« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s Ace in the Hole: Create a crisis so Mighty Mouse Big Government can save the day. Remember 2008 and TARP? Won’t work and here’s why.

By: RealQuiet (Diary)  |  July 22nd, 2011 at 07:49 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Polls had Barack Obama and John McCain dead even in September 2008 in the race for the White House.  Oil prices were sky high, causing the vast majority of paycheck-to-paycheck living Americans to fall behind on their house payments of their very overinflated mortgages.  The Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae bubble began to explode.  Credit markets began to freeze up because of the scale of the exposure that banks had to the ton of bad loans they had written and the bill came due.

Politicians began to get nervous, Henry Paulson was getting on his knees before Nancy Pelosi crying “DOOM! DOOM!”  Then the first TARP vote came in the House.  The House votes it down.  Pelosi/Rahm vote down TARP first time to generate market crisis so Mighty Mouse Government can save the day? Why in the world is Chuck Schumer grinning ear to ear on the camera?  The market tanks.  The House takes up TARP to vote on it again.  It passes, goes to the Senate who passes the bill with urgency and President Bush signs it into law.  The Democrats have saved the day, John McCain’s comments of the American economy being stronger than ever and his cosmetic suspension of his campaign backfires terribly.  Barack Obama cruises to be elected president.

Is this the Democrats ace-in-the-hole?  Maybe they think so but there is one thing that is very, very different than it was back then:  The House is controlled by the GOP and all bills must originate out of the House.

Cut, Cap and Balance has been passed by the House and tabled today by the Senate.  Whether Harry Reid, by tabling the bill was trying to shield his vulnerable Democratic Senators up for re-election, or just trying to punt, praying for John Boehner to cave has come to naught. There is already a solution to the problem out there.  The Democrats strategy of not producing any alternatives and criticizing any GOP plan, trying to minimize exposure of the awful vote these vulnerable Democratic Senators will have to take on some bill or on any budget they might produce, has in the end cornered them.  The Gang of 6 plan has been shot down in the Senate.  There still is only one bill out there and not enough time for Democrats to write an alternative which would undoubtedly be against the vast majority of Americans who don’t want any more debt and don’t want taxes.  If they side with the will of Americans, their base will turn on them.

Because CCB is out there, has been passed in the House, and represents the will of the American people by a 2-1 margin, if we default and the economy craters, it will lie solely with the Democratic party because they wouldn’t listen to the American people again and refused a bill that represented the American will.  They will have walked away from a solution that addressed the problem and dramatically worsened the economy with their obstinance.

Hold the line.  Steadfast and loyal to the end.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • emmi

    all that followers of Alinsky know..they think this country can be run from a Harvard textbook!They always fail in the end,,socialism,communism never work.But then neither does mro.very much,but he studies the Alinsky rules,useless and harmfull group in power.

    • RealQuiet

      The People are the ones that run this nation. You take away the incentive to work which is what socialism does, people quit being productive. It’s that simple.

  • RealQuiet

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/21/coburn_i_will_bet_you_a_porterhouse_steak_obama_will_sign_cut_cap__balance.html

    The GOP has got them. DeMint needs to force an up or down vote on CCB next week.

    • gekster

      He is betting he will sighn it.
      from the article:
      “We’ve got to fix our country, and this is the only viable plan right now that will do that, and I will bet you a Porterhouse steak if it lands on his desk, he will sign this puppy,” Coburn said.”

      It pays to be accurate.

      • RealQuiet

        That is exactly what Coburn is saying.

        • gekster

          Big difference.
          Your comment title is missleading, as I thought that Obama had SAID he would sighn CCB.

          • RealQuiet

            I didn’t mean it like that but I can see how that could be interpreted differently. My fault :)

          • gekster

            It won’t be the first time I have been disapointed, and it won’t be the last.
            I still wish it were true.
            But accuracy is one of the things we yell at the MSM about.

            And no worries, I wasn’t yelling at you, just pointing it out. :)

          • RealQuiet

            n/t ;)

      • izoneguy

        Coburn is spitting in the wind.

        Obama would rather destroy America then admit he is wrong.
        Someone like Obama is very dangerous when cornered.
        No telling what he will do.
        The only solution is to treat him as a lame duck and move on.
        2012 will be the pits but this is graphic evidence of an un-informed populace
        who got hooked by “hope & change”.

        • RealQuiet

          Maybe that was what Boehner was alluding to, not wanting to work any more with Obama but rather working with Senate leaders. However, the bill that would be compromised on is likely to be a heck of a lot worse than CCB. The good part about all this is the GOP has very strong negotiating leverage. Lets hope they make the most of it.

          • izoneguy

            This is the logjam. Reid will stay on Obama’s ship no matter what happens.

            The House needs to write a bill and pass it next week that says what the government should pay with the tax revenues it receives. Don’t let Obama
            keep scaring the old retired ladies.

            Then send it to the Senate and put the onus on them that if they don’t pass it they will be the ones holding up grannies SS check.

            Now imagine those Senate dems up for re-election on 2012…..
            Hmmm, Obama or my Senate seat????
            They would be taking a gamble either way.
            I am pretty sure Obama would veto a bill like that if it passed….
            So then Obama gets the total blame when granny has to go eat dog food.

          • RealQuiet

            That should do it along with DeMint demanding an up or down vote on CCB.

          • Spiral

            The House needs to write a bill and pass it next week that says what the government should pay with the tax revenues it receives. Don?t let Obama
            keep scaring the old retired ladies.

            Then send it to the Senate and put the onus on them that if they don?t pass it they will be the ones holding up grannies SS check.

            The federal government currently borrows 40 cents on every dollar it spends. So, the legislation would not pass the US House of Representatives.

            Why? Because the cuts would be so large, they would impact not just foreign aid, which is unpopular. But they would impact farm subsidies. And lots of Republicans support farm subsidies. Veterans Benefits. Lots of Republicans represent Veterans. And a whole host of other programs.

            That’s why eventually the debt ceiling will be increased.

            Because no member of Congress, not even Paul Ryan, has put together a detailed plan on how to run the federal government with 40 percent less money by August 2nd.

            If it were a 10 percent cut in spending that were required to put the federal government in balance, Boehner might have a shot at this strategy.

          • izoneguy

            Is too accept a 40 percent cut in spending overnight.

            The real solution is to grow the economy. Something Obama is unwilling or unable to do.

            Tax revenue could be boosted dramatically if Americans are unleashed.

          • Spiral

            izoneguy,

            The only way America survives is too accept a 40 percent cut in spending overnight.

            Then at least one member of the tea-party wing of the US House of Representatives or the US Senate has an obligation to detail a budget which would cut federal spending by 40 percent by next month and make it public.

            The fact that not a single US Congressman has done that speaks volumes.

            It also tells you that the debt limit will be raised, with or without spending cuts or tax increases.

          • JSobieski

            who would support such a move. Neither DeMint nor Rand Paul have talked about anything close to that. I believe Rand Paul put together a $500B cut plan for 2011, but that does not come close to 40%.

          • izoneguy

            Where is YOUR plan…..

          • acat

            Do you remember 15% notes in the Carter era?
            Do you remember inflation over 6% year on year? Stag-flation?
            Do you remember *why* the Carter era sucked?

            I do hope you’re not using this approach in your personal finances.

            Mew

          • Spiral

            I am not endorsing Obama’s policies of massive spending. I wish we had a US Senate and a President that was willing to take on these out of control entitlements like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

            Why? To avoid the problems that you mentioned. Someday soon we will have to pay higher interest rates for our bonds and/or we will have to inflate the currency (even more than we already have).

            I simply pointed out the fact that no Republican has put forth a budget that calls for cutting spending by 40 percent by next month.

            That is why the debt limit will be raised. Republicans and Democrats don’t want government to shrink by 40 percent by next month.

            Sure, most Republicans voted for the Ryan budget, which does contain government spending to some extent. But it’s not a cold turkey program like the one that would exist if we don’t raise the debt limit.

            Read George Will’s latest column. It’s called Real Change Possible When Obama Is Gone

            The tea party, the most welcome political development since the Goldwater insurgency in 1964, lacks only the patience necessary when America lacks the consensus required to propel fundamental change through our constitutional system of checks and balances. If Washington’s trajectory could be turned as quickly as tea partyers wish, their movement would not be as necessary as it is. Fortunately, not much patience is required.

            The Goldwater impulse took 16 years to reach fruition in the election of Ronald Reagan. The tea party can succeed in 16 months by helping elect a president who will not veto necessary reforms. To achieve that, however, tea partyers must not help the incumbent achieve his objectives in the debt-ceiling dispute.

          • acat

            Your “cold turkey” canard is getting a little old.

            Yes, there would have to be spending cuts. Big ones. Yes, it would hurt. However, unless I’m very badly misreading Minnesota, the fact is that most of the country wouldn’t notice much of a change.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Obama can figure out a way to stop beer sales and blame on Republicans.

          • Spiral

            Also, Minnesota does not have large entitlement program like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

            The federal government does.

            Trying to compare Minnesota to the federal government is definately an apples and oranges comparison.

          • acat

            And the Reagan stand-off with the air traffic controllers.

            Do you?

            Medicare, Medicaid, and *especially* Social Security are not in jeopardy unless our Commander in Chief in Training decides to endanger them.

            Let me repeat that. Unless our Commander in Chief decides to not pay Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, there is money in the treasury to cover them.

            You are spreading Obama’s fear, uncertainty, and doubt for him. Please stop.

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            whatever that means. We need to stop the growth of government first, then we can cut it. No games, the government should seize less money from the citizens NEXT YEAR and the amount they seize should go down for years until we have gone back to the Republic won by our forefathers.

            Obama will NEVER reduce the size of government. Our job is not to negotiate with a statist, our job is to check him until he leaves office.

          • izoneguy
  • steve010

    does the AP or Reuters or whoever writes this crap just think that everyone out there has an IQ of 71?

    The federal government since 1946 has never, LET ME REPEAT THAT, never cut spending. Spending has always increased, never decreased. If the House got any “spending cuts” they would only reduce the rate of increase. There are no spending cuts.