This information is so useful. We tend not to think of
Congress as much as we should.
This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.
Some people aren't aware of all of this. Don't just skim over this, please read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.
The day the democrats took over was not January 22, 2009, it was actually January 3, 2007... the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the House. At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of
JOB GROWTH!
Remember the day... January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate
Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part
of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
OBAMA.
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.
So when someone tries to blame Bush..
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009, as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Do you remember January 3, 2007?
If you don't like G.W. Bush, you probably will declare that the following is wrong! This is a history lesson, so bear with me. Don't be afraid of the truth. Nothing we do can change the facts listed here!
The day the Democrats took over was not January 20, 2009 (Obama's first day as president, officially). It was actually January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
If you believe the fallacy that everything is "George Bush's Fault", think about this:
On January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took control of Congress:
· The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
· The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
· The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
· George Bush's Economic policies had set a record of 52 straight months of job creation!
January 3rd, 2007 was the day Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in the Banking and Financial Services part of the economy. THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney Frank), for taking us from 13,000 DOW, a GDP growth of 3.5%, and 4.6% unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping $5-6 trillion of toxic loans on the economy from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascos, plus many other toxic decisions! By-the-Way: Bush asked Congress 17 times to put the brakes on Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (but...the sky did fall).
Who benefitted from the melt down? Who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? - Obama! And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? Obama and the Democrat Congress, especially Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Schumer! They played the 'race card' over and over during hearings.
So when someone tries to blame Bush: Remember 1/03/2007 - the day the DEMOCRATS took over Congress. President Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel while they were driving the economy into the ditch. Budgets are not passed in the White House. They are passed by Congress. The party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. Senator Reid has stopped all budget votes, and Obama has now gone over 1000 days without a budget. He is still blaming it on the Republicans! In that first year, 2007, Congress had to contend with President George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending when Bush got tough on spending increases, albeit belatedly. However, for fiscal year 2009 Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed the lame duck President Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill. Where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of those massive spending bills, and as President he signed the omnibus bill to complete 2009.
Remember what the deficits looked like during that period. The Democrats inherited the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest it had been in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending (even with the country fighting a war). After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the bills. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself and a Democratic Congress.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is: "I inherited a deficit that I voted for." He then expanded that deficit four-fold since January 20, 2009. Obama has grown the deficit more than any other president, ever - more than all the others combined. There is no way this will be widely publicized unless each of us teaches others!
"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
The day the Democrats took over was not January 20, 2009 (Obama's first day as president, officially). It was actually January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
If you believe the fallacy that everything is "George Bush's Fault", think about this:
On January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took control of Congress:
· The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
· The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
· The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
· George Bush's Economic policies had set a record of 52 straight months of job creation!
January 3rd, 2007 was the day Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in the Banking and Financial Services part of the economy. THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney Frank), for taking us from 13,000 DOW, a GDP growth of 3.5%, and 4.6% unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping $5-6 trillion of toxic loans on the economy from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascos, plus many other toxic decisions! By-the-Way: Bush asked Congress 17 times to put the brakes on Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (but...the sky did fall).
Who benefitted from the melt down? Who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? - Obama! And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? Obama and the Democrat Congress, especially Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Schumer! They played the 'race card' over and over during hearings.
So when someone tries to blame Bush: Remember 1/03/2007 - the day the DEMOCRATS took over Congress. President Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel while they were driving the economy into the ditch. Budgets are not passed in the White House. They are passed by Congress. The party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. Senator Reid has stopped all budget votes, and Obama has now gone over 1000 days without a budget. He is still blaming it on the Republicans! In that first year, 2007, Congress had to contend with President George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending when Bush got tough on spending increases, albeit belatedly. However, for fiscal year 2009 Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed the lame duck President Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill. Where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of those massive spending bills, and as President he signed the omnibus bill to complete 2009.
Remember what the deficits looked like during that period. The Democrats inherited the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest it had been in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending (even with the country fighting a war). After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the bills. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself and a Democratic Congress.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is: "I inherited a deficit that I voted for." He then expanded that deficit four-fold since January 20, 2009. Obama has grown the deficit more than any other president, ever - more than all the others combined. There is no way this will be widely publicized unless each of us teaches others!
"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Senator Merkel loves us, he truly loves us!
If you live in Oregon you may have received a campaign letter from Oregon's U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley in which he puffed that he was a co-sponsor for the 'Buffett Rule'. Don't know if you have read it, but I am sorry to say almost nothing he said can be believed. I am not sure if the Senator is really as ignorant as the letter portrays. According to the letter, Warren Buffett wonders why he pays less taxes than his secretary; but we know that Mr. Buffett fights to pay as little as possible. By 'Buffett Rule' did Senator Merkley mean we can now all refuse to pay our taxes for ten years? Did he expect us to believe that if Warren Buffett had actually taken a salary instead of capital gains he wouldn't have to pay the same or higher tax rates as his poor abused secretary? Or if she was paid by means of investments and got paid by capital gains that she wouldn't pay the same capital gains tax rate as Buffett? His characterizations are dishonest. Even the CBO acknowledges taxing the dickens out of the 'millionaires, etc." will bring in a pittance. Saying, "every little bit helps" becomes a silly childish comeback.
Some of the Senator's statements are false and misleading. For example, he said, "When we make decisions about our budget, we also make a statement about our values as a nation... do we protect Social Security and Medicare, invest in our infrastructure, and give our children the skills they need in a 21st century economy?" What a load. His statements show his values - dishonesty. Senator Merkley, Harry Reid, Nancy Pilosi, and the president have done nothing to 'Protect Social Security and Medicare'. Senator Merkley, and the rest of the Democrats, refuse to acknowledge that SS is in financial trouble, e.g., there is no lock-box; there is no money in the system, it has all been borrowed to finance failed Democratic boondoggles. In fact, this week (week of 23-Apr) a report by the trustees indicates Social Security fund will totally defunct three years sooner than anyone thought. The Senator voted for Obamacare, which steals $500 billion from Medicare to finance, in part, the death panels. Obama has also proposed to take another similar amount for more profligate spending.
Another interesting tidbit: Obamacare destroys the 'Medicare Advantage' supplemental insurance program beginning in January 2013. However, since senior citizens must decide on how they will pay for supplemental insurance in October, Obama is illegally taking over $8 billion from the HHS budget to fool seniors into thinking there is no problem. Almost everyone under 65 years old probably doesn't give a rip about this - but they should. Rather looking out for senior citizens, the Democrats are attacking us. They can't get rid of us in one fell swoop, so are going to nibble us to death, with painful little cuts. And yet, Senator Merkley and Obama will expect us to be thankful. "Please, sir. Can I have some more?"
***
Excerpts from the Senator's campaign letter follows:
"This week, the U.S. Senate had the opportunity to make sure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes. Inspired by billionaire investor Warren Buffett – who rightly asked why he should pay a lower tax rate than his secretary – President Obama proposed the much-needed "Buffett Rule."
"This rule would ensure that millionaires and billionaires cannot use loopholes and special exceptions to pay a lower tax rate on their income than hardworking middle class families. It would do so by closing loopholes for those earning more than $1 million, scaling up to an effective minimum tax rate of 30% for households earning more than $2 million.
"As a cosponsor of this legislation, I was very glad that the Senate scheduled time to debate and vote on it this week. Unfortunately, a minority of senators filibustered the motion to begin debate on the legislation. I am deeply disappointed that the Senate could not even debate this common-sense bill.
"When we make decisions about our budget, we also make a statement about our values as a nation. Are we a nation that showers millionaires and billionaires with handouts they don't need? Or do we protect Social Security and Medicare, invest in our infrastructure, and give our children the skills they need in a 21st century economy?
"With so many in our society making sacrifices to get by, I do not believe our federal government should be using its limited resources to pad the wallets of the most affluent, which is exactly what our current tax system does. Please know that I will keep fighting for a fairer and more fiscally responsible tax system."
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Some of the Senator's statements are false and misleading. For example, he said, "When we make decisions about our budget, we also make a statement about our values as a nation... do we protect Social Security and Medicare, invest in our infrastructure, and give our children the skills they need in a 21st century economy?" What a load. His statements show his values - dishonesty. Senator Merkley, Harry Reid, Nancy Pilosi, and the president have done nothing to 'Protect Social Security and Medicare'. Senator Merkley, and the rest of the Democrats, refuse to acknowledge that SS is in financial trouble, e.g., there is no lock-box; there is no money in the system, it has all been borrowed to finance failed Democratic boondoggles. In fact, this week (week of 23-Apr) a report by the trustees indicates Social Security fund will totally defunct three years sooner than anyone thought. The Senator voted for Obamacare, which steals $500 billion from Medicare to finance, in part, the death panels. Obama has also proposed to take another similar amount for more profligate spending.
Another interesting tidbit: Obamacare destroys the 'Medicare Advantage' supplemental insurance program beginning in January 2013. However, since senior citizens must decide on how they will pay for supplemental insurance in October, Obama is illegally taking over $8 billion from the HHS budget to fool seniors into thinking there is no problem. Almost everyone under 65 years old probably doesn't give a rip about this - but they should. Rather looking out for senior citizens, the Democrats are attacking us. They can't get rid of us in one fell swoop, so are going to nibble us to death, with painful little cuts. And yet, Senator Merkley and Obama will expect us to be thankful. "Please, sir. Can I have some more?"
***
Excerpts from the Senator's campaign letter follows:
"This week, the U.S. Senate had the opportunity to make sure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes. Inspired by billionaire investor Warren Buffett – who rightly asked why he should pay a lower tax rate than his secretary – President Obama proposed the much-needed "Buffett Rule."
"This rule would ensure that millionaires and billionaires cannot use loopholes and special exceptions to pay a lower tax rate on their income than hardworking middle class families. It would do so by closing loopholes for those earning more than $1 million, scaling up to an effective minimum tax rate of 30% for households earning more than $2 million.
"As a cosponsor of this legislation, I was very glad that the Senate scheduled time to debate and vote on it this week. Unfortunately, a minority of senators filibustered the motion to begin debate on the legislation. I am deeply disappointed that the Senate could not even debate this common-sense bill.
"When we make decisions about our budget, we also make a statement about our values as a nation. Are we a nation that showers millionaires and billionaires with handouts they don't need? Or do we protect Social Security and Medicare, invest in our infrastructure, and give our children the skills they need in a 21st century economy?
"With so many in our society making sacrifices to get by, I do not believe our federal government should be using its limited resources to pad the wallets of the most affluent, which is exactly what our current tax system does. Please know that I will keep fighting for a fairer and more fiscally responsible tax system."
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Obama's Czars - in Pictures
Welcome to the Obomination: CZARs
Dennis Blair - Intelligence Czar - Retired US Navy. Stopped US guided missile program he described as "provocative". Chair of ultra-Liberal "Council on Foreign Relations" which blames American organizations for regional wars.
Appointed without Congressional approval and quietly changing the
US policies.
OBAMA'S CZARS: There are very few of us who know
just what all of Obama's Czars do, as they quietly go about their
"work" in the nation's capital. This listing of their names and job
descriptions should be educational to all Americans. See who they are and realize what
they want to do:
Richard Holbrooke -Afghanistan Czar - Ultra liberal anti-gun former Governor Of New Mexico.
Pro-Abortion and pro-drug legalization. Wants to dissolve the 2nd Amendment.
Ed Montgomery - Auto recovery Czar - Radical anti-business black
activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. University of
Maryland Business School Dean; teaches that US business has caused world
poverty. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
Jeffrey Crowley - AIDS Czar - Radical Homosexual. Gay Rights
activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and a Special Status for homosexuals only,
including complete free health care for gays.
Alan Bersin - Border Czar - The former failed superintendent
of San Diego. Ultra-Liberal friend of Hillary Clinton. Served as Border Czar
under Janet Reno - to keep borders open to illegals without interference from
the Federal government.
David J. Hayes - California Water Czar - Senior Fellow of radical
environmentalist group "Progress Policy". No training or experience
in water management whatsoever.
Ron Bloom - Car Czar - Auto Union worker. Anti-business
& anti-nuclear. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business.
Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Union-owned. How did this happen?
Dennis Ross - Central Region Czar - Believes
US policy is the cause of war in the Middle East. Obama apologist to the world.
Anti-gun and completely Pro-Abortion.
Lynn Rosenthal - Domestic Violence Czar - Director
of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Vicious anti-male
feminist. Supports male castration - imagine?
Gil Kerlikowske - Drug Czar - Devoted lobbyist for every
restrictive gun law proposal, former Chief of Police in liberal Seattle WA.
Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of all drugs.
Paul Volcker - Economic Czar - Former head of the Federal
Reserve under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed. Obama-appointed head
of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board which engineered the Obama economic
disaster to US economy. Member of anti-business "Progressive Policy"
organization.
Carol Browner - Energy & Environment Czar - Political
Radical. Former head of the EPA - Known for anti-business activism. Strong
anti-gun ownership.
Joshua DuBois - Faith-Based Czar - Political Black activist. Degree
in Black Nationalism. Anti-gun ownership lobbyist.WHAT DOES A FAITH BASED
CZAR DO ? ? ?
Cameron Davis - Great Lakes Czar - Chicago radical anti-business
environmentalist. Blames George Bush for "Poisoning the water that
minorities have to drink." No experience or training in water management whatsoever. Former ACORN Board
member (what does that tell us?)
Van Jones - Green Jobs Czar - (since resigned) Black activist with strong anti-white views. Member of American Communist
Party and San Francisco Communist Party. Said George Bush caused the 9-11
attacks and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes.
Daniel Fried - Guantanamo Closure Czar - Human Rights activist for Foreign
Terrorists. Believes America has caused the Global War on Terrorism. Believes
terrorists have rights above and beyond Americans.
Nancy-Ann DeParle - Health Czar - Former
head of Medicare / Medicaid. Strong proponent of Healthcare Rationing (i.e.
"Death Panels"). She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
Vivek Kundra - Information Czar - Born in New Delhi, India. Controls all public information, including
labels and news releases. Monitors all private Internet emails. (HELLO?)
Todd Stern - International Climate Czar - Anti-business former White House
Chief of Staff. Strong supporter of the Kyoto Accord; pushing hard for Cap and
Trade. Blames US business for Global warming. Anti- US business prosperity.
Dennis Blair - Intelligence Czar - Retired US Navy. Stopped US guided missile program he described as "provocative". Chair of ultra-Liberal "Council on Foreign Relations" which blames American organizations for regional wars.
George Mitchell - Mideast Peace Czar - Fmr.
Sen from Maine Left wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into
"2 or 3 " smaller more manageable plots". (God forbid) A true
Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro-homosexual "special rights" advocate.
Kenneth Feinberg - Pay Czar - Chief
of Staff to Ted Kennedy. Lawyer who got rich off the 9-11 victims payoffs (horribly
true).
