It’s the Economy, Obama
[Guest post by DRJ]
Today in Nashua, New Hampshire, President Obama spent a lot of time criticizing Republicans. He also reassured Americans that “Jobs will be our No. 1 focus in 2010”:
“Obama’s message of the day was a proposal highlighted in his State of the Union address last week: funneling $30 billion to local banks so they can lend small businesses money they need to grow their enterprises and create jobs.”
The government is using TARP money to fund the financing:
“The $30 billion in loan financing would come from money repaid by big banks that got help from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, the vastly unpopular bailout for those on Wall Street whose actions led to the economic downturn. A refined version of a plan the administration first announced in October, that $30 billion would be used to create the Small Business Lending Fund, separate and distinct from TARP.”
Republicans object to the use of TARP funds in violation of the TARP legislation:
“Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, denounced the attempt to use money from the bailout program. He told White House Budget Director Peter Orszag at a hearing in Washington that the legislation setting up the bank bailout program requires that leftover funds be used to pay down deficits.
Orszag replied that that is why the administration was asking Congress for legislation.”
Clearly Obama views the TARP funds as his Administration’s money to spend the way he wants, not as public funds. Still, loaning taxpayers their own money doesn’t seem like a good way to create jobs … but this Presidency isn’t about jobs or the economy, is it?
— DRJ
I would be interested to see which small businesses get the TARP money. Might they be chosen from a list of Obama donors ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/2/2010 @ 3:20 pm“Clearly Obama views the TARP funds as his Administration’s money to spend the way he wants, not as public funds”
It’s unfortunate, because it leads him to offer this limited view of taxing too-big-to-fail institutions merely to pay back TARP. Instead, it should be viewed as simply part of how we react to the phenomenon of ‘too-big-to-fail.’ The tax helps to provide an advantage to smaller institutions; helps to serve as a disincentive to be ‘too-big-to-fail’ and helps to compensate the public for the inevitable cost of when ‘too-big-to-fail’ actually fails. Perhaps he calculates that this is a more palatable frame for the public. I rather think public anger against big wall street is hungry for more. Maybe Frank Luntz will have a way of spinning this to favor banks.
imdw (de7003) — 2/2/2010 @ 3:20 pmThis keeps up much longer and Big Zero and congressional Democrats should all be prosecuted under the RICO statute.
GeneralMalaise (55c598) — 2/2/2010 @ 3:23 pmHow come every time someone asks this cast of characters why don’t they just return the unspent funds to the taxpayers, they look at them like they have four heads? Even worse are the looks they give when asked to give back the rest of the stimulus, which I think is only about 1/4 spent so far. As usual it’s not our money, it’s theirs, so f-ck off.
I guess Obama really was projecting when he claimed last week that he wasn’t an ideologue, or that his plans were not part of “Bolshevik plot.”
Dmac (539341) — 2/2/2010 @ 3:30 pmimdw,
This isn’t about what you or I or Obama or anyone thinks is the best use of the funds. It’s about what the legislation says regarding how the funds can be spent. The TARP legislation says repaid funds must be used to pay down the deficit.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 2/2/2010 @ 3:32 pmFor a party that would constantly, indeed daily, and falsely, accuse George Bush of ignoring the law, the Democrats seem to have absolutely no shame in acting lawlessly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2010 @ 3:44 pmthose on Wall Street whose actions led to the economic downturn
simpleton propaganda whore idiots
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:03 pmThe party of “No” at it again. I bet you guys would still say “no” if Obama offered to resign and go back to Kenya and chase goats. No no no no no no!!
The Emperor (ca5114) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:09 pmThe TARP legislation says repaid funds must be used to pay down the deficit.
the bailout program money needs needs needs to be spent into oblivion…
why?
that’s the money from Bush’s last year – unlike the little president man’s ruinously destructive spending binge, the majority of TARP was meant to be paid back and return to the treasury…
The little president man very much wants that not to happen. He wants Bush to share the culpability for what he’s doing on our little country.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:14 pmHe’s so damn evil sometimes I just go wow, he’s so damn evil.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:16 pm“It’s about what the legislation says regarding how the funds can be spent. The TARP legislation says repaid funds must be used to pay down the deficit.”
Yes I know, they said they’re seeking to change that. I’m saying it’s dumb to seek this change to TARP. Impose the tax without limiting it to TARP.
imdw (f7b257) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:28 pmYou want a new tax for small business lending? What do you plan to tax?
DRJ (84a0c3) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:33 pmThey will just tax big business lending. There is no problem a leftist can’t solve by raising taxes.
JD (c7bd69) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:42 pmDRJ, We’ll put a huge tax on bank loan interest, and use the proceeds to encourage lending. I think that works in the Obamaverse, if not elsewhere.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:43 pm“You want a new tax for small business lending?”
No.
“What do you plan to tax?”
Financial institutions that are “too big to fail.”
imdw (017d51) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:02 pmSo instead of banks lending to small businesses, you want government to do it directly, right?
DRJ (84a0c3) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:04 pm“So instead of banks lending to small businesses, you want government to do it directly, right?”
We got a winner. They want Big Government to touch every facet of the economy. Dependency on Big Government. That’s their ticket to entrenched power.
GeneralMalaise (55c598) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:08 pmAlice in Wonderland economics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:10 pm“Jobs will be our No. 1 focus in 2010″
Watch what he does, not what he says. The Big Con.
GeneralMalaise (55c598) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:10 pmI will have no respect left for the Republicans at all unless they take this to the Supreme Court. It’s illegal! It’s not their money!
Stand up and be counted, Republicans.
Patricia (e1047e) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:11 pm“So instead of banks lending to small businesses, you want government to do it directly, right?”
No. Where did you get that idea?
imdw (017d51) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:15 pmBecause you want to tax banks so the Administration can direct funds where it sees fit, which in this case is into small business lending.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:17 pmNone of Obama’s financial sector proposals actually address any of the problems in the financial sector. They only increase pork opportunities.
That’s no surprise when Obama calls for more fiscal responsibility in his SOTU address and then introduces a budget with record-breaking deficits ad infinitum.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:31 pm“Because you want to tax banks so the Administration can direct funds where it sees fit”
I said why I wanted the tax:
“Instead, it should be viewed as simply part of how we react to the phenomenon of ‘too-big-to-fail.’ The tax helps to provide an advantage to smaller institutions; helps to serve as a disincentive to be ‘too-big-to-fail’ and helps to compensate the public for the inevitable cost of when ‘too-big-to-fail’ actually fails.”
You’re adding in “small business lending.” For some reason.
imdw (490521) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:49 pmThe TARP IG says that the TARP program itself is creating more banks “too big to fail”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:45 pmAny company that is “too big to fail” should be referred to the Anti-Trust Division of DoJ.
AD - RtR/OS! (eadee4) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:47 pm@1 Mike K — I would be interested to see which small businesses get the TARP money. Might they be chosen from a list of Obama donors ?
Mike, those stats will never see the light of day. Just like now, the data is hidden.
When IG Gerald Walpin started to investigate an Obama supporter who allegedly misused some federal money, he was illegally fired.
Not so much as a peep from the Republicans and of course the Democrats could care less.
Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:01 pm“Any company that is “too big to fail” should be referred to the Anti-Trust Division of DoJ.”
That’s one idea. I think we should just give up on the idea that we can break up too big to fail. Plus it may be that we can have a competitive market with some too big to fail firms. So anti-trust shouldn’t be the problem.
imdw (c5488f) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:27 pmGuaranteed imdw’s ideas would involve raising taxes on someone. It cures all.
JD (24e83b) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:41 pmI’m discussing small business lending because that’s what the White House wants to do with this money.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:45 pmIt’s all about fostering dependence I think. And buying votes. Same same.
happyfeet (713679) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:48 pmSarkozy pegged it right. Obama lives in his own virtual reality, not the real world.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:23 pmfeets – They got the college education crap in there for the yute zombie vote.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:24 pmfeets – Plus if the yute zombies bloat the government payroll up some more the good Democrat way they can get their student loans forgiven. The government IS the solution to everything!
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:26 pmThat’s so pernicious.
I find I can’t get through too many days without using that word anymore.
happyfeet (713679) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:57 pmThere is nothing “too big to fail.”
Mismanagement allows it, taxing speeds it along.
When did profit, exactly, become a punishable offense?
Ag80 (1592cc) — 2/2/2010 @ 10:41 pmProgressives: Changing the laws when they become inconvenient to our social agenda.
Steve B (5eacf6) — 2/2/2010 @ 10:48 pm“I’m discussing small business lending because that’s what the White House wants to do with this money.”
Yes I criticized what the Obama admin has proposed here as unfortunate and limited.
“When did profit, exactly, become a punishable offense?”
When taxpayers began to guarantee it.
imdw (1ffec3) — 2/3/2010 @ 2:05 amIf the big banks have repaid their TARP money, why can’t they now make loans to small businesses? and then the government can do what it should have done in the first place, which is to STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE WHOLE FREAKING MESS!
Other than regulating against risky loans, that is. Sorry, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton, et al.
Icy Texan (0c6a85) — 2/3/2010 @ 2:46 amhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/03/big_governments_cronies_100143.html
gives a good example of why TARP shouldn’t be used
and
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/03/obamas_deficits_arent_bushs_fault_100150.html
has a nice easy to understand breakout of where we we are headed with latest budget complete with historical comparisons
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/3/2010 @ 2:57 am#36 Ag80:
The 1970s, following the progression of the 60s.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 2/3/2010 @ 4:40 amI watched an exchange between Senator Judd and one of the President’s money men last nigh about the TARP funds. Judd, who wrote the legislation, pointed out that it requires the government to return any TARP payments to the general fund for debt reduction, and that it would reduce the debt significantly. Obama wants to take that money and give it to community banks. The Obama minion said they’d just change the law (I’m not even sure if they knew that the law required returned TARP funds to reduce debt).
And this is the same administration chastising Republicans and generally acting like a bunch of thugs from Chicago. Oh, wait…
Rochf (ae9c58) — 2/3/2010 @ 8:11 amSomeone with a law degree from Harvard, and a reputation for being the smartest man in the world, should know that when a law uses the term “shall”, as in “TARP funds shall be returned to the general fund for debt reduction”, that it’s mandatory, and can’t just be used as the President’s private piggy bank.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 2/3/2010 @ 8:16 am“The Obama minion said they’d just change the law (I’m not even sure if they knew that the law required returned TARP funds to reduce debt).
And this is the same administration chastising Republicans and generally acting like a bunch of thugs from Chicago. Oh, wait…”
Because they want to change a law?
imdw (e6339b) — 2/3/2010 @ 11:37 amI’m discussing small business lending because that’s what the White House wants to do with this money.
Comment by DRJ — 2/2/2010 @ 7:45 pm
That’s just a cover for funnelling money to ACORN, etc.
AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9) — 2/3/2010 @ 11:52 amAfter all, they’re just “small businesses”.
“…Obama wants to take that money and give it to community banks…”
Comment by Rochf — 2/3/2010 @ 8:11 am
How much you want to bet that “community banks” soon encompasses organizations such as ACORN?
AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9) — 2/3/2010 @ 11:55 am> that “Jobs will be our No. 1 focus in 2010″
So, does this mean that
a) They weren’t the #1 focus for 2009, like they should have been? (I knew this, but let’s make it clear)
b) That we can rest assured that Obamacare IS dead if it’s not relatively easy to pass (and shouldn’t be, after the last 4 months’ events)
> The party of “No” at it again. I bet you guys would still say “no” if Obama offered to resign and go back to Kenya and chase goats. No no no no no no!!
I pretty much think that the GOP would accept a Biden presidency as still managing to be massively preferable to the current abortion of an excuse for one.
So, as far as your contention, if The Big O wants to resign from office, then Yes, He Can.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 2/3/2010 @ 3:43 pmDid anyone else hear that the jobs numbers from 2009 are due to be revised downward to the tune of 800,000+?
JD (17a2b8) — 2/3/2010 @ 4:04 pm