Read the previous two articles. Did you question what I said: that the Obama economic policies are only a continuation of the Bush economic policies of Bush's second term, only worse? Don't question it. The evidence is concluseive.
We must start back in early 2006--well before the economic "crisis" of 20008. What happened then? Ben Bernanke was appointed head of the Federal Reserve and Henry Paulson was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. Both would be SUPPORTED by Obama and the Democrats--then and later. Paulson was--before being appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Bush--the LEFT LEANING head of Goldman Sachs. Before Paulson, John Corzine (the defeated DEMOCRATIC governor of New Jersey) had been CEO of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs was evidently a politically connected Wall Street firm with major influence in both parties. There is no way to characterize the people of Goldman Sachs as "conservative". Former Goldman Sachs employees are very influential under Obama, and are close to the new Treasury Secretary, Geitner. Paulson was known as a "moderate" (liberal) Republican--to the extent he was really a Republican at all, intead of just labeling himself that to give Goldman Sachs influence in both parties (as well as to become Secretary of the Treasury under Bush).
You don't have to take my word for the above. No less a leftist than Michael Moore said essentially the same thing in his recent movie condemning "Capitalism". Now Moore is hardly a credible source, but on this he was right--even a stopped clock being right twice a day. Since early 2006, if not before, Goldman Sachs has--at least arguably--been controlling the economic policy of this country. In fact, the bailout of AIG was mainly a bailout of Goldman Sachs, which received some 13 BILLION dollars of the money paid to bail out AIG--without any obligation to pay that money back, because it was not considered a direct bailout of Goldman Sachs (although it was). This represented one of the biggest conflicts of interest in history, since Paulson--with Bernanke--was the major architect of the AIG bailout, and also former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Yet, Obama and the Democrats--willing to look so carefully at Haliburton, ow which Cheney was a former CEO--made no peep about Paulson. That is because they knew Paulson was "one of them", and that Paulson was pursuing the very type of Big Government policies they favored. Goldman Sachs, under Paulson, had been a major Wall Street player in the kind of "go-go" financial risk taking that--along with Big Government policy--had led to the financial "crisis" in the first place.
And it all took place, after early 2007--on the "watch" of Bernanke and Paulson. Paulson was the worst failure in the history of world finance--as I have labeled him before. That is because he not only failed to take any steps to prevent the economic meltdown after 2006, but because he had PARTICIPATED--as CEO of Goldman Sachs--in the very Wall Street/financial excesses that led, along with government policy, to that financial meltdown. Paulson SHOULD have known better than anyone what needed to be done in 2006. He had no clue, as he had no clue how to handle the "crisis" he helped create in 2008 (panicking, with all of those massive bailouts, and even changing the nature of the bailouts AFTER that farce of a debate in Congress all about "toxic assets").
Ben Bernanke was the second worst failure in the history of world finance. What did Bernanke do, as head of the Federal Reserve from the beginning of 2006, to anticipate/head off the financial/bank "crisis of 2008? NOTHING (effective). Absolutely nothing. Yet, the signs were there. People like me were saying that the housing "bubble was about to burst, and in fact beginning to burst. Bernanke did NOTHING. A complete failure. Yet, Wall Street still loves him--mainly because he let Wall Street/Goldman Salchs dictate government economic policies. See why I often refer to Wall Street people--along with economists, financial analysts, and financial people of all kinds--as the Stupidest People on Earth?
Thus, at the end of Bush's second term, you had economic policy being determined by Obama and the Democrats in Congress, by Paulson, and by Bernanke. Paulson and Bernanke were supported by the Democrats, and OPPOSED by conservative Republicans in their socialistic panic.
What did Obama do about the economy? Well, he continued the same policies, only worse. But he also appointed Timothy Geitner as Secretary of the Treasury. Who was Timothy Geitner? He was head of the New York Fed--under Bernanke--being the part of the Fed MOST connected to the financial meltdown. Yes, Geitner, even more than Bernanke, should have known what was happening, and did NOTHING to prevent the financial meltdown. No wonder it is looking like Geitner will dpreive Paulson and Bernanke of their titles: worst and second worst failures in the history of world finance, respectively. (The New York division of the Federal Reserve, FYI, supervises the MONEY CENTER banks, and is right there with Wall Street and all of the big financial institutions that ended up being the center of the "crisis", which is why the AIG meeting was held there).
Yes, Geitner was intimately involved with Goldman Sachs. It is the New York Fed that let a representative of Goldman Sachs sit in on a major meeting as to what to do about AIG--Goldman Sachs being the ONLY private company allowed to have a representative at that meeting. Obama and Geitner would bring more Goldman Sachs people into the Obama administration. Was not Paulson well connected with Bernanke and Geitner before the "crisis" in 2008? Sure, he was. It is no surprise that Geitner and Bernanke have continued the same policies of Paulson and Bernanke. How could they not, when those had really been the polcies of the TRIO of Paulson, Bernanke and Beitner prior to the "crisis" in the fall of 2008.
Can you have any doubt that the FAILED Bush/Democrat (remember the "stimulus" in the spring/summer of 2008/) economic polices have continued into Obama's first term (Bush's third term), basically under the SAME PEOPLE. The only difference is that Obama and the Democrats have made it worse by even MORE SPENDING--meaning a debt and deficit out of control. WHY should you believe these people should be able to "fix" our economy, when they are the very SAME people who were unable to stop the financial meltdown in the first place. In fact, they are the same people who had no clue it--the financial meltdown--was coming, until it was upon us. Yes, Obama--in Congress and as head of the Democratic party in the election year--was one of those people who had no clue as to what to do.
Q.E.D. Can you really have any doubt that Obama is now in the midst of Bush's third term, but worse?
P.S. You say Bush was the problem, and not Bernanke (still there), Paulson (policies still in place, although he is not), and Geitner (promoted for failure)? Just how big a hypocrite are you? Bush--according to the left--was not able to chew gum and walk at the same time. I give him more credit for intelligence thatn that, but I am not so delusional as to think Bush was running economic policy. His major fault was that he had NO conservative principles to oppose the massive government bailouts urged by Paulson and Bernanke, as they panicked. Yes, Bush is ultimately "responsible", as the man in charge--as is true of Obama. But Bush's failure was to put these people in charge, and to to down this Big Government path. That is also Obama's failure--made worse because Obama is a committed leftist, rather than just an establishment Republican Big Government guy like Bush.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment