Fueling the Economic Engine

Obama told a group of small business owners that he acknowledges that government can't build the economy (he doesn't believe it but he acknowledges that they do) but the government can and should fuel the engine. Let me ask you this; does your engine run without fuel?


He gives the analogy saying something he thinks we want to hear but reveals the truth. He believes that the economy is dependent on the government to be the "fuel". A total crock. The government is not the fuel, it is that gunk that builds up in your fuel line and causes your engine to spit and sputter. Government is the sugar in your gas tank that seizes your engine, leaves you stranded on the side of the road in a blizzard and costs you a month's salary to fix. But Obama has made even that situation worse.

Unsatisfied with clogging up the lines, he's pushed the private sector away from the gas nozzle and decided to fuel our big diesel engine of an economy on bacon grease and horse manure. Now the spitting, sputtering, seizing and shuddering engine of our economy has developed a frightening knocking sound and is beginning to smoke. As those pushed from control of the fuel tank wave their arms and raise their voices begging for him to stop, Obama puts on his earmuffs, turns his back and shovels another load of manure in the tank. If this keeps up we'd better all duck and cover because when that engine blows, and it will if the government doesn't stop trying to fuel it, we'll all be covered in shit.

Hey It Could Have Been Worse

As the Obama administration finally gets the message that people are unhappy with his focus on healthcare over the economy, Robert Gibbs comes out with the message of "hey, it could have beeen worse."

I suppose, if they openly tried to make the economy as bad as it could possibly be, then yes, it could have been worse.  However, I don't think their argument that it would have been worse if they didn't act holds water.  Quite the opposite.  I'm of the mind that if the Obama administration and Congress had taken the entire year of 2009 off, we would be in a much better economic situation than we are right now.

The deficit would be much lower without the wild spending sprees.  The job situation would be better without the looming taxes of healthcare and cap and trade.  The housing market may have found a bottom and begun a recovery. 

Things can always be worse than they are.  It's a mantra that many of us tell ourselves when a situation gets bad, but in this situation they shouldn't be trying to convince us of how bad it could be when we know that it's worse that it should be.

Try another tack Gibbs.  Wait, I know, it's Bush's fault.

Obama's Selective Memory

I'm listening to Obama speak on the economy and of course he blamed the Republicans for everything saying they created the mess and then wouldn't help fix it.  Revisionist history at best and a down right lie at the worst.

The economic collapse was all driven by the problems with Fannie and Freddie and the sub-prime mortgage crisis.  So who was responsible for this? 

It was Clinton in 1995 who signed legislation which required lenders to give money to people who were a bad risk.  If they failed to give these loans which were a bad business idea, they would no longer be able to receive federal funds.  Blackmail to force them into stupid business practices.

In 2003 Bush attempted to pass legislation to undo this and stop the forcing of loans to people who wouldn't qualify under other circusmstances.  He asked the Congress to stop making the banks piss money away.  The Democrats in Congress refused to cooperate and threatened to fillibuster.  Had this been passed in 2003 the current economic crisis would have been averted, but according to Obama it is the REPBULICAN'S fault.  When Obama joined the Senate in 2005 he added his voice to the refusal to address this situation.

In 2006 Greenspan brought the urgency of the situation to the attention of Congress and said that the risky practices of Fannie and Freddie (legislated by Clinton and attempted to be fixed by Bush) would cause a collapse.  Chris Dodd and Barack Obama (yes that guy now blaming somebody else) were the top two recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, and Chris Dodd was the chairman of the committee on banking which SHOULD have addressed this issue.  Neither did a thing.  With the Democrats taking control of Congress in January 2007 all hope of fixing this impending disaster was lost.

So here's the timeline in summary - 1995 Clinton passes legislation to start the mess.  2003 Bush attempts legislation to prevent the mess but Dems filibuster.  2006 Greenspan warns of imminent disaster and Dems refuse to address.  In 2008 economy collapses as a direct result of what Greenspan warned.  In 2009 Obama is blaming Republicans for not fixing the problem when he voted to filibuster against the fix.

The man really does have selective memory, and a total inability to accept any personal responsibility for the current situation.

Silos, Self-interest and Citizenship

I wrote a letter to leadership and posted it on my facebook page.  The letter was all about asking Congress to slow down, focus on the economy instead of personal projects and do something right instead of fast.  This is a basic request for the citizenry, something that will serve the interest of the nation as a whole, but what happened?

The first real comment was the equivalent of "but what about me?"  Then it got into debates on social issues, a justification of current actions because of what the Republicans did and a total loss of the initial message.  So because Repbulicans weren't great we should sit silently by while the situation gets worse?

A little over a year ago my family and I went through the belongings of my grandmother who had passed away.  One of the things we found were ration booklets from WWII.  I've kept them not just because they were my grandmother's, but because of what they represent about us as a nation.  The nation banded together and everybody sacrificed much in order to battle the enemy and win.

On December 7th 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and more than 3,500 people were killed or injured.  We declared war on Japan and on Germany and finally entered the great war.  The cost in lives and in money was astromical and tragic, but we banded together, set aside our individual agendas and worked together as a nation to win.

On September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda attacked the world trade center, the Pentagon, and another target that, due to the bravery of average citizens, they failed to hit.  Nearly 3,000 people were killed in this attack and the country banded together in a dedication to fight against Al-Qaeda and stop this from ever happening again.  In WWII we were fighting against the Nazi goal of forcing their ideology on the rest of the world, now we are doing the same against radical Islam.  In WWII we lost 418,000 military personel in the fight and we maintained the will to win.  And we did win.  In the War on Terror we have lost 5,500 and our determination to win waned as soon as the war began.

Although in WWII we stayed dedicated to winning in spite of any personal sacrifices that we had to make, the philosophy now is the opposite.  Though there are many who still believe in a shared sacrifice in order to achieve a common goal, there are many who support the sacrifice of the common goal in order to avoid any personal hardship.  The wars have cost a lot of money which is absolutely true, but should we sacrifice our battle against terror because it's too expensive?  While at the same time passing sweeping legislation that will cost the country trillions and never, ever go away.  At least the wars will end, badly written legislation on government run healthcare will be will us forever. 

This, "give me what I want or I'll take my ball and go home" philosophy is destroying us from within.  Is radical Islam getting what they want by our refusal to band together and fight?  Are they glorying in the idea that they have divided us and now we're ripe for conquering?  Do they use our obsessive need to push our own personal agenda in the face of broader, more wide sweeping issues as proof of what is wrong with western civilization?

We may all have different ideas on how to make things better, but we should all be looking at the big picture instead of focusing on our own small piece of it.  We should disagree and discuss, but we shouldn't be telling the other side, "you lost so sit down and shut the hell up."  We should look at what is happening now and analyze it based on what is happening now instead of justifying a new bad policy because we think somebody else wrote a worse one.  In other words, we need to stop behaving like bickering children and start banding together to save the country from economic collapse and bankruptcy. 

But then again, I can see why your personal issue may be far more important that the safety and economic stability of the nation as a whole.  That whole United we stand divided we fall slogan is probably just propoganda anyway.