Skip to comments.
RUSH: Barack OBAMA Has DESTROYED the ECONOMY in Two-and-a-Half Years
| July 14, 2011
| Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 07/15/2011 1:21:29 AM PDT by Yosemitest
Barack Obama Has Destroyed the Economy in Two-and-a-Half Years
July 14, 2011
RUSH: "Boehner: Dealing With the White House 'Has Been Like Dealing With Jell-O'
-- In a meeting with a small group of reporters in his Capitol Hill office this morning [he] criticized President Obama and White House officials for their lack of resolve in negotiations. We can't count on what the guy says.
'Dealing with them the last couple months has been like dealing with Jell-o,' Boehner said.Boehner explained that talks broke down over the weekend because, he said,
'Some days it's firmer than others. Sometimes it's like they've left it out over night.'
the president backed off entitlement reforms so much from Friday to Saturday,
'It was Jell-o; it was damn near liquid.'"
What he says doesn't have any lifespan to it.
He'll say something and then the next time we talk it's like he never said.
You know, once when I was in negotiations --
early on in my career, when I never done it -- it was my first time negotiating a contract rather than just being hired.
It was at a radio station and I had, for the first time in my life, some leverage.
I didn't realize how much, but I had a lot.
So I didn't have an agent. I don't have an agent now.
I did it all on my own, figured, why...?
Eh, I don't want to get into why no agent. I just didn't have an agent.
I decided to do it myself, I do everything myself.
So a session is scheduled (after we've had three or four meetings) in the boss's office for 7:30 in the morning.
The program started at nine.
So I walk back for the meeting, he says, "What are you doing here?"
"Well, I'm here for our negotiations."
"We don't have a meeting. What are you talking about?
Are you losing your mind or something?
We've got nothing to talk about today."
So I walked out of there (laughing) and called some people.
"Ah, it's a standard tactic.
It's just a standard tactic. You're just learning."
So that's what Boehner's saying it's like with Obama.
They'll agree to have some measure of entitlement reform
or at least some of it will be on the table
and the next time they meet, it's like they never talked about it.
It's like Jell-O. he says,
"'The only thing they've been firm on is these damn tax increases,' the Speaker said. They do.
The Speaker also made it clear that he believes the President waited too long to get personally involved.
When he phoned the president Saturday to give him the bad news about talks breaking down, President Obama seemed surprised but not shocked, the speaker said.
The phone call lasted 35-40 minutes.
"Boehner said that the tax increases the White House has been pushing for as part of what the president calls 'a balanced package' cannot make it through Congress.
'What the president is asking us to do just won't pass,' he said.
[He] said that he believes the public supports the GOP line in the sand.
'The American people want us to hang tough,' he said."
There's a Rasmussen poll out today: and yet the Republicans remain very nervous that they ultimately are going to end up being blamed
because that's just the way things always have worked out.
Jobless claims announced today to be 405,000.
That was seen as good news in that the experts expected 415,000 jobless claims,
but don't get too excited about 405,000 jobless claims.
It's still a weak number.
This is like 30 weeks in a row they've been over 400,000.
But the real news in the labor report the published today --
we predicted this last week -- is last week's claims number was revised upward by 9,000.
Last week on this very day the reported number for jobless claims was 418,000.
"But that number doesn't really mean anything because it's going to be revised upwards. Well, today it was to 427,000, so they actually missed on the low side by 9,000 last week.
They all are."
It makes a four-week moving average of 423,800 jobless claims.
The economy has not turned any corners.
There is no recovery.
It's Obama's economy, and Obama needs the Republicans to save him from himself.
Obama needs the Republicans to get reelected.
Obama needs the Republicans to cave. (interruption)
What color is Jell-O?
Red. What other color could he be talking about with Obama?
Snerdley wanted to know what color Jell-O was talking about that Obama was. Red Jell-O.
It's 806 days, ladies and gentlemen, since Senate Democrats -- and they run the place -- have passed a budget.
There are 365 days in a year.
So it's well over two years since the Democrats, who run the place, have passed a budget.
The law requires them to pass a budget every year.
Eight hundred six days and counting -- and this, by the way, is the strategy.
There's no question. They devised two years ago a strategy:
We're not gonna present a budget: This was part of the 2010 reelection strategy:
We're not gonna tie ourselves down.
Do [not] put a budget out there
because we don't want voters to have any specifics about what we intend.
So they didn't.
Now the strategy remains implemented so that they don't have to tie themselves to any of their own numbers specifically,
so while they have no numbers, they have no budget -- and Obama hasn't presented one, either -- the Republicans do.
The Republicans are acting like the adults.
The Republicans are presenting plans.
Say what you want about some of them, but Republicans have ideas with numbers designed to seriously address the problem and fix it.
Start down the road of fixing it.
The Democrats, as a strategy, do not.
For the sole purpose of doing nothing
but assaulting the Republicans for the numbers that they present. In so doing, the Democrats have a free road in claiming
that Republicans want senior citizens to die and the sick people to die and all this,
'cause the Democrats don't have any numbers.
They have no specifics. They have no budget.
Nor does Obama, other than this monstrosity from last February with a $3.7 trillion budget that not even one Democrat voted for.
Other than that, they don't have one -- on purpose --
so that the only numbers out there are Republican numbers that they can demagogue. That's the strategy.
So if Senate Democrats don't have to project spending and revenues --
if they can just choose not to in violation of the law -- then why should I have to pay quarterly taxes?
Why do I have to go to the trouble to project and pay taxes to the government based on my estimated taxable income,
which I have to do every three months --
and the second quarter is actually a beast 'cause you gotta do it in two months.
You gotta do it April 15th and then back in June.
Now, in a sense quarterly taxes, like budgets, are an estimate.
They are a projection of taxable income.
How about I just publish it once a year? Maybe every two years!
How about I don't estimate my income for two years?
How about I don't project anything and therefore I don't pay anything?
For just two years, maybe. Three!
Sure, the law says I'm supposed to make that estimate in payment every quarter, but so what?
The Senate Democrats aren't following the law; why should anybody else?
Yeah, I know.
They'll put me in the cell next to Madoff or Wesley Snipes or somebody, if I know don't.
Maybe we need to ask:
Why are the Senate Democrats above the law I'll tell you why the media doesn't care.
and why doesn't the media care?
It's because they marvel at the strategy. Of course you can rip them to shreds all you want.
They just love the strategy.
"Look at how smart these Democrats are!
They don't present a budget and make the onus on the Republicans.
The only numbers out there are Republican numbers."
The last thing you're gonna do is agree with any of them.
"Moody's Investors Service said late [yesterday] it had placed the US government's triple-A bond rating on review for possible downgrade due to rising risk of default.
'The review of the US government's bond rating is prompted by the possibility
that the debt limit will not be raised in time to prevent a missed payment of interest or principal on outstanding bonds and notes,' Moody's said."
Folks, we gave you the numbers on this yesterday.
It's not possible to miss a payment unless somebody doesn't make it, which that falls to Obama.
We have the money there.
Moody's -- or as Stewart Varney as Fox says, "Moodis."
Stewart Varney, I was listening to him this morning on Fox. He's very worried about this.
You know, Stewart's a good guy but he's very, very worried about this.
"If we miss one payment, then we're in a world of total humiliation, embarrassment. You know, the American people need to ask themselves a question.
If we miss one payment!"
We elect Barack Hussein Obama, and two-and-a-half years later we find ourselves on the verge of budgetary default.
We elect Barack Hussein Obama president, and in two-and-a-half years, we're on the verge of an unprecedented US default
with worldwide -- first time ever -- humiliation, embarrassment, and whatever else would accompany default.
No other president has ever brought us anywhere near anything like this,
and yet (laughing) blame it on the Republicans!
Just blame it on the Republicans.
Democrats in Congress are ignoring another law, a law Obama demanded and they all wanted, and that's Paygo.
They just laugh when anybody brings it up, like Jim Bunning did.
Paygo. You pay-as-you-go. You don't pay for anything you don't have.
The current US debt is larger than the entire economy of China, in two-and-a-half years of Barack Hussein Obama --
and, by the way, in two-and-a-half years, this country's approval ratings in the Arab world are near an all-time low. Now, how can that be?
Remember just by virtue of the fact of our president's middle name,
we were supposed to be loved and adored and appreciated.
It was gonna be a new Worrell out there; the Arab world was going to love us.
They're gonna stop terrorizing us. and President Obama goes and makes the Cairo speech.
They we're gonna stop throwing the suicide bombers at us.
They were gonna love us after all this,
How can any of this be in two-and-a-half years this utter, total, near destruction of our country,
in two-and-a-half years?
Really, it's scary to realize that's all it's taken is two-and-a-half years.
By the way, lest we forget on this "Moodis" business,
Congress tightened its regulation of credit ratings companies last year with the so-called Yes, that Wall Street, that financial regulatory reform bill included in it regulation of credit rating companies like Moodis. So these companies like Moodis know which side of the bread their butter is on.
They realize that they now have to toe the line and advance the interests of the Democrat Party.
Bill Hemmer today on Fox asked Stewart Varney,
"Look, Stewart, are these guys totally objective?" Stewart Varney said,
"They say they are. They say they are, and we have to take them at their word." It was clear to me that, to Stewart Varney, Moodis is the gold standard.
They're god, they're the absolute truth.
They don't lie, don't make it up,
but all I know is that they are now regulated under the Financial Regulatory Reform Act,
and that tells me they know what they have to do to stay safe,
and that's advance the interests of the Democrat Party.
But still, again, just think about it:
Obama is elected president a mere two and a half years later, Aside from the fact that it's really a coincidence, does anybody really...?
Moodis is talking about the possibility of the United States defaulting on our debt.
I mean, how in the world does anybody even talk about this guy seriously getting reelected?
RUSH: One more thing about Obama and this Arab business.
In truth, Obama's not Arab. His father was Kenyan. See, this idea that there's gonna be some special bond with the Arab world was always a farce.
It was just more of the farce that was Obama and the media and the image makers.
So Moody's, if they're aligned with the Democrats, what are they saying?
They're saying that we should continue to spend and print and borrow. Is that the credit advice Moody's is giving?
Is that how Moody's wants to be known?
They want to take themselves seriously as a credit rating agency,
so for us to stay solvent, continue to do more and more that's brought us to the brink of disaster, is that what Moody's is saying?
How do we know that Moody's is not concerned about Obama and the Democrats?
Why do we always assume that Moody's is worried about the Republicans?
The Republicans are actually trying to get the fiscal house in order.
Even these idiots at Moody's can see that,
maybe Moody's is actually aiming their comments at Obama. It would make economic sense.
RUSH: You know, I'm holding here in my in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a story from McClatchy.
Kevin G. Hall wrote the thing April 12th of 2010, "How Moody's Sold Its Ratings and Sold Out Investors." April 12, 2010.
"As the housing market collapsed in late 2007, Moody's Investors Service, whose investment ratings were widely trusted, The McClatchy investigation found that Moody's purposely avoided rating the worthless stuff,
responded by purging [i.e. firing] analysts and executives who warned of trouble
and promoting those who helped Wall Street plunge the country into its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
A McClatchy investigation has found that Moody's punished executives who questioned
why the company was risking its reputation
by putting its profits ahead of providing trustworthy ratings for investment offerings.
"Instead, Moody's promoted executives who headed its 'structured finance' division,
which assisted Wall Street in packaging loans into securities for sale to investors.
These are the pools of mortgages, the mortgage-backed securities which were worthless.
"It also stacked its compliance department with the people who awarded the highest ratings to pools of mortgages that soon were downgraded to junk.
Such products have another name now: 'toxic assets.'"
thereby continuing the notion investors could feel free to invest in it.
They got rid of executives who sounded the warning bell about this,
and they promoted executives who did the opposite.
They sold its ratings; they sold out investors, according to McClatchy.
April of 2010 is the date of the story.
Read the Background Material...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: barneyfrank; billhemmer; boehner; chrisdodd; criminal; dodd; frank; kevinghall; obama; stewartvarney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Care to back your claims up with maybe back them up with links to FACTS?
Well, try these facts
And then there this pesky fact.
Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months
Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined,
Says Govt Data
Wednesday, September 08, 2010 by Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration,
the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion,
which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public
that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories.
One is debt held by the public,
which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is intragovernmental debt,
which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example,
the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for expenses other than Social Security.
At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office,
the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers.
That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added
to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated,
and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.
By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989.
At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO.
At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion.
That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagans eight years in office
--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion.
That is in excess of a trillion dollars less
than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obamas first 19 months.
When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009,
the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department.
As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obamas 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.
In just the last four months (May 2010 through August 2010), according to the CBO,
the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion,
more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.
The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010,
which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion.
The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits
as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II.
CBO currently estimates that the deficit for 2010 will be about $70 billion below last years total but will still exceed $1.3 trillion, said the CBOs monthly budget review for September, which was released yesterday.
Relative to the size of the economy, this years deficit is expected to be the second-largest shortfall in the past 65 years:
At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit will be exceeded
only by last years deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP.
Now .... what other lies do you want to say
to defend that piece of garbage defiling the White House,
that curse on our nation ...
posted on 07/15/2011 9:17:48 PM PDT
(It's simple, fight or die.)
Obamas Great Oppression
I like it!
posted on 07/15/2011 9:23:23 PM PDT
(It's simple, fight or die.)
They are all to blame. Piss on the Democrats, and piss on the Republicans too.
posted on 07/15/2011 11:01:52 PM PDT
(Live Free or Die)
It’s going to stick, methinks. I saw it first on Twitter, so h/t to that Patriot.
posted on 07/16/2011 5:39:16 AM PDT
(TAXPAYERS OF THE WORLD UNITE.)
are to blame.
Let's take a deeper look.
Okay, then the DEMOCRATS need to shut up!!!
Who was it that cut future funding for Medicare by $575 billion? So Democrats,
...the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters... The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.
The truth is that the Obama health law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over the next 10 years ...
Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius frequently make that false claim.
Indeed, even Medicare's mailings to seniors repeat the claim that reducing spending on Medicare will make it more financially secure for future years.
The fact is that Mr. Obama's law raids Medicare.
Who was it that moved Medicare Trust Funds out of the "trust box" and into the General Revenue, replacing them with Government I.O.U.s?
Who was it that expanded Medicare and Medicaid to cover many, many more people than it was originally designed to cover?
The History of Medicare
In 1965, the Social Security Act established both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security Administration (SSA), while Federal assistance to the State Medicaid programs was administered by the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS). SSA and SRS were agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration was created under HEW to effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The first U.S. President to propose a prepaid health insurance plan was Harry S. Truman [DEMOCRAT]. On November 19, 1945, in a special message to Congress, President Truman outlined a comprehensive, prepaid medical insurance plan for all people through the Social Security system. The plan included doctors and hospitals, and nursing, laboratory, and dental services; it was dubbed "National Health Insurance." Furthermore, medical insurance benefits for needy people were to be financed from Federal revenues.
Over the years, lawmakers narrowed the field of health insurance recipients largely to social security beneficiaries. A national survey found that only 56 percent of those 65 years of age or older had health insurance. President John F. Kennedy [DEMOCRAT] pressed legislators for health insurance for the aged. However, it wasn't until 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 (The Social Security Act of 1965; PL 89-97) to provide health insurance for the elderly and the poor.
On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid Bill (Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act) in Independence, Missouri in the presence of former President Truman, who received the first Medicare card at the ceremony; Lady Bird Johnson, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, and Mrs. Truman also were present. President Johnson remarked: "We marvel not simply at the passage of this Bill but that it took so many years to pass it."
Medicare extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older. About 19 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare in the first year of the program. Medicaid provided access to health care services for certain low-income persons and expanded the existing Federal-State welfare structure that assisted the poor.
The 1972 Social Security Amendments expanded Medicare to provide coverage to two additional high risk groups disabled persons receiving cash benefits for 24 months under the social security program and persons suffering from end-stage renal disease.
...(continued at link)
posted on 07/16/2011 1:51:57 PM PDT
(It's simple, fight or die.)
YOU DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S.A. ECONOMY!!!
posted on 07/16/2011 1:59:02 PM PDT
(It's simple, fight or die.)
posted on 07/16/2011 2:52:02 PM PDT
( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
Perhaps you didn’t get the message, but of late it is not possible to post anything on FR that does not EXPLICITLY blame Obama for all the ills in the world. Long-term analysis is only in vogue when a Republican is in the White House.
Basically it is exactly the same at the DU, except the opposite. Frankly, I think you could just take posts from the DU from 2000 - 2008 and change the words Bush to Obama and you would have pretty much FR now (of course without the overt rudeness and swearing - at least conservatives are genteel).
Intelligent debate (and intelligent Freepers) only come out when the GOP is in charge.
I may well even get flamed for this mild observation. Yawn.
posted on 07/16/2011 7:32:48 PM PDT
(Using profanity gives people who don't want information from you an excuse not to listen.)
Thanks. Feel free to copy and paste, and re-post it anytime.
posted on 07/16/2011 8:18:07 PM PDT
(It's simple, fight or die.)
The next President may have to sign a huge stack of new laws just to undo the mess Obama created.
They can start with wiping out the laws that were changed to accomodate this administration. Perhaps a stroke of the new Presidents pen will be sufficient for many of these.
posted on 07/16/2011 8:39:03 PM PDT
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson