The World of President Obama

Right From the Start

In January of 2009, President Barack Obama inherited an economic calamity caused primarily by artificial government stimulation of the housing market and runaway spending by the Congress. Congressional demands that lenders include low income families in the mortgage lending portfolios coupled with a willingness of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) to purchase virtually every artifice for providing loans to those who could not or would not repay them, led to an artificial stimulus to the housing market.

As inevitable as day follows night, the subprime loans came due and those would could not or would not repay them, did not. The housing market collapsed due to oversupply; builders, suppliers, and real estate agents went out of business in droves. The default on the subprime loans became legion. The financial institutions that had packaged, purchased, sold and leveraged these worthless loans began to fall like a house of cards.

The blame for the resulting economic calamity falls squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Bush and the Congress –then controlled by the Democrats, including then-Senator Barack Obama. Congress, led by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-NY) not only demanded that loans be made to those who could not or would not repay them, they conspired to hide the impending collapse of the mortgage market by suppressing congressional oversight hearings into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Obama was a willing participant in this charade and Mr. Bush – preoccupied with Iraq – failed to engage in his own investigation or to pressure Congress to pursue theirs.

The purpose of this abbreviated history is to remind the readers that as much as Mr. Obama would like to portray himself as the victim of Mr. Bush’s negligence, he was a willing accomplice. Mr. Obama may have not been driving the car when it went off the road, but he was pouring the booze that kept the driver drunk.

But the greater sin was when Mr. Obama promised to fix the problem knowing full well that he had neither the background, education nor economic understanding to do so. No person has assumed the presidency with so little practical experience. While Mr. Obama may have mesmerized the voters with his “Hope and Change” rhetoric, in reality, he lacked both an understanding of the causes of the economic collapse and the means by which the economy might recover.

Mr. Obama is the penultimate “community organizer.” Their history is one of blaming others for failure without ever accepting responsibility for charting success. They represent the entitlement class and prey upon class envy. They cannot demonstrate success or progress of their own doing and thus are left to blame others for their failures. Since they cannot build a society up for those in need, they are content to tear down a society so that all suffer equally.

A prime example of Mr. Obama’s ineptitude is found in the employment figures reported during his three years as President. From January 2009 until the nadir of the recession, the total private sector employment dropped from 110,981,000 to 106,772,000 in February of 2010 – a loss of  4,209,000. During that same period of time, the number of federal public employees increased from 2,792,000 to 2,872,000 – a gain of 80,000. While the private sector lost 3.8 percent of its workforce, the federal government and its public employee unions increased their numbers by almost 3 percent.

And here is why this is a prime example of Mr. Obama’s ineptitude. The loss of 4.2 million private sector jobs (with the attendant loss in business revenues) represents a significant decline in the revenue (taxes paid) to government. The increase of 80,000 federal government jobs represents a recurring expense to the federal government. The private sector jobs were productive – they created things – while the federal government jobs were non-productive – they created only an expense (and in some instances a barrier to production in the private sector). Mr. Obama’s failure to understand what creates economic growth by emphasizing government growth at the expense of private sector growth is unforgivable.

Mr. Obama is a product of privilege. His progress through society has been without pain. He has never experienced hard work or the satisfaction of success from that hard work. His entry and progress through some of the nation’s best colleges and professional schools defied the academic and personal challenges required of others. He elected to forego the rough and tumble of the law and instead migrated to the relative safety of a community organizer where sound and fury were more important than actual accomplishments. He supplemented that with a minor foray into the cloistered halls of academia where – even there – he declined the rigors of “publish or perish” in favor of minor teaching assignments.

Mr. Obama is probably a pretty smart individual but not nearly as smart as his apologists would have you believe. The proof of that is that he has spent three years of on-the-job training and has still learned nothing about how an economy acts or progresses. His initiatives (massive government spending primarily to bailout his wealthy campaign financiers on Wall Street and boost the financial resources of his primary campaign supporters in the public employee unions) have failed to restart the economy. (What little movement has occurred is due to the natural progression of winnowing down the oversupply that caused the recession in the first instance.) Having failed, Mr. Obama has returned to his roots as a community organizer – blame others for failure, promote class envy among those hurting from the economic downturn the most, and engender the belief that one is entitled without effort or achievement.

The hope of yesterday that promised nourishment and vitality at breakfast has proven to be cold stone soup for dinner.

 

[Dan Meek was correct in his comment (below). This article originally listed the date of the start of the Obama Presidency as January 2008. It has now been corrected to January 2009, along with the relevant employment numbers. Thanks Dan!]

 

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Economy, President Obama, Public Employee Unions, Uncategorized | 36 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Blame aside, and the summery here of events is correct, it was and was true, that Obama inhereted the worst economic situation in most peoples lifetime. In part due to that fact, he was given enormous good will when he entered office. This was probably a good thing, we were, and still are, in grave peril. It is right to hope for the presidents success in righting the ship of state in such a dire situation.

    Now, again blame aside, the next president will inherit a situation far worse than Obama did. Unemployment is worse and the deficit is sky high. One tool Obama had is also gone, there simply is not any more money for another stimulus.

    Should Romney win there is little argument what he will come into will make what Obama came into look like a cake walk. Will there be the same good will? Personally I doubt it.

    We saw how the left could turn around on a dime of double think with regard to the stimulus. One week they were united in the idea that the reason why the stimulus did not live up to expectations was because it was too small. The next week they were demanding Obamas jobs bill, a stim2 but half the size, be passed because it was the answer to unemployment. One week Obama could be chuckling on Oprah that he spent $1T and found out there were no shovel ready jobs, the next week he wants to spend $500B on shovel ready jobs. It’s absurd.

    So Romney, should he win, will inheret far worse than Obama along with a press annoyed that The One is gone. The saving grace is the ludicrous aspects of society, such as the urban camping club Occupy will reach a feverish idiocy that will provide some entertainment.

    Personally I am looking foward to it. The left will be fit to be tied. Expect epic absurdity.

    • Sol668

      Good will? LOL I recall mitch mcconnell early in the Obama presidency stating unequivically, that the GOP’s only goal was to see obama fail.

      I’m glad you think occupy represents a “feverish idiocy”, lets see how the “let them eat cake” attitude of the right plays out in the most inequitable america in history, where opportunity is reserved for the tiniest of minorities….those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it rupert, and yours is the attitude of the french aristocracy just before the guitine gained its notorious popularity

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Good will? LOL I recall mitch mcconnell early in the Obama presidency stating unequivically, that the GOP’s only goal was to see obama fail.
        Obviously some individuals were opposed to Obamas agenda. However no president won with the kind of congressional takeover and press largely on his side in the way Obama did in recent memeory.

        >rupert, and yours is the attitude of the french aristocracy just before the guitine gained its notorious popularity

        Oh please, grow up.

        • None

          “Some individuals.”

          Mitch McConnell isn’t “some individual.” He’s the GOP leader in the Senate.

          No President has faced the use of the filibuster to the degree that President Obama has. Never. And whenever this is pointed out, the GOP apologists try to skate around it.

          • crabman34

            In Rupert’s typical modus operandi for discourse:  

            “he was given enormous good will.”

            WRONG.  He was not.  You are wrong, you lied when you said that.

            Done, I win the argument.  Now I’ll throw in some meritless ad hominem attack on your intelligence or immaturity, call you a liberal weeny, quote misleading Fox “statistics,” declare you unfit for rational argument, and wash my hands because in my mind, I am always right.  Don’t bother me with facts.

            Rupert, you must have one iota of reason in your brain, and in there resides some perception that simply by declaring your views “correct,” or stating that you are unaware of anyone who disagrees you, makes your beliefs any more reasonable or right.

            I do declare, you are the one who needs to grow up.

    • valley person

      “Blame aside, and the summery here of events is correct,”

      Blaming the government for the private sector housing bubble and collapse is hardly ‘correct.” Investors and the financial industry are adults. They were the ones who wrote ridiculous mortgages, sliced them up, packaged and resold them as AAA investments. THey build the house of cards all by themselves.

      “Unemployment is worse…”

      Worse than what? The day Obama took office? Or worse than the bottom? Employment has been growing steadily for the last 18 months, so things are hardly “worse.”

      “there simply is not any more money for another stimulus.”

      There is plenty of “money” for additional stimulus if we had a Congress that had its head out of its behind. Money, as I have pointed out to you before Rupert, is not some fixed quantity. The federal government can make as much additional money as it wants to, adn given the persistant low inflation rate and high unemployment printing more money is exactly what is required.

      “the next week he wants to spend $500B on shovel ready jobs. It’s absurd.”

      What is absurd is your misinterpretation of events, but never mind.

      Don’t worry Rupert. If Romney wins the rich will get richer and the poor and middle class poorer. You will get exactly what you wanted from him.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Blaming the government for the private sector housing bubble and collapse is hardly ‘correct.”

        Well, we all know you blame Bush alone, but the fact is there has been quite a bit of research into this and government loan lolicy clearly was a leading player in this event.

        >THey build the house of cards all by themselves.
        And with that you remove yourself from the realm of serious discussion. I am aware of no one but you who does not place some portion of the blame on Fmae Fmac on this one.

        >Worse than what? 

        Worse than when Obama started his misguided economic policies. You are just ranting here so not much point in going further. You remain the ultimate partisan, unquestioning in your devotion to your leaders. 

        • valley person

          “Well, we all know you blame Bush alone..”

          Well, then once again “you all” are wrong. Bush has a share of the blame, but the main culprit was the financial industry itself. It was they who created time bomb mortgages, sliced them up, repackaged them, sold them under phony bond ratings, and “insured” them at a level that could not be redeemed. Bush and his appointees failed to use the authorities they had to intervene, but this was a private sector fiasco.

          “I am aware of no one but you who does not place some portion of the blame on Fmae Fmac on this one.”

          I do assign them a portion. But they were both private sector entities at the time, selling stock, paying dividends, and raking in the dough. So you just reinforced my point.

           “Worse than when Obama started his misguided economic policies.”

          That is factually wrong. Unemployment reached about 10% at the time his policies kicked in. It is 8.5% today, and we have had 18 straight months of private sector job growth. 2 million net new jobs.

          I’m ranting? Well at least my rants are in alignment with reality. You remain the ultimate fantasy island poster.

  • Bob Clark

    News today has Obama killing the Keystone oil pipeline project which would have taken a chunk out of U.S dependence on overseas oil imports, and strengthen our national security.  Obama has to court his irrational thinking environmental base by denying this project – a project actually supported by Hillary Clinton’s State Department mind you.  The state department is being realistic because the tar sand oil supplying this proposed Keystone pipeline project will now instead no doubt be re-routed to other oil markets via an alternative Canadian oil pipeline and ocean going ships.  Denial actually will result in more pollution, and not less.  But portraying good intentions is more important to Obama than effecting good outcomes.

    Even so,
    it’s going to be hard to replace the tumor (Obama) now in the White House given the economy is finally showing signs of pick up and the incumbency brings a large flow of dollars with it for buying votes through public projects or government handouts.  GOP should be able to sieze some construction labor support by offering to overturn Obama’s decision if they gain the Whitehouse.  We shall see if GOP strategy helps GOP election efforts.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      The bad news is that killing Keystone is obviously horrible for the country. The good news is it is yet another election issue Obama has to worry about.

      • valley person

        And why is it “horrid” for the country? First, he didn’t permanently kill it. He only killed the specific route proposal, which by the way is also opposed by the Republican governor of Nebraska due to water pollution issues.

        Second, its about the dirtiest energy source imaginable. And like corn ethanol, it takes as much energy (natural gas) to produce the stuff as it delivers.

        Yes, building it would create a lot of good paying jobs in the short term. So would building bridges and wind turbines and solar arrays and light rail systems. I don’t see Republicans advocating these.

        Is it an election issue? I suppose so. But it certainly cuts both ways. If you think it will turn union workers against Obama, given the Republican labor record of late, I kind of doubt it.

    • None

      Wait a minute. While it’s true that the oil that would be transported via the Keystone Pipeline isn’t from “overseas”, it’s not oil that’s from the U.S.

  • valley person

    Larry writes: “Mr. Obama promised to fix the problem knowing full well that he had
    neither the background, education nor economic understanding to do so. ”

    This just in:

    ” Oregon’s unemployment rate has fallen below 9 percent for the first time in three years.

    The
    state’s jobless rate slid to 8.9 percent in December, seasonally
    adjusted, down from 9.1 percent in November. That compares to the
    national unemployment rate of 8.5 percent in December, down from 8.7
    percent in November.

    More good news: Oregon gained 2,400 jobs in December, following a revised loss of 1,100 in November.”

    Tell us more about how Obama and  the democrats are screwing everything up.

  • Dan Meek

    Twice you assume Obama took over the Presidency in January 2008.  You even use the January 2008 date to calculate his responsibility for job losses.  You may want to correct that, since George W. Bush was President until January 20, 2009.

    • None

      Sorry, Dan, I missed that you had already pointed out Mr. Huss’s error, and I didn’t see that he had made the same mistake twice.

      You really have to wonder about Oregon Catalyst and the falsehoods that appear here. As Stephen Colbert says, reality has a liberal bias.

      • 3H

        Mr. Huss makes many factual errors.  This is not uncommon for him.

        • None

          What’s amazing is that he’s had over a day to correct it, and he hasn’t corrected it, and OC has left a factually incorrect post up.

          I rate this post Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire, Hang’ ‘Em On a Telephone Wire.

  • None

    Dear Mr. Huss,

    You really shouldn’t talk about another person’s ineptitude when the fourth word of your article is a glaring error.

    Barack Obama became President in January 2009, not 2008.

    It’s one thing to have an error like that deep in the body of your post, and quite another when it’s at the beginning.

    • Wannabanana

      Nnoe of us really care about what you have to say. Your glaring pointing of inaccuracies, alas, says more that you’re willing to use gotcha points.

      Which means, unequivocally, that you deserve to be tossed into the Siuslaw River at Mapleton.

      • None

        Reality has a liberal bias.

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33()

  • Pingback: loose weight at home()

  • Pingback: free movie downloads()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: tv packages()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: lan penge nu uden sikkerhed()

  • Pingback: mobile porn()

  • Pingback: laan penge()

  • Pingback: alkaline water machine()

  • Pingback: paypal loans()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: try this website()

  • Pingback: bottled alkaline water()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loans()

  • Pingback: house blue()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)