Today we celebrate!

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/11/auto_bailout08.html

Today, the Congress declined to hand over $25 billion to financially troubled U.S. automakers - at least for now.

The financial crisis began with the mortgage meltdown, and the Congress approved a $700 billion bail out.

This is unfortunate but can be justified, as the financial institutions were forced by Clinton's policies demanding that more loans be made available for unqualified applicants, and pushed Fannie and Freddie to have 50 percent of their mortgages be for low and moderate income families.

So the financial crisis we are facing today, in particular the mortgage and lending crisis, can be tied directly to the government of the late 90s, and therefore financial institutions have a good point to justify a taxpayer bailout.

There is no such justification for the carmakers. Misguided greed of the unions and Detroit executives are to blame.

Let them file bankruptcy and have courts take matters into their hands, and the carmakers will emerge stronger than ever before (see Delta: http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/30/news/companies/delta_bankruptcy/index.htm).

This is not what taxpayers money is for!

So I want you to take your kids (or grand kids) on your lap, and give them a big hug (if you don't have kids or grand kids I want you to go out and find somebody who has).

Tell them that they will have to pay for the policies of the Clinton administration, but at least they will not have to pay for the inflated salaries of UAW workers and the private jets of the automaker executives, unless of course they buy one of their cars or trucks.

While President-elect Barack Obama watches the stock market decline ever since his election, he is not doing anything to stop the decline. He could stop it by simply saying that corporations and businesses would not be the losers of his tax policies.

Instead, he is quietly and diligently working on the establishment of the third Clinton administration...

Obama wants to bail out automakers

President-elect Barack Obama pushes for a $50 Billion bailout for automakers:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aBlCucXR33Jw

"The president-elect wants the Federal Reserve to extend emergency loans to General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, according to Obama aides who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Still, the Bush administration so far has opposed bailing out the car makers, and continues to resist the idea of using the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the bank rescue which Congress passed in early October, for any companies other than banks."

Please President Bush, don't let this happen on your watch!

We all know what's behind Obama's push: the United Auto Workers Union or UAW: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQAno1Ofb8lU&refer=home

No one other than the UAW is responsible for the current state of the auto industry. The UAW should bail out the automakers, not the tax payers.

An assembly line worker in Detroit makes roughly $70 an hour, and that does not include royal benefits and retirement packages.

The UAW, a major contributor to Obama's campaign, now demands its favors returned.

Barack Obama ready to rule

The co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend. She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/11/10/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1


Presidents of the United States do not rule, they govern within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Somebody from the Democratic Party, please tell the President-elect that he is not King-elect.

Kings don't get elected. You become king by either inheriting the throne as an heir, or by killing the guy who sat in the throne before you.

The blame game

Remember when just a couple months ago the gas price was around four dollars a gallon? I do.

And I remember how the Democrats and the media were screaming, trying to blame it on Bush and his policies.

Now that the gallon of gas is below two dollars, at it's lowest point since two years, did any of you hear the Democrats or the media give credit to Bush?...I didn't think so.

I also remember reporters jumping joyfully up and down after the election night, giddy to report any gains on Wall Street and attribute them to Barack Obama's victory.

That didn't happen. Wall Street greeted his election win by plunging nearly 500 points on Wednesday and it was down again Thursday. The marketwide drop was the largest to follow any presidential election in the United States, following a nearly 300-point gain in the Dow on Tuesday that was the largest-ever gain on an election day.

That is not Obama's fault of course.

But when the expected gains did not materialize, the very same reporters did not try to tie the investor's reaction to the election results, but they would have done so had Wall Street reacted positively.

Clintonites are back - without Bill and Hillary

With President-elect Barack Obama's pick for chief of staff, it is now clear what he meant with change: it's change back to the Clinton era.

Don't get me wrong. He has the right to pick whoever he wants. In fact, with his majority he has the right to sign the biggest wealth redistribution plan since the October Revolution in Lenin's Russia of 1917 into law.

My point here is to explain the reasons why he never revealed during his campaign what specific changes he had in mind. You could ask anyone why they vote for Obama, and the answer would always be "he is for change". Asked what changes he is going to make, and the answers would never get quite specific, because nobody knew what Obama's mantra of change really meant.

We now know that Obama's change is getting Clinton's inner circle back into the White House.

And that's why he always kept it his secret. If he had revealed his plans during the Primaries, wouldn't the voters much rather pick Hillary (and with her Bill), to get the real and original Clintons back into the White House?

Personally, I would rather go with the real Clintons. I can picture it in my mind:

Hillary working in the Oval Office. Bill wandering through the hallways of the White House in his bathrobe, the Secret Service working hard to keep him away from the female interns...

Change we can believe in?

So much for change ...

Barack Obama's first act as President-elect was to ask Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/emanuel-offered-chief-of-staff-job/

Rahm Emanuel was part of Bill Clinton's inner circle, trying to prevent Bill's sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky from becoming public.

Is that the kind of change he meant when he based his entire campaign on change?