"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....
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.
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.
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.
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...?
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.
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.
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.
The Obama administration unveiled its FY 2010 budget today, a $3.4 trillion, 1500 page monstrosity.
He followed the release up with a statement that "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not a problem." Do tell!
John McCain, on Twitter, quickly criticized the budget's proposed cuts of $17 billion as being only 1/2% of the total budget.
The total budget works out to spending an amount equal to approximately $11,000 per person in America for the fiscal year.
Here's an idea. Take out all the money needed to maintain the military and its operations at home and abroad - estimated at about $700 billion - and simply give the American people what is left as a block grant. So figure that every American man, woman, and child gets 80% of $11,000, or $8,800, and the government gets a year-long vacation.
My prediction: With $8,800 returned to every PERSON in America, there would be no more economic meltdown.
My second prediction: Since Obama cares about expanding a Fascist regulatory regime, and not curing the economic problems of the country, it couldn't possibly be on the radar.
But it does make one think. If government simply getting out of the way would solve the economic woes of the nation, why, exactly, are we expanding the role of government right now?
Out of the mouth of babes and the mainstream media, every once in a while you get profundity.
My uncle reads Newsweek, I don't. So he saved the February 16, 2009 copy for me, and it had THIS on the cover:
Note the self-conscious mockery of actual socialist symbolism:
Now of course, if a Conservative makes this same observation, he is a "right-wing extremist." Everyone from Mike Savage to Sean Hannity to Joe the Plumber to John McCain have been criticized for utilizing the word in connection with The One.
And yes, the story on the inside, written by Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas, ties this "socialism" that "we all are" now to the policy of Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama. The story specifically states that Obama is going much further than even the free-spending Bush while "reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government" [sic]. And the article casts its own lot with Obama's spending-like-water goals, asserting (without proof) that "an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more taxing and spending."
Of course, the story is strangely silent about the fact that the retirement savings of the aging population was wiped out by Democratic social engineering in the housing market, that high energy costs will be caused by Socialist global warming nonsense, and that, well, that global warming is so much Socialist nonsense designed specifically not to respond to a real threat, but rather to put the brakes on the free market and transfer power to national governments and international non-governmental organizations. But all that is beside the point! The good news is, we're all Socialists with the advent of The One.
A moment of honesty (unintended, I am sure) was induldged in by our Newsweek heroes, when they note "The catch [of all this expanding Socialist governance] is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment)." Emphasis added.
The article concludes: "Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace." But look for that growth to stop, Komrade!
In an adjacent story by Michael Freedman (who seems to barely be able to restrain his orgasmic delight long enough to type his story), the claim is made that the long-term effects of Obama's policies "will be a steady drift toward what could be called a European model of governance, regulation, and paternalism. Already, big government is on the rise - projected public spending figures show the United States will move ever closer to European averages over the next two years." The U.S. government will begin regulating "with big brother vigilance," turning entire industries into "virtual wards of the state." Of course, restraint is not always a good thing, as we learn when Freedman indulges in some journalistic cheerleading, "This is all likely to prove very popular if the conventional wisdom [read: the hopes of the mainstream media elites] is right."
How is that whole hopey-changey thing working out for ya? Oddly enough, all these ideas have been tried before. But rather than being "tried and true," it seems they are "tried and tattered."
If one listens to MSNBC or CBS, one gets the impression that, not only is Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama the greatest president in American history (and perhaps the most wonderful divine gift to mankind since fire), but that the American public is squarely behind his socialist machinations - given the exception of a few fringe lunatics and the KKK.
The evidence, as always, is completely different from what the media is telling us.
There are a half dozen ways to measure the "verdict" on Obama prior to the 100-day mark of his administration, and all of them agree: Obama Sucks!
First, Obama, we think, was largely elected on a two-pronged theory, partly subjective and partly objective. Of course, most of the votes that flew Obama's way were from those who were grossly misinformed; people who are so utterly ignorant that they ought not only be allowed to vote, but they ought not be allowed to drive! Typical of this group (certainly 70% of Obama voters) are those who voted for him because he would be the nation's first black president, those who voted for him because of Oprah's endorsement, and those, like the now-famous YouTube video of the young black lady who supported The One because now she would never have to worry about paying her mortgage or for gas again.
These people are too ignorant and morally perverted to ever come to know the truth. They won't be convinced that their subjective fantasies have the reality quotient of "Once upon a time in a land far away...." even if they someday receive orders from Obama to come to the county square for a free Kool-Aid treat.
For those few who actually had an objective reason for supporting Obama, it was likely because of the sorry shape of the economy at election time. A strange congruence of forces which came together merely months before the election coupled with the simplistic thinking of Americans (i.e., "if it happened under Bush, Bush caused it" when in fact the forces that caused the economic meltdown were entirely the brainchild of Bill Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus) basically ensured Obama's election as Americans searched for someone to fix the economy. In a strange twist of fate, the candidate representing the Democratic party (who caused the economic meltdown) was viewed as being more capable of repairing the crashing economy than the candidate of the Republican party (who had personally warned that Democratic policies would bring this meltdown to pass).
So, what has Obama done for the economy? This will be our first objective measure of the Obama administration.
On the morning of the 2008 election the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened at 9326. On the evening of the next day, the first full day of trading with the certainty that Barack Obama would be president, the market had taken a nearly-200 point nose dive to 9139. Not bad... (sic). Between the election and the inauguration, the market continued to decline to the tune of 1100+ points.
On February 17, Obama signed his first major piece of legislation into law - the multi-trillion dollar stimulus package. The stock market on that day dropped from 7845 to 7502. On February 27, Obama announed his budget proposal. The Dow Jones responded by dropping from 7181 to 6763.
While it is true that capital markets are forward-looking, the Dow Jones largely reflects the so-called "Large Cap" stocks which tend to reflect the current condition of the market, especially in difficult times. It is the NASDAQ that tends to reflect stocks that are growth-oriented, and therefore that index tends to be more forward looking. Surely, if the capital markets believed that the future looked rosy with Obama, the NASDAQ would reflect that hope for growth?
Between November 3, 2008, and April 28, 2009, the NASDAQ has declined from 1726 to 1694.
Not as precipitous a drop, but the NASDAQ has been down as much as 450 points during the Obama tenure. The objective economic results thus far are decidedly mixed to negative.
Thirdly, the tea-parties which have met the Obama administrations proposals and performance are nearly unprecedented in America's history. Outside of the Civil War, is is hard to imagine a more negative greeting to any president upon his election. While there is a lobotomized and ignorant plurality of the nation that is easily led by Oprah's pallid imitations of papal bulls, those who are most informed and most engaged in the political process are horrified by Obama, his incompetence, and his proposals.
Finally, the polls themselves present a decidedly mixed picture of the nation's "approval" of Obama and his administration. Despite the natural tendency of Americans to support the nation's leadership and the understandable desire to give each new president a chance to enact his own agenda, Obama's strident socialism and evident incompetence has already placed him in a highly unusual position - he is one of the few presidents to have lost significant support during his first 100 days.
Further, as I have previously noted, a non-scientific poll conducted by MSNBC in fact had nearly forty percent of all respondents giving Obama an "F" for his performance for his first 100 days.
The orgiastic writhings (and writings) of the mainstream media notwithstanding, the objective measures of Obama's competence to this point are unencouraging to say the least. To say the most? Obama sucks!
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?
"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."
So the Obama family is trooped out to hold a press conference...?
To present a united front in the face of a plague of worldwide piracy? No.
To assure the American people that families can persevere through the downward spiral of Obama's economic policies? No.
To argue that Iran and North Korea should lay off the nukes, "for the children?" Nothing so mundane as all that.
No, this family press conference is about something REALLY important. This press conference is to introduce the dog. A Portuguese Water Buffalo (did I get that wrong?) named "Bo."
So, "The Bow" wasn't really a bow, was it? Billy Bob Barry Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama was merely reaching out to grab some short guy's hand to properly shake it, huh?
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in a news briefing, had this exchange with reporters:
GIBBS: No, I think he bent over with both to shake -- with both hands to shake his hand, so I don't...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) one hand, that he -- he was just...
GIBBS: Well I -- I -- I -- this is...
QUESTION: Did he bow or didn't he?
GIBBS: No, but I think this meeting was like a week ago, right?
And an anonymous White House told Politico.com the following: "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah."
Right.
So now the White House is speaking, once again, with the forked tongue and Arkansan accent of our last great Democratic Leader. Which got me thinking about Obama's truthfulness generally.
Of course, people in the know warned that Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama was the most liberal member of the senate when he was running for office. Unfortunately, the folks who voted for him don't understand reality enough to differentiate between "tax and spend" and "rock star," so it really didn't matter. Nevertheless, the striking contrast between the "moderate" pose struck during the campaign and the reality of the first less-than-hundred days is worth noting.
* After the banks have twice been bailed out, Obama's proposed budget contains nearly $750 billion to bail them out once again (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aY8vuevw1NKs ).
* Obama is proposing nearly $1 trillion dollars in NEW taxes beginning in 2011, with almost $650 BILLION of that falling on individuals, not the hated "corporations" that liberals aspire to destroy (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html ).
*Obama ADMITS that his budget would cause a spike in the single-year deficit to unheard-of proportions, escalating the deficit nearly $2 trillion dollars to almost $4 trillion dollars (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96JCFLG1&show_article=1 ).
* Spending for Fiscal Year 2009 under Obama will be approximately $12,000 for EVERY AMERICAN - not every family - but EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.
So it should come as no surprise that, like all Democrats, Obama, following in the path blazed by convicted perjurer Bill('sAFool) Clinton, is an inveterate liar.
* After "promising" to withdraw troops from Iraq, The Liar now requests almost $76 billion to extend operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aN3Z5Oo3eStg&refer=worldwide ).
* After flooding radio airwaves during his presidential campaign stating the absurdity that both he and McCain would equally preserve and protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans, The Liar now threatens a (so-called) "assault weapons ban" - realizing full well that "assault weapons" are not "assault weapons" at all, but rather are "scary looking" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 ).
* While admitting that his ridiculous budget proposals will produce increasing deficits for as far as the eye can see, The Liar titles his budget "A NEW ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf ).
* After promising to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, upon his election, The Liar issued an executive order closing it, EXCEPT that it could be kept open for high-value prisoners "temporarily," and EXCEPT that it might be left open indefinitely (http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_guantanamo_bay/2009/01/27/175694.html ).
I am introducing legislation to Congress this week to deny all former Obama voters the privilege of voting until they have read at least one newspaper before the next election.
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.).
"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.
Now the Obama administration is stacking chits and keeping score against DEMOCRATIC opposition to his spending-free-as-water ways.
Apparently, Billy Bob Barry Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama is too radical a socialist even for DEMOCRATS at this point.
[The Obama Administration's} targets were initially Republicans, as team Obama ran ads depicting the GOP as the "party of no." But now the fire is being trained on Democrats worried about runaway spending.
Americans United is going after Democrats who are skeptical of Mr. Obama's plans to double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it in 10. The White House is taking aim at lawmakers in 12 states, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. MoveOn.Org is running ads aimed at 10 moderate Senate and House Democrats. And robocalls are urging voters in key districts to pressure their congressman to get in line.
Of course, people in the know warned that Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama was the most liberal member of the senate when he was running for office. Unfortunately, the folks who voted for him don't understand reality enough to differentiate between "tax and spend" and "rock star," so it really didn't matter.
* After the banks have twice been bailed out, Obama's proposed budget contains nearly $750 billion to bail them out once again (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aY8vuevw1NKs ).
* Obama is proposing nearly $1 trillion dollars in NEW taxes beginning in 2011, with almost $650 BILLION of that falling on individuals, not the hated "corporations" that liberals aspire to destroy (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html ).
*Obama ADMITS that his budget would cause a spike in the single-year deficit to unheard-of proportions, escalating the deficit nearly $2 trillion dollars to almost $4 trillion dollars (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96JCFLG1&show_article=1 ).
* Spending for Fiscal Year 2009 under Obama will be approximately $12,000 for EVERY AMERICAN - not every family - but EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.
And like all Democrats, Obama, following in the path blazed by convicted perjurer Bill('sAFool) Clinton, is an inveterate liar.
* After "promising" to withdraw troops from Iraq, The Liar now requests almost $76 billion to extend operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aN3Z5Oo3eStg&refer=worldwide ).
* After flooding radio airwaves during his presidential campaign stating the absurdity that both he and McCain would equally preserve and protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans, The Liar now threatens a (so-called) "assault weapons ban" - realizing full well that "assault weapons" are not "assault weapons" at all, but rather are "scary looking" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 ).
* While admitting that his ridiculous budget proposals will produce increasing deficits for as far as the eye can see, The Liar titles his budget "A NEW ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf ).
* After promising to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, upon his election, The Liar issued an executive order closing it, EXCEPT that it could be kept open for high-value prisoners "temporarily," and EXCEPT that it might be left open indefinitely (http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_guantanamo_bay/2009/01/27/175694.html ).
Hey, you jackasses who voted for this loser. Maybe read a newspaper before voting next time, huh?
If you spent one million dollars a day, every single day since Jesus Christ was born, you would have spent less money than Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama has spent since coming into office one month ago.
I am a libertarian Christian and an ordained minister who has earned two doctorates. I am a small businessman who has built numerous businesses. I know and love Biblical truth. I am a husband, a dad, a dog owner, and constantly cognizant that I am only a redeemed sinner.
I am an evangelist, an apologist, a comedian, and a lecturer on current events. If you would like for me to visit your church, small group, or civic group, please contact me in care of this blog.
Posts
