“The mess that Obama inherited”

May 8, 2009 / 10:26 am • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier

That is the mantra of the Left. Over and over and over broken record style they say it droning like the mindless borg they are. Yep, Republicans who once could be counted on to be fiscally responsible turned out to be big, greedy, disgusting hogs when they were in power.

And now, President Barack Obama is making them look like restrained piglets in comparison. Here’s a picture that explains it.

The Leftists can cram it. Obama’s spending is FIVE TIMES what the worst Republican Congress could come up with and the promised future spending cuts would only bring the spending to the levels of 2x times the worst Republican’s budget. So you guys on the Left can shut the hell up about the mess you inherited. You’re making this current mess. You own it. And it WILL be hung, like a noose, around your special-interest paying off, job-losing necks. You. Own. It.

Speaking of the mess..what is a sane person to do with any extra money he has? What is wisdom? The stock market still looks like a bad idea [read the whole thing, this piece is really, really good]:

So Barack Obama’s policies are antithetical to investment, antithetical to sound business planning, and ensured to kneecap any attempt at recovery that our economy hopes for. If you’re looking for reasons to worry about the future of this economy — looking for justification that this is not a recovery and a bear market rally — you simply have to combine a few facts:

1. Fundamentally, the bull market of the late 90’s and early 00’s was partly due to an extraordinary increase in financial system leverage.
2. This bull market was pumped up by fractional reserve banking and a completely unsustainable rise in asset prices that fueled the above leverage.
3. We are now at a point where leverage is unwinding and asset prices are still declining.
4. Government props have supported a rise in financial sector stocks, but fundamentally the stress tests prove that banks need to raise capital based on even mild financial shocks.
5. Any continued weakness in the economy will skewer this current rally.
6. Asset prices, foreclosures, and jobs data show no signs of getting better, only (at best) signs of slowing their decline.
7. Obama’s financial system meddling (auto bailout, TARP shenanigans, etc) is sure to provide more weakness than expected.

Richard Posner, and all the other cheerleaders, believe that if only they keep confidence high, all the fundamental problems in the economy will dissipate and we’ll start a recovery. But the fundamentals aren’t going away. The economy is over-leveraged just like it was in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, and that leverage must unwind before we can reach a recovery, a recovery based on saving and investment rather than spending and debt. Posner thinks the collapse has been avoided by slowing down the decline, but in essence we’ve only delayed and extended the inevitable.

I’m thinking, ironically enough, that real estate is the good investment right now. What do you think? Low property values, low interest rates, tangible asset.

  • Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg

    Melissa, you’re absolutely right about the left ‘owning’ this disaster. I, for one, am glad that liberals have filibuster-proof control of all three branches of government, because when the wheels come there will be no way for anyone to deny it’s is 100% their fault.

    And if there’s any justice in the world, they will be burned at the stake for destroying our economic future.

    If you’re looking for a good place to invest, you’re right to look to undeveloped real estate (not a house!) and real commodities, to include precious metals.

  • Sue

    It will be interesting to see the “mess” the next president inherits from Obama! This mess is going to look like a walk in the park in comparison.

  • Pingback: Dirty Democrats » “The mess that Obama inherited”

  • Mr. Chuckles

    So, ummmm, are you saying that BO didn’t inherit a mess? Are you saying that Bush and “defecits don’t matter” Cheney didn’t screw the pooch? Only now do you feign outrage over republican spending, and little outrage at that. BO is trying to spend us out of the worst recession in decades, one created by “conservatives”. Admittedly the amount of money being spent and the whole methodology is frightening, and it remains to be seen whether or not it will work. Warren Buffet, you know, that guy with more than just a little investment experience, believes for the most part that BO is on the right track. So do many other financial experts who I’m guessing have just a tad more experience in these matters than anyone else posting here. In any case, something (?) had to be done to correct the foolish policy of “conservatives” run amok. What would your solution be? Lower taxes? Sure – I’d like to pay less too. So would all of the corporations, however with all of the loopholes in the tax code, companies in America already pay some of the lowest taxes on the planet. Yes the base corp. rate looks high, but unless they are completely clueless no company ever pays anything near that rate. Bushco lowered taxes and then spent money like water (Hey, guess what? You get a massive defecit!), so just lowering taxes without government restraint clearly doesn’t work. And do large corporations really contribute to a “trickle down” effect when they pay less in taxes? Given the lower tax rates of the last 8 years and the massive migration of good manufacturing jobs to outside of our borders I’m going to have to say no.

    Increase the savings rate? How do you mandate this? You can only “incentivise” savings (made up word – like Bush used to do…), and while this is a good idea for individuals, in the short run (like 3-5 years)it means economic pain for those businesses that rely on discressionary (sp?) spending, companies that employ people who will be laid off, pull unemployment bennies, pull the economy down even more, etc., etc. I like saving money too, but if nobody spends in a capitalist system…

    My point is that there is no easy fix, and if McCain had won he would have done probably very nearly the same thing. As a senate fiscal “conservative”, he contributed his fair share of pork spending and irresponsibility as well. (Frankly, the biggest difference between the two parties is simply the 10% of things they disagree on in terms of spending. Both parties spend like drunken sailors, they just spend it on different crap. And don’t get me started on military spending creating jobs, blah blah blah. Military spending is ultimately unsustainable).

    You’ve made a big stink aout BO and his first 100 days, and clearly you and your ditto heads would love to see massive failure here. I know you say that you want his policies that you feel are wrong to fail, but Bushco had nearly the same policy in terms of bloated spending – just on things that you idealistically supported (like Iraq) but had no positive financial outcome (BTW – even if we “win” in Iraq, just what the hell did we get for our money and blood anyway?). I wonder if a look back in your archives would reveal the same level of contempt for them as well (I don’t have that kind of time – maybe Mat does…). If you are going to claim that you are a conservative, then you have to have an honesty check with yourself and ditch the party (now the “Limbaugh Party”) line if you want to maintain at least some level of integrity. I’m going to maintain my level of independent integrity by reasserting that if BO’s policies don’t have a positive impact on the country I will be the first in line to boot his ass out in 2012.

  • LEARNED

    Chuckles.Comment.Factually
    incorrect. Emotion drenched.
    Shallow.Child-like.Try again.

  • LEARNED

    Chuckles.Obama $2trillion spending
    orgy.Rejected G20.Rejected Buffett.
    China.Biggest USA lender.Rejected.
    Your argument.Rejected.Dreams.

  • Dave R

    Sorry Chuckles, but you must not have been paying attention when we were screaming at the top of our lungs over Bush and the Republicans OVER spending like crazy. Why do you think they LOST in 2006 – because they LOST our support.

    (and here’s a Hint: don’t go by what Buffet says, go look WHAT he’s investing in and you’ll find that he really doesn’t agree with the direction that the Democrats are taking things – but that would actually make you look at the facts, wouldn’t it?)

    And McCain would have done the same thing? On what Sci-Fi/Fantasy planet did you hear that from?

  • alanstorm

    Mr. Chuckles:

    “So, ummmm, are you saying that BO didn’t inherit a mess?” – immaterial: that’s the thing about inheritance; when you inherit something, you own it. So if BO inherited a money-losing company, and promptly quaprupled its debt with no new customers in sight, it would be the fault of the grantor? Sounds like lefty “logic” to me.

  • Mr. Chuckles

    alanstorm,

    Ok, then by your logic, Bush inherhited a shiny new sparkly economy from Clinton and decimated it. He “owned” the prosperity, and then trashed it beyond belief. All he had to do was nothing, and we’d all be better off.

    Dave – If conservatives really do comprise 60% of the nations voters as some of you have asserted in past posts, then why weren’t you “screaming” in ’04? So called “conservatives” seemed to be just fine with Bush back then. My guess is that even with the coming financial shitstorm (which MANY saw coming) you voted for the schmuck for a second term anyway.

    True conservatism in this country is dead. The only folks clinging to it want to interject all sorts of rightist social agendas that have nothing to do with fixing the economy. Let’s be clear – It’s ALWAYS about the economy. If people are doing well and have the opportunity to prosper, many social ills are abated. Once in my lifetime I would like to see a fiscal conservative who is a social moderate. Reagan was probably the closest thing that I will ever get to see, and even with him the defense spending became out of control, as evidenced by his successor’s pledge and subsequent breaking of a promise not to raise taxes (which he had to do to cover Reagan’s spree).

    I know many of you here love to take pot-shots at myself and other “so called moderates”, but can you honestly say you’re happy with the direction of your party? Were Bush and McCain really the best that your clan could muster? Do you really believe that McCain could have righted the economy without increasing the debt? Perhaps the magnitude of the spending would have been smaller – who knows? McCain certainly could have communicated a more clear message to the populace about what his actual plans were.

    Another thing: I actually considered voting for McCain, empty message and all, but then he picked caribou barbie, another idealogue with a rightist social agenda and not much else and I just couldn’t stomach it. Her selection was pivotal to many, as McCain’s age was certainly a factor. She was Bush in a skirt, and the country was tired of Bush.

    “Conservatives” need to wake up and address the real average joe in America, the ones who simply want to get themselves and their families ahead and are tired of the far right social agenda. I for one am sick of social issues crowding out what’s really important (it was and is STILL the economy).

    BO might F it all up even more, but its time for the GOP to own up to and denounce Bush and “defecits don’t matter” Cheney for getting us here in the first place. Doing so would at least give them back some of the integrity and credibility that they have lost.

  • DaveR

    Sorry Chuckles, but I am going to call you on this. We WERE screaming. We DID NOT like all the spending. Did you just MISS when I told you that’s WHY they lost in 2006? (and you’re saying we should have voted for Kerry in ’04? because no one else was on the ballot that was a Conservative (and no, there wasn’t)).

    And we didn’t pick McCain – a bunch of New England Dems and Liberals who are allowed to vote in states they don’t even reside in pushed McCain on us (because the leaders of the Party in 2007 WERE Liberals, not Conservatives they let this happen because they WANTED McCain).

    And you also quite conveniently seem to forget that Reagan wanted to CUT spending, but the Democrats in Congress spent like crazy, even MORE than the huge increase in revenue the tax cuts brought into the Fed. (Go ahead, go look up the huge increase in revenue into the Fed from 1981 to 1988 – and the Dem’s STILL outspent it)

    And for you Moderates, how did this last election go for you when you had your “candidate of choice” in McCain? Oh yeah, we LOST. How does it go when a real Conservative runs (Reagan)? Oh yeah, he wins 49 states and the only state he looses is the home state of the opponent (Minnesota in 84).

    It’s also you (and the Libs) who don’t realize that it’s NOT the Government that can “right” the economy. The Gubment can ONLY hold back and mess up the economy. If a business makes BAD choices and looses money, guess what? They need to CLOSE – not be propped up by the government. (and yes, guess what, I blame Bush and the Republicans in Congress for this also, but he wasn’t running for election when he did this so please don’t go for the vote thing, it’s a red herring argument. YOu’ll notice a lot of the Republican in Congress got voted out too, or didn’t you notice that?)

    Any why is it you so-called moderates hate a strong women? You can’t man up and admit that this country needs more strong women who actually LOVE their families – and not just aborting babies? And since her social agenda is what you couldn’t handle, they that tells me you really ARE a Liberal, because she WAS a Social Conservative. So please, just man up and admit your Liberalism, they you might not be so angry all the time in your frustration in trying to convince everyone you’re a moderate.

  • Mr. Chuckles

    Dave,

    Hate to dissapoint you, but I’m just not that angry…Please take a deeeeeeep breath and relax. I’m not going to adress these in any particular order, well, because I don’t have to and it will probably make you even angrier which suits me just fine.

    First off, Sarah Palin is not a social moderate. She belongs to a fundamentalist church that “excorsises” demons out of people. If that’s “moderate” to you, then you probably think Buchanan is a communist. As for the abortion issue, while there may have been some vile far left folks who said that she should have aborted her baby, I am not one of them. I have three kids, and I am sympathetic to her decision to keep her baby. I simply don’t believe the government should intervene in these issues because it’s ultimately an unsolvable problem. Do you really believe that making it illegal will prevent it? Are you realy naive enough to believe that abstinence really works? The stats don’t bear it out, angry man.

    BTW – I’ve already “manned up” there internet tough guy and accepted women in leadership roles a long time ago. I believe Margaret Thatcher, Bhutto, Hillary Clinton (sure, you hate her), etc. all have or had great leadership qualites. In the past I have worked for two very hard working smart women who I greatly respected, so you’re going to have to take the straw man argument somewhere else, angry little man.

    On the subject of Clinton –

    I don’t believe that there has been any female in American politics who has faced more derision than Hillary Clinton. She has been through more scrutinity and humiliation than Sara Palin can even comprehend, so maybe it’s time for the Palin defenders to quit thier hypocritical bitchy little whining about poor Sarah getting picked on. Most of the same folks who wailed “not fair!” about Palin are the same ones who shredded Clinton for the last 15 years. Clinton has faced accusations from her detractors ranging from lesbianism to reporters speculating on the size of her balls, so please “conservatives”, STOP YOUR WHINING!

    Ah yes, Reagan. Reagan won a huge mandate. True. But then again, he was going against arguably one of the weakest incumbents in modern history. And Mondale? Even sizzling candidate Fred Thompson could have beat Mondale, so that’s not much of an argument.

    If you actually read my post, you would see that I was not really anti-Reagan. I would gladly have taken him over W if it were possible. Reagan was also a social moderate as you may or may not recall, and this greatly angered his more socially conservative base post election as he promised them sweeping social change during his campaign and then backed out. “Reaganomics” however ultimately proved unsustainable, a fact which his sucessor realized. It was NOT just the democratic congess as you assert, as Reagan greatly increased defense spending.

    Lastly Dave, folks like you just never seem to understand that those of us who are “not you” in the political sense are not far left tree hugging nuts. I know it’s easier for you to categorize and label all those who may dare to disagree with you as socialists, communists, liberal facists (ad nauseum jingoism of the day), but the fact is there really is a moderate spectrum in politics. But hey angry little man, if it makes you feel better to call me a liberal, knock yourself out. The more you call moderates “liberals”, the more extremist you and your ilk appear.

  • DaveR

    I’m sorry, but when did I state that Gov. Palin was a social moderate? I specifically stated she’s a social conservative. Please read again. Also Reagan was NOT a social moderate, he was a social conservative, but with the rewriting of history by the liberal media, he’s painted that way (and yes, I was alive and old enough to vote for him in 84).

    Reaganomics worked. The continued government intrusion into private business is what’s been screwing up the economy for decades since then. And excuse me, but isn’t the DEFENSE of our country specifically WHAT the Government is SUPPOSE to be doing? As a Constitutional Conservative who believe and supports what our Founding Fathers MEANT when the wrote the Constitution (not what “judges” or the SC “interprets” it as – because believe it or not, the Constitution is NOT a flexible document), the Defense spending should be going up as much as it needs to with the threats in the world. So please don’t say he wasn’t a Conservative because he increased Defense spending.

    So when we were against Ms. Clinton because of her POLITICAL beliefs (big government, increased taxes, more regulations), that’s equivalent to tearing down Gov. Palin’s private life (having a special needs child instead of aborting it, mistakes her DAUGHTER made in her PRIVATE life and attributing those mistakes to her, attributing a Saturday Night Live SKIT to something she NEVER said)? You really have to be kidding to compare those two, seriously please stop.

    For those of you who want to claim you are moderate, there’s this thing we have called the Constitution. You either agree with what’s in it, or you don’t. And I’m not talking about what any particular President or Congress has done or hasn’t done. A Conservative WANTS the Government to follow the Constitution, which means they are LIMITED in what they can do. The sad pitiful state of our education system over the last 40 years (funny, since the Dems have taken over the Teachers Unions), has left most all of American’s not even knowing what the Constitution is for. They think that the “gubment” grants us rights “thru” the Constitution, and don’t know that the Constitution is specifically there to LIMIT what the government can do.

    If you want to change what the Constitution allows our government to do, then there is a process that will let you do that, it’s called Amending. It’s NOT the courts, it’s NOT any “law” the Congress can pass, it’s NOT any executive order the Pres issues, and it’s NOT even any SC ruling. If you’re not a Constitutional Conservative, I don’t care what you call yourself, but you’re not for what this country was founded on (and, by-the-way, made it GREAT).

    You also need to get it through you minds that just because we are against everything The Messiah and the current Congress are doing DOESN’T “mean” that we were totally for everything Bush 43 (and even Bush 41) did. You know, we can actually be against both? Believe it or not, really, we can.