moonbattery logo

Feb 28 2013

Separated at Birth?

nixon-separated  obama-separated

It’s like a Hollywood remake. The same actor is even playing one of the same lead roles. Bob Woodward helped bring down Nixon and is now doing the same for the comparably secretive, unscrupulous, and personality-disordered Barack Hussein Obama.

While the rest of the media recites Administration talking points regarding the sequester dog and pony show, helping the White House overhype it and blame it on Republicans, Woodward was pointing out a week ago that Obama lies when he barks that he did not propose the sequester:

My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of [Jack] Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Commenting on Obama’s unmistakable efforts to squeeze as much damage as possible out of the sequester, so that the public will demand that Republicans accede to still higher taxes,

Woodward said Obama was showing a “kind of madness I haven’t seen in a long time” for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

The last time we were aware of Woodward perceiving madness in the presidency, a resignation to avoid impeachment soon followed.

The Regime is not amused:

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Wednesday he was threatened by a senior Obama administration official following his reporting on the White House’s handling of the forced federal spending cuts set to take effect on Friday.

“They’re not happy at all,” he said on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” adding that an e-mail from a senior administration official — who he would not name — communicated a message which caused him great concern.

“It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this,” he said.

According to a Democrat aware of the situation, Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, sent the email Woodward cited.

This time the plot may veer off on a different course. Journalists hated Nixon for being a Republican, so when Woodward presented them with an opening, they shoved through with great relish and destroyed his presidency. Do they have enough integrity to the same with Obama, who is clearly endangering our national interests for political gain, and whose Fast & Furious, Solyndra, and Benghazi scandals all dwarf Watergate? Or will they remain loyal in their role as Obama’s palace guard and turn on Woodward, suddenly discovering that he is a racist/sexist/homophobe or that he refuses to recycle?

Given the general gutlessness that characterizes this generation, the press will probably opt for a middle course, half-heartedly pretending to be objective but letting the story die as quickly as possible instead of using it as a starting point.

On tips from G. Fox, Xavier, and Conan. Hat tip: Drudge.

58 Responses to “Separated at Birth?”

  1. Jay B. says:

    Don’t hold your breath on it. Woodward managed to destroy Nixon because the press acted like starving dogs on a piece of meat. He could print “Obama needs to be removed” and explain in clear, precise points why and no TV station would air it and the whole media would ignore it.

  2. F.D.R. in Hell says:

    The smile on Lucifer’s face gets wider and wider every day.


  3. StanInTexas says:

    Jay, the attacks are already underway from the compliant media. They are saying Woodward is senile or a right-wing idiot.

    No one eats their own like Liberals!

  4. JDavid says:

    Ah, wonderful fantasies of last-minute reprieve! But Harrison J. Bounel or no Soebarkah, we are now hurtling through the air toward the jagged rocks far below…Rome is being sacked, and momentum is swinging toward the East.

  5. Dr. 9 says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see the MSM turn on Woodward, one of their own, for daring to expose the Marxist-in-Chief as the liar he is.

  6. Xavier says:

    If Woodward has an email from a senior WH official, as he says, it’s undeniable. The fact that Nixon was a Republican helps Woodward because they can’t this as a partisan attack.

    If there are any actual journalists left, they may see this and other slights toward the press as reasons to stop kowtowing to the administration.

    So, how long until Tourette says “Woodward is a racist”?

  7. Flu-Bird says:

    Satan is a card carrying demacratic voter

  8. Dennis Carr says:

    Treasonable acts must be meet with force.. No budget for four years? I have to budget all week long…

  9. BobFailed says:

    How did I know you fools would jump all over this imaginary story? (Because you are all predictable sheeple? hmmm…)

    If you bothered to read the comment in context (context being one of those things, like ‘perspective’, that is a concept apparently beyond you), the ‘regret’ was relating to the factual inaccuracy of the story, rather than Orwellian creepiness.

    The Woodward story is, of course, factually inaccurate. I can show you why (not that any of you are influenced by reality, but why not give it a shot…) Now, you have to have actually read the Woodward story for this to make sense. I’ll wait. Ready? OK.

    So, what is the text of the Sequester?

    “Unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 is enacted by January 15, 2012, the discretionary spending limits listed in section 251(c) shall be revised, and discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be reduced”

    See the part where it says “spending cuts”? (I don’t either. It says “deficit reduction”, which includes (drumroll please) revenue. Pretending Obama ‘moved the goal posts’ is both factually inaccurate, and kinda stupid.

    Woodward is guilty of sensationalism and sloppy journalism. You are guilty of gullibility and shoddy citizenship.

  10. Dennis Carr says:

    Flu-Bird, the word is damocraptic

  11. StanInTexas says:

    Hey, FAILED… Obama did move the goalposts.
    1) He proposed the sequestration.
    2) He threatened to veto ANYTHING that changed or delayed the Sequestration
    3) Republicans joined in support of the Sequestration
    4) Obama then changed his mind to opposed the Sequestration, said it was a terrible idea, and blamed the Republicans for the who thing
    5) The compliant media INSTANTLY starting screaming the Obama line and blaming the Right.

    Even without Woodward, Obama is a coward and a liar!

  12. Comrade J says:

    Even the our resident libtarded troll has received his marching orders. WH is working in overdrive. That thin-skinned, wow. Nice.

    This is a weakness gents. Keep it in mind and use it accordingly.

  13. Henry says:

    To paraphrase Mayor DePasto: If you mention the sequester again, I’ll have your legs broken.

  14. Mr Evilwrench says:

    I do! I see where it says “spending cuts”: “…discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be reduced.” Reduced means cut, right? Or am I using an obsolete dictionary?

  15. DJ says:

    Why would the famous ‘liberal’ journalist, Bob Woodward, attack Dear Leader?

    Answer: Woodward has a giant bug up his ass because Obama chose Hagel for Secretary of Defence. Woodward, with the help of his ‘lib’ friends, will wiggle his way out of this mess he made. If “conservatives” think they’ve found a new friend in Bob Woodward, then I’ve got a bridge or two to sell them.

    That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

  16. Charlotte says:

    Apparently there are OTHERS who have also been threatened by this WH. Oh my! Lanny Davis (former Clinton aide) has also gone on the record stating that he received threatening emails referencing articles he wrote about this WH.

    MY. MY. MY. This incompetent boob POTUS may be toppled by the press? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    No matter how this goes, I am going to enjoy my popcorn!

  17. Flu-Bird says:

    Liberal demacRATS just want to raise our taxes so they can fill their money bins to overflowing

  18. BobFailed says:

    It has always been a terrible idea. A ‘stick’ to provide incentive to replace it with something better. Obama has proposed two replacements, now. Both of which would fulfill the exact, specific requirements to replace the sequester. Both of which the GOP (who lost the election, as I recall) refuse to consider.

    Stand tall for the billionaires, guys. Those plutocrats need your support!

    (PS Evilwrench – dude that is the part about what happens if we don’t replace it. The across the board cuts. I make fun of you people for being illiterate hicks, but I usually am being hyperbolic… maybe in your case you should consider some remedial ed, bud.)

  19. StanInTexas says:

    If Sequestration was “always a terrible idea” then why did Obama propose it and threaten anyone who was against it.

    Typical Liberal, you want to take both sides of every issue and then claim to be the final arbiter of truth and consistency!

  20. BobFailed says:

    No. Fool. Do you not understand this, really???

    The GOP wouldn’t let Obama do anything at all in the first term. There needed be a some way to keep the bills paid (remember the GOP hijacking the political process after they lost the election? You probably don’t, because that is how you work). But regardless, Obama did what needed to be done to prevent a disaster – ‘kicking the can’ as it were.

    Everyone, D and R, agreed that the sequester was a stupid way to go about the goal of deficit reduction. Obama has proposed on two different occasions a solution. Both of which would have closed to deficit gap by more than the ‘sequester’. In both cases, the Tea Party chimps simply said ‘no’ (as if they were given some mandate by losing several elections is a row, or something – and have literally no idea what negotiation is).

    So now, we get a crappy plan, implemented crappily. All because the GOP is willing to go to the mat for people who make more in a day than you will in a dozen lifetimes.

    Way to really keep your eye on the prize. And to make sense, of course… this is going to guarantee more GOP losses for decades to come. Pissing off the middle class is not a real winner in the marketplace of ideas, folks.

