After the bailout was passed (October 3rd), the Dow fell 400 points by the end of the day. Now, it has fallen by greater than 2000 points since the bailout was passed. By my calculations, the Dow has lost at least $1.4 trillion, and they haven't even spent the $700 billion yet.
Since cheap credit and over stimulation caused this financial meltdown, then obviously we need more cheap credit and more stimulation to fix it. Even after the bill was passed, articles were popping up that hinted it wasn't enough. Well no wonder.
Yet our bailout money will be recouped, at least? We got it straight from the horses mouth when President Bush said (emphasis mine):
So the President flat out disagrees with Jim Rogers (skip to time index 5:19, if you don't have time to watch the whole thing):
Which person do you think is more well informed on the subject? Jim Rogers, who has been right more often than the Fed Chairman himself, or all the President's men?
Another odd statement from the President:
Since cheap credit and over stimulation caused this financial meltdown, then obviously we need more cheap credit and more stimulation to fix it. Even after the bill was passed, articles were popping up that hinted it wasn't enough. Well no wonder.
Yet our bailout money will be recouped, at least? We got it straight from the horses mouth when President Bush said (emphasis mine):
As the banking sector and the market for troubled assets recover, the government will begin to recoup some of the taxpayers' funds invested in the recovery. In other words, some of these assets that were taken are at a depressed value. Home ownership -- homeowners -- home prices are down, the value of the assets are down. Eventually, we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars will be recouped.Source: White House
So the President flat out disagrees with Jim Rogers (skip to time index 5:19, if you don't have time to watch the whole thing):
Which person do you think is more well informed on the subject? Jim Rogers, who has been right more often than the Fed Chairman himself, or all the President's men?
Another odd statement from the President:
Every American knows the burden of taxes. During the tough economic time,that burden falls especially hard. A lot of people are wondering whetheror not their taxes are going to go up. One of the interesting things aboutthe package I signed is that it does prevent the Alternative Minimum Taxfrom kicking in, which would have cost 26 million Americans $2,200 apiece. During this economic uncertainty, we don't need to be raising taxes.
Source: White House
The President did not need this bill to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from kicking in. The President has distorted the truth again. In fact, it was illegal for the Senate to attach this tax revision to a previous bill in this manner. Illegal, kind-of like when the House authorized the President to go to war with Iraq. We have checks and balances for a reason. If not, why have them? The rule of law means nothing to our illustrious government.
By the way, if you don't know what the Alternative Minimum Tax is, and you are in favor of the Fair Tax, shame on you! That's one of your platforms!
The President did not need this bill to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from kicking in. The President has distorted the truth again. In fact, it was illegal for the Senate to attach this tax revision to a previous bill in this manner. Illegal, kind-of like when the House authorized the President to go to war with Iraq. We have checks and balances for a reason. If not, why have them? The rule of law means nothing to our illustrious government.
By the way, if you don't know what the Alternative Minimum Tax is, and you are in favor of the Fair Tax, shame on you! That's one of your platforms!
I wish I could snap my fingers and make what happened stop. But that's notthe way it works. And I told you, I made a decision that is reallyopposite of my philosophy. I basically believe if people make baddecisions in the marketplace, they ought to fail. The problem is, in thiscase, failure would have cost you. What appeared to be something thatmight have been isolated in New York, would have cost you the job. Andthat was unacceptable to me.
Source: White House
Seems like the same dilemma Andrew Jackson faced during the banking crisis of his day. Jackson made the right choice, Bush made the wrong choice. Bush totally blundered. How do I know? Because Bush ignored the Constitution. He ignored his oath to protect life, liberty, and private property. More people will suffer from his decision than if he had pulled the plug on the economy himself.
Now see if you can decode this "question" from one of the people who attended:
... to continue ...
Seems like the same dilemma Andrew Jackson faced during the banking crisis of his day. Jackson made the right choice, Bush made the wrong choice. Bush totally blundered. How do I know? Because Bush ignored the Constitution. He ignored his oath to protect life, liberty, and private property. More people will suffer from his decision than if he had pulled the plug on the economy himself.
Now see if you can decode this "question" from one of the people who attended:
I mean, just to give you some quick numbers. We're a $3.5 milliondollar company, and we rely on a $500,000 home credit line to support ourbusiness, which means we have to roll this money over six, seven times ayear. That's how much we need this credit. And now the -- we've got anotice or a letter from a bank -- or from the bank that runs our creditline -- that says home values are going down a little bit, and if you paydown your principle a little, we're not going to give you quite as muchback. And so our strategy is don't pay it down, to keep it maxed out allthe time.
... to continue ...
And so we're comfortable now, and we're able to take care of our businessby doing this. But it's so important for you to emphasize the need thatsmall businesses have for the use of that credit. And I thank you so much. You're really working hard --
Bush's response:
Thanks for hanging in there.
That is totally sick. This business is operating in a perpetual half-million-dollar hole, and the president just thanks him for hanging in there? I feel bad for people who are in this mess, but even if it was me, I wouldn't expect the government to bail out my bad decisions. Up until now, we seem to have thought it was perfectly normal for a giant percentage of businesses to be in debt. This is why easy credit is bad. It distorts our thinking and the free market.
By the way, this entire discussion smacks of being completely scripted from beginning to end, especially the Q-and-"A". How's that for bogus? All to sell us on a bill that was passed using fraud, bribery, and threats of violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment