Ben Bernanke and Tony LaRussa: Non-Genius at Work--Failures Since 2006 (Obama too?)

Ben Bernanke was appointed as Chaiman of the Federal Reserve (by President Bush, at a time when the Obama/Democrat domestic policy was in the ascendancy, as I disowned President Bush and the Democrats prepared to take over Congress in January of 2007). Yes, Ben Bernanke PRESIDED over teh BEGINNING of the Great Recession--being appointed relatively early in 2006 before the recession had even come close to beginning. However, the signs were there when Bernanke was appointed (at almost the same time that fellow Wall Street economic fascist, Hank Paulson, was appointed Treasury Secretary, to the approval of Democrats, since both Bernanke and Paulson ae effectively Democrats of the "establishment" kind, whethr they have ever called themselves Repubicans or not).


What was I doing in 2006, and even before? I was arguing with people that we were in an outrageous housing BUBBLE, which was in the process of BURSTING. Bernanke had an entire TWO YEARS to "do something" about the loomng problem of the bursting of the housing bubble. What did Bernanke do? NOTHING. No, Bernanke did NOT even do as much as I did: that is, he did not raise red flags about how our financial institutions and government entities (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with Congress) needed to take ACTION to address a looming financial crisis. It is not too much to say that Bernanke and Paulson fiddled, while America burned. It was not until Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went under, and AIG was about to bring the rest of WALL STREET (not Amrica) down, that Bernanke actged (panbicked). What did he do? He BAILED OUT WALL STREET (especially including Goldman Sachs, which was the ONLY third party allowed to sit in a New York Fed meeting--prsent Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner being head of the New York Fed at the time--about what to do about AIG. Nope. Bernanke did NOT "save" America. He "saved" WALL STREET, after failing to do anything to stop the "crisis" from occurring.


You can see why Bernanke has earned his title: The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance. Doubt me? Don't. Bernanke--it is a fact--presided over the financial collapse that led to the Great Recession. But what has he done AGAINST us lately? Well, the Great Recession is universally viewed as the worst recession since the Great Depression. And it was totally internally generated: no outside shock. You could regard OPEC, and oil price shocks, as one of the prime things behind the Carter "stagflation", and resulting economic collapse. No one MADE our financial institutions go along with government in the uotrageous housing bubble, and no one mae them so stupid and greedy as to leverage themselves beyond all reason. And no one MADE Bernanke fail to take action to bring sanity to what was happening in the housing bubble, and the financial instruments that made EVERY money center bank and brokerage house a house of cards ready to fall. Still, surely Bernanke learned someting? Not a chance.


What has happened SINCE October of 2008? The economy did not reach its low until the spring (March-April) of 2009--after the Obama "stimulus" was already in operation. By July of 2999, before the "stimulus" had even had time to have any effect, the ECONOMY was already "recovering" on its own. Unemployment went DOWN from 9.5% to 9.4% in that summer of 2009, and the second half of 2009 was the ONLY solid growth we have experienced in GDP. Unemployment has NOT IMPORVED since the summer of 2009, and the GDP growth for the entire first half of this year was LESS than 1%. In the first half of 2008, it was later declared that we were in a RECESSION because of the SAME kind of "growth". By the time the failed Obama "stimulus" got ging, the "growth" was already OVER. The "stimulus" failed.


What happened was that Bernanke's PANIC made it impossible to have a normal economy, along with Obama's incredible govern ment takeover of the economy (sometimes literally, as with General Motors). Yes, Bernanke was already doing "Quantative Easing 1", as the Fed did a TONTINUUS bailout of the big banks and Wall Street, as both the Fed and Treasury pumped moneyinto FAVORED areas, as non-favored people suffered. It did not work. Growth stalled to notthing, and unemployment did NOT IMPOROVE. Thus, Bernanke was presiding over the WORST, and mongest lasting, "recovery" since World War II. Bernanke had now presided over the WORST recession since World War II, and now he was presiding over the worst recovery.


Bernanke panicked again, and--after being reappointed by Obama--did something "unprecedented" for the Federal Reserve. Yes, the continuing bank bailout relpresented by 0 percent money from the Fed stayed in place, but the Fed now did what has to be regarded as a Bernanke "magic trick". The Fed PURCHASED MOST OF OUR OWN BONDS IN MANY AUCTIONS. Where did the Fed get the money? It created it out of thin air. It PRINTED the money, although Dishonest Ben has continued to deny that obvious fact. Result? NOTHING. No growth. No improvement in unemployment.


Okay. I take it back. There WAS a result. Bernanke was deliberately lowering the value of the dollar, and INFLATING the stock market. Bernanke has even said that one of his main goals was to raise stock prices. And Obama has the nerve to talk about all of those "bad" people on Wall street, even when Obama is becoming PARTNERS with the economic fascists. This Bernanke attack on the dollar, to help Wall Street, had a predictable result: STEALTH INFLATION. Food? Yep, other countries actually accused us of STARVING people in the world because of our policies on "renewable energy" and lowering the value of the dollar. Did Obama and Bernanke KILL people? More pluasible than the idea that the Twa Party has done so. Gas prices? Obama has "blamed" the "Arab spring". It was really BERNANKE, and his policy of printing money, that has cuased GOD, OIL, FOOD, and virtually every commodity to rise in price. It was only when Bernanke's policy (QE2) began to SHUT DOWN our economy that oil began to fall in price. Again, Bernanke made it IMPOSSIBLE for the economy to really "recover". Every time it tries, the results of Bernanke policies shut down the economy again.


Yep. Last Friday, Bernanke made another SPEECH (words and government "central planning" being the only things he knows, just like Obama). Wall Street was looking for Bernanke to "save" THEM (to Hell with YOU). Bernanke actually said nothing, but Wall Street was "encouraged" that Bernanke essentaillly "promised" to do what it takes to keep us out of another recession (just like he did what it took to keep us out of the one in 2008?). In the meantime, Bernanke "promised" to keep interest rates at "0" (essentailly) for the next 2 years. As this blog said, if you took Bernanke literally he was saying that he DID NOT CARE if we were facing hyperinflation, as did the Weimar Repubicac as Germany headed for Hitler. Bernake was PROMISING to keep interest rates down for a LONG period of time. Forget that such a promise is the STUPIDET thing I have ever heard. Was Bernanke really sayng that he would keep that promise even if things change on the inflation front? I hope not. I would hte to think that even Bernanke is that dumb.


Yet. There STILL has been no improvement in the ECONOMY. Oh, Bernanke again succeeded in raising the stock market. That helped ME, as I invested jsut for such a bounce. My only problem is that the "b'ounce"--based on no economic improvement--went so far and so fast that it is really hard to SELL into the bounce (because everything is going up a little, instead of the "right" stocks going up a LOT over a longer peirod of time, giving you a chance to get out before thee nextg plunge). Yes, I have SOLD into the rally as much as I can, but not enough. This is "computer gaming", and not investing. That is how I am playing it. Yep. I told Rush Limabugth this back in March of 2009, when Limbaugh was sayig that Wall Street "smart guys" were voting "thumbs down" on Obama. Limbaugh does ot understand the modern stock market. I do . These are NOT "smorat people". They do NOT "anticipate" where the economy is going. These are The Stupidest People on Earth (excet, maybe, at the computer gaming casino, where they know Bernanke will BAIL THEM OUT of any grave mistakes). I actually heard a guy on CNBC call Bernanke the "greatest central banking mind of all time". Can you even imagine what the OTHERS are like? I, personally, think they are TAUGHT to be this dumb.


I know. The headline is unfair to Tony LaRusssa. LaRussa--even if past being able to effectively manage a major league baseball team to get the most out of his pllayers--has won world championships. He has won the third most baseball games, as a manager, all time, and the other two OWNED the team they managed. Bernanke has NEVER accomplished anything. It is hard to say he lost what he never had.


Still, since 2006, I believe LaRussa has been a failure. The St. Louis Cardinals have just IMPLODED--effectively falling out of contention before September began. It would not be quite right to say that the Cardinals "quit". But, in a recent stretch of games against teams under .500, the Cardinals lost about 2 out of every 3 games. That was a DISASTER, and I think LaRussa cannot be regarded as a genius any longer. Under pressure, in recent years, LaRussa teams have FOLDED. Yes, the Cardinals are "my" team, ever since I listened to Harrry Carey talk about Stan Musial when I was growing up in Mt. Ida, Arkansas.


Since the middle of 2006, the Cardinals have been no better than a .5000 team, in probably the WORST division in baseball--certainly in the National League. There are no monster teams in the Central Divisioin The Cardinals actually should be in contention every year---especailly with the best player in baseball (Albert Pujols)--now joined by Matt Holliday. There are two, and only two, exceptions to the statement that the Cardianls have been a .500 team (basically) since the middle of 20076. The first exception was the World Series run of 206, which might end up being regarded as the "last hurrah" of "genius" LaRussa. The second was a six week period after the Cardinals got Holliday, around the Al-Star break--in 2009. The Cardinals FADED into the playoffs in 2006, onlly to get it togehter for one big run. The 2005 team ws the GOOD geam, but it did not win the World Series. In 2009, the Cardinals did get back into the playoffs, but lost 3 games in a row to a not very good Dodger team. Again, the Cardinals had FADED the last month, but were not put under any pressure, as the rest of the Central Divisoion was hopeless to challenge the big lead the Cardinals had built up . The Cardinals have sometimes made it look better than it was by MEANINGLESS victories late. For example, the Cardinals won their last 6 games in 2008--after alling apart earlier in late August and September. They had no chance of catching Milwaukee. It was too late. The same thing happened in 2010, when the Cardinals were 78-74--only to win 8 out of their last ten games.. Again, this was a case of a .500 team making it look better in the end, as the Cardinals had no chance to catch the Reds. They had already blown it earlier. Now, this year the Cardinals have fallen 20 games behind Milwaukee, and history would suggest they have almost no chance to catch the Brewers--even if they win games late to get closer. Wild card chances are also slim, as the Cardinals are again little better than a .500 team.


LaRussa's fault? Well, I think so. At the very least, lyou can't call him a "genius" since 2006. He has not won a single playoff game. However, at least he was ONCE arguably a genius. Oh, I could go into the reasons I say LaRussa is no longer a genius. But the details hardly matter. The RECORD--as with Bernanke--seems conclusive. I will mention a couple of things. Promisin young pitcherr Jaime Garcia was left in to pitch earier this year until he gave lup 11 runs in the first 4 innings (3 and 1/3, actually). Gracia--who before that had one of the lowest earned rn averages in the National League, has not been the same since. LaRussa? You can't be sure, but LaRussa hardly helped. Then there was Colby Rasmus--once the top prospct for the Cardinals who seemed to fall apart. Could LaRussa have done anything? Who knows. But you get the iea. The point is that the RECORD sohows FAILURE since 2006. Yes, there have been injuries. Adam Wainwright would have helped this year. Still, there is enough talent there, in the weak Central Division, for the Cardinals to be in contention in LATE September. The fact is that LaRussa seems to be able to do no better with his injured players back than when they are injured. For example, Wainwright ws THERE in 200, and the Cardinals still collapsed when the Reds refused to fade.


Am I calling for LaRussa to be FIRED? Don't be silly. It is only a GAME. I would probably gently suggest he go somewhere else next year, as he, himself, kkeeps saying he should do. But it is not something I feel strongly about, except when I am watching the Cardinals blow another game. It really is only a game. Bernanke and Obama are destroying the COUNTRY.


Ah. Obama. Yes, you read the headline right, and I still don't know how Obama got away with it--or the Democrats. Democrats took over control of Congress in January of 2007. Yes, it was not only Bernanke who "presided" over the Great Recession. It was Obama and the Democrats, who controlled BOTH houses of Congress (dealig with a President who is not much less of a Big Government guy than they are). Democrats, including Obama, have CONTROLLED domestic policy since January of 2007. In fact, the ONLY thing that changed before the economy collapsed was that DEMOCRATS controlled Congress. I still don't know why Republicans have not made a major point of that, and let Obaa get away with the Big Lie of being an "outsider" who "found" a "mess" in Washington.


I take it back. I do know why Repubicans did not make a point of the FAILURE of government policies under a DEMOCRAT controlled Congress, and why Republicans did not BLAME Democrats for the recession (which Democrats clearly did nothing to stop from happening--including Obama). Repubiicans COOPERATED in those Democrat domestic policies, including both Bush and McCain. As this blog has repeatedly shown, we are now in BUSH'S THIRD TERM, only worse. Too many Republicans realize lthat they would be criticizing THEMSELVES if they attack the DEMOCRATS who controlled Congress in 2007 and 2008. Still, and objectively, Obama has FAILED since 2006 (or 2004, when he came into the Senate), and not jsut since he became President. He was part oft the MAJORITY in Congress after 2006.


P.S. Yes, I am aware that the Cardinals have defeated (I think, as I did not look at tonight' final where the Cardinals were way ahead) the Brewers 2 games in a row. The Cardinals have 6 games against the Brewers in less than two weeks. The problem is that the Cardinals need to win ALL SIX GAMES just to get back in some kind of conttention, and they still would have an uphill battle to make the playoffs. The Cardinals MUST win 5 out of 6 to have any realistc chance at all, and they still need to win about 75% of their other games, unless the Brewers self-detstruct (as the Phillies did in 19964). The Cardinals have put themselves in a deep hole, under pressure, and the odds are heavlily against them even getting back in contention. They have just not shown they are that goood a team. They leak runs on offense and defense. Their starting pitching and relief pitching are both spotty and inconsistent. LaRussa simply does not seem to be capable any longer of inspiring a CONSISTENTLY winning team. Milwaukee, of course, had been on one of the hottest streaks in the history of baseball, but that is no excuse for the Cardinals not to actually WIN games against supposedly inferior teams. Again, it is only a game, and by no means important to anyon's life. But I call them the way I see them. The RECORD shoes that LaRusssa has been a faiure sincde 2006, even if his World Series run in 2006 could be called a work of genius. Bernanke has NO "work of genius" to point to. Still no proofreadin or spell checking (my gad eyesight).


P.P.S. How do ou know I am sensitive about my age? Contrary to rumor, I do not PERSONALLY remember the Great Depression . That is my 89 year old mother whose hero is FDR. I was not born until 1947. However, I do personally remember things much too long ago. My fingers, for example, simply refused to type "2964", which (unless my memory has failed me) is the year that the Phillies collapsed and the Cardinals came from something like 10 games back in September to win the pennant. I originally typed "2994"--obviiously a Freudian slip because I did not want to reveal my true age. My mother continues to believe that OBAMA, and modern leftist Democrats, are betraying the memory of sainted FDR by their insistence on something for nothing. She is lPROUD that FDR corectly opposed public employee unions, and set up a Social Seucirty system that everyone paid into. She is ahast that we now give all kinds of taxpayer benefits to ILLEGAL immigrants. It tuns ut that some 57% of immigrants (legal and illegall) are receiving taxpayer aid (including Social Security for many elderly immigrants who never contributed to the system). I believe that my mother is looking at FDR through rose colored glasses. But if you went by what FDR SAID, she is probably right that BOTH Obama and Bush have betrayed the legacy of FDR. Of course, if you take what Obama has SAID, you can say that Obama has BETRAYED the legacy of OBAMA. How many times has Obama said that we MUST "live within our means, just lieke ordinary families?" (referring to government). He has never meant it, but that does not stop him from SAYING it. He is going to give yet another SPEECH, saying things like that, next week. Is anyone listening anymore, outside of the propagandists of the mainstream media? I don't think so. Words ares imply not enough anymore, and it shows how clueless Obama is that he does not seem to realize that another SPEECH is not what we need (a speech where he will contgradict hiself from paragraph to paragraph, trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that he is proposing the same FAILED policies that he has advocated for the past 7 years--since he was elected to the Sennate in 2004r, although it is not quite yet 7 years).