  21. Mr Evilwrench says:

    Dude, you said it yourself, that was the text of the sequester which is of course what would happen if it wasn’t replaced. Can’t have it both ways.

    As usual, you and your butt buddy barky can’t see any way to reduce deficits without soaking the people who have earned their money, but then, the state wouldn’t be able to grow, would it?

  22. Xavier says:

    Bob Woodward, with decades of experience and personal relationships with White House staff is much more capable of determining “context” than a random libtard troll.

    The fact that Woodward isn’t a friend of Conservatives only makes his case more convincing.

    And, Lanny Davis. And, Ron Fournier.

    But I’m sure it’s “context” isn’t it?

  23. Xavier says:


    The GOP wouldn’t let Obama do anything first term?


    When the democrats controlled the House and Senate for the first two Honeymoon Years?

    You’re just making shit up to fit your worldview.

  24. BobFailed says:

    Evilwrench, man… ouch. At the beginning of teh excerpt, it says “Unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction

    That is the relevant part. You look at the end, which discussed the consequences if we do not achieve “deficit reduction” .

    Um… are you from Texas? Appalachia? Were you not exposed to any ‘schoolin’ as a child?

    …and yet you pretend to have a valid opinion about politics and you even get to vote. Scary stuff.

  25. StanInTexas says:

    Failed, Obama’s first term? You mean when he had majorities in BOTH houses of Congress for two years? Are those the times you claim that “The Republicans” wouldn’t let him do anything? Is Obama such a pussy that he cannot get his agenda through with control of THE ENTIRE CONGRESS????

    Republicans are ‘obstructionists’ when they oppose Obama, and they are worse when they support him?

    You are a world class IDIOT!

  26. BobFailed says:

    ‘When the democrats controlled the House and Senate for the first two Honeymoon Years?

    You mean when they refused to seat Al Franken and made sure 59 (not 60) D Senators were there, while filibustering literally everything? Oh… facts… sorry guy. I know you don’t ‘do’ facts.

    LEARN STUFF. If you actually believe your positions, you are uninformed. If you don’t, and you are actively just being a goon… well, you are certainly a GOP voter.

  27. Sam Adams says:

    The GOP wouldn’t let Obama do anything at all in the first term.

    So true. Republicans prevented Obama from getting the Stimulus bill through congress. The prevented the passage of ObamaCare. They stopped Dodd-Frank in its tracks. And they made sure that the federal debt wasn’t increased by 5 trillion dollars.

    Yes, indeed, Obama didn’t get anything through during his first term.

    TheBlaze has the full transcript of the e-mail Woodward received. Woodward knows that he was threatened. Access to the WH for his organization was threatened. Maybe some folks will rediscover that journalism includes doing something besides regurgitating government-supplied propaganda.

  28. BobFailed says:

    You are not smart Stan, I know that. But – see if you can follow me here – 59 is smaller than 60. In fact, it is 1 smaller than the number needed to break the constant filibuster.

    Do you not understand things on purpose, or were you dropped as a child?

  29. BobFailed says:

    The GOP gutted stimulus which should have been far larger than it was, they have tried to repeal ObamaCare with every waking moment, they still whine about deficits inherited from W’s wars that he put on a credit card while cutting taxes for the rich (unique in history, that)…

    Look, I don’t care if you actually believe any of the dreck you post. But you need to remember – and here’s the important part – it isn’t based in reality. The GOP is done winning national elections for a long, long time.

  30. Mr Evilwrench says:

    Gotta realize the troll is most likely paid to regurgitate the opinions it’s told to, even if they have cognitive dissonance built in. Can’t say I’ve noticed anyone saying sequestration was a good idea since when barky proposed it, but the plans he came up with after that were worse. I also recall his budget proposals being soundly defeated even by his own party in congress.

    The problem is not that we’re not bringing in enough, it’s that there’s too much going out. Where? Why?

  31. StanInTexas says:

    Faile, you may also notice that 59 is larger that 50, also that 59 IS A MAJORITY!!!!

    Stop trying to convince us how STUPID you are. It is evident to all!

  32. StanInTexas says:

    Mr EW,

    Sequestration was a GREAT idea when Obama proposed it and threatened everyone that he would veto any attempt to stop or modify it. It only became a bad idea and a detriment to the county when Republicans said “If that’s what you want, then OK… Go Ahead”.

    Obama, like our FAILED troll here, wants both sides of this issue.

  33. Xavier says:


    From your beloved Wikipedia: In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency.

    I said control, not supermajority. LEARN THINGS.

  34. Comrade J says:

    Gents, please stop feeding the libtarded troll. The stench of his/her verbal diahrea is getting worse. The retard thinks that repeating BS ad naseum makes it true… Anyway, the peon received his marching orders. Don’t be too harsh on it. It has to make a living somehow.

    On the topic itself. It is interesting to note that the WH is using even the same threats to intimidate the journalists.

    Ron Fournier: Yeah, I Got the Abusive Treatment From the WH and the Same ‘You Will Regret This’ Threat.

    It’s like:
    ‘Ok who’s hogging Axelrod’s manual on bullying the press? Pass it here, I have Ron Fournier and Lanny Davis to intimidate here…”

  35. wingmann says:

    Hey B.F.
    Why no budget from the WH for 5years?

  36. BobFailed says:

    HAHAHAHA yep go back to the made up threats. that is, after all, your stock in trade.

    And damnitall Xavier, ‘control’ does not exist when the minority can impose its will by filibustering everything all the time. See how not being able to enact anything even when a majority of the Senate (and Americans) is teh exact opposite of ‘control’???

    (You don’t. Color me shocked.)

  37. Xavier says:

    The WH says those aren’t threats.

    Let’s get someone to tell WH staff they’re going to regret something they said and see what happens.

  38. StanInTexas says:

    Interesting, when George W. Bush said about countries that harbored terrorists “If you are not for us, you are against us”, Liberals said he was talking to them and it was… wait for it… A THREAT!!!!

    My, what a difference a party makes!

  39. Clingtomyguns says:

    White house threatened Woodward, gee where have we heard the White House threatening anyone else lately:

    “A Gallup official said in an email he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.”

    For Mr. Woodward – “If you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.”

    BobFailed is an abortion of a troll, can’t even make a sensible argument (besides verbatim talking points from MediaMatters), which are pure poppycock, like what’s between Obama’s and BobFailed’s jug ears!

    “White House officials protested the notion of moving the goal posts, since—regardless of the terms of the agreement—revenue increases have always been part of Obama’s negotiating position on budget issues.”

    Notice the report says “regardless of the terms of the agreement” That is, Obama’s team doesn’t even try to argue the the sequester act calls for any revenue increases, so the argument shifts to, oh, well, but revenue increases were always part of Obama’s negotiation position. That and 5 cents will get Obama a cup of jack squat. Who cares about Obama’s negotiation position, both sides had their own, and then the agreement was reached – now Obama’s miscalculation on the Republican’s resolve has (up to now, unless the RINO’s cave) proven to be wrong, the roaches are scurrying for cover.

    Why is the WH and MSM running around scared sh#tless on the mere fact that Obama is attempting to move the goal posts – the whole thing was a miscalculation that the Republicans would blink and give in on defense cuts.

    “What Woodward shows is that the White House mistakenly thought that Republicans could never stomach cuts to the Defense Department, which constitute half of the reductions in the sequester.

    This was a terrible misreading of the Tea Party-infused GOP. They care about shrinking the government, even if that means taking the cleaver to cherished parts of the budget.”

  40. Sam Adams says:

    Failed, like most liberals, will engage in personal insults and ad hominems as a means to try and win his arguments.

    Here’s the problem. The US government, by design, is slow, difficult to change, and provides many hurdles to enact new laws. Liberals now hate that; they embraced that while they were in the minority because they didn’t want bible quoting, gun-toting conservatives passing a bunch of laws that the liberals didn’t favor.

    Now that they are in a majority, crocodile tears because Dear Leader can’t just wave his magic wand and make it so.

    BTW, Failed….how big should the stimulus have been? Two trillion? Four? Eight? Any concern about what all that money should be used for?

    Dear Leader’s best buddy, Ben Bernanke is printing all sorts of new money to stimulate the economy. Where’s all that money going? To Dear Leader’s friends in Wall Street. Liberals can talk all they want about millionaires and billionaires. They are the folks who support giving government welfare to the rich folks. They piss on the working man, and make it as difficult as possible for someone who isn’t working to join the working class.

  41. MicahStone says:

    Woodward committed an ACT OF TRUTH in the era of leftist-biased, corrupt, socialist, state-controlled media. He must pay for that! (Look for a drone attack, OBOZOCARE Death Panel ruling against him, an IRS audit, etc., etc., etc.)

  42. Tax Slave says:

    I can’t believe you would insult Nixon so badly by comparing him to President for Life 0’Bama! When the truth came out, Nixon had the grace to resign rather than bring about a constitutional crisis. Just like he had the grace to concede after JFK and his goons stole his first presidential election.

  43. JustTheFacts says:

    “They are the folks who support giving government welfare to the rich folks. They piss on the working man, and make it as difficult as possible for someone who isn’t working to join the working class.”


    W starts unfunded wars, wasting trillions of $s while simultaneously cutting taxes for the rich – massively. That was great for our budget… right? More recently, His Mittness runs his mouth about ‘closing loopholes’ anytime there is a camera within 500 yards. Obama wins… so nowloopholes are sacrosanct? Yeah. Of course.

    The middle class and especially the poorest Americans (who are hardly the GOP voting subset to begin with) are never going to vote for the party of “screw yourself, I got mine and don’t care about you”. Which is exactly the cards you appear to be playing. No closing loopholes to maintain things like early childhood education (slash that shit to bits) or healthcare for the poor (they are poor; die already… right?) but certainly never ask a billionaire to pay exactly the rate I pay. That would be socialism!

    Love to see the GOP committing suicide… but feel bad for the folks you are gonna screw over while you do it. Oh well.

  44. Tatersalad says:

    A third person has now just come forward also saying they were threatened by the White House:

    #1. Bob Woodward
    #2. Lanny Davis
    #3. Ron Fournier

  45. DJ says:

    “Love to see the GOP committing suicide…”

    I do too except my reasons are entirely different than yours.


    The American Traditionalist Society

    a primer:

  46. JustTheFacts says:

    Ah ha. Well, DJ at least knows what he wants (the 1800s)… good luck with that, guy.

    The times, they are a-changin. As they do. Cling to the past all you like, but know that it is never coming back.

  47. M.Wilson says:

    To those blaming Bush’s tax cuts for the deficit:

    During the period affected by Bush’s tax cuts, government revenue has risen dramatically. In fact, at no point during this entire budget circus have we had any shortage or reduction of revenue.

    Spending, however, has increased far more rapidly than ever before. The increase in government spending vastly outstrips the increase in revenue, which in turn is outstripping GDP growth. That’s right, even during the “evil Bush tax cuts”, government revenue grew faster than GDP. And your solution is to raise it even more? What percent of GDP is enough for you?

    The problem is that net government spending has not been cut since 1953. We don’t have to go back that far though, if we simply spent the same amount we did in 2004 (right after those two $0.2 trillion wars that you blame for a $1.4 trillion deficit started) we would have a surplus, revenue has risen that much since then.

    Where is all the money going? It turns out welfare spending is more than total government revenue. Once the politicians are done buying votes, they don’t have money left for anything else!

  48. DJ says:

    Dubya was an unmitigated disaster.

    Dubya wrought more damage to the economy than Obama; but Obama’s trying his best to outdo him. Not only did Dubya double the National debt, he saddled us with > 20 trillion (and rising) in unfunded liabilities via the prescription drug plan….not to mention his failed foreign policy i.e. the unnecessary war in Iraq (arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history) coupled with the failed nation building mission in Afghanistan. Oh and let’s not forget Dubya gleefully presiding over a wide open Southern border in which he allowed >10 million third world peasants to invade then colonize the South-west and elsewhere. Last but not least: Dubya ruined the G.O.P. brand thus paving the way for the skinny socialist that now occupies the WH. Actually I could go on and on …. bottom line: I spit on the “compassionate conservative”!

  49. Sam Adams says:

    The middle class and especially the poorest Americans (who are hardly the GOP voting subset to begin with) are never going to vote for the party of “screw yourself, I got mine and don’t care about you”

    The middle class largely believes the seven leftist news programs that present propaganda daily in support of the leftist agenda. Fox News presents only slightly less of that propaganda.

    What has Obama done to provide jobs for young blacks? Nothing. Every government contract for over $1,000,000 was mandated to go to companies that employed union labor. Black contractors don’t employ union labor.

    Obama, however, has been successful in shutting down a number of coal powered plants before their time, making electricity more expensive for everyone, but most particularly for the poor. He has funneled green energy and stimulus money to his rich donors…folks who already have a lot of money.

    George Bush hasn’t been president for 4.25 years now. Man up and accept that Obama has created the Great Recession. People in small business know that Obama and his regulations have been killing as many jobs as possible. It is the unions, and Obama-favored companies that, for example, are exempted from ObamaCare regulations. He is the Fascist in Chief.

  50. DJ says:

    JustTheFacts says:

    February 28, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    Ah ha. Well, DJ at least knows what he wants (the 1800s)… good luck with that, guy.

    The times, they are a-changin. As they do. Cling to the past all you like, but know that it is never coming back.

    Don’t be so sure of yourself, guy. Liberalism has in itself the seeds of its own destruction. The 1800s could very well visit itself upon us given certain inevitable circumstances.

  51. DJ says:

    What has Obama done to provide jobs for young blacks?


    Joy upon joy! Sam Adams displays himself as a typical “conservative”!

    Fuck, I hate soi-disant “conservatives”!

  52. benjamin harrison says:

    Does anybody believe this Sperling nobody was acting without higher level approval?Jarrett is all over this one.

  53. M.Wilson says:

    You see something wrong with pointing out that the Democrats’ policies cause the greatest harm to those they proclaim most loudly to help?

  54. Sam Adams says:

    DJ says:
    February 28, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    What has Obama done to provide jobs for young blacks?

    Obama believes he has the ability to create jobs. He claims to have created something like 4 million jobs since the depth of the Great Recession.

    It is useless to explain to liberals that the government does not create jobs. What is useful is to point to the failure of their own theories. If Obama has actually created millions of jobs, why not create them for “his people.” If Obama had a son, he would look like any other unemployed black teen.

    * It is kind of like fighting a war with a bunch of religious zealots. They may believe that if they bury me with a pig, that I will not have a good afterlife. I don’t believe that, therefore, they can bury me with as many pigs as they like, assuming they could kill me.

    They, on the other hand, believe that if they are buried with a pig, it will lead to a bad afterlife for them. Therefore, even though I don’t believe in its effectiveness, why wouldn’t I bury all of them with pigs? It their beliefs, no my beliefs, that are in play and should be used against them.

  55. DJ says:

    “Obama believes he has the ability to create jobs. He claims to have created something like 4 million jobs since the depth of the Great Recession.

    It is useless to explain to liberals that the government does not create jobs.”


    Obama could have very well saved 4 million government jobs via deficit spending but his policies are wealth destroyers not wealth creation. That said,the way I see it is the Republican are just as liberal as the Dems. Moreover the Republicans are more culpable than the Dems in causing this economic quicksand we find ourselves in. Not much more culpable mind you, but more culpable never-the-less. I say that because it was bleeding heart Republican libs such as Jack Kemp and G.W. Bush et al (working in concert with Dem libs) that advanced the notion that everyone should be a homeowner; furthermore, they prouldy and loudly proclaimed minorities especially should be helped into home ownership. Well, over the course of a decade those policies caused the housing bubble which in turn produced the mortgage backed securities JUNK. Of course all bubbles must burst and when the housing bubble burst in 2008 is plunged us into the economic reality we are now experiencing: wealth confiscation and redistribution via the Fed buying 85 billion worth of Treasury Bonds per month in order to prop this house of cards up. Of course that can’t continue forever; so what happens when the USD is devalued by 50% over the next 4 or 5 years? I don;t foresee any real increase in wealth creation over what we have now. I think the USA is going full speed ahead on course into the perfect storm…and both major parties are at the helm.

  56. […] Never mind that the sequester came out of Obama’s White House. […]

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy