Monday, July 13, 2009

Stimulus Battle Heats Up

The tension is building. As Obama and the Democrats begin building a case for yet another government expansion 'stimulus' bill, the GOP is beginning to offer some cohesive return fire:
Republicans lined up Sunday in opposition to a second economic stimulus package, a rare demonstration of unity from an out-of-power political party in search of a rallying cry against President Barack Obama.

Republicans called Obama's $787 billion spending plan a "flop" and said it hasn't fulfilled its hype. They criticized the White House for increasing the federal deficit and doing little to combat an unemployment rate that hit 9.5 percent in June.

"The reality is it hasn't helped yet," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it."
So there it is again: the message to concerned Americans is that if you put Republicans back in charge, they'll stop the vast majority of the 'stimulus' spending. That sounds like a great plan to me! In the House GOP weekly address, Eric Cantor puts it pretty plainly:

There really is no stretch of the imagination that would justify the current economic conditions are an improvement based on the initial promises from the Obamessiah. They're complaining that it was Bush's fault, but that just doesn't hold water anymore (unless you're a Kool-Aid drinker, then you'll swear that a sieve holds water). But, if they want to compare Bush to Obama, then let's do it:
Bush's plan passed in April 2003 while Obama's passed in February 2009. I chose the S&P 500 Index starting point one month prior to passage because the market typically discounts the information beforehand as the bills work their way through Congress. I chose 6 months-post passage as the ending point because that's all the data we have for Obama's plan so far.

Bush: From March 2003 to October 2003, the S&P 500 went from 835 to 1034 or 23.8%.

Obama: From January 2009 through July 2009, the S&P went from 932 to 879 or -5.2%.

By way of comparison, I also reviewed the market returns a full year prior to these time periods and the results show a very similar situation.

The S&P 500 return under Bush 1-year prior was -26.2%, hurt by the internet bubble collapse, 9/11 and corporate scandals. Trillions of dollars in lost wealth.
Gateway Pundit helpfully draws the conclusion:
During recession George Bush's economic plan saw 23.8% growth in six months.

During recession Bsrack Obama's economic plan has shown -5.2% growth in six months.

The difference, of course, is that George Bush gave people back their hard-earned money. Barack Obama, on the other hand, spent more and borrowed more of your money and will take more of your money.
With the facts so obviously against them, Obama & Co. have trotted out a new load-of-crap argument: it was never supposed to be a fast fix.

Bull. Yes, it was.

Nevertheless, here's the new argument:
Obama says the recovery will take months.
Barack Obama on July 2, 2009:

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday there were signs that the "economic storm" that has made millions jobless was waning, but warned that it would still take the United States many months to recover.
Ten days later...
The recovery will take years not months.
Barack Obama on July 9, 2009:

Obama: Recovery Will Take Years Not Months.
"It was, from the start, a two-year program, and it will steadily save and create jobs as it ramps up over this summer and fall."
Does this guy really know what's going on?
Yes, I think he knows exactly what's going on, but it ain't what's supposed to be going on. Case in point (emphasis mine):
President Barack Obama said his $787 billion stimulus bill “has worked as intended” as he pushed back against Republican criticism that his recovery program has failed to rescue the economy.
Interesting wording there, don't you think? 'Worked as intended'? What does that mean? I believe it means that his intention all along has been to expand government and take greater control over your life rather than to recover the economy. His actions and words have been 100% consistent with that theory so far.

Here's another interesting quote to note, this time from Tim 'Tax Cheat' Geithner via RedState:

According to CongressDaily, Tim Geithner testified before “a joint House Agriculture and Financial Services hearing on the regulation of derivatives.”

Noting the rising unemployment, Geithner said what the economy “is going through is a very necessary and healthy adjustment as [Americans] go back to living within their means.” He added: “We do not have an economy that is growing again.”

It’s a “necessary and healthy adjustment”? Seriously? 9.5% unemployment is necessary and healthy how exactly?

How is “an economy that is [not] growing” necessary and healthy?

This is the guy so needed to get our economy going again that Congress overlooked his tax evasion.

And this is the man who, having never worked in the private sector, thinks you losing your job is “necessary and healthy.”

That’s Barack Obama’s America.

So, Obama lied to the American people about fixing the economy; instead, he's systematically destroying it in order to gain control over as much of the private market as possible. While that same private market is hemorrhaging jobs, he and his top people are out there saying it's great that those jobs are being lost, and planning lots of new taxes to celebrate it.

Barack Obama's America, indeed.

If you're like me, you're wondering how they can say this stuff with a straight face. It's the doublethink, allows you to say anything! Like this, for example:

Possibly a very important policy change quietly emerged in the daily schedule of Vice President Joe Biden today.

Loyal Ticket readers know that, as a patriotic duty, we monitor the longtime senator's schedule with a close eye for detail because, after all, this man is only a heartbeat away from having to give a toast at a G-8 summit. We've especially noted Biden's innumerable "private meetings" that are closed to the press because, well, they're private.

And we've wondered aloud how this Democratic VP's private meetings with unnamed people on unnamed subjects differs from the private meetings with unnamed people that his evil predecessor had that got so many Democratic senators and representatives worried about nefarious secrets.

Having spent Thursday traveling and successfully selling the nation on the so far hard-to-detect effects of the $787-billion Obama administration economic stimulus spending plan that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave them, Biden will show up for work around 11 today.

He'll join Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a roundtable to discuss only the rising costs of healthcare for people who own or work for small businesses.

OK, so figure an hour for the roundtable, maybe 75 minutes max. You can only talk about that stuff so long ... [t]he VP should be outta there by 12:30.

That leaves -- what? -- five, maybe six hours to make it a seven-hour workday.

According to the White House schedule, Biden will not spend the remainder of the workday in private meetings that are closed press.

Instead: "The Vice President will spend the remainder of the day in meetings that are closed press."

You get the difference, right?

Once upon a time, the media would have a field day with that kind of thing. Now? It's barely even reported.

So, don't expect anything resembling real reporting as this stimulus battle continues to percolate. Watch the new media, which will be your only source for true information about what Obama and the Democrats are doing with your descendants' tax dollars. Don't pay attention to anything Obama & Co. say about it, unless you simply take the opposite of what they say as being the actual meaning of their words.

And, most importantly, get involved in this fight! This is something that simply cannot be lost if we are to preserve the freedom and prosperity of America that we have known for years.

There's my two cents.

No comments: