The Obama Economy

Atlanta Fed Chief Dennis Lockhart says that if the national unemployment rate were figured by the old rules - including those who are underemployed and those who have stopped looking for work - that rather than the outrageous 9.4% rate touted by the Obama administration, the real rate of unemployment is approximately 16%.

Lockhart, whose knowledge of economics is more advanced than the guesswork indulged in by the Obama administration, says that public spending will not solve the unemployment problem. He additionally forecasts a protracted period of recession typified by perennial joblessness, and calls fears about excessive government spending leading to high deficits and inflation "warranted."

Economist John Williams of shadowstats.com estimates that, when all data is taken into consideration, the real unemployment rate is teetering on the brink of The Great Depression's 25%. In an article at U.S. News & World Report, Williams is quoted:

So if you care not just about people who meet the official definition of "unemployed" but also about people who are dropping out of the labor force, 2009 seems to be trailing 1982 in terms of the health of the labor market. Williams says that when he takes into consideration people who haven't looked for work in more than a year because they can't find jobs, the real unemployment rate today goes all the way up to 20.6 percent by his calculations. "It won't take much to get it to the worst since the Great Depression," he says.

Whether you go with the Atlanta Fed's number of 16% or John Williams' number approaching 21%, it is plain that Obama will indeed go down in history...

... with Hoover.

The ONE Thing Edward Kennedy Got Right.

"The problems of our economy have occurred not as an outgrowth of laissez-faire, unbridled competition. They have occurred under the guidance of federal agencies, and under the umbrella of federal regulations."

Obama Logic

The following is an outline of the development of the logic of the Obamazombies as it regards the economy. Something is missing that I can't quite figure out. Perhaps someone would be good enough to help explain it all to me?

1) Prior to the election: "The American economy is the Worst Since The Great Depression! Vote for me! I can fix it!"

2) Immediately after the election: "The American economy is the Worst Since The Great Depression - but we will halt its decline in its tracks! Thanks for voting for me! I am now going to fix it!"

3) Following the stimulus passage: "Yes, unemployment for Bush's last year was 4.60%, signifying the Worst Economy Since The Great Depression! Now the unemployment rate is 9.5%, signifying that the stimulus package is WORKING!"





[Free information - no additional charge: If the unemployment rate were figured today using the same methods as were used 50 years ago, the current unemployment rate is pressing 18%. You are welcome for this free information.]

3) As the economy has become progressively worse: "Nobody knew the economy was THIS bad! Why, it's the Worst Economy Since The Great Depression! It's not our fault we can't fix it!"

4) Joe (Silver Tongue) Biden: "So we guessed wrong.... Who woulda thunk that the economy was this bad? If we don't spend more money, we'll go bankrupt!"

I think that the technical term for the above is "having it every which way."

Medical doctors generally refer to such disordered thinking as "confusion," and send the patient off to be checked for a head injury.

My grandmother called it "lying."

The Real Cost of High Taxes

"I don't know if I can live on my income or not - the government won't let me try it."
Bob Thaves of "Frank and Ernest"

The Obama administration can barely keep the drool from dripping out the sides of its collective mouth at the thought of seizing yet more of the Amercan economy and raising taxes higher, and higher, and yet higher.

The Center for Fiscal Accountability, however, recently placed ads in magazines showing how much we are paying in taxes already. If all taxes that you currently pay (income tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, property tax, capital gains tax, unemployment insurance tax, workman's compensation tax, licensing taxes, regulatory fines... you get the idea) were published like the Surgeon General's Warning on every item that you purchased, what exactly are you already paying in taxes even before Obama has his way and raises your taxes again?

* 37.6% of a can of soda is tax.

* 44.8% of a meal dining out is tax.

*45.6% of the price of a firearm is tax.

*46.3% of your cable TV bill is tax.

* 46.4% of your cell phone and its contract is tax.

* 50% of your nightly hotel bill is tax.

* 51.2% of the price of gasoline is tax.

* 51.8% of your landline phone is tax.

* 55% of domestic airfare is tax.

* 56.2% of each bottle of domestic beer is tax.

* 60.6% of the cost of a car rental is tax.

* 79.6% of the cost of liquor is tax.

* 81.3% of the cost of a cigarette is tax.

Paying enough yet? How much MORE money would you have in your pocket if, for each item above, you could pay the cost that it actually takes to manufacture and distribute the item, along with a hefty profit, minus all that tax?

Could you send your kids to college without a second mortgage?

Pay off your credit cards?

Repair your home? Or maybe even pay it off?

And Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama wants to raise taxes in this country?

Really?

Maybe the real solution is to stop spending so much....

Democrats Incapable of Fixing Economy

Seeing the pirouetting of the Obama Administration while the American people scratch their collective noggin and ask, "Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?", it is compelling to think of a time when a modern member of the Democrat party has made reasonable adjustments that led to long-term economic prosperity.

Well, besides when Kennedy acted like a Republican and slashed taxes, that is.

And one engaged in such an intellectual mission is simply bound to come up dry.

"But wait!" gasps the fair reader, who believes that truth sometimes, somehow emanates from the CBS Evening News, Oprah, and The Daily Show, "what about the highly-vaunted Clinton economy?"

Ah, yes, the myth of the Clinton economy. But one who accepted the belief system of The Daily Show would believe in such tales, which inevitably involve princesses, dragons, and begin with "Once upon a time in a land far away..." wouldn't one?

Futures Magazine first made the point in early 2001 (by my recollection) that the "Clinton economy" was a myth of the same magnitude as the much-harassed Yeti and alien abductions, though thankfully without the latter's uncomfortable probes (the myth, not the economy!). I still have in my files the magazine's chart showing the buildup of the stock market throughout the Clinton years. The below is a reasonable reproduction of that chart, for the sake of argument.



And the discerning reader will of course, note that in the initial years of the Clinton administration the economy was less than robust. In fact, let's be clear, there were times it was in slight decline, and at best it was barely holding its own until....

Until what? Well, look at the chart! Elections take place in November, do they not? And those elected are installed in office in the following January, are they not?

And you will note that the steep run-up in the Dow Jones Industrial Average took place following the 1994 election, which replaced a decrepit, corrupt, and high-taxing band of liberals with tax-slashing, welfare-busting, and otherwise swashbuckling Republicans who had vowed to push a pre-defined "Contract with America."

The increase in economic health during the Clinton administration was, of course, due to the fact that Clinton wasn't getting his way for the last six years of it! His strategy of "triangulation," recommended by Republican strategist Dick Morris (brought in expressly to breathe fresh life into his faltering administration, if condom-covered Christmas trees and otherwise juicy Gap dresses and cigars can be dignified with the term administration). whereby Clinton agreed to do his best impression of Republicans (remember "the era of big government is over" and "the end of welfare as we know it"?) while cooperating - but to a lesser degree - with the GOP, leaves us with the lesson: when Democrats have free rein (reign?), prepare for misery.

Which is precisely the finding of Yale economist Ray Fair. Fair, in attempting to discern the relative effectiveness of the two American parties' general economic policies (and eschewing the Democratic penchant for determining said effect by examining the entrails of a chicken or by happily guessing, as Joe Biden recently confessed was the Obama administration's [sic] strategy, but I digress....), he found that the more reliably and long-term a state votes Democratic, the higher was their unemployment rate in this most recent April.




Where a state has reliably voted for a Democratic candidate since the 1980s (and one assumes, where the socialist policies of the Democratic party find most general acceptance at state and local levels as well) are now experiencing unemployment levels approaching double digits. States that have been solidly Democratic since the 1990s are slightly lower, and states which turned "blue" since 2000 slightly exceed 8 per cent. States that have been GOP strongholds since 2000 have the next highest unemployment, followed by states that are reliably GOP since the 1990s. Of course, that group of states which are most solidly GOP, and which have voted for Republican candidates most reliably since the 1980s, have the lowest unemployment levels of all.

Moral of the Story One: Voting has very real consequences.

Moral of the Story Two: Obama's high-tax, increasing-regulation, spend-like-flowing-water, fascistic-takeover-of-business, let's nationalize the whole country approach is not likely to make things better.

But, like Clinton, he has to face midterm elections.

The solution will be to vote a straight Republican ticket come 2010.

Biden: Stimulus Failed

Over at Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, our fellow bloggers are making much (justified) hay over Joe Biden's continually running mouth. Now he may have let it run just a bit too much, and Obama may be contemplating a knife-sharpening session, either for Biden's back or Obama's own throat. Poor Obama. As a liberal, he can't be bound by the lessons of history, but that Joe Biden runs his mouth first and thinks about what he has said several days later is one historical truth he should have meditated upon.

Nevertheless, as Sherri makes clear, when you have somebody like Biden dropping verbal explosives thither and yon, every once in a while you will get a little nugget of truth that you hadn't counted on....

Sherri writes:

According to an AP article yesterday, Joe Biden admits to the failure of Obama’s Stimulus Package, saying:

“everyone guessed wrong” on the impact of the economic stimulus, but he defended the administration’s spending designed to combat rising joblessness.

He went on to add that inaccuracies in unemployment predictions shouldn’t undercut the White House’s support of the $787 billion economic revival plan that has not met the expectations of President Obama’s team.

{snip}

Sheesh! That is what we’ve been trying to say since before the stimulus package was passed! Any idiot with any economic experience knew what would happen; but Obama and his crew of advisers know what is best for us, don’t they?

Now, Biden’s economic advisor is admitting that their projections were based on flawed research. And Biden is admitting that this flawed data was used to fasttrack passage of this massive economic travesty.

Biden said the White House is keenly aware of the gap between the rhetoric used to sell fast passage of the legislation and the reality that has 14.5 million people unemployed. The administration had predicted that the stimulus bill would create or save as many as 3.5 million jobs.

“No one realized how bad the economy was. The projections, in fact, turned out to be worse. But we took the mainstream model as to what we thought — and everyone else thought — the unemployment rate would be,” Biden said.

I love this approach - "nobody realized how bad the economy was." This of course is straight from the Billy Bob Clinton playbook as a justification for breaking campaign promises and explaining away the obvious consequences of incompetence.

All this is really just too precious. Obama's administration is run by guesswork ("everybody guessed wrong") and has admitted to what they spent years calling George W. Bush (a man with more character in his eyelid than this administration has in its totality) a "liar" for: "using rhetoric to sell" a legislative position when the facts were actually much different than the "guessing" would have indicated.

You can't make this stuff up.

And you can't make liberals see it.

These Trillions are Starting to Add Up!

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) yesterday released its initial evaluation of the Democrat-sponsored "Affordable Health Choices Act." This analysis did not factor in the entire cost of the legislation, a point that the CBO director is at pains to make, as only the major provisions of the bill were evaluated.



As if the trillions of dollars already introduced into the federal deficit by Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama were not enough, the initial, and incomplete estimate of the CBO for this preliminary Democrat-Socialist health care legislation confirms two major points that skeptics of Obama's fantasyland health plans have been making.

* The U.S. cannot afford a major restructuring of the health care system, as the (again, preliminary) estimate is that the cost of the Democrat plan would add more than $1 trillion to existing deficits.

* That any plan such as the nationalization of health care favored by Democrats and Obama would effectively function as a disincentive for private insurance.

In other words, those who now are paying for private insurance would drop their own coverage in preference for the subsidized or free health care offered by the government. This last point undeniably indicates that the socialization of health care has very little to do with the uninsured, and rather has to do with inflicting a command-and-control economy on the United States.

The CBO director wrote on the CBO blog:

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

In addition, the CBO frets that the total cost for social welfare/socialized health care spending is not likely encompassed even by the outrageous Democrat proposal at issue, since Democrats are also proposing an expansion of Medicaid, the fiscal consequences of which will not be known until the extent of the expansion is decided.

Thirty-Nine Per Cent of N.C. Realtors Disapprove of Obama

Of course, the primary industry that is hurting, and the industry that started the economic meltdown, has been the banking, mortgage, and real estate industry.

The Obama real estate plan has attempted to subsidize mortgage interest rates so that payments are capped at 31% of household income for troubled borrowers. More than 55,000 homeowners have received modifications, which should have led to significant stabilization of the national real estate market. And after initially pledging $75 billion to this project, the administration has announced that it is expanding the program to include more borrowers.

"These are critical steps in stemming the foreclosure crisis and stabilizing the housing market, both of which are critical to our economic recovery," said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

During the week of May 14, homes in danger of foreclosure jumped 32%, however.

Even the administration offering an $8,000 tax break to new home purchasers, and the consequent monetization of that tax credit, i.e, allowing the tax credit to be used as a portion of a down payment, the stimulus plan has had little effect on the housing market.

HomeGain.com surveys Realtors as to their outlook (both nationally and regionally) on the housing market. The North Carolina market outlooks were recently posted on HomeGain.com's blog.

With all of this stimulus activity, 39% of Realtors disapprove of Obama's job performance.

Now of course, that lack of support could be the result of racism, or it could come from a simple realization that not only is the stimulus not helping either the general economy or the housing market. Obama's supporters will assert the first.

But which is more likely?

Ready to have Uncle Sam as Your Landlord?

Bawney Fwank... uhhhhh, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) recently let the cat out of the bag. It is bad enough that Democrats have (at times it seems intentionally) undermined the housing market, but now they would like to become your (Soviet-style) landlord.

"One of the problems that we got into was we did way too much homeownership and way too little rental housing. And [we need to start] getting the federal government back into the business of rental housing."

Here's your key! Welcome to the Democratic Socialist Ghetto....

CBO On Obama Recession: Years To Recovery

Today, the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, on the CBO Director's blog, summarized his most recent testimony before Congress.

* While a "recovery" (read: the end of "negative growth") is expected in the second half of this year, unemployment will continue to spike and will stabilize this year in excess of 10%.

* Unemployment's return to pre-Obama levels will likely take "several years" (read: when The Messiah is no longer in office).

* "Even if the economy returns to positive growth this year, the loss in output and income during this downturn will be huge" (note: even if - doesn't sound like we can expect a return to positive growth this year).

* The difference between "actual" and "potential" output of the economy (read: lost production) will exceed $1 trillion both this year and next, and "CBO’s forecast in August is likely to show even larger shortfalls in output over the next few years" (read: the brakes have effectively been put on the economy).

* "The current recession and its aftermath will be the most severe economic downturn of the postwar period."

* "Most experts also believe that persistent large deficits reduce capital accumulation and thereby slow the growth of output and incomes over time. Thus, the large deficits that CBO projects for the years after the economy has returned to full employment are more worrisome" (read: while the CBO is giving a grudging pass to the current $1.7 trillion deficit, it is sounding the alarm that the party can't go on forever, and Obama's spending is going to have to stop).

*"The sharp increase in debt this year and next raises the risk that investors might lose confidence in U.S. government debt as a safe haven" (read: hyperinflation has already started, and we can't trust the collective mainstream media of other countries to keep it a secret like our own home-grown fourth estate is pleased to do).

Odd that the mainstream media hasn't really made any of these points since the Director's testimony was just yesterday. Perhaps CBS and CNN and MSNBC do not know that the CBO director has a blog...?

Obama's Bacchanalia

I want to make sure that I understand what is going on here.

The Heritage Foundation recently posted figures that show that Obama's budget will send the national budget deficit soaring to levels not seen since World War II. As a percentage of GDP, it will increase from 40% during the Bush years to 82% by 2019.

Now, that means that for every dollar produced in the entire economy, the U.S. will accrue 82 cents in debt during that year.

We hear all of these factoids these days:

* Over the next ten years. the U.S. national debt will increase to nearly $20 trillion (and keep in mind that Obama inherited a $6 trillion national debt on his first day in office, accrued over 230 years of U.S. history).

* For every dollar that the U.S. spends today, it is borrowing 50 cents.

* Obama's cap-and-trade scheme will increase the energy bill of the average American family (not corporation - family) by $1,300 per year.

* Obama's CAFE standards will increase the cost of a new car in America by a figure between $1,300 and $7,000 per car.

* Obama's cap-and-trade scheme will cost 3-4 million jobs all by itself - that's not including other causes of unemployment.

* The current unemployment rate nationwide is approaching 9%.

* March housing starts were down 11%.

* Further deflation of the housing market nationwide is expected to be 10%-15% in some areas.

* More bailouts of the banks, the auto companies, and now California.

* Social Security may be insolvent as early as 2010.

And Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama has the solution: more deficit spending - and that, as far as the eye can see. Oh, and a government takeover of the health care industry as well; you know, with all that EXTRA money that we have.

This orgy, this bacchanalia of spending can only end one of two ways: either Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama is going to spend this nation into utter and complete oblivion, making us a second- or third-world nation, or the people are going to rebel and say "No more!"

Yesterday, the bluest of blue states rose up and said that not one more tax dollar could be granted to its profligate government as California voted down five of six referenda on state spending - approving only a referendum that capped the salaries of state officials.

Rightly or wrongly, voters in the special election refused either to extend new tax hikes or to cap state spending. They also declined to unlock funds that they had voted in better financial times to set aside for special purposes.

Not one county in California passed any of the rejected measures. The state as a whole rejected the emergency spending measures by more than a 60% vote.

Traditional wisdom states that what affects the rest of the country begins in California. Let's hope so. Obama is addicted; he is on a bender. He behaves like a madman on the juice. Only his bacchanalia is an orgy of spending. He is infected with the dread disease of socialism. He needs an intervention.

It is time for the people of the country to take the cue of the people of California and provide it for him.

Honesty, From An Unlikely Source

The February 23 double issue of Time magazine contained an article by Nancy Gibbs titled "25 People to Blame: The good intentions, bad managers and greed behind the meltdown." In it, a "murderer's row" of 25 people (not surprisingly heavy on placing corporate blame, sometimes in the most ludicrous manner; Angelo Mozilo is listed for merely co-founding Countrywide in 1969!) whom the masses may sharpen their pitchforks and skewer in their rage over the recent housing meltdown.

But buried within the usual journalistic [sic] pablum is a heaping big admission - one of the primary souls responsible for the meltdown was Bill Clinton.

"[Bill Clinton] loosened housing rules, putting added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods."

It has been repeatedly alleged on the sanctified pages of Obama Watch that Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus (and their social-engineering fellowtravelers, like Barney Frank) are in fact primarily responsible for the housing meltdown.

Journalists are now officially catching up to the vaunted knowledge available on the blogosphere from conservative bloggers.

It's Over!

Yes, it's over, so declares ABC News.

The recession is over. At least according to Barry Knapp, a strategist at Barclays Capital who specializes in consulting chicken gizzards and crystal balls... I mean, specializes in interpreting economic data and then spouting really cool phrases like "the sweet spot of the recovery" on national television.

Apparently these Ivy League whiz kids missed the story in the Washington Times yesterday that reported April foreclosures up 32% year-over-year. Some "sweet spot."

It may be over, but "it" ain't the recession we are talking about. What is over is the vaunted veneer of objectivity possessed by the media in relation to the executive branch. Trembling like a 15-year old girl in the presence of the "dreamiest" senior in the school, the press keeps sticking its neck out for a President who has shown nothing but incompetence as of yet.

But remember, you heard it here first - the recession is over! The Messiah has come. The Kingdom is established.

Yawn....

Bush, McCain Warned of Economic Crisis; Obama Ignored

Be sure to watch this video before YouTube pulls it!





As far back as the Clinton administration, Republicans, particularly John McCain, and later officials of the George W. Bush administration, warned Democrats of an impending housing market problem due to the politicalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Beginning in April 2001, the Bush administration complained that the size of the two quasi-governmental entities, coupled with a troublesome regulatory environment inherited from the Clinton administration (i.e., the subprime loan initiatives rammed through Congress by Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus), portended a "potential problem" which could lead to "strong repercussions in financial markets" if not immediately addressed.

In 2003, the Bush administration upgraded its warning concerning the two housing giants to the status of "systemic risk," indicating that problems with the two would likely extend beyond the housing market itself and have a detrimental effect upon the entire American economy. That year, Treasury Secretary John Snow was pushing Congress to more actively exercise its regulatory powers over both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, asking for a regulatory agency that would focus on "the safety and soundness of their activities."

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank (MA), however, who had already placed one of his homosexual lovers, Herb Moses, in a leadership position at Fannie Mae, oddly enough as Assistant Director of Product Initiatives (a position that had direct oversight of subprime lending programs), indignantly insisted to Snow that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are NOT in a crisis." In fact, Frank insisted that the role of the federal government was to encourage more subprime lending to minority and low-income homebuyers.

Frank said, "The more people... exaggerate the [lack of] safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see... we see entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] which are fundamentally sound financially... and even if there were a problem the federal government doesn't bail them out [HUH?!?!?!?, ed.], ... then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing." Emphasis added.

In 2005, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warned, "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." Greenspan specifically tied the potential insolvency of Fannie and Freddie, and consequent meltdown of the financial system, to the lack of a responsible regulatory regime.

John McCain, in a Senate speech in 2006, stated, "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these GSEs [Government-Sponsored Entities] and the role that they play in the housing market.... [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] need to be reformed without delay."

Once again, the incompetent Marxist social engineering of Democrats has backfired. The housing market crisis that precipitated the wider financial meltdown was wholly the product of the Maoist thinking of Bill Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus, and was roundly defended by such liberal blunt objects as Barney Frank and Charles Schumer.

Who saw clearly what was happening? Why, of course, those whom the Democrats ignored at the time of their warnings but find the cojones to blame now! George W. Bush, John McCain, Alan Greenspan.... Note, however, that almost as an afterthought, the reporter announces that, on what could have been the most significant legislation on the issue, Obama "did not weigh in."

What are the odds that Obama and his bunkies are going to solve the problem that they were not wise enough to see in the first place, in spite of all the warnings and signs to the contrary?

Not likely.

Barack Obama at Office Depot

"Petty thieves, we hang; great ones, we elect to office."

- Aesop

The current estimated future obligations for the United States in regards to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are $1.25 quadrillion.

The Obama presidency, in less than 100 days, has already spent or proposed in the neighborhood of $10 trillion. Yes, that is $10 thousand billion.

The federal deficit amassed in over 200 years from the American War for Independence in 1776 to the administration of George W. Bush in 2008 was roughly $11 trillion.

The total interest on the U.S. debt is $1.2 billion per day.

Today, Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama demanded that his cabinet find a way to save $100 million.

Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano today indicated that her executive department can save millions of dollars each year by purchasing office supplies in bulk.

"According to [Napolitano], millions of dollars can be saved by making changes in such things as how the department orders office supplies, gets computer software and uses energy."

So the answer for Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama's DOUBLING of the federal debt in less than 100 days is to, in the future, purchase paper clips from Sam's Club and Office Depot?

The AP (apparently now fully recovered from campaign-season orgasms) even reports the cuts as making hardly a "dime's worth of difference."

"Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you've just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6."

The ship is sinking. Find a lifeboat and stand by it. You won't be waiting long....

Financial Fun

1) The initial PROPOSED tab for the governmental bailout of the economy, estimated at $4.6165 trillion (don't you love the four-decimal point specificity? rumor has it that the point-one-six-five trillion was to account for low-income Netflix and lunch money programs....), was a higher total than the total cost of the New Deal, the Louisiana Purchase, the Marshall Plan, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in Iraq, the Savings and Loan Crisis, and every NASA project in history - including research.

2) The eventual ACTUAL tab (actual meaning "the frivolous figure passed in Congressional bills which will be endlessly quoted in soundbytes," which is not to be confused with the ACTUAL ACTUAL tab, meaning "the actual amount of money spent, discoverable only after various programs for low-income Netflix financing and teapot museum-construction have been renewed innumerable times, which will likely approach $20 trillion, but that is another story for another day) for the economic bailout, estimated at $7.76 trillion, is a higher total than the total cost of the New Deal, the Louisiana Purchase, the Marshall Plan, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in Iraq, the Savings and Loan Crisis and every NASA project in history - including research, PLUS the entire cost of the Second World War AND the cost of dry-cleaning Monica Lewinksy's dresses.

3) Susan Collins (RINO - Maine) insisted that the stimulus bill be pared back from $838 billion dollars to a mere $780+ billion. Why? To ensure that Congress and the President were behaving in a "financially responsible" manner. Uh-huh. Shaving off that extra $50 billion sure did help, chickie! I mean, $780 billion is a lot, but $838 billion is SERIOUS money!

4) The Bailout Bill, which was supposed to rescue the homeowners of America, had it merely been applied to mortgages rather than new governmental programs, would have paid off IN THEIR ENTIRETY more than 90% of all outstanding American residential mortgages (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok ).

5) The Bailout Bill, which was supposed to rescue the homeowners of America, was followed up by TODAY's announcement by Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama that we have a NEW $275 billion (as of today) plan to rescue America's homeowners (no, wait, we are serious this time. really. no joking. stop laughing. i'm serious.).

Hooray! The Bailout Worked!

"Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished, but he that gathereth by labor shall increase" (Proverbs 13:11, King James Version).

"Wealth from get-rich-quick schemes quickly disappears; wealth from hard work grows over time" (Proverbs 13:11, New Living Translation).


Yet more evidence that welfare, corporate or otherwise, is a great idea that has a positive economic impact:

From CNBC reports by journalist David Faber --

American Insurance Group, the insurance giant that is 80-percent owned by the US government, is in discussions with the government to secure additional funds so it can keep operating after next Monday, when it will report the largest loss in U.S. corporate history, CNBC has learned.

Sources close to the company said the loss will be near $60 billion due to writedowns on a variety of assets including commercial real estate.

That massive loss is likely to spur downgrades in its insurance and credit ratings that will force AIG to raise collateral that it doesn't have.

In addition, if AIG's book value falls below a certain level, as it seems certain to do, it will trigger default in certain of its debt instruments, say people familiar with the situation.

All of this adds up to a huge headache for the Federal Reserve and Treasury, which have already provided over $150 billion of assistance to AIG.

Full article at http://www.cnbc.com/id/29353282 .

David Faber has been on CNBC asking: "Where did we go wrong? Should we just have done nothing and accepted the pain rather than throwing good money after bad?"

Good question. Or maybe he was making a point. Good point.