First, we have the home mortgage borrowers, high risk-taking insurance giants, and the poorly-run auto makers.  Now, it’s the people who run up their credit cards and fail to pay them off.

And guess who pays for it?  The fiscally responsible.

Now that Congress is making it “fair” for people with massive credit card debt, allowing them to avoid high interest rates, the folks who use credit cards responsibly will help pay for it.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

Yeah, that’s fair.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be fiscally responsible in this culture?  It’s hard.  You go without.  Not only that, but you go without while everyone else gets lots of stuff you wish you had.  It takes discipline and sacrifice.  But you do it because it is the right thing to do and you will be better off in the long run.

Until the government comes along with its bailouts and regulations and you end up paying for other people’s lack of responsibility.

Awesome.

What ever happened to rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior?

See what I mean?  Backward world.

One day, he was talking about the Obama personal finance plan, or something like that.  He said that you should not try to get your spending under control, but continue to spend beyond your means and put everything on credit, max out your credit cards, take out loans, etc.

It was a joke, obviously, based on the fact that President Obama is borrowing against our country’s future to fund massive government spending.

I don’t think Rush has any idea how close he was to the real Obama family finance history.

In April 1999, they purchased a Chicago condo and obtained a mortgage for $159,250. In May 1999, they took out a line of credit for $20,750. Then, in 2002, they refinanced the condo with a $210,000 mortgage, which means they took out about $50,000 in equity. Finally, in 2004, they took out another line of credit for $100,000 on top of the mortgage.

Tax returns for 2004 reveal $14,395 in mortgage deductions. If we assume an effective interest rate of 6%, then they owed about $240,000 on a home they purchased for about $159,250.

This means they spent perhaps $80,000 beyond their income from 1999 to 2004.

The Obama’s adjusted gross income averaged $257,000 from 2000 to 2004. This is above the threshold of $250,000 which Obama initially used as the definition of being “rich” for taxation purposes during last year’s election campaign.

The Obama family apparently had little or no savings during this period since there was virtually no taxable interest shown on their tax returns.

No wonder he wants us all to bail out deadbeat mortgagees.  Apparently, he sees nothing wrong with borrowing beyond your means.

For perspective, last year, Debt Day fell on August 5.  It was September 9 the year before that.

The fiscal year ends September 30.

Imagine if you already spent all of your salary and, for the next five months, you had to put all of your spending – living expenses and everything – on a credit card or take out a loan to pay for it.

Sounds like a bad idea, doesn’t it?

Here’s a look at the crowd, via video.  I have to warn you, it is a little shaky.  I was trying to navigate my way through the crowd, without saying “excuse me” on camera.

No word yet on the turn out in Rutland, where Tea Party participation was expected to be even greater.

I put together a little montage of the protest signs, in case you missed it.

The event will be taking place on the State House lawn from noon – 2:00.

From the facebook page:

Matt Cropp, of VT Campaign For Liberty, American Socialism for the Rich and the Bank Users Strike Team will talk about credit unions and how they benefit users and the communities they serve.

Jim Hogue, blogger, farmer and radio host will be discussing the Federal Reserve and how this private banking cartel took control of the American Taxpayer.

Stewart Skrill, farmer and former VT and US House of Reps. candidate, will be speaking about the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Vermonters For Economic Health will also be providing us a speaker.

Please bring at least 3 tea bags with you to the rally. We will have 3 crates set up near the Federal building in which you should deposit your tea bags. The crates will then be delivered to the offices of Rep. Welch and Sens. Leahy and Sanders. I am asking for volunteers who would be willing to make these deliveries (especially to Welch as his office is in Burlington).

**UPDATES**
Be sure to pack a lunch and bring a blanket or chairs to sit on. There is no vending on the State House Lawn, though the cafeteria will be open. Again, this is a peaceful, family-friendly event. No pets allowed unless they are service animals.

Vermonters For Economic Health will be making a presentation “Vermont’s Unsustainable Future” immediately following the Tea Party at 2pm in the AIV conference room. This presentation is free and open to the public. Having seen this presentation before I highly recommend making time to attend. For more information please visit http://www.vermontersforeconomichealth.org/

The “We The People” Food drive at the Tea Party will benefit the Salavation Army Emergency Food Shelf. TJ Michael’s will be helping me coordinate this effort. Please make sure to bring a non-perishable food item.

Again, we have a website www.vermontteaparty.com and comments can be made at this site: www.taxdayteaparty.com/vermont

And don’t forget– the Legislature is in session! Be sure to allow time for yourself to stop in and say hello. Let your Representatives and Senators know where you stand!

Hope to see you there!

(Except you, Ryan.)

There are tea parties planned all over the US for tax day, April 15.  Take a look at this map.  It takes a few seconds to load, but when it does the map shows flags indicating everywhere there will be a tea party.

I’m not so crazy about the name, but I think it’s a good idea for people to get together and let the government know that it is not on the right track.  We do not want enormous debt, expanded government powers, and loss of freedom.

There will be tea parties in Montpelier and Rutland on the 15th.  More info on the Vermont tea parties here.

I’ll be at the Montpelier event.

You can find out about tea parties in other states at taxdayteaparty.com.

And they don’t intend to let the AIG crisis pass without using it to justify expanding the powers of the federal government.

“Our system failed in fundamental ways.  To address this will require comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”

So said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner before the House Financial Services Committee.

“The days of light-touch regulation are over,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank said the financial and economic catastrophes of the last 18 months had created a new political consensus in favor of tighter financial supervision. Mr. Frank said he hoped to pass a bill “very soon” to give the federal government “resolution authority” to seize control, restructure and shut down troubled financial institutions.

The public has been worked up into a frenzied outrage over the AIG retention bonuses, resulting in protests and death threats, and is waiting for the government to remedy the injustice.

What a perfect opportunity to expand government’s power.

Even President Obama has expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses.

As it turns out, it was the Obama administration itself that requested language in an amendment that would allow for these bonuses to be paid after the company received a government bailout.

But we don’t know who knew what, and Treasury Secretary Geithner has already been caught lying about the matter to Congress.

Then we find out that some of the people getting these bonuses – people who were not involved with the credit default swaps that caused the crisis at AIG – have been putting in 14 hour days for no pay, despite other offers from more stable companies, with the understanding that these bonuses would come.

Don’t expect the mob to care.  It’s time to hate the rich.  They deserve whatever happens to them.  They are greedy and responsible for all of your problems.

We’re in the middle of a crisis!

And you can be sure that your government will not waste it.

Ironic, isn’t it?  That was what the left criticized Bush for, yet they managed to outdo him within a matter of weeks.

Well, we can laugh or we can cry.  It’s Friday, for Pete’s sake, let’s laugh.  There will be plenty of time to cry, I assure you.

Iowahawk has a fake news story, “MATHEMATICIANS DISCOVER LARGEST NUMBER.”

PALO ALTO, CA – An international mathematics research team announced today that they had discovered a new integer that surpasses any previously known value “by a totally mindblowing shitload.” Project director Yujin Xiao of Stanford University said the theoretical number, dubbed a “stimulus,” could lead to breakthroughs in fields as diverse as astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and Chicago asphalt contracting.

“Unlike previous large numbers like the Googleplex or the Bazillionty, the Stimulus has no static numerical definition,” said Xiao. “It keeps growing and growing, compounding factorially, eating up all zeros in its path. It moves freely across Cartesian dimensions and has the power to make any other number irrational.”

It’s funny, yet no so funny.

(And what’s with the math nerd theme today?)

If you have any other stimulus-related humor, by all means, share it.

[The] START plan is a $170 billion “bare bones” pure stimulus approach that would put $100 billion immediately into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans, then use the other $70 billion for basic infrastructure projects that create jobs. START requires that all funds not spent by 2010 be returned to the Treasury. START also stops stimulus spending when the nation’s Gross Domestic Product increases in two of three previous quarters, and all START payments are required to be posted on a public website.

Ooh, transparent, too.

Fat chance we would ever see anything like this pass.  There’s no pork, no expansion of government power, no liberal agenda attached to it.

I have a serious question, though.  Shouldn’t the issues like health care, energy, and education that were crammed into the stimulus bill, be discussed separately?  Are these issues not important enough to warrant their own bills, debates, and votes?

Is this what America voted for?

Speaking of what America voted for, remember candidate Obama’s big tax cut for 95% of Americans?  Well, here it is.

It would begin showing up in most workers’ paychecks in June as an extra $13 a week in take-home pay, falling to about $8 a week next January.

Was that what America voted for?

Here’s something you can spend it on, via this post on Wizbang.

Thanks to the wonders of the amazing internet workers, I was able to find a YouTube clip of the segment I saw.

NPR’s Mara Liasson asked the President what he learned from the stimulus bill process.  Knowing that he will need true bi-partisan support – not just 3 Republicans in the Senate, none in the House – for meaningful reforms to health care, energy, and entitlement programs, what does he think he will need to do to get bi-partisan support?

First, he blames Republicans for this highly partisan bill.

“Old habits are hard to break.”

“People want to test the limits of what they can get.”

“…positioning for the next election.”

Then, he claims that Republicans were brought in and consulted.  (They were, but they were also ignored and told, “I won,” by the President.)

The money quote, the line that is the very quintessence of Obama’s attitude toward bipartisanship, comes at about 2:07.

Let me set it up.  He says that when the Republicans were brought in they liked the tax cuts that were in there and those tax cuts are still in there.  Apparently, that is what he considers “bipartisan” – when the other party doesn’t hate everything in the bill your party wrote.

Then he says,

“I suppose what I could have done was started off with no tax cuts, knowing that I was going to want some, and let them take credit for all of them.  Maybe that’s the lesson I learned.”

That’s what he has learned about how to create a bipartisan solution to tough problems?  Leave out things he wants that the Republicans would like, then put them in to make them think he was actually listening to them and taking their concerns – and the concerns of those who elected them – seriously?

But to get these important things done that Liasson asked about, it’s only the Republicans who need to “break out of ideological rigidity.”  Yeah, okay.

I have no problem with President Obama and the Democrats using their power to do what they want to do, without consideration for bipartisanship.  They won the election.  It’s their prerogative.

What I do have a problem with is this pretense of bipartisanship.  The continued claims that this is a bipartisan effort, if only the Republicans would stop playing political games.

This is not a bipartisan bill.  It was written by the Democrats and contains Democratic spending priorities.  Even the tax cuts are limited to the ones that the Democrats wanted.

If President Obama really believes that this bill is the right thing to do for the economy, then he should have no problem taking full ownership of it.

At least when President Bush did something without deference to bipartisanship, he would admit that and accept the responsibility that comes with making a tough decision.

I really never thought I would miss the Decider as much as I do.

Ed Morrissey has more on the press conference, with the two lies and misunderstanding/rewriting of history therein.