"Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)
But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost."
Why did this Administration have to shore up the banks when that was what TARP was supposed to accomplish? But, wait, some of the banks and Wall Street firms that supported hadn't yet received their spot at the government teat, so I guess Obama did have to "shore them up." As for "if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today," from what source did he receive his figures? [Note: for the record double the unemployment would be 18.8%]. It must be nice to live in a world in which no one can call you on what you do or have said in the past. If your ideas stink on ice and show the opposite of the results you promise, then simply say: "oh, but if I hadn't have done what I did, then things would have been so much worse." I expect that to be the Obama line when healthcare costs skyrocket under Obamacare and he says "but if Congress hadn't have passed healthcare reform then [pick as many as apply:] a. healthcare costs would be even higher; b. people would be dying in the streets; or c. our deficit would have skyrocketed and the economy would have tanked.
"So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all."
How, exactly, has the financial rescue program been more transparent and more accountable? When was the President going to let us know that the Federal Reserve had loaned money to large corporations and foreign banks? If we've recovered most of the money back from the banks, then when can I expect to receive my share of the return, with interest? Or is the President going to surprise us and say that he took all of the money and applied it to reduce our $14 trillion deficit?
"To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)"
First, why the biggest banks? What have they ever done to you Mr. President but give you humongous campaign contributions via their various PACs and individiual donors, helped write the financial reform bill you signed into law, and tacitly gave you a big fat target to demonize for political points? Why the biggest and not the smallest banks? What is the President's definition of "biggest" and "smallest?" Is he going to impose the fee via some executive order or regulation or is he actually going to encourage Democractic leaders in Congress to pass legislation aka follow the democratic process, unlike his recent environmental and internet regulations? If they have already paid back the money that we loaned them, then why should the federal government have any say in the amount of bonuses they pay and to whom they pay them? I can understand saying that TARP money comes with strings, but if we don't have that to hold over their heads, then why is the President engaging in the executive compensation regulation business? By the way, those fees that the government intends to pass on to the banks will simply be converted into fees that the banks pass on to their customers. In short, the banks can sit back and say: "fine us and demonize us all you want - we are still going to get paid."
"Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed."
"That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)"
Only a fool would proudly trumpet the fact that the government extended benefits for 18 million unemployed Americans. Those people are unemployed, in part, because of horrendous government policies that stifle innovation, create uncertainty, and discourage investment. They are no longer unemployment benefits if they continue for 3 years: those payments are WELFARE.
Also, notice that he says "save as many jobs as possible" and not "create jobs." He knows that all of the experts working outside of his Administration will gladly admit: no jobs have been created and the economy has suffered a net job loss in the millions since President Obama took office.
Now we come to a particular peeve of mine: THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT CUT TAXES. Instead, he has given tax credits to a large number of people. Often those tax credits came in the form of an extra $250.00 in the mail. Tax credits are not tax cuts. Tax credits take tax money from one group of people, the wealthy and those who pay taxes, and redistribute them to another group of people who have less income or fall into a certain demographic or socio-economic category. Tax cuts occur when a person pays fewer taxes to the government. They don't occur when the government takes your money then gives back a portion of it to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment