President Obama's Weekly Address - June 26, 2010

Finishing the Job on Wall Street Reform

President Obama's Weekly Address - October 24, 2009

Working with Small Business to Drive Recovery

Standing By Your Convictions

Texas Governor, Rick "Secession" Perry, the Republican politician who rejected stimulus money in March, is now asking for funds from that oppressive, evil federal government.

Texas is now asking the federal government for a $170 million loan so that benefits keep getting paid.

“This is nothing out of the ordinary. We’re following protocol that we put in place,” said Governor Rick Perry.

Texas has asked for this loan only one other time, in 2003. This year however, the decision is getting extra attention after Governor Rick Perry rejected federal stimulus money that would have replenished the fund.

Texas is expected to request $650 million, roughly $100 million more than Perry initially rejected. At a “tea party protest” in April, Perry trumpeted his decision to reject stimulus dollars from the Obama administration. “I believe the federal government has become oppressive,” he said, adding that he might even consider seceding from the Union.

I love the smell of Republican hypocrisy in the morning.

Time To Up Shelby's Meds

Senator Richard Shelby (R-Douchelandia) apparently forgot the date of the last election and when President Obama took office.

"Well, obviously. So, [the Obama administration] intervene[s] last fall in the bank crisis. No one has ever done it on that scale before. Now the automobile crisis."

Gotta give Shelby credit for realizing how incredibly stupid he sounded when he realized that he placed a date on the bank bailout as "last fall" and tried to correct himself by mentioning that it started with Bush, but BZZZT!!! Nice try, Senator Shelby.

Also, hey Chris Wallace, "Government Motors"? Fuck you. Your father's turning over in his grave. Huh, what? Mike Wallace isn't dead yet? ... Nevermind. The Mike Wallace part, not the "Fuck you, Chris Wallace" part.

(H/T Political Wire)

Harold Ford Jr. Kicks Armey's Ass

I'm not a big fan of Harold Ford, Jr. usually because he rebuts Republican talking point statements with, "I agree with everything you said, but...", but I'll give credit where credit is due. On Meet The Press today, Ford took Dick Armey to task right before a commercial break with the following:

REP. ARMEY: Let me make a couple points. As Milton Friedman said, "The real rate of taxation is the rate of spending." It's going to be pay me now or pay me later, but eventually every dime's worth of government spending is going to be taxation. But I think there's a fundamental question here that Hubert Humphrey would appreciate. The fact is, even by Hubert Humphey's standards, Humphrey-Hawkins, this government is too big. It's too much of a burden on the economy. And people sense that this president wants to take an already existing burden on the American economy and make it even bigger with a questionable ability...

REP. FORD: All right.

REP. ARMEY: ...to do any good. Has the government actually made health care better in America? I would argue probably not.

MR. GREGORY: All right. Comment, Harold?

REP. FORD: Two things. We use the term "bailout" when we talk about the help on the financial side. It's important to note that the TARP is designed to actually be paid back. If the banks perform at the rate that some have suggested they performed this quarter and across the year, you're looking at a dividend payment from the banks back to the taxpayer, rightly so, between $12 to $15 billion this year, number one. Number two...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

REP. FORD: ...I would agree with you, Leader, in this regard. Spending is large, but what is the alternative? Government's playing the role of the, the, the, the, the financial investor of last resort, the spender of last resort. We, we fought this, we fought this battle for many years in this country. Think if we'd decided not to pass the Servicemen Readjustment Act back in 1944 called the GI Bill. It was an enormous expenditure. You sent eight million veterans to college, you provided one year of unemployment compensation and you ensured they could buy a home. The impact that had on the nation's economy going forward, educating that greatest generation, has been enormous. Think if Eisenhower's national interstate, the highway system would not have passed. It cost $425 billion in real day terms. The impact it's had on commerce, prosperity and growth has been immeasurable. We face one of those moments. This is one of those 100-year flood moments. And as much as I'd like to see government not engage and involve itself in so many enterprises, I don't know the alternative. And as much as I like and respect you, I've not heard from Republicans or conservatives or the TEA party attenders, what is the alternative? If the alternative, alternative is to sit back and do nothing, the majority of Americans, evidenced by poll after poll, say, "Do something. Be active and get us out of this mess."

Although Gregory interrupted to go to break, if you watch the video, Armey had no answer or else he would have responded.

Thanks, But No Thanks, But Thanks, But No Thanks... But... Thanks...

I can't wait until Palin runs in 2012 with the line, "I said, 'Thanks, but no thanks' to that economic stimulus package money."

You know it's coming.

(H/T Andrew Sullivan)

Steve Pearlstein on Krugman Analysis: Flat. Out. Wrong.

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein vehemently disagreed with Paul Krugman's analysis of President Obama's plan on MSNBC today.

Andrea Mitchell: Let me ask you about Paul Krugman in the New York Times today, because he, really even before the details were announced, he wrote, "The plan to use taxpayer funds to drive the prices of bad assets up to 'fair' levels... but the Geithner scheme would offer a one way bet; if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn't really about letting markets work. It's just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets."

Steve Pearlstein: Andrea? Flat. Out. Wrong. There is risk to the equity investors here. Obviously he either didn't understand the plan or didn't read it very carefully. Now do we limit their risk? Yes we do. Under the plan, yes we would and the reason for that is because if that wasn't necessary, then these markets would be working already. Clearly they're not working so we need to do something. You might call it a subsidy or you might call it providing some insurance, so yes we're doing that to jump-start these markets. And the hope is, that once these markets start to operate, the government can begin to withdraw, but right now you need something to prime the pump because there's no water coming out.

The Obama Economic Surge?

The Dow Jones has rebounded 623 points in the last three days, a 9.5% gain. I'm waiting with bated breath for all the "Obama Recession" bastards to give him credit for having the foresight to throw money at the problem and stem the tide.

The Obama economic "surge" worked! Why can't they admit that? Say it. SAY IT!

ADDING... Of course, I'm kidding. My point is that one has nothing to do with the other. It's all speculation based on insider news and confidence.

It's just very interesting and obvious that while the markets are doing poorly, President Obama's face is plastered all over the DJIA ticker, but when the markets are rallying, rags like Andrea Mitchell are trying to say the White House is taking credit for it while the MSM remains mum. Oh, they'll tell you the Dow is up, but the very next line isn't, "Is President Obama doing too much?" That's only reserved when the numbers are in the red. And please show me a quote where the White House taking credit that isn't intended as a joke, Andrea. And while you're at it kick your husband, Alan Greenspan in the scrotum. That scumbag was part of the problem.

Obama's Weekly Address - Feb 14, 2009

A Major Milestone