Its from CATO (h/t Malkin):
Gosh, doesn’t this sound familiar?
The government stepping in to let just about anybody borrow money regardless of their circumstances.
In fact, I’m relatively sure this is exactly what caused the problem in the first place. Ummm, yea, actually I’m completely positive of that.
Hmm lets think back to the first presidential debate when Obama claimed that deregulation was the cause of our economic ills. Here was my reaction then:
“Deregulation, Obama? Are you kidding? Was it deregulation that created organizations to give people loans that clearly weren’t qualified for them and never would have received them otherwise? Was it deregulation that mandated financial institutes give the same clearly unqualified people loans? Thus creating a massive and seemingly unending housing boom which then lead to a plethora of bad investments, investments which were sold by the government as safe investments. No Obama it wasn’t deregulation, it was idiots like you.”
But, obviously, Bush, Paulson, and the rest of our betterers in DC will never admitt that this is what happened and will, inevitably, stick with the same broken mentality that got us into this mess.
Does anybody see the supreme irony in this move by the government? I mean, yea, there’s the whole quandary of using the same tactics that got is in trouble in order to save us from that trouble. I’m almost convinced that this was the exact conversation that occured when this plan was being mulled over:
(several of Springfield’s best and brightest are stuck in a hole they dug while searching for buried treasure)
Mayor Quimby: Mmm, I guess we’re not gonna find anything.
Otto: Well how we gonna get outta here?
Homer: We’ll dig our way out!
Wiggum: No, no, dig up, stupid!
But I think, perhaps, the deeper irony lays in the fact that we are increasing our government’s debt for the express purpose of increasing consumer debt. In other words the government is spending money it doesn’t have in order to encourage people to spend money they don’t have. Does that sound like a downward spiral to fiscal hell to anybody else?
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin eventually weighed in on this…
In case you missed the first go round we now have the pleasure of a take two which shall be appropriately named:
Massive Bailout Madness!!!
Who are the stars of this sequel you ask? Well I’ll tell you…
First off, like any quality sequel, there is always one returning star. For this production that returning star happens to be AIG. The insurance giant wants billions more on top of the billions they received in Bailout Madness take one.
But, like any sequel worth destroying a country over, this sequel includes a few big name newcomers.
There is American Express who must have figured, “Hey, we suck at running our business too… why not?”
And the last star for this sequel, though you can be sure this certainly isn’t the last sequel (I’m thinking this could be a 5 part series), happens to be the big three automakers. Yes, that’s right, in a not so shocking move Ford, GM, and Chrysler have asked for and received a 25 billion dollar bailout… opps make that two 25 billion dollar bailouts.
Unfortunately the predictability and complete lack of direction combined with an overused and ultimately unsuccessful plot line (you know how it goes, Business meets bad management. Bad management drowns business. Government buys badly managed business. Government provides even worse management, as always. Economy explodes) makes Massive Bailout Madness absolutely unbearable. I am forced to declare it a turkey (and I mean on a Gigli level).
I much prefer the classic and intelligent; Business makes bad choices. Business doesn’t get free money. Business faces consequences of its actions. Business learns lesson and adapts or closes.
But, in an upside for those who prefer the story behind Massive Bailout Madness, I hear it is an extremely popular plot line overseas…
UPDATE: Rumor… Newspapers will be big new star for then third instalment of this worn out series?
It was meant to be a compliment, apparently, but it came off as Bill Clinton telling everyone that Obama was clueless on what to do about the economic crisis.
Here’s the original story and the quote:
“I haven’t cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election, but I know what else he said to his economic advisers (during the crisis),” Clinton told the crowd at a Wednesday night rally with Obama in Florida. “He said, ‘Tell me what the right thing to do is. What’s the right thing for America? Don’t tell me what’s popular. You tell me what’s right — I’ll figure out how to sell it.'”
Yup, seems like he’s saying Obama was clueless on the economic situation and had to go to the Clintons (and others) for help. The part where Obama tells Clinton “you tell me what’s right — I’ll figure out how to sell it” sounds especially bad. Makes him sound like an empty suit, does it not?
Or maybe he sounds more like a used car salesman? You tell me…
UPDATE: here’s video of it, the key part comes at 8:25:
Allah Pundit at Hot air makes a good point. Yes, practically nobody knew what to do about the economic crisis so this shouldn’t be a huge deal except imagine if a senior republican had said the same thing about Sarah Palin (or John McCain for that matter)…
Also consider how strongly Obama has attacked McCain for supposedly not understanding the economy.
MORE FROM BUBBA UPDATE: During the same speech in which he dropped the backhanded gem above he also said this (The quote is at of the video posted above):
“He has executed this campaign in a way that is different from modern and forward thinking — something no one else ever could have done. He can be the chief executor of good intentions as president.”
I’m not sure what to make of it… but it sure is interesting.
Watching the video it looks like the part where he says that Obama’s campaign is different from modern and forward thinking ones was a screw up becuase he doesn’t finish that point and just jumps into the end. I think he was trying to say that Obama’s campaign was different from other campaigns that have come before.
The part that confuses me is the “He can be the chief executor of good intentions as president”. Is he really trying to say that we should vote for him because he has lots of good intentions? I don’t know, in context it seems as though Clinton is trying to say that we should vote for Obama because he has done a good job running his own campaign… However, that doesn’t sound any better than the whole good inetentions thing anyway.
But here is the video of it so you can decide for yourself: