Tag: Bush administration

Under President Obama & the democrats….

WaPo points out that data gathered shows that Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — have earned more in the first 2 1/2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration. Why is this happening?

Behind this turnaround, in significant measure, are government policies that helped the financial sector avert collapse and then gave financial firms huge benefits on the path to recovery. For example, the federal government invested hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in banks — low-cost money that the firms used for high-yielding investments on which they made big profits.

Stabilizing the financial system was considered necessary to prevent an even deeper economic recession. But some critics say the Bush administration, which first moved to bail out Wall Street, and the Obama administration, which ultimately stabilized it, took a far less aggressive approach to helping the American people.

That bolded section is pretty-speak, a bullshit attempt to soften the real problem because it doesn’t favor the leftists big-nanny-staters, for the Frank-Dodd bill was written in such a way that those kissing the right people in government’s asses and paying them off with enough lucre in the form of campaign contributions then could not just get oodles of tax payer money, but also make a veritable killing. And the fools keep blaming the banks and capitalism. In the mean time the crony capitalists are raking in money while those that claim to be the 99 percent rail at the wrong people.

“There’s a very popular conception out there that the bailout was done with a tremendous amount of firepower and focus on saving the largest Wall Street institutions but with very little regard for Main Street,” said Neil Barofsky, the former federal watchdog for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, the $700 billion fund used to bail out banks. “That’s actually a very accurate description of what happened.”

Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration, for instance, compelled banks to increase lending to consumers, known as “prime borrowers.” Such a step might have spurred spending and growth, although generating demand for loans may have proved difficult in the downturn.

Right, because as we saw before, “compelling” banks to do things, like lending money to people that were so high risk that a default was a “when” not an “if”, never ends badly. These fuckwads miss the point: both TARP and the Dodd-Frank bill were about increasing the power of the political class. And tax payers paid for it.

A recent study by two professors at the University of Michigan found that banks did not significantly increase lending after being bailed out. Rather, they used taxpayer money, in part, to invest in risky securities that profited from short-term price movements. The study found that bailed-out banks increased their investment returns by nearly 10 percent as a result.

Guess which bill gave them permission to do this kind of investments? And which bill required banks to keep an inordinately large amount of cash on hand rather than do anything with it too, leading to less lending amongst things. Which one added a massive layer of bureaucracy & costs, while cutting their profits? And which one is now going to cause more trouble. Don’t:

Some of Wall Street’s success has moderated in recent months, with bank stock prices down and layoffs on the rise. This mostly has reflected the renewed slowdown in the U.S. economy this year and the European debt crisis buffeting global markets.

Representatives of the financial industry say regulations in last year’s Dodd-Frank legislation, which Obama pushed for and signed, also have crimped bank profits. But many analysts think the law will make the financial system more stable. The legislation, for instance, requires banks to maintain a greater capital cushion to withstand losses during bad economic times. The measure also created a regulator whose sole purpose is to police lending to ordinary Americans.

Stable indeed. Less loans, and loans are risky in a collapsing economy, are sure to make the lending industry more stable. Less profits means the consumer pays more for services that before might even have been labeled “free”. And there are far more regulations yet to come which all will have onerous effects and create special needs to go beg politicians for exclusions/exceptions. For the right price, of course. But don’t lose focus. The point is these guys are making a killing right now under Team Obama’s rules.

Compensation at these firms also has bounced back. Financial firms paid about $20.8 billion in bonuses for work done in 2010, according to research by the New York state comptroller. In New York City, the average Wall Street salary last year grew 16.1 percent, to $361,330, which is more than five times the average salary of a private-sector worker in the city.

By contrast, millions of Americans continue to face economic difficulties. That is fueling broad public anger at Wall Street and has given rise to the “Occupy” protest movements nationwide.

And yet, it is these very crooks that are helping Wall Street rake in the money, for a nice cushy fee, that now pretend they are standing firm against Wall Street raking in all that money. And the morons are all falling for it. Helps to have outlets like WaPo fluff up the facts – Wall Street has made more money thanks to Obama in 2 ½ years than they did the previous 8 under evil BoosChimpyMcHitler – like they did in this bullshit piece. The data doesn’t lie though: the rich fat cats are making out better under Obama than they did under Bush, and they are doing it in a down economy. And the rest of us are hurting worse and being told to pony up more money. No amount of smoke can hide that.

Goebbles’ wet dream

That’s what this new propaganda front by some organization called “Obama for America” smacks of, to me. This stuff is some serious bullshit man. I had a good laugh at some of the nonsense being showcase as I wondered if anyone there even realized how frightening this kind of thing looked like. Seriously, this is basically a government reporting program, set up to look as if it isn’t run by those in government, so they can then use it to attack their opposition. Like the title of my post implies: this smacks of closet fascism.

So I was originally just going to leave the post at that, the implications of this whole thing was frightening enough IMO, but I decided to take a deeper dive into that cesspool. In particular I wondered WTF the whole “President Bush, not Obama sign TARP into law” deal was about. Yeah Bush signed TARP, but Pelosi’s congress – where spending originates from – is the one that took the original $300 billion proposed by the assholes in the Bush administration and raised it to $700 billion, against Bush’s wishes, daring him to then not sign it. Are you trying to absolve Obama from the fact he was one of those democrats? Maybe he was not there to vote present. What’s the point here? Who do they think said Obama signed TARP anyway? Or is the point of this idiotic thing to deflect blame from both the Pelosi congress that originated the ridiculous sum assigned to TARP and the Obama administration, which supervised much of the spending, to Bush by claiming that since he signed it, he was the one responsible? Are they trying to say that Obama buying out GM for the unions basically didn’t happen because if you need to lay blame it lies with Bush for signing TARP? I don’t get it.

Next one. And man, my bullshit meter went off on the whole marxist gun grabbing crap. Maybe they think they can fool people with shit like “President Obama believes in common sense gun control laws compatible with Second Amendment rights”, but we already know that they think “common sense gun laws” are laws that prevent everyone but the state from having guns, and they are on record stating that they also believe the second amendment rights only apply to state sanctioned militias and not the public at large. They must think people are idiots. Last I remember those that believe in the same common sense laws and interpreted the second amendment to apply to militias and not the citizens lost in that SCOTUS decision, thankfully, and the constitution prevailed. Personally I also find little common sense in laws that disarm everyone but the criminals unless the common sense is to keep the sheep from being able to fight a tyrannical government off.

Then there was the bit on how “friendly” Obama is to Israel. I believe that played out in the NY-9 election where the democrat was trounced last night in a predominantly Jewish district. If Obama was so friendly to Israel one would have to wonder why the Jewish vote was deserting him in record numbers. Obama HAS thrown Israel under the bus. No US president since Carter has been this condescending and outright hostile to Israel. Then again, Obama also pissed on the leg of British people and told them it was warm rain. He seems to have made it a habit of dissing our closest allies and kissing the ass of the vilest and most evil villains out there, so maybe one could argue he wasn’t singling out Israel for this kind of shit treatment.

I just laughed at the whole Immigration reform piece. After admitting that Team Obama is looking for some kind of amnesty program – that’s what that “smart and fair” is code for – they tried to make him look good by claiming he was however going to kick out those people that posed a risk to national security. If very few, if anybody, meets that set of criteria these goons will come up with, and thus, only some token people get deported, this will still be reported as Obama getting though on illegal immigration. The fact that others now get to stay, a clear reward for breaking the law, is ignored.

I do have to admit that I was saddened that they didn’t have a Solyndra post up. Maybe they need one claimign that porkulus bill also created all those jobs the WH claimed it did. Or that this one will be the magic bullet. Those ones would have been fun to watch. Low brow doesn’t even pass muster.

I am glad that I am not the only one to figure this out…

What am I talking about? Well, the fact that while the WH deserves credit for finally bagging bin Laden, despite the fact they politicized the whole thing and treated it more like a vote getting stunt, that president Obama bagged Osama (say that fast 5 times) policies candidate Obama vehemently opposed. First the credits, and they are deserved, despite the fact that up till now the foreign policy of this WH has been anything but a circus.

Let’s cheerfully and ungrudgingly give credit to Barack Obama for approving the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. In my Washington Examiner column last Sunday I criticized Obama’s foreign policy, which was characterized by one of his advisers in an interview with the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza as “lead from behind.” That criticism still stands. But in tracking down and nailing bin Laden, Obama led from behind the right way — behind the scenes he made a right but risky decision, without any leaks to the press, to achieve an objective sought by two presidents and thousands in the American government and military since Sept. 11, 2001.

The decision was risky because the operation could have failed, like Jimmy Carter’s Desert One operation to rescue American hostages in Iran failed in April 1980. But this time, even though one helicopter was lost, the operation succeeded. There was evidently a lot of redundancy in the plan and a lot of flexibility on the ground. A lot of good people did a lot of good things right.

Lucky for us all Obama dodged this bullet and for once didn’t live up to his well deserved “worse than Jimmy Carter” mantra. The fact is this was a huge risk, and while the WH did everything in its power to insure the correct outcome, it still could have gone horribly wrong for us. Obama deserves credit for pulling the trigger on this operation, even if he did so to score cheap political points and shore up his administration’s reputation for a disastrous foreign policy, before the election of 2012. My guess is that this will not work out as they hoped however, but that’s not the point of this post. Lets get to that by focusing on this point:

While we may not know all the details about and behind this operation, it’s fascinating to see how many of the things that made the success of this operation possible were not so long ago decried by many of the president’s fans and fellow partisans. For one thing, it apparently would not have happened without those infamous enhanced interrogation techniques — “torture,” according to critics of the Bush administration. The enhanced interrogation techniques reportedly led to identification of the courier who eventually led our forces to bin Laden’s hiding place. Critics of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques assured us that “torture” could not produce reliable information. They were probably right that sometimes such techniques yield false information. But the bin Laden operation shows that they can also produce actionable intelligence.

And there you have it. Candidate Obama, and the super majority of the BDS infected Boosh=Hitler crowd told us this practice was a useless and barbaric, and that it couldn’t work. They may revise that or even deny it, but that’s what they told us. I wonder how many are going to now re-examine that failure on their part. Or even acknowledge that they gleaned valuable intel from something they decried. My guess is they will try to ignore it or play the lawyer’s game. The quick answer to that? Well why do you think the WH ordered Osama killed?

You think it’s maybe because they were worried they would have to deal with their own opposition to the use of any intelligence information obtained during anything that could be labeled as enhance interrogation? That dragging Osama in front of a military tribunal would be an even bigger repudiation of the drama and the angst they displayed when they could use this as a cudgel to bludgeon the much hated Bush administration? There are consequences to the scorched earth policies the left used during the Bush years, and in this day and age where the DNC friendly MSM no longer controls the flow of news, they decided to avoid having to deal with that problem. That’s telling.

Obama deserves credit also for employing the Navy SEALs who are part of the Joint Special Operations Command. It was fashionable a few years ago to call the JSOC Cheney’s death squad and Cheney’s assassination team. The assumption behind such criticism was that Bush administration officials were using what they termed the war against terrorism as a smokescreen for persecuting domestic dissidents.

But there is not a scrap of evidence that either the Bush administration or the Obama administration were doing anything of the kind. They were too busy trying to protect us. There was criticism as well of the idea of targeting particular individuals for assassination. But in ordering the raid on bin Laden’s compound Obama authorized the killing of bin Laden. And no Miranda warnings first. Bin Laden’s death removes the possibility of any debate about where he would be confined or tried.

Emphasis mine. Targeted assassinations as Barone points out, were called Cheney’s deaths quads then. Now, all but a few insane people, think it is a great idea. We got bin Laden that way! Heh, ain’t it funny how things change when the guy in the WH has a (D) by his name? The point is that president Obama has not just kept this policy the left and candidate Obama despised during the Bush years, he then drastically expanded their use. We even bagged the most wanted guy with such a “death squad”. Does Cheney get credit for that? Yeah, I know, not funny. Whatever. Next.

On this Obama has already been forced to keep the Guantanamo detention center open and Holder has had to concede that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will not be tried in a civilian court in Manhattan.

I wonder how many of the Gitmo haters will now admit they were wrong. President Obama sure has done that. Seriously, candidate Obama told everyone he would close that evil place down, and do so yesterday. These days president Obama is claiming the kill shot on bin Laden, because of information obtained from the bastards locked up in Gitmo, and Gitmo is still open for business.

For years we heard supposedly enlightened people excoriate our leaders for torture, lawlessness, unilateralism — the list goes on and on. Now the president they have wanted has used the tactics and methods they excoriated to get bin Laden. Good for him.

Yup yup! I guess things change when you actually are the one in charge, huh? Tells you how seriously you should take anything the left tells you they don’t approve off when someone else is in charge. It’s almost a given that the reason they don’t like it is because of whose in charge, and not for whatever the reason they hide behind is. Heh!

Dick Cheney sums it up nicely

Darth Cheney speaks wisdom:

But it’s a– I think important to look at this as a continuum. I mean it’s not just on one day you get up, bang, and you got Osama bin Laden. It’s the kind of thing where an awful lot of people over a long period of time, thousands have worked this case and worked these issues and followed up on the leads and captured bad guys and interrogated them and so forth.

So I think it could be looked upon as a collective effort by our military and intelligence personnel– and by a lot of our civilian leaders. And in the final analysis we demonstrated conclusively that the American government takes very seriously our responsible to bring justice, if you will, or to bring to justice somebody like Bin Laden who’s committed this terrible outrage, killing– 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

And I think the way for us to think about it is– is to think about it as part of a collective effort. It started in the Clinton administration, was carried forward very aggressively in the Bush administration and now the Obama administration with the– the results that we’re all very pleased to see today.

Love him or hate him – or be somewhere in the middle about him – Big Dick Cheney has the right of it here. I think it really was effort that spanned three administrations and no amount of posturing by any faction can change that.


The narrative is already written. For one side it’s “OBAMA GOT HIM.” For the other it’s “TORTURE WORKED.” I seriously doubt either of those is true. I think there were a million little successes and a million little errors and the reason we got Osama in the end is that three administrations continued to doggedly do the grunt work needed to track a fugitive. It was, in a way, an international example of good old fashioned police work. Only it ended with the mass murdering son of a pig shot in his forehead while hiding behind a woman, like a little pussy-man.