“Reinvestment Acts" of Carter, Clinton & Obama

It's the history of the Democrats, and it keeps on repeating itself, and landing us in sh*t street:

Barack Obama, Propaganda, Jimmy Carter, Inflation, High Interest Rates “Reinvestment Act” and The “Misery Index.”

[...] If you look back in history to the Jimmy Carter Administration you will find that during Jimmy Carter’s Reinvestment Act, much the same as Barack Obama’s, we went into years of double digit inflation because the dollar was so devalued (The fed printed a hell of a lot of money to fund the Reinvestment Act). To combat high, runaway inflation the Federal Reserve kept raising interest rates. Now, much to Jimmy Carter’s credit there were 10.5 Million Jobs created under his presidency. However people could not afford to buy anything because the price of merchandise and interest were well beyond the average person. The end result was the economy did not grow thus we had “STAGFLATION.”

Here is an interesting page from the Wall Street Journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Note that during the George W. Bush years there was the lowest unemployment and the the lowest interest rates. One may argue that George W. Bush only created 3 Million jobs. But wait…. almost everyone was working. But as the economy began to collapse because of Bill Clinton’s expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1997, the unemployment number skyrocketed in the last months of George W. Bush’s term. This was not George W. Bush’s fault at all.

Carter: Interest rate, 21%. Inflation, 13.5%. Unemployment, 7%. The so-called “Misery Index,” which Carter used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election.

Reagan’s last year: Interest rate, 9%. Inflation, 4.1%. Unemployment, 5.5%.

George W. Bush: Interest rate, 8% down to almost 0%. Inflation, 2.6%. Unemployment, 4.5%. [...]

And it was Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act in 1997 that made all the bad loans, the sub-prime mortgages, that led to the meltdown. And once again, it looks like there is inflation in our future.

We are told that 10 million jobs were created during Jimmy Carter's presidency, but the benefits of that were negated by high inflation, which ran the economy into the ground, ending his presidency with a recession.

Obama has started his Presidency with a recession, and hasn't created any significant number of jobs. He has continually attacked the private sector, increased taxes, created uncertainty in the market place, and added enormously to our already overburdened national debt. When inflation comes, it will be worse than Carter's presidency, because we won't even have the jobs people had back then; it will be high unemployment AND inflation. And if we continue on this path, we may even be facing a U.S. currency collapse.

Think Cloward-Piven strategy. The hard-core Marxists are. I don't claim that everybody in the Obama Administration is a hard-core Marxist; some are just Marxist sympathizers, or useful idiots. But in the end the distinction won't much matter, if the end result is the same.


Also see:

Has US Currency already "collapsed"?

What happens when Tax Cuts Expire in 2011?

# Our true national debt: $130,000,000,000,000.

     

Jimmy Carter's term, repeated. With a Vengence.

Are we really about to go through that? Victor Davis Hanson makes a good case for it:

All Falling Down . . .

[...] Why the pessimism? I think there are a few truths that transcend politics and remain eternal. In life as a general rule, debt has to be paid back, and with greater pain and anger than it was to borrow it. Bullies do not respect magnanimity, but tragically interpret it as weakness to be exploited rather than to be admired.

Hoping that something good comes true —like being self-reliant through solar and wind—does not make it true; neglecting the riches at hand to dream about greater riches that do not exist is adolescent. Radical Islam hates the West, not because of what we do or say, but because of who we are: a dynamic, mercurial culture that challenges all the protocols of a traditional, tribal and religiously fundamentalist society.

Diplomacy is a tool to lessen, but not eliminate, tensions—a way to conduct foreign policy, not a foreign policy in and of itself. [...]

He reviews point by point, on every front, the similarities with the Carter years, and why this is likely to be worse. He ends it by saying that he hopes he's wrong. I hope he's wrong too, but... I remember the Carter years. And what I see now, well... read the whole article. And prepare, as best you can.
     

Democrat Gamble makes Republicans Scramble

Harry Reid has criticized Republican's for not being bipartisan enough, claiming that they want President Obama to fail. But how can they be "bipartisan", if by definition it means jumping off a cliff with the Democrats? Is not agreeing to mutual suicide really "wanting Obama to fail"?


Ironically, I think if the Democrats would have worked on a truly bi-partisan approach to solving the crisis, they could have, with Republican help, insured Obama's success for improving the economy and creating jobs. Instead, they are taking a terrible gamble that seems suicidal to many of us.

This article in the San Francisco Chronicle attempts to make a very positive pitch for Obama's budget and the Democrat's agenda. But even with all the gushing and praise, it acknowledges many of the risks being taken:

Obama taking big political risk with budget

[...] After two years of protecting her conservative Blue Dog Democrats by signing off on farm subsidies and avoiding immigration votes, Pelosi has signaled a leftward shift, warmly embracing the Obama budget as the culmination of a vision she has fought years to achieve. "We are very excited, I guess is the word," Pelosi told liberal media representatives last week. "Now we have a president who shares our values and has the right priorities."

Like former President Reagan, who inherited an economic calamity from a deeply unpopular predecessor, Obama is using the crisis to change government's role in the economy. "We are at an extraordinary moment that is full of peril but full of possibility," Obama told PBS' Jim Lehrer, "and I think that's the time you want to be president."

If the polls are accurate, the economic meltdown has altered public attitudes about government, be it the appetite for health care reform, regulation of banks or higher taxes on the wealthy.

"What you've got is a context that makes a very ambitious budget strategy possible in a way that wouldn't be possible in times we would call normal," said Bruce Buchanan, a presidential scholar at the University of Texas. "This is a rare moment." [...]

I read the whole thing. I can follow the logic of the arguments being put forth in favor of what's being done. Yet I can't see that it's going to work, because it's the same flawed logic that got us into this mess. Even the article warns there are a number of pitfalls that could cause it to fail:

[...] Historically, a president's first year is almost always his most productive. "If you can't do it in your first term with your first budget, you almost never get a chance to do it later," said Stan Collender, a veteran budget expert now with Qorvis Communications, a Washington public relations firm. And when a new president comes from a different party than his predecessor, big changes are expected. [...]

President Obama's $3.6 trillion spending and tax plan is the most ambitious effort to shift the federal government's role in the economy since former President Ronald Reagan's in 1981. But instead of rolling back government, Obama advocates spending in three key areas, each dependent on the others. If Congress declines to raise taxes on carbon emissions, for example, money for the middle-class tax credit vanishes, forcing the deficit even higher. [...]

If Obama would only cut taxes to create jobs and increase investment, he would increase the tax revenue from new and expanding businesses, which could fund many of his programs. A true bi-partisan compromise could have achieved that. The problem is, in the name of "fairness", he's instead punishing business with higher taxes, causing investors to sit on their money, shrinking the tax payer base, and borrowing trillions to pay for the Democrat's massive budget agenda. It's growing a bubble that's bound to burst.

Debt is the problem, not the solution. Many Republican's turned against George Bush and the Republican Party for continuing to spend money we don't have, increasing our debt massively and weakening the dollar. And now ironically, Obama is compounding that problem.

If it works I'll eat these words, but I honestly don't see how it can. Jimmy Carter threw endless money at problems, with very bad consequences. It's looking more and more like Barack Obama intends to do the same.

This Administration is still new, and they could conceivably learn from their mistakes. Carter didn't learn from his mistakes, and had one term. Will Obama?


Related Links:

More than a bad day: Worries grow that Barack Obama & Co. have a competence problem

Is Obama taking on too much at once, at economy's expense?

President Obama: a "Leader" or a "Figurehead"?

Does Obama Know What He Is Doing?

HANSON: Maxing out a crisis card
     

President Obama. And so it is. A ray of hope?

I'm going to quote two things from Neal Boortz today, which sum up my feelings about today's events.

TODAY WE CELEBRATE

Say what you will about the politics and celebrity-worship of Barack Obama, but today is a historic day for this nation ... a day to celebrate.

Once again, for the 44th time in our history, the United States will show the entire world that the world's most powerful country can peacefully change leadership. We're used to it. That doesn't seem so special to us ... but to citizens from other countries it is nothing short of amazing. Witness what is happening in Russia. A new leader through an election? Yeah ... tell that to Putin and get fitted for a blindfold.

Did I vote for this guy? No. Do I want him to be the best president this country has ever had? Absolutely; but that's according to my definition of what "the best" would entail, not Bill Ayers'. I want a president who promotes self reliance, who honors the concept of the individual, who brings us more economic liberty, who recognizes the danger of big government, and who will be an inspiration to millions of people who, before today, thought that their future was out of their hands. As my father used to say; "People in hell want ice water." But we'll see.

Many people have asked me if I suspect that I've made my last trip to the Oval Office for a chat with the president. Yup, I expect so. If the oceans should ever part, however, and if I should receive such an invitation I'll gladly go and I'll be honored to meet and talk with the President of the United States. The institution is larger than any man, and any man in that office deserves our respect: Perhaps not our support at all times, but always our respect.

I won't be watching the celebrations today. I have to work. Somebody has to work to pay taxes to pay off the trillion dollar plus deficit ;-)

Anyhow, I never watch the inauguration events live; you can see a summary of the best parts on the evening news (or Access Hollywood). And there are far too many celebrities involved this time around; I find them most off-putting. IMO, "celebrities" are like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy; no adult who wants to be taken seriously should be professing any belief in them. Ok, celebrities do actually exist, but they still put their pants on one leg at a time like all the rest of us, so what's the big deal? Living in California for 24 years really disabused me of the celebrity BS.

Now for the ray of hope:

GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH

Maybe there is hope for Obama after all. I mean, the guy is in love with government just like most Americans; particularly those educated in government schools. But in his inauguration speech today we're led to believe that Obama may stress the importance of self reliance and responsibility. I'll really believe it when he slashes funding for our welfare system and allows the people to keep more of their money in the form of tax cuts .. rather than relying on the government to stimulate the economy.

At a volunteer event yesterday, Obama said, "Government can only do so much ... And if we're just waiting around for somebody else to do it for us, if we're waiting around for somebody else to clean up the vacant lot or waiting for somebody else to get involved in tutoring a child, if we're waiting for somebody else to do something, it never gets done."

Good for him. That's a good start.

Now I assume that he said this in the context of volunteerism .. why can't he take more of an approach like this to our economy? Remember, it was just last week when Obama said that "only government" can get us out of this economic crisis.

I love it when he talks like that. I've been afraid that he's going to be another Jimmy Carter, endlessly throwing money at problems with no understanding of how to solve or effectively deal with those problems. Even Carter's mistakes may not have been so bad if he actually learned from them, but he didn't.

So far, Obama seems to be willing to listen to lots of different advice. No doubt he will make mistakes like all presidents do, but I hope he will learn from them too. Government is essential, but it mustn't try to do everything for everyone in every circumstance. That's not what it's for.

Government indeed has a role to play in managing the economy, but so do the American people. Sometimes the government really does need to do something, and yet many other times it just needs to get out of the way of the people and let us get on with it. If Obama can understand the difference and act accordingly, if he can see what works and what doesn't, and favor the former over the later, then there may be real hope after all.

He's president now, so we shall see. I'm hoping and praying for the best.
     

Monday Funnies 04/21/08

I have three funnies today, that happen to coincide with the "Top of the News" column on my iGoogle home page. (the comics came from Townhall.com)


Obama struggles to win white vote in rural Pennsylvania

[...] Local people called the Illinois senator arrogant, unpatriotic and un-Christian after his remarks that residents of small towns in Pennsylvania and elsewhere are bitter because of job losses, and so have turned to traditions like guns, religion and anti-immigrant sentiment.

"He is saying people are weak, dumb and naive, and they are seeking religion as a way of getting through," said Darwin Whitmoyer, 54, a white truck driver, at the gas station in this town of about 100 people 150 miles northwest of Philadelphia. "He didn't help himself." [...]

This has hurt Obama in gallup polls, but as of today, it seems his rating in the Daily Gallup poll is slowly starting to rise again. Just when I thought reality might make a difference... Do people have short attention spans? Do polls lie? Or is it a bit of both, or something else too?



Pope Ends Visit With Yankee Stadium Mass

It was an impressive turn out, the stadium was full. Tickets had sold out shortly after they were offered, if there had been a larger venue is seems that many more people would have attended. Some people insist the Catholic Church is dying. From what I saw on Sunday, I can only say that it sure isn't dead yet.

It all seemed to go quite smoothly. According to one woman's account of the event, security was very tight.



Carter Says Hamas May Accept Right of Israel to Exist

Oh come on. How often have they said this? They "hint" that they "might" accept Israel; the West then offers them money, they take the money, which satisfies them... for about 15 minutes. Then they announce it's not enough; they need MORE money if there is ever going to be peace. It's an ongoing game of extortion. Meanwhile, the money is used to support them while they continue to wage war.

This game has been going on for decades. They keep playing them game, because it's lucrative. And it's fools like Jimmy Carter that encourage them to keep the game going. He's their favorite useful idiot.

Really, does this sound like people who want peace? Only to Jimmy Carter and other pie in the sky Lefties.