Pardon me for being slightly frustrated, but I am so tired of hearing people, especially Obama, blame the Bush administration for our current economic woes.  Did the congressional republicans overspend when they were in power? Absolutely!  Did Bush spend a lot going to war with Iraq? Definitely!  Whether or not you agree with rationale for all of this spending, republicans did overspend when they were in power.  But before we talk about why we are in this mess, let’s look at a graph from the non-partisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office).

Notice how much Bush spent on an annual basis.  When you aggregate all of his spending, you get the 2 trillion dollar budget deficit that you hear Obama speak about constantly.  And it’s true, Obama did inherited a huge budget deficit.

Now disregarding the CBO estimate (red line), let’s just look at Obama’s projections of his own spending and let’s add his up solely through 2016 (if he were to be in office for 8 years).  He will more than triple the budget deficit to 6.7 trillion after 8 years in office, making Bush look like a penny pincher.  And this is using his own estimate.  If we use the CBO’s estimate (which is probably more realistic) for the same time period, he quadruples it to almost 8 trillion.  I don’t want to hear him complain about a 2 trillion dollar budget deficit anymore, because he is going to bankrupt our country at this spending rate.

Now, for all of you who continue to blame our current economic recession on Bush, let’s look at some facts.  The mortgage industry did go BOOM in 2008, but this was a bomb that was set back in the 1970′s and then tinkered with in 1995 by Clinton and his cronies, well before Bush was ever in office:

Our present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. Then in the 1990s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development took a fateful step by getting the GSEs to accept subprime mortgages. With Fannie and Freddie easing credit requirements on loans they would purchase from lenders, banks could greatly increase lending to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. In the name of extending affordable housing, this broadened the acceptability of risky loans throughout the financial system.

What, you don’t believe Barron’s?  Let’s hear it from Obama himself:

Subprime lending started off as a good idea – helping Americans buy homes who couldn’t previously afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories and spread them out among investors around the country and around the world.

The CRA was created to push risky loans to people who normally could not afford them.  What a great idea! Let’s give loans to people who can’t pay them back.  What, still having trouble believing the government would step in and push banks to give risky loans?  Here’s a little more insight into this from a former Bank CFO:

The CRA, and a host of related government lending regulations, coerced (forced) banks to make marginal or bad loans to people with low-income, unstable income, and/or poor credit histories. By supporting these laws and regulations politicians pleased special-interest groups. Politicians were repaid for their efforts with large voting blocks.

I remember a meeting with the senior executive team of our bank in which federal examiners told us that we had to make a large number of “marginal loans.” In this meeting the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Operating Officer (COO), and I (the Chief Financial Officer) sat in stunned silence as the federal examiners told us what we must do.

With a stack of loan files (loans we had planned to reject) in front of them, the federal examiners told us these “marginal” loans must be made to improve our CRA rating. While CRA did not mandate civil or punitive damages, CRA required a four-tier rating system with performance levels: outstanding, satisfactory, needs-to-improve, or substantial noncompliance. These ratings were made public. The bottom two ratings meant public outrage. Satisfactory was not “satisfactory” because some of our competitors were already advertising their outstanding rating.

Like hundreds of other banks around the country, we were forced to comply with the government’s attempts at social re-engineering. Banks across America originated these loans and then sold them in the secondary market.

Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  They were buying up these subprime loans which helped move this risky loan business into full throttle.  Since the government owned Fannie and Freddie, it was like the government was insuring these loans buy purchasing them.

So, where does Bush fit into this?  Oh right, deregulation caused this mess.  Let’s look back at the Barron’s article:

CONTRARY TO A VIEW POPULARIZED DURING THE 2008 presidential election season, the current economic crisis was not the result of deregulation.

The Bush administration made many mistakes, but deregulation was not one of them.

Not only was there no major deregulation passed during the past eight years, but the Bush administration and a Republican Congress approved the most sweeping financial-market regulation in decades.

The bipartisan Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in 2002 to prevent corporate fraud and restore investor confidence after the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. It failed to prevent the accounting fraud and influence-peddling scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And even after those scandals were widely understood, regulators sent Fannie and Freddie back into the market to continue buying subprime loans, lending and borrowing with implied taxpayer backing.

So Bush actually approved “the most sweeping financial market regulation in decades.”  But I don’t think I’ve ever heard Obama admit that.  And do you want to know who resisted the regulations that Bush was trying to push onto the financial sector to cut the wires of this time bomb?  This 8 min video from 2004 shows the fight that went on in congress about this:

Did you notice anyone in this video who resisted these regulations, and are now the ones blaming this whole mess on the Bush administration?  In fact, in 2004, according to Karl Rove, the Bush administration got a regulatory bill through the senate finance commitee, only to have it filibustered by Chris Dodd.  I’ve said it before, that if double standards were water Washington would be drowning.  In fact, Chris Dodd may be drowing now because of all of his abuses.

So it wasn’t the war spending or the congressional spending that got us into this financial mess.  It was in fact the subprime mortgage bubble bursting that has led us into this economic recession.  So despite the populist rhetoric that Obama keeps repeating, Bush has little blame for this economic crisis than other parties still in power.

But if you must blame Bush for something, outside of a large budget deficit that Obama has already doubled, then let’s not forget about 2008. Under the helm of Bush and a democratic congress, they decided to spend a fair portion of that 2 trillion dollar budget deficit in one fail swoop in approving a 700 billion dollar bailout package for the banking industry.  They only spent half of it under Bush, but they approved the entire amount.  So if you are going to blame Bush for something, there you go.

But there is one final point that Ed Morrisey so eloquently made a few days ago regarding Obama’s continual blaming of this economic crisis on the previous administration:

Democrats controlled Congress in 2007 and 2008, and had plenty of opportunity to cut the budget and reduce spending to trim the deficit. Did they do so? No; in fact, they increased the budgetary spending at a rate higher than that of the Republicans when the GOP controlled Congress.

And even more, the 2009 budget wasn’t Bush’s at all. The Democrats held up most of it, outside of defense spending, in order to wait for the next President. Instead, they passed continuing resolutions until pushing through the omnibus spending bill for the 2009 budget — which was signed by President Obama this month.

More to the point, Barack Obama was a member of Congress during the last four years. What did Obama do to reduce the deficits as the Senator from Illinois? What legislation did he author? What opposition did he provide to the high-spending policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in 2007 and 2008?

If the answer is nothing — and it is — then Obama inherited the fruits of his own inaction and the burden of his own party’s policies.

So as the title indicates, President Obama, please tell the American people the truth about why we are in this recession and stop spouting populist blame just so you can continue to win the approval of the American people which you need to push your heaving spending agenda.  Instead of taking advantage of a crisis, please let it go to waste.  We want our country to thrive again, and more than that we want honesty and integrity in our government and in the Office of the President of the United States of America.

Government bailouts, Government mortgage payments, Government funded car payments, Government salary control, Government personnel control.

Sheesh, can I have some milk in my cup of socialism?

Today I learn that congress is trying to pass a law that would give them the ability to not only control the salaries of CEOs of companies that take federal assistance, but of everyone in the company.  Yeah, the guy in the mail room too.  So, if your company takes federal assistance, your salary would be “rationed’ as if it were food.  This is unprecedented control that we’ve never before seen, and will only lead to…well, whatever the opposite is of prosperity.  So how many people will leave the company if their salaries get reduced?  It will happen and it might just be that kind of talent that you just can’t replace off the street. Do you think I’m crazy?  Any venture the government takes control over, like health care, has to succumb to cost controls so that the government can make a better deal for itself, so that it can afford to treat everyone, or in this case pay everyone.

I fear for this country.  Stuart Varney was right yesterday in stating passionately on the Sean Hannity show that he is very worried about the direction we are heading.  After all, he left England back in the ’70′s when government control had run amuck.  And apparently no one get’s anywhere faster than Obama.  I am not sure what this country will look like by the time the 2010 elections get here at this pace.

UPDATE: Make sure you see my new post: Gerald Celente Predicts Greatest Depression

Gerald Celente is apparently the guy who is always right, and is telling us that by 2012 the U.S. will be in full economic collapse.  Celente is the CEO and trend forecaster of The Trends Research Institute.  He has, according to the video, accurately forecasted everything from the stock market crash in the 80′s to the ’08 mortgage bubble burst.  ABC gives this guy alot of credence.

One of my favorite lines from the video:  ”You can’t print money based on nothing. It’s not even Economics 101, it’s Economics for dummies.”  Hear that Pres. Obama?  Spending/printing a trillion that you don’t have isn’t that great. Just ask Zo.

If you think Celente seems just a little too apocalyptic for your tastes, then you should also bear in mind the oh so competent government we have running the show right now.  They are so good at wasting money.  Just imagine how well they are spending those stimulus dollars.

Also, Celente was also on the Glenn Beck Show in February during Beck’s War Room Scarathon.

To be a number one network, I’m really surprised that Fox News doesn’t have a better website design.  And I’m not alone.  I was pleased when they changed their website earlier this year, as it is easier to follow, but it’s still so far behind CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, and about everyone else.  And now, with the release of Fox Nation, it’s gotten worse.  C’mon people, haven’t you ever heard of padding?

Please Fox News, I am begging you, hire someone to redo your website design for Fox Nation.  You don’t want visitors thinking about your design, you want them thinking about your content.

If you missed the Daniel Hannan interview, then you should take the time to watch it – especially if you fantasize about National Health Care.  If you don’t who he is, he’s a European parliament member and has just reached celebrity status as he excoriated the prime minister of England in such a succinct way that many of us wish this type of bravery would happen here. Here’s a Hanna quote from the show:

“It’s common sense that when you’re in debt you spend less.  You know, anybody but a politician can see that.”

Also, see his full speech online at Politcal Crave.

Every time I hear Keith Olbermann bash Hannity, O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, or anyone else on Fox news, I wonder why I never hear the same coming from Fox about Olbermann or the other hosts.  I’m not saying it never happens, but it must be rare if it does because I don’t remember hearing it, at least not within the last year.  With Olbermann, it’s almost every night.  Well, there is a very good reason he attacks Fox News so much…and I’ll get to that in a moment.  First, let’s look at a graph that I created:

Let me tell you a little about this graph.  I chose to only graph the top two news agencies.  I am assuming that the unit for viewers is in thousands, however I didn’t see anything denoting that from Mediabistro, so I left it off the graph.  But I think that’s a safe assumption.  This is all 2009 data, and I excluded days when events were aired in the place of the nightly shows (like State of the Union, etc.).  The reason I started on Jan 21 had little to do with Obama, and much to do with the fact that Glenn Beck and David Shuster were both in place and this gave the data continuity.  So for average viewers per night, see who’s number 1?  Yeah, O’Reilly is really kickin some network news hiney.  How about number 7?  Yes, it’s Keith Olbermann. The thing I love about this graph is that MSNBC’s best effort is still less than the worst effort of Fox News in the nightly time slots.  So while Keith Olbermann is number one among his MSNBC peers, he fades quickly behind Fox News.  But this is just an average; what about total viewers.  Perhaps he fairs better there? Let’s take a look.

Nope, no better, and it actually looks a little worse.

So this should give you some insight into why he spends so much time attacking Fox News and it’s hosts.  Like most losers, he spends a lot of time trying to make himself look better than everyone else instead of actually using that time to do his job and report on the news.  It really reminds me of grade school, and it must be killing him that O’Reilly is winning the popularity contest.  Well, I love it!

Here’s some comedy gold that Hot Air picked up on today.

As an aside, have you noticed how many of his attacks are ad hominem?

According to an anonymous highly-place U.S. intelligence official, Israel could lose the support of the United States in favor of Arabs. This came from an interview made by Douglas J. Hagmann who is the director of the Northeast Intelligence Network.

This article states:

“When questioned about the possible abandonment of Israel by America, Hagmann told Yonah, “The Obama administration is no friend to Israel, is no friend to the Jews in America and is no friend to democracy or freedom in America.  …Just by his very appointments, we can see him filling positions of power with people who are anti-Semitic, who want to see Israel essentially dissolved as a nation, if not by diplomacy, then certainly by war.”

In his report, the unnamed intelligence source told Hagmann, “I have every reason to believe, based on what I’ve seen at my level of [security] clearance especially over the last several years, that Israel will soon be completely on their own… or worse.” He explained this would happen “when our administration provides more support to Arab countries [with] financial and military aid, undercutting Israel’s defense efforts all while pushing Israel to succumb to the pressure of unreasonable demands designed to end with their political annihilation as a nation.”

Before the election in November, I predicted among a few of my friends that if Obama got elected he would abandon Israel and would cease giving them foreign aid.  He simply has too many questionable anti-Israel connections, from Khalid al-Mansour who has been a fundraiser for Obama, to Samantha Powers, appointed to the National Security Council in the Obama Administration, who once advocated that we should stop funding Israel and begin funding Palestine, and not just the country but their military as well.  And besides the view of the administration, from America’s standpoint, I believe we’ve been moving in that direction for sometime now and I think people are less afraid to show it.

The interesting thing about all of this is that the Bible talks about a war in the “last days” that God will bring about against the country of Israel, and no other country will be willing or able to help her.  We know that with the unprecedented spending in our congress right now, our country is being set on a path that could mean economic failure.  If that happens we may not be able to help Israel even if we are still in full support of her.  There are other things that also seem to be falling in line.  The Bible talks about a one world currency which several foreign countries seem to be advocating for, perhaps even the U.S. And the revived Roman Empire seems to be in place (the E.U.), so not it just seems to be a matter of time before Jesus comes back for us.

There are other things along this line that we could talk about, but we’ll save that for a future article.  For now, we’ll keep a close eye on our relationship with Israel.

Pres. Obama and TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) seem to go everywhere together. Here’s just a peek in photos at their relationship.

To see more check out Redstate & Michelle Malkin!

Do you have any photos to which you’d like to add TOTUS? If so you can download the TOTUS Photoshop File (it’s a cutout of just TOTUS) and if it’s good enough we’ll post it right here!  Just email tips@therightscoop.com with your photo submission.

USER SUBMITTED PHOTOS:

From:  P.C.

POTUS & TOTUS are enjoying a wonderful day at the beach.

UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh loves my edits to the photo! Listen Below:

iPhone (non-flash): Download MP3

This vitriolic anger that the country is feeling toward AIG seems to me to have been planned out well in advance with the stimulus being the final piece.  Think about it – the administration as well as members of congress knew about the bonuses for months, and yet now they are outraged? This smells like a well planned attack to me, but let’s look at some details.

According the AP,  “Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., won passage of a provision earlier this year that they said would have prevented the type of payments now at the center of a storm.”  This was put in the stimulus package with regard for TARP recipients and then was removed.  Then Chris Dodd reportedly put in a similar amendment blocking bonuses, but later having to modify it so that bonuses previous to February were allowed to happen. First he lied about the changes, then he blamed the administration for threatening to throw out the amendment had he not compromised.   Wyden told the AP, “The president goes out and says this is not acceptable and then some backroom deal gets cut to let these things get paid out anyway.”  So how exactly is it that the President and members of congress are seething about this?

And let’s not forget, thanks to Andrew Malcolm (and Hot Air for pointing this out), that the members of congress, well into this bad economic climate, awarded themselves $4,700 in raises which costs the tax payer an extra $2.5 million this year. And Fannie & Freddie are planning out big retention bonuses into the millions of dollars for their top executives as well.  If the current outrage is sincere, then the new administration should be calling them out in 5…4…3…2…

The truth is, that if hypocrisy were water, Washington would be drowning.

What have we been hearing well before day 1 of the new administration? Wall street bonuses are out of control.  In fact, Barney Frank wants to cap all salaries of  U.S.  top exectuvies, regardless of whether they are using TARP money.  And if you take a look at “A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise”, the new administration’s book on the Federal Budget, then you’ll find this nice graph sitting on page 11 entitled “Top One Percent of Earners Have Been Increasing Their Share.” This graph represents a moral argument on increasing the share of taxes the wealthy pay.  In fact, it seems that the administration blames the wealthy on the suffering of the less fortunate, leaving the path of responsibility and going down the well-trodden path of government being not only the answer to poverty but the conscience of America.

So with all of this in mind, now consider Edward Liddy.  He was called out of retirement in September by Washington to take the helm of AIG and steer it on a course that would prevent it’s collapse.  He was called a great American because he was now not only working for AIG, but working for the betterment of the country – all for a $1 salary.  The problems of AIG aren’t his fault, and the retention/bonus contracts that were signed before him had to be honored, despite how aggregious the amounts.  And to witness the disrespect and hostility coming out of Washington at his hearing yesterday, well, I would certainly call that shameful.

But this whole debacle is centered around the bonuses and Edward Liddy has gone from an American hero to the enemy of the state.  But I believe it was intentional.   Obama has certainly proven that he will do anything to push his agenda.  Remember the State of the Union?  He used false arguments to push his agenda of Education, Energy, and Government Health Care.  And I believe he is doing the same now with these bonuses.  He knew about the bonuses, made provision for them, and now screams in distress over them to get both Congress and the American people on the side of demonizing the Wealthy so he can continue to blame them and take more of their money in the form of much higher taxes, growing government to an unsustainable size.  His agenda is socialism, and he will do whatever it takes to get there.