One of the most important parts of the speech was MISSED by every news outlet that I know of…

Obama:

I've said that we've got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy."

In this statement Obama admits that clean energy is NOT CURRENTLY PROFITABLE.

Does this mean that the Cap-and-Trade initiative is going to cause conventional energy prices to go up? The answer is YES Cap-and-Trade will cause conventional energy prices to spike at a ridiculous rate. It's like cigarettes, you tax it out of existence. It's o.k. though, now cigar prices are competitive with cigarette prices. The tax on cigarettes has not decreased the number of smokers, it will just curb what they are smoking. When it comes to power; people don't have the option to quit, we just have to pay higher energy prices. I thought Obama was looking out for the little guy here.

There are a few other things that most people heard, but didn't notice. One of the most interesting things I noticed was Obama’s use of the word SPEND. You will notice that SPEND is used as a negative term. While INVEST is used as a positive term.

Here are some of the examples of Obama’s use of the word SPEND.

Obama:

But given the problems that the financial bailout program has had so far -- banks not wanting to talk about how they're spending the money, the AIG bonuses that you mentioned -- why do you think the public should sign on for another new sweeping authority for the government to take over companies, essentially?

And -- and so what we're trying to emphasize is, let's make sure that we're making the investments that we need to grow to meet those growth targets, at the same time we're still reducing the deficit by a couple of trillion dollars, we are cutting out wasteful spending in areas like Medicare, we're changing procurement practices when it comes to the Pentagon budget, we are looking at social service programs and education programs that don't work and eliminate them.

Now observe Obama’s use of the word INVEST.

Obama:

It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.

We invest in reform that will bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses and our government.

But it is -- it is going to be an impossible task for us to balance our budget if we're not taking on rising health care costs, and it's going to be an impossible task to balance our budget or even approximate it if we are not boosting our growth rates. And -- and that's why our budget focuses on the investments we need to make that happen.

And so what we've said is, look, let's invest in health information technologies.

See the difference? The truth, on the other hand, is the only way for any government to “invest” is to spend money. Funny how that works, isn’t it? We are currently borrowing and spending. Show me where the government is saving anything!

Note: You DO NOT have to register to leave a comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032401310.html?hpid=topnews

"The issue of excessive compensation extends beyond AIG and requires reform of the system of incentives and compensation in the financial sector," Geithner said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/geithner.powers/index.html

"To achieve that goal, the administration and Congress have to work together to enact comprehensive regulatory reform and eliminate gaps in supervision. All institutions and markets that could pose systemic risk will be subject to strong oversight, including appropriate constraints on risk-taking."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/24/politics/washingtonpost/main4887935.shtml?source=related_story

The Obama administration will ask Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said this morning.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

"We need resolution authority to go in and be able to change contracts, be able to change the business model, unwind what doesn't work," Gibbs said on CNN in one of several morning television interviews aimed at promoting the administration proposal. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

United States Constitution:

Article I
Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

I wonder how long it will be before Obama is crowned King of The United States? Obama and his administration have shown that they have absolutely no respect for The Constitution of The United States.

I also wonder how long it will be before the government nationalizes General Motors? I warned of this a while back...

Obama creating auto industry government takeover panel

Note: You DO NOT have to register to leave a comment.

It's evident that Obama is incapable of speaking without the teleprompter. So far without the teleprompter he has made an ass out of himself. His latest gaff, exemplified on the Tonight Show, with Jay Leno. While on the Tonight Show Obama likened his bowling skills to that of the Special Olympics.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7129997&page=1

"I bowled a 129," he told Leno.

"That's very good, Mr. President," Leno said sarcastically.

But then came the foot-in-mouth moment: "It's like the Special Olympics or something," the president said.

If only the teleprompter were there. Now the teleprompter has a chance to voice it's own opinion!

This is brilliant, I love it!

http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/

Note: You DO NOT have to register to leave a comment.

Most people didn't know that Timothy Geithner crafted some of the legislation dealing with the AIG bailout. Remember Timothy Geithner was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, from 2003-2009. Geithner is now the current United States Secretary of the Treasury.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20080916a.htm

Federal Reserve Press Release
Release Date: September 16, 2008
For release at 9:00 p.m. EDT

The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday, with the full support of the Treasury Department, authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend up to $85 billion to the American International Group (AIG) under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The secured loan has terms and conditions designed to protect the interests of the U.S. government and taxpayers.

The Board determined that, in current circumstances, a disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility and lead to substantially higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth, and materially weaker economic performance.

The purpose of this liquidity facility is to assist AIG in meeting its obligations as they come due. This loan will facilitate a process under which AIG will sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner, with the least possible disruption to the overall economy.

Why is Geithner attacking AIG along with members of Congress? I guess they didn't know where the money was going either!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fi-aig-taxes18-2009mar18,0,3110160.story

March 17, 2009

"Two weeks ago, the president's spokesman said that they were confident that they knew how every dime was being spent at AIG," House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R- Ohio) said this morning.

"Well clearly, they didn't know what they were talking about," he said. "I think this is outrageous, and I think the American people are rightly outraged that their tax money is going to pay bonuses to the very people that got this company in trouble."

At least one Republican is saying something.

UPDATE:
Apparently the administration did know about the bonuses long ahead of time. This comes after many members of Congress had attempted to "run" from this.

Here is a link to the AIG 2008 Employee Retention Plan:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aig/bonus-retention-plan2008.html

Note: You DO NOT have to register to leave a comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/16/AIG.bonuses/index.html

Obama on AIG:

"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed." Obama told politicians and reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, where he and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner were unveiling a package to aid the nation's small businesses.

"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

"All across the country, there are people who are working hard and meeting their responsibilities every single day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses. You've got a bunch of small-business people here who are struggling just to keep their credit line open."

"And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules. That is an ethic that we have to demand."

How is what AIG doing any different than the members of congress voting themselves a pay increase in the Omnibus Bill?

After all the Congressional oversight committee for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was made up of mostly of the people who are now pointing the finger at the private sector.

What happened when the Republicans tried to pass legislation to create a new oversight committee for Fannie and Freddie? Remember these same people who are crying now were warned by many Republican members of Congress, and The Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

2005:

Congressmen Barney Frank(D-MA), Now chairmen of the house financial services committee:

"...The more people exaggerate, in my judgment, the threat of safety and soundness. The more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see - I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. And even if there were a problem the federal government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there - then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.

Senator Charles Schumer(D-NY), Senate Banking Committee Hearing 2005:

"...I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done a incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they've done a very, very good job."

Greenspan has this to say, after Fannie and Freddie leaders admit major accounting errors. 02/17/2005:

"...Enabling these institutions to increase in size- and they will once the crisis in government passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk".

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve warned these same people in 2005 that a disaster was in the making!

So who is it that is getting rewarded for failure? AIG had already entered these contracts long before the bailout money was awarded. AIG is simply trying to avoid a series of lawsuits.

Why do the members of the private sector get scrutinized for their actions, but the members of Congress get a free pass? What is the message here? corporations are evil, but government is good? Why do people automatically think that members of government always have the people's best interest at heart? I think it's clear here that the opposite is true. This is a deliberate effort to demonize the private sector, and focus attention away from the - just signed - Omnibus Bill with 8,500 earmarks.

Note: You DO NOT have to register to leave a comment.