published Sunday, June 24th, 2012

Party like it's 1992

Can President Obama honestly believe that a repackaging of his stale, big-spending policies suddenly will start turning around the U.S. economy, nearly four years into his failed administration?

"We're still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," he says in a recent campaign ad -- alluding again to his "It's Bush's fault" mantra. The ad then goes on to promote more government hiring via more federal "stimulus" spending -- paid for, we are assured, only by "asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more." Translation: Raise taxes. In the midst of a crippled economy. No, really. He thinks that'll do the trick.

But if that's such a nifty idea, then why was the original, $862 billion stimulus such an unmitigated flop? It propped up countless government jobs, at the cost of a vastly greater national debt. But when the cash ran dry, those jobs hadn't primed the economic pump as predicted. Unemployment remained high -- certainly above the 8 percent mark that Obama said it would stay below if only Congress approved the first stimulus. Given that track record, what is the rationale behind seeking a new stimulus to fix things?

Oh, and don't let Obama downplay the painful realities: Things certainly need fixing.

"We're still not creating [jobs] as fast as we want," he said in a remarkable understatement. That little gem issued forth around the same time that he bizarrely declared to a nation with 8.2 percent unemployment -- and millions of people who are jobless but for various technical reasons aren't counted as officially unemployed -- that "the private sector is doing fine." And no, he was not taken out of context, as so many in the news media claimed in rushing predictably to his defense. If anything, his fuller comments were even more alarming than the "doing fine" remark because they were couched in his ceaseless call for bigger government -- in a nation roughly $16 trillion in debt and with no visible prospects for repaying it.

Need more evidence of the ongoing economic malaise?

How about this jug of sunshine from the Federal Reserve: The median U.S. family has lost so much wealth in recent years that it has only about the same amount of wealth as it had in the early 1990s.

Much of that drop is attributable to the dreadful housing market. It was estimated earlier this year that $7 trillion in household wealth had been lost over just the past six years due to the collapse in home prices.

That collapse was triggered in large part, mind you, by the federal government's long-term promotion of mortgages for people who were poor credit risks. Government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took on the risk for bad loans, saddling taxpayers with a nearly $200 billion bill to bail out Fannie and Freddie when the foreclosures started.

Meanwhile, on other discouraging fronts, U.S. consumer confidence fell in June, according to data from the University of Michigan. Who can blame the typical consumer for a lack of confidence at this point? Increases in wages -- for those who are getting them -- aren't keeping up with inflation.

Closer to home, Tennessee's unemployment rate recently rose to 7.9 percent, and the rate was a miserable 8.9 percent in Georgia at last count.

It is getting tougher and tougher for the president to claim -- credibly -- that the economy is enjoying serious recovery. So expect lots of shrill campaign ads assuring us that we can't believe our lying eyes and pocketbooks.

Then go ahead and believe your eyes and pocketbooks anyhow, and ignore the rhetoric.

41
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Look who's alluding to their "Let's ignore Bush's policies" mantra.

Oh, it's you!

If the stimulus was such an unmitigated flop, why do so many economists say it worked? 80% at last survey. I'm sure you'll say that some are corrupt, but really, 80%? Isn't that much of a conspiracy straining your theory just a bit?

And yes, you are taking Obama out of context, thanks again, for repeating your conduct.

But you are correct, the financial collapse happened due to government action...namely action that failed to stop a massive number of mortgage and foreclosure frauds, action that failed to stop finance companies gambling with money they didn't have, and which pushed a housing bubble that exaggerated the wealth of the country by creating paper values that exceeded genuine demand. This action was the result of the Gramm-Bliley-Leach act, you know, the one you've never heard of.

I'm sure you'll continue to blame the CRA, but in reality, they were among the least foreclosed properties.

I think I'll take your advice though, and ignore your rhetoric.

June 24, 2012 at 12:35 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Never mind anything like facts that these policies aren't working; never bring up how more difficult it is going to be to fund an unConstitutional health care fiasco; don't bother with the fact that this approach has never worked, heck we have this brilliant young man in the White House as our leader. He has all the answers. We just have to give him more time. More time, are you serious? Where will we be in another four years? Most likely would see his failures going down further in flames all the while someone else being blamed. But please let's not look at this objectively. For if we do, we might feel almost a sense of panic. President Obama has had his chance. IF...a big word IF his policies were going to work we would have seen objective and truthful evidence of it before now. We would not just hear his supporters ranting against "the other side" all the time while he blames everything but aliens from another planet. He may even do that. Meanwhile those happy with his bulbs will sing on.

June 24, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Livin4life,

Obamacare is already paid for.

What approach?

What failures?

Why would Obama take the blame for things Bush was responsible for?

June 24, 2012 at 2:12 p.m.
EaTn said...

I had to be the one to remind folks that the stimulus was started at the end of the failed Bush-economics by his Secretary Paulson to avoid total economic collapse--I hate to but I will anyway.

June 24, 2012 at 2:27 p.m.

Never mind anything like the facts being the policies did work, the objective data is out there, the only people losing jobs as a net are government employees, never mind how costly our healthcare system already was...and how poor the results are.

You couldn't look at anything Obama has done objectively, you're too obsessed with making Obama a one-term president. Stop pretending you care about facts. You believe all of Mitt Romney's lies and exaggerations. Or can you even own up to them? Let's see you talk about any a dozen lies from Romney.

You are the one spending your time ranting against the other side. Not that you'll ever admit it. You're too obsessed with it.

Like I've said before, you stand on the hose and then blame the firefighter while the house burns.

Notice how "replace" has stopped being part of the language?

June 24, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
conservative said...

"Can President Obama honestly believe that a repackaging of his stale, big-spending policies suddenly will start turning around the U.S. economy, nearly four years into his failed administration?"

This would be emperor has no clothes but his sycophants are not about to tell him so Obamination has decided to double down on stupid with more tax, borrow and spend plans.

Good for America and bad for Obamination.

June 24, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Provide some proof of this "failed administration".

You have doubled-down on ignorant.

June 24, 2012 at 3:47 p.m.
conservative said...

"The ad then goes on to promote more government hiring via more federal "stimulus" spending -- paid for, we are assured, only by "asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more."

Obamination wants to create more government jobs and wants those who pay the bulk of taxes to finance the scheme.

Didn't work in the midterm election, won't work in the next.

June 24, 2012 at 4:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

http://pragmatos.net/2010/11/30/americans-want-to-live-in-sweden-2/

Who would you rather pay more taxes? The people with all the money or the people with no money/less money? Are you supporting more taxes on yourself?

You vote and think against your own economic interests. It's insane.

June 24, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.
conservative said...

The Demoncrats were drubed so bad in the midterm elections that the Demoncrat led Senate will not obey the law and pass a budget knowing how unpopular tax increases are.

The country is in no mood for tax increases. Incessant calls for tax increases on those who pay the taxes by those who don't pay taxes will only harm the Demoncrats and Obamination.

I hope they keep it up.

June 24, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.

Yes, keep it up till the country races to the bottom!

Sometimes people are their own worst enemy. If this surprises you, you're not familiar with California's direct democracy. They vote for right-wing tax cuts and left-wing spending.

Yay?

June 24, 2012 at 5:39 p.m.
conservative said...

""We're still not creating [jobs] as fast as we want," he said in a remarkable understatement"

Well duh! Now this is a great strategy, keep reminding the unemployed they don't have a job under your four year record of failed promises.

June 24, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Still no proof of your claims, conservative.

June 24, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.

He doesn't need proof or evidence, the sheer devotion should be persuasive enough on its own.

Would anybody believe so fervently if it weren't true?

June 24, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.

Easy, people with no money don't pay any taxes.

June 25, 2012 at 1:52 a.m.
Easy123 said...

blonde,

Yes, they do. People live from paycheck to paycheck and end up with $0 in their pockets/bank accounts every week due to bills, groceries, and taxes. I know a few people like this. Some are even receiving food stamps! OMG, how terrible, right? LOL.

Stop trying to argue semantics. You're not that smart.

June 25, 2012 at 1:56 a.m.

People who don't make much, don't pay taxes. They get deducted from their checks what they're supposed to get deducted, like we all do, but come April 15th, they get a refund or they owe nothing. As far as coughing up money on April 15th, they don't do that.

Living from paycheck to paycheck is not the issue.

Poor people never right a check to the government. Getting money deducted from their checks is not writing a check to the government.

June 25, 2012 at 2:03 a.m.

H

June 25, 2012 at 2:07 a.m.
Easy123 said...

They don't pay federal income taxes. What about state and local taxes?

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/12/341563/memo-to-erick-erickson-the-working-poor-pay-more-in-state-and-local-taxes-in-ever/

Poor people still pay taxes. Just not federal income taxes.

June 25, 2012 at 2:09 a.m.

How many people that make under a $30,000.00 a year, and support a family of 3 or four pay taxes, meaning actually writing a check to the federal government on April 15?

June 25, 2012 at 2:09 a.m.
Easy123 said...

62% of Americans make less than $20,000 a year.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/No_Tax_Liability_Tables.cfm

That's the most complex question of all time. Who could ever answer that?

June 25, 2012 at 2:12 a.m.

The poor don't pay taxes, i'll repeat that. State, local and federal deductions from checks is not paying taxes. That's what's taken out of your check. That's not the same as actually writing a check/ a tax bill, to the various governments. They get a refund or aren't required to pay anything bedcause they don't make enough.

June 25, 2012 at 2:22 a.m.

Come April 15th of any given year, no poor person will have to write a check to the federal government. No poor person will have a tax bill that must be paid to the IRS. It's a myth that the Democratic Party keeps repeating that the poor actually pay taxes. When I wasn't making much, I never wrote a check for a tax bill on April 15th. I either got a refund or paid nothing at all.

June 25, 2012 at 2:36 a.m.

The poor aren't poor because they're actually paying taxes/writing checks to the government, they're poor for a whole bunch of other reasons, you name it.

June 25, 2012 at 2:42 a.m.
Easy123 said...

blonde,

Are you drunk or high?

The poor pay taxes. Mostly state and local taxes. Many pay income taxes

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/poor/households.cfm

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11230462-states-taxing-the-poor-most?lite

This is the most psychotic series of posts I've ever read on here. I'm baffled.

June 25, 2012 at 2:59 a.m.
conservative said...

This is such a good article and worthy of two days of posting.

""We're still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," he says in a recent campaign ad -- alluding again to his "It's Bush's fault" mantra."

Rational people aren't listening to this and some Liberals aren't either. Blaming others is so childish.

June 25, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Blaming others for their faults isn't childish whatsoever. You just don't want to face the truth.

June 25, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
conservative said...

"That collapse was triggered in large part, mind you, by the federal government's long-term promotion of mortgages for people who were poor credit risks."

Even the sodomite, Liberal and Demoncrat Barney Frank finally admitted the same :

"In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank--the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie--admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html

June 25, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

You're just hearing about the housing bubble? 2009 article? How about some updated sources.

June 25, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.
conservative said...

""We're still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," he says in a recent campaign ad -- alluding again to his "It's Bush's fault" mantra."

Have you noticed how the mess news networks are becoming more blatant in siding with Obamination and helping him to blame Bush for his failures?

"On Wednesday’s (June 13) Morning Joe, CBS News and NBC News veteran Mika Brzezinski exposed loud and clear her allegiance to Barack Obama. When Joe Scarborough asked her if she thinks Obama’s effort, to blame George W. Bush for the poor economy, will work, she blurted: “Well, I’m hoping” and fretted “but I think it’s a tough sell.” (Scarborough guffawed)"

http://www.mrctv.org/node/114086

June 25, 2012 at 11:46 a.m.

Progressives can't hide the truth any longer. People aren't as dumb as the machine thinks they are. Sentiment has turned and the panic is ramping up. The house of cards is coming down and they are scrambling to pile more rhetoric on to hide the holes in their carefully woven tapestry. The end won't be pretty.

Like all drugs, the hopium is suffering from diminishing returns and the DTs look like they are going to be violent.

June 25, 2012 at 11:56 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Have you ever thought that, maybe, it is Bush's faults? Or is that out of the question.

It takes time to get out of the mess we were in. Around 10 years actually.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/after-the-falls/

June 25, 2012 at 11:58 a.m.
Easy123 said...

FPSE,

What's the truth?

Speaking of rhetoric, you're found 10 ways to say nothing at all.

June 25, 2012 at noon
Rtazmann said...

IF Bush didn't do this to our country who did it?? And there are those of you that holds President Obama accountable,,,,How backwards is that,,,,?? and you are the same people that think Romney would be a good president,,,,,not on your life,,,maybe of an outhouse,,,,Romney is an idea in his own mind,,,,and this spending is left over from Bush,,,,no one else...and should Romney win,,,which he won't,,,, it will continue only worse,,,,It makes no sense to have a President or a government that can't relate to the people that they are elected to represent....We the people need to stop doing this to ourselves....and when we get bad people in office throw them out right now ,,,,not 4 years from now....we need to set up new standards for our needs,,,,not the needs of Washington and the same agenda that state run Legislatures throw down our throats on a daily basis.. Change has to come about us and with us not Washington,,,,,we can't afford to wait for government to fix this,,,,they got us in this mess,,,, we need no more,,,,,from what ever party..

June 25, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.

Rtazmann, Your words would have more weight if they made sense. Saying Romney is an idea in his own mind overlooks the fact that his personal accomplishments say he is much more. He has done much more than the "vote present" Community organizer in chief who won a nobel prize for doing nothing at all.

June 25, 2012 at 2:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

What has Romney done? Please elaborate.

June 25, 2012 at 2:16 p.m.

Google has all the answers you need. Get with the present.

June 25, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...

FPSE,

I could say the same to you.

You are presenting opinion. You have presented no facts. Why should anyone believe your vague rhetoric?

Lookie what I found:

Several reasons why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize (it appears he actually did stuff to receive it!):

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/#

Some accomplishments that Willard Romney can't claim (He's never even been President!):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

June 25, 2012 at 3:32 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

In 89 the wall came down in 91 tanks rolled in the dessert. 94 brought a contract with America and in 96 we got NAFTA . A stained dress brought us W and CAFTA followed. Big PHARM got a percription to perscribe and congress decieded it wasn't fair to ask people to prove they could afford a house. So from 96-06 we got two wars tax cuts and a house. But we woke up in 07 to no jobs a house that wasn't worth it and the bills were past due. So since it was not out fault we hoped for a change and fired up the printing press. 16 trillion dollars later it's easier to point fingers and root for our team then to look for solutions to our greed.

June 25, 2012 at 3:34 p.m.
fairmon said...

Voters are hooked on grants, subsidies, deductions, reductions for all the feel good things they want. Chattanooga gets a 3 million plus to extend a bike trail. Other cites across the country get this and more while the government borrows 40 percent of every dollar spent. Neither party has the wherewithal to not keep doing the same thing. Move over Greece, we will be with you soon, regardless of who is elected.

June 25, 2012 at 5:21 p.m.

harp3339: Voters want to be served by their government?

Who knew!

But hey, you want us to get rid of the deficit, we can do it, in fact a good portion of that WILL be done by default at the end of this year, barring some wackadoodle lameduck session.

As for the complaints about the poor not paying taxes, once again, World of ClassWarfare:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

Watch it, and tell us why you want to take everything from the poor?

June 26, 2012 at 12:01 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.