuses to their 25 highest-paid employees. The amendment was proposed by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut as an amendment to the $900 billion economic stimulus act yet to be passed. [15]

Anon,

Yes, that covers TARP 1. That was when Bush was president and Obama a Senator.

That was bad enough, but the spending "investing" has gone up by several times in just the first 3 months of the Obama term.

Did you happen to read the last line of your excerpt? It mentions a $900 billion bill that was passed and signed some time after Bush was gone. How's about Obama's massive budget too? and the massive spending bill that was "only" about half the size of Porkulus?

Okay,but how did the economy get so bad? Under Obama or under Bush?

Send them all PINK SLIPS!

And here's another simple, effective way to send a message.

These are a couple of things we can ALL do right now to keep the momentum of the tax day tea parties going.

Okay,but how did the economy get so bad? Under Obama or under Bush?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 21, 2009 10:51 AM

I think these problems have been building for a long time and I can blame irresponsible individuals, corrupt Democrats and feckless or corrupt Republicans in Congress, the CRA, labor unions, corporate mismanagement, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and especially Fannie and Freddie.

It's tough to parse it all out, but what I do know for sure is that spending or promising far too much money we don't have at all levels (individual, business and Government) got us into this mess, and quadrupling-down on that tactic will lead to disaster. This is what Obama and the Democrats in Congress are doing now.

The demacrooks and KING FINK OBAMA are not about to make any budget cuts their going to increese taxes on us all

For liberal Obamaroids its 'All Bush All the Time'.
The left needs a villain to consolidate as The Left, and I imagine Bush will be it for a generation.

Liberals lurch from Iraqi wartime strategies, inadequate personnel and insufficient munitions to Abu Ghirab to the 'mistake' made by Bush's Surge, to Gitmo to 'torture' to homeland security fantasies to taxes to finding the affirmative action president of their dreams and now to fiscal 'management' as it suits their emotional appetites.

Liberal Wonderland logic suggests that to correct errant, TARP spending under Bush(& McCain and other liberals) we should now destroy the economy through hemorrhagic spending under BO.

Would that liberals could just take a "time-out" for about 200 years and let the rest of us work.

Look at the graph, the deficit started rocketing up and the economy started tanking when the Democrats took over Congress in 2007.

And when challenged as to what exactly Bush did to tank the economy, the last troll started babbling about run-off from coal mining.

Also, the TARP spending would not have happened had the Democrats not 1.) blocked reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and 2.) politicized the mortgage industry to favor people incapable of repaying mortgages.

Yeah, Gregory, I noticed that from Andy, too. Mountain runoff? I was as puzzled as you. He's left.
Eroded confidence in markets I lay at the Demo's feet. Stock market looks forward, doesn't like what it sees, and suddenly I'm a poor person, thanks to the Obama crash.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 21, 2009 10:51 AM

From what I see it, there were mainly two causes of our economic problems, both of which are connected to the Democrats:
1. Obviously, the housing/ mortgage crisis. This occurred because banks granted a lot of high- risk loans to a lot of people who they (The bankers) knew wouldn't be capable of paying them back. Then, you may ask, why did the banks approve those loans that they knew couldn't be paid back? Because they were FORCED to do so, by measures such as the Community Reinvestment Act which Obama and the other Senate Democrats passed in the name of "Social justice."
2. The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyone with a decent knowledge of economics knew that those companies were becoming way too bloated, way too fast, and were on their way to a massive fall. Smart bankers like my father figured it out, so they dumped all their stock in those companies years ago (The bank my dad works for got rid of their Fannie and Freddie stock back in 2006). George W. Bush, John McCain, and many other prominent Republicans also figured it out, and tried to warn Congress and everyone else what would inevitably happen if the companies were not reformed. The Senate Democrats, however, refused to listen or do anything about it, mainly because a lot of them were so deeply in Fannie and Freddie's pockets, it was a miracle they weren't covered with lint.

When can we start up the linching party?

Anybody hear the Barney Frank interview with Tavis Smiley? Limbaugh was playing clips earlier.

Frank was actually blaming "people" for tricking other people who couldn't afford homes into buying homes. Sounds like he's talking about himself, but he was apparently trying to say it was all someone else's fault or something. Unreal. Of course Smiley didn't call him on it.

Well Anon, since you are quite rightly upset over the big spending of TARP you must be absolutely seething over the big spending of Obama.

If you are looking for a root-cause of our current fiscal mess, it is directly traceable to the Wilson Administration. The passage of the 17th amendment is what broke the system of checks and balances within the Congress. The House was to hold the populist agenda, the Senate the State's agenda, and resulting legislation was to be a compromise of the two. Once the election of Senators was turned over to the voting populace, the agendas of both house and Senate were populist in nature, i.e., focused on reelection. That's why we have unfunded mandates, lobbyist control, and out of control federal spending, and institutions like Fannie and Freddie.
Prior to 1875 to 1917,the year when the populist Senators numbered in the majority, spending was a flat ~3.5% of GDP. That's because the State's wouldn't tolerate Senators going on spending sprees for which, they would ultimately foot the bill.
This is what needs to be fixed, and it can be fixed by the States, under Article V of the Constitution.
-OMB

I guess we will see if it works or not.

Did you know that, because Americans get healthcare from their employers, every 1% increase in unemployment means that 1 million people are without healthcare?

Now, that's something to worry about.

Mayor Gayvin Newsom, is going to run for Gayvernor in California, you poor souls.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 21, 2009 2:40 PM

Assuming they haven't been responsible enough to save for an emergency and include the cost of extending their coverage through Cobra in that savings plan...

See how that works?

Posted by: cowlove at April 21, 2009 3:34 PM

For liberals, it should always be someone else's money to subsidize their existence.

Not their own.

In the waning months of the Bush Presidency, one Senator, any of the 100, could have attempted to stop TARP with a Filibuster. None (which is NOT and alternative spelling of Obama, for those readers in Moonbatland) attempted to stop it with a Filibuster. Granted, a cloture vote would have ended debate (the filibuster), but that would have been a difficult vote. To that end, the Moonbat song and dance of 'Happened on Bush's watch' is moot. He did not use the most obvious tactic available, and per the ancient legal concept: Silence gives consent.

This administration really thinks that we are stupid. The only stupid ones are the people that voted for this socialist lefty.

And when challenged as to what exactly Bush did to tank the economy, the last troll started babbling about run-off from coal mining.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 21, 2009 11:39 AM

But that's easy, it was deregulation! Deregulation I tells ya.

(Are the moonbats still using that canard, or am I out of date?)