Cass Sunstein - Regulatory Czar - Liberal activist judge who
believes free speech needs to be limited for the "common good";
essentially against the 1st Amendment. Has ruled against personal freedoms many
times on private gun ownership and right to free speech cases. This guy has
to be run out of Washington ! ! (a.k.a.: Most Dangerous Man in
America)
John Holdren - Science Czar - Fierce ideological
environmentalist, Sierra Club anti-business activist. Claims US business has
caused world poverty. No Science training.
Earl Devaney - Stimulus Accountability Czar - Spent career trying to take guns
away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico. Author of
statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico.
J. Scott Gration - Sudan Czar - Native
of Democratic Republic of Congo. Believes US does little to help Third World
countries. Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support
United Nations.
Herb Allison - TARP Czar - Fannie Mae CEO responsible for the
US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market.
Caused millions of people to lose their life savings.
John Brennan - Terrorism Czar - Anti-CIA activist. No training in
diplomatic or gov. affairs. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog
with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military. A TOTAL MORON!!!!!
Aneesh Chopra - Technology Czar - No Technology training. Worked
for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals.
Anti-doctor activist. Supports Obama Healthcare Rationing (i.e. Death
Panels) and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Government
Healthcare plan.
Adolfo Carrion Jr. - Urban Affairs Czar - Puerto Rico-born Anti-American
activist and leftist group member in Latin America. Millionaire "slum
lord" of Bronx, NY. Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from
"sweetheart" deals with labor unions. Wants higher taxes on middle
class to pay for minority housing and healthcare.
Ashton
Carter - Weapons Czar - Leftist. Wants all private
weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America. No
other "policy".
Gary Samore - WMD Policy Czar - Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD
unilaterally as a show of good faith. Has no other "policy"
These
are the people who President Obama appointed to run our country.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Freedom is ours if we want it!
A friend sent me the following YouTube video. It is a powerful paean to freedom. It serves to remind us that we must always fight for our freedoms, they are neither free nor guaranteed.
Click for Freedom
We will always need to be ready to defend our liberty and freedom from enemies on the outside, and 'friends' within.
Click for Freedom
We will always need to be ready to defend our liberty and freedom from enemies on the outside, and 'friends' within.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
TWS Cruise - The Truth about the Media
A talk by Juan Williams. Juan conducted an 'interview', as if he were on NPR. The interviewee was Juan Williams - discussing the circumstances around his being fired from NPR. It was funny and serious. He ended the presentation with the following comments regarding the news media.
***
All media is biased - whether it is a conservative talk show, or mainline media. Old line journalists would not fair well in media today. Media is so divided - hardened images take the place of discussions and the experiences of hard working Americans.
The head of NPR said, "NPR is our (the liberal) answer to Rush Limbaugh."
Public funding of NPR has been corrosive to the discourse of issues.
Americans now operate in a environment where they fear speaking their mind, or to express their feelings, for fear of being branded with a stigma, or fired, or assaulted. We must give voice to all sides of the issues. In lieu of shutting people up, we must trust people to listen, and then make up their minds.
***
***
All media is biased - whether it is a conservative talk show, or mainline media. Old line journalists would not fair well in media today. Media is so divided - hardened images take the place of discussions and the experiences of hard working Americans.
The head of NPR said, "NPR is our (the liberal) answer to Rush Limbaugh."
Public funding of NPR has been corrosive to the discourse of issues.
Americans now operate in a environment where they fear speaking their mind, or to express their feelings, for fear of being branded with a stigma, or fired, or assaulted. We must give voice to all sides of the issues. In lieu of shutting people up, we must trust people to listen, and then make up their minds.
***
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Religion and the 2012 Election
Religion is not required, per the US Constitution.
Typically, Republicans nominate candidates with a faith, even if it is nominal. Gingrich is the first Catholic, Romney is the second Mormon nominated by Republicans. No one is campaigning as the 'Christian' candidate.
There is a coolness towards Mormons in evangelical circles, but most are more worried about Romney-care.
Note: liberals (i.e., Democrats) have a bigger problem with the LDS than conservatives. The problem conservatives have with Romney is not that he is a Mormon, but he's a moderate from Massachusetts. Mark Hemingway noted, "Romney is befuddled that he is losing to a guy with three wives,". Gingrich's conversion has bought him some forgiveness in the electorate.
On the Democrat side, Obama has some liabilities with religious organizations - the values proclaimed during his campaign have proved to be a charade. He sees Christianity as a form of social justice. Because of extensive campaigning with respect to religion, people thought of Obama as a 'values' candidate. Obama has shown a narcissism that is almost religious in nature. His faith charade is gone since being elected to the White House.
The question is will the Democrats abandon the white working class and religious factions? The administration's policies do not match their rhetoric. This administration has filed briefs with the Supreme Court that are hostile to Christianity. Obama is the least pro-Israel president since Jimmy Carter.
***
Typically, Republicans nominate candidates with a faith, even if it is nominal. Gingrich is the first Catholic, Romney is the second Mormon nominated by Republicans. No one is campaigning as the 'Christian' candidate.
There is a coolness towards Mormons in evangelical circles, but most are more worried about Romney-care.
Note: liberals (i.e., Democrats) have a bigger problem with the LDS than conservatives. The problem conservatives have with Romney is not that he is a Mormon, but he's a moderate from Massachusetts. Mark Hemingway noted, "Romney is befuddled that he is losing to a guy with three wives,". Gingrich's conversion has bought him some forgiveness in the electorate.
On the Democrat side, Obama has some liabilities with religious organizations - the values proclaimed during his campaign have proved to be a charade. He sees Christianity as a form of social justice. Because of extensive campaigning with respect to religion, people thought of Obama as a 'values' candidate. Obama has shown a narcissism that is almost religious in nature. His faith charade is gone since being elected to the White House.
The question is will the Democrats abandon the white working class and religious factions? The administration's policies do not match their rhetoric. This administration has filed briefs with the Supreme Court that are hostile to Christianity. Obama is the least pro-Israel president since Jimmy Carter.
***
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Where are we since the end of the Cold War?
The country is evenly divided - in 12 of 20 years, we've had a Democrat president. In 14 of 20 years there has been a Republican House of Representatives, and in 10 of 20 years - a Republican Senate. The people tend to rebuke those who go too far. After decades of nearly 50/50 elections, 2008 had the liberals (Democrats) sweep Congress and the Presidency.
The Republicans were demoralized, but thanks to the Tea Party, have been given a glimmer of hope. The 2010 elections were a rebuke to the path taken after the '08 wave.
We have seen 'wave' elections (highly polarized swings) because of the tumultuous times in which we live.
Ideology is a problem for the Democrats. Plus there is a 'performance' problem (Pres. Obama did everything he said he would do - and it failed.) Lack of trust in our politicians has been building since 1960's. People do not trust Congress. Middle class jobs have been eroding. No one is speaking for, or concerned for the white working class. We don't see it in the president or in Washington D.C.
The Democrats want to 'punish' the rich by taxing them to pay for expansion of the government. But, can you tax the rich only? Sixty-four percent of the people believe we are already overtaxed. We don't trust the mantra of 'only tax the rich.' It feels good to say that, the revenge factor, but many realize the government cannot take it all.
Which direction will the voters go - toward Europe, or not? This election will begin to resolve issues: domestic and foreign affairs, economic stuggles, and the Supreme Court. This year, 2012, is a BIG election - liberal or conservative, unlike some of the previous 'centrist' elections - we are looking at divergent world views.
***
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
How We Arrived at Financial Armageddon
Just finished "Reckless Endangerment" by Gretchen Morgenson & Joshua Rosner. The secondary title is "How Outsize Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Financial Armageddon" - whew!
Having watched a little news now and then, I was prepared to hate (hate, hate, hate) Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Raines, et.al., for their part in this. Ready to take umbrage with the banks, and be P.O.d at Wall Street. I came away with general disdain for them all. A pox on all their houses! 'Occupy Wall Street' has it wrong - trying to place all the blame on the tycoons. There is plenty of blame to go round.
The 2008 housing bubble started long before Bush was President (it's true, sorry.) Congress and the President (for several administrations, from the 1970s through 2008) had their fingerprints all over this disaster.
This problem starts back in 1977 (J. Carter (D.), President) signed a law that was conceived with good intentions - to prevent mortgage lenders 'redlining' (which prevented low income borrowers from buying homes.) Through the prism of race and civil rights, this was seen as a good thing. People who 'deserved' a home could now have one...
A timeline follows, gleaned from the book showing how we got to where we today. I have summarized, and in some case quoted from the book in the following summary.
1977 – “Community Reinvestment Act” – was passed to combat ‘redlining’, to especially help blacks and Hispanics to obtain mortgages.
1986 - Congress eliminated mortgage interest payments on tax deductibles. Seems innocuous, but further reduced the borrowers commitment to keep on paying the loan.
1991 – The racial background of the borrower was now required on every mortgage application. This was a response to a flawed report by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.
1991 - Chris Dodd (D – Conn.) adds an amendment to a bill that provides government bailout for holders of risky and failed loans, turning out to be a much bigger deal than anyone realized at the time. Bankers were now able to use less caution because they knew bailout was inevitable – this is called a ‘moral hazard’.
1992 – “Financial Safety & Security Act” – which was supposed to protect tax payers from flame-out by FM, instead launched “affordable housing”. Note: this did not mean making the homes less expensive (i.e., affordable) but to lend money to those who couldn’t pay it back. Safety and soundness was replaced with political goals.
1992 - The Fed began reducing oversight of the Wall Street firms it worked with – ending a program used to audit these Wall Street firms – a tough regulatory approach ended. The collapse of AIG and Citibank followed.
1993 – ‘United Companies Financial’ (UCF - a lender) was the first to bundle sub-prime mortgages together and sell them to investors – usually mixed with good mortgages to lessen the risk. In ten years, this practice grew from $165M(illion) to $467M nationwide. Fannie Mae worked closely with UCF to buy these packages. UCF is not the only mortgage lender with shady practices with whom FM consorts – see also Countrywide, and others. This practice, bundling, grows each year but the problem deepens in that bad loans are no longer bundled with good, or other financial instruments. At its worst, bad loans are lumped together and fraudulently sold to investors.
1994 – The down payment was eliminated as a mortgage requirement. The result: the middle class had homes with huge loan payments, and were crushed when those heavy loan burdens crashed down on them. The unintended consequence: the borrowers have no ‘skin in the game’, it is easier to walk away, to default. What do you have to lose? Absolutely nothing.
1994 – Fannie Mae touted a $1T(rillion) plan to eliminate barriers to homeownership. Bribes (campaign contributions) flooded Congress to hold off criticism, most of it going to Democrats (e.g, Kennedy, Frank, Dodd, etc.); Republicans were also swept into the maelstrom. Gingrich praised Fannie Mae for its efforts, as did Bond of Missouri. 1994-97 – Sub-Prime mortgages exploded from $35B(illion) to $125B. As loans began to fail, the lenders could either go back to older practices by tightening standards, or expand, trying to outrun the problem. Guess which path they took! 1997 – Fannie Mae began “underwriting experiments” – loosening underwriting standards even more. This was based on the same flawed 1991 report by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank. Banks are forced to use new relaxed requirements, but now could off-load risky loans to GSEs (Government-Sponsored Enterprises, i.e, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), and thusly to the taxpayer.
1997 - Andrew Cuomo (HUD) – reduced the underwriting standards rules (again) for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
1998 - The mortgage bubble burst – Savings & Loan Disaster. We should have learned our lessons – but, No!
1998 - Fannie Mae resorts to accounting fraud to report earnings, all to provide big bonuses to the Fannie Mae executives.
1998 - The Fed decides that increased oversight and discipline is not necessary for banks they work with. It was ‘clear’ the banks could be trusted, rather than be monitored closely. we see how that worked out. Obviously, not paying attention to the S&L disaster swirling around them!
1999 - “Financial Services Modernization Act” – let insurance companies act like banks. Greenspan, Rubin, and Larry Summers (all Democrats) were quite pleased with themselves – they also forgot the S&L disaster of 1998!
1999 - Glass-Steagal law rescinded. This act was sponsored by three Republicans, with the help of President Clinton and former Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin. Glass-Steagal was passed in 1930s to prevent banks from mixing banking funds and investment funds – the two could now be pooled together. One U.S. Senator, Dorgan of N.D., warned us, and said we would regret this later. He was right!
2002 - Sarbanes-Oxley bill passes Congress and is signed by President Bush.
2002 - Moody’s (a rating agency) begins using a computer model to analyze risks for mortgagees and lenders – but it is seriously flawed. There are key pieces of information missing - like income! The other major agencies, Standard & Poor, Fitch, follow suit.
2003 - B. Frank, during a hearing, said that Fannie Mae presented no potential harm to taxpayers. Oops.
2006 - “Rating Reform Act” is passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. This act shone a light on the failure of the rating agencies, but it did nothing to reform Fannie Mae (see: Bribes, above).
2010 - Barney Frank cannot remember a thing about the 1992 legislation that helped launch this disaster.
As it worked out, I still hate Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, but I also have little sympathy for the G.S.E.s, banks and Wall Street. Executives from FM should be in jail, as should members of Congress that took the bribes. They wrote the laws that made some of these lending practices legal, but not moral. The lenders that fraudulently filled out mortgage applications should not get bonuses, but jail time.
A little background info:
Sub-Prime – less than prime borrowers. “A” rated borrowers were labeled prime, “B&C” rated borrowers came to be labeled sub-prime. Previously, sub-prime borrowers didn’t deal much with traditional banks – too many questions, too much hassle – from the banks’ point of view, the sub-prime borrowers were not reliable (e.g., defaults) and were shunned.
Fannie Mae (FM), Freddie Mac – Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). It turns out, these are not independent of the government, but basically are wholly owned subsidiaries. FM’s risk taking provided great wealth for its executives millions of dollars of salaries and bonuses, even while failing miserably. FM used aggressive lobbying to destroy regulators and critics. Jim Johnson, the architect of a disastrous home ownership strategy, became chief executive of FM in 1991, leaving in 1999 with over $100M! Franklin Raines (Barney Frank's lover) drove the failure bus even deeper into debt, but 'earned' millions. Between 1989-2009 huge campaign contributions (bribes), more than $100M, were sent to congressmen and senators. Huge subsidies (i.e., tax payer money) were siphoned off, some of it funneled to ACORN. Incentive pay for the FM executives grew by 400% between 1993-2000. FM poured money to ‘academic research’ – resulting nothing was studied or reported that would make FM look bad. The ‘independent scholarship’ did not want to lose the paycheck from FM.
FED - (Federal Reserve Bank) – I would suggest “Lords of Finance” by Liaquat Ahamed for a good primer of how the Fed came to be. It is supposed to be independent of the government – oh, well.
Having watched a little news now and then, I was prepared to hate (hate, hate, hate) Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Raines, et.al., for their part in this. Ready to take umbrage with the banks, and be P.O.d at Wall Street. I came away with general disdain for them all. A pox on all their houses! 'Occupy Wall Street' has it wrong - trying to place all the blame on the tycoons. There is plenty of blame to go round.
The 2008 housing bubble started long before Bush was President (it's true, sorry.) Congress and the President (for several administrations, from the 1970s through 2008) had their fingerprints all over this disaster.
This problem starts back in 1977 (J. Carter (D.), President) signed a law that was conceived with good intentions - to prevent mortgage lenders 'redlining' (which prevented low income borrowers from buying homes.) Through the prism of race and civil rights, this was seen as a good thing. People who 'deserved' a home could now have one...
A timeline follows, gleaned from the book showing how we got to where we today. I have summarized, and in some case quoted from the book in the following summary.
1977 – “Community Reinvestment Act” – was passed to combat ‘redlining’, to especially help blacks and Hispanics to obtain mortgages.
1986 - Congress eliminated mortgage interest payments on tax deductibles. Seems innocuous, but further reduced the borrowers commitment to keep on paying the loan.
1991 – The racial background of the borrower was now required on every mortgage application. This was a response to a flawed report by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.
1991 - Chris Dodd (D – Conn.) adds an amendment to a bill that provides government bailout for holders of risky and failed loans, turning out to be a much bigger deal than anyone realized at the time. Bankers were now able to use less caution because they knew bailout was inevitable – this is called a ‘moral hazard’.
1992 – “Financial Safety & Security Act” – which was supposed to protect tax payers from flame-out by FM, instead launched “affordable housing”. Note: this did not mean making the homes less expensive (i.e., affordable) but to lend money to those who couldn’t pay it back. Safety and soundness was replaced with political goals.
1992 - The Fed began reducing oversight of the Wall Street firms it worked with – ending a program used to audit these Wall Street firms – a tough regulatory approach ended. The collapse of AIG and Citibank followed.
1993 – ‘United Companies Financial’ (UCF - a lender) was the first to bundle sub-prime mortgages together and sell them to investors – usually mixed with good mortgages to lessen the risk. In ten years, this practice grew from $165M(illion) to $467M nationwide. Fannie Mae worked closely with UCF to buy these packages. UCF is not the only mortgage lender with shady practices with whom FM consorts – see also Countrywide, and others. This practice, bundling, grows each year but the problem deepens in that bad loans are no longer bundled with good, or other financial instruments. At its worst, bad loans are lumped together and fraudulently sold to investors.
1994 – The down payment was eliminated as a mortgage requirement. The result: the middle class had homes with huge loan payments, and were crushed when those heavy loan burdens crashed down on them. The unintended consequence: the borrowers have no ‘skin in the game’, it is easier to walk away, to default. What do you have to lose? Absolutely nothing.
1994 – Fannie Mae touted a $1T(rillion) plan to eliminate barriers to homeownership. Bribes (campaign contributions) flooded Congress to hold off criticism, most of it going to Democrats (e.g, Kennedy, Frank, Dodd, etc.); Republicans were also swept into the maelstrom. Gingrich praised Fannie Mae for its efforts, as did Bond of Missouri. 1994-97 – Sub-Prime mortgages exploded from $35B(illion) to $125B. As loans began to fail, the lenders could either go back to older practices by tightening standards, or expand, trying to outrun the problem. Guess which path they took! 1997 – Fannie Mae began “underwriting experiments” – loosening underwriting standards even more. This was based on the same flawed 1991 report by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank. Banks are forced to use new relaxed requirements, but now could off-load risky loans to GSEs (Government-Sponsored Enterprises, i.e, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), and thusly to the taxpayer.
1997 - Andrew Cuomo (HUD) – reduced the underwriting standards rules (again) for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
1998 - The mortgage bubble burst – Savings & Loan Disaster. We should have learned our lessons – but, No!
1998 - Fannie Mae resorts to accounting fraud to report earnings, all to provide big bonuses to the Fannie Mae executives.
1998 - The Fed decides that increased oversight and discipline is not necessary for banks they work with. It was ‘clear’ the banks could be trusted, rather than be monitored closely. we see how that worked out. Obviously, not paying attention to the S&L disaster swirling around them!
1999 - “Financial Services Modernization Act” – let insurance companies act like banks. Greenspan, Rubin, and Larry Summers (all Democrats) were quite pleased with themselves – they also forgot the S&L disaster of 1998!
1999 - Glass-Steagal law rescinded. This act was sponsored by three Republicans, with the help of President Clinton and former Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin. Glass-Steagal was passed in 1930s to prevent banks from mixing banking funds and investment funds – the two could now be pooled together. One U.S. Senator, Dorgan of N.D., warned us, and said we would regret this later. He was right!
2002 - Sarbanes-Oxley bill passes Congress and is signed by President Bush.
2002 - Moody’s (a rating agency) begins using a computer model to analyze risks for mortgagees and lenders – but it is seriously flawed. There are key pieces of information missing - like income! The other major agencies, Standard & Poor, Fitch, follow suit.
2003 - B. Frank, during a hearing, said that Fannie Mae presented no potential harm to taxpayers. Oops.
2006 - “Rating Reform Act” is passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. This act shone a light on the failure of the rating agencies, but it did nothing to reform Fannie Mae (see: Bribes, above).
2010 - Barney Frank cannot remember a thing about the 1992 legislation that helped launch this disaster.
As it worked out, I still hate Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, but I also have little sympathy for the G.S.E.s, banks and Wall Street. Executives from FM should be in jail, as should members of Congress that took the bribes. They wrote the laws that made some of these lending practices legal, but not moral. The lenders that fraudulently filled out mortgage applications should not get bonuses, but jail time.
A little background info:
Sub-Prime – less than prime borrowers. “A” rated borrowers were labeled prime, “B&C” rated borrowers came to be labeled sub-prime. Previously, sub-prime borrowers didn’t deal much with traditional banks – too many questions, too much hassle – from the banks’ point of view, the sub-prime borrowers were not reliable (e.g., defaults) and were shunned.
Fannie Mae (FM), Freddie Mac – Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). It turns out, these are not independent of the government, but basically are wholly owned subsidiaries. FM’s risk taking provided great wealth for its executives millions of dollars of salaries and bonuses, even while failing miserably. FM used aggressive lobbying to destroy regulators and critics. Jim Johnson, the architect of a disastrous home ownership strategy, became chief executive of FM in 1991, leaving in 1999 with over $100M! Franklin Raines (Barney Frank's lover) drove the failure bus even deeper into debt, but 'earned' millions. Between 1989-2009 huge campaign contributions (bribes), more than $100M, were sent to congressmen and senators. Huge subsidies (i.e., tax payer money) were siphoned off, some of it funneled to ACORN. Incentive pay for the FM executives grew by 400% between 1993-2000. FM poured money to ‘academic research’ – resulting nothing was studied or reported that would make FM look bad. The ‘independent scholarship’ did not want to lose the paycheck from FM.
FED - (Federal Reserve Bank) – I would suggest “Lords of Finance” by Liaquat Ahamed for a good primer of how the Fed came to be. It is supposed to be independent of the government – oh, well.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Attack on Faith, part 2
Sean Casey, a former spiritual advisor to the Obama administration at the Center for American Progress (G. Soros funded think tank) said he was glad that 'civil religion' (whatever that is) was dying out in the United States. Sean believes that Christians, or at least religions, have been the source of racism, slavery, and wars.
Well, what can you say about something so ignorant? Does he not know, has he not heard? Both slavery and racism were ended because of the efforts of religious people, primarily Christians. Read the biography of William Wilberforce, or read about the abolitionists in the U.S. It is true some people who claimed to be Christians had slaves. It wasn't right or moral, but it happened. Americans didn't invent or start slavery, but we ended it in the United States. Likewise, Christians were in the forefront of the fight against racism in America. It wasn't the Democrat party, that's for sure - they were much better at being in the KKK, or blasting marchers with fire hoses, or using attack dogs, lynching and blocking schoolhouse doors.
Wars? Most wars, even 'religious' wars are not about one faith trying to dominate another, but about raw power - tribe against tribe, king against king, country against country. Just because the leaders rationalize by claiming 'God is on their side' doesn't make it a religious war. It is a misuse of faith, not a result of it. Because we are are a broken and lost people, wars and quarrels, and fights will happen - religion or not. I believe that these conflicts would be even more prevalent without the moderating influence of religion.
In another related incident, a Duke University professor and a National Institute of Health (NIH) official, an Obama appointee, indicated at a seminar that it was okay to kill handicapped people to harvest their organs. "It isn't really wrong to kill them, they don't have any quality of life anyway." How sick is that? What's next - organ farms? Babies conceived and born just for their organs. This sounds like a science fiction story of a dystopian civilization. "Dr. Mengele. Come to O.R. 4. Stat!"
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Another attack on people of faith:
A couple of Fridays ago (27Jan12) the Obama administration continued its assault on the church and believers. This incident began in August of last year. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of The Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed the following: all religious facilities, churches, schools, hospitals and medical facilities - that is those operated by faith based organizations would be required to provide abortions, contraceptives, and birth control to their employees. At that time not much was made of the proposal. I don't recall hearing about this on any news show on TV or radio. Last week I read in The Weekly Standard that religious organizations, including the Catholic Church, were assured by HHS that their concerns would be considered. But, they were duped.
In Portland, Oregon this means Good Sam, Providence, Emmanuel, and Adventist hospitals. It does not matter this may violate beliefs these Christian organizations hold. This ruling is not limited to hospitals and medical facilities. If you are an employee of one these groups, and you aren't a pastor, ordained or called by the church, then you must be supplied with birth control, or an abortion - even if you don't want it, or if it is against your beliefs. This is not an offer that you may choose or reject, it is mandatory. The organization must pay for this.
If you wish to get an abortion against your faith's doctrines, that's your choice - you must answer only to your God. If you use contraceptives in opposition to what your religion teaches, that's your choice - between you and your faith.
Demanding a church, a religious organization, obey the administration's edicts is no different than having a state church. A state church is not a free church. A state church preaches what the administration tells it to teach. Why does United States not have a state sanctioned church? Because the Constitutional Convention remembered how people suffered under the state religions of Europe. They gave us the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which says the government cannot tell you who or what to worship or believe in, it cannot tell you how to worship. The government must keep its hands out of our religion.
The mandate by the Obama administration violates that principle.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)