Here's a few articles (some old) that you might find interesting.
Charity: Who Cares?
Who Really Cares? By Thomas Sowell
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
Facts are stubborn things. Luckily there is a way around them. Ignore them completely. This appears to be the case in Washington D.C. and the main-stream-media, where class warfare never ceases. They've mastered the art of repetition. Just say it over and over again, ad infinitum, and never investigate your statements. People will believe anything if they hear it enough times, especially if it is from people they respect. Since most of what is happening in D.C. has to do with "redistributive change", perhaps some facts regarding income and income disparity are in order.
I've had this discussion with liberals before. They do not, and cannot, fathom that Republicans are the party of the working class, the working poor. Just take a moment and list the richest people you know of in the U.S. and look up there wealth status. Then look up their political leanings. You might be surprised.
Anyway, the following articles bring in to question the need for all this government largess. If the free market produces more charity then why the need for government redistribution. I see these articles as why elitists favor Big Government. Just look at the number one recipient class of charitable funding: Churches. Ouch! That can't be good. Compare the amounts religions receive to the kinds of funds received by humanities and environmental causes. See liberals are right! Government IS better at using your money than you are. Giving your money to churches . . . What are you thinking?!
I suppose liberals would respond to these accusations by saying that the reason they don't give as much to charity is because government is their charity. They REALLY believe in their cause. After all, it's a good thing liberals are richer, they like to give the most to the government. Right? I'm sure it's a tribute to altruism when they meet with their accountants:
"Do you have any dependent children?"
"Yes. Two. But I'm only claiming one. My partner claims the other child on his taxes."
"Okay. . . Any other dependents?"
"Yes, six."
"Six?"
"Yes, six. Five homeless people and a humpback whale."
"Uhh, you can't claim a whale."
"Figures. Probably a Bush law."
"Uhh, no. Just a law"
"Oh, well, five then. But I don't want to claim any of them as actual deductions. In fact, you can just rip up that Schedule A. I want my taxable income to be as high as possible. I really like what Congress is doing these days with welfare legislation. Oh, and make sure you mark that box that gives money to political campaigns."
Wait, you don't think that's how it goes? Cynic!
Friday, December 11, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Investor's Business Daily
I just thought I'd take a moment and recommend the free newsletter from Investor's Business Daily.
Here is a sample (I hope you can read it.)
Here is a sample (I hope you can read it.)
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Axis Of Evil: So who mourns when a terrorist dies by his own bomb? Apparently the U.S. and the U.N. do, given their condolences to Iran after Sunday's attack on its Revolutionary Guard. Iran is the father of this terrorism. READ MORE
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
First Amendment: Diversity czar Mark Lloyd's FCC votes Thursday on the issue of net neutrality. Advertised as providing access to all, it will do to the information superhighway what Lloyd proposed for talk radio. READ MORE
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Spending: According to two separate Government Accountability Office scenarios, America's long-term fiscal outlook is "unsustainable." No surprise, since Uncle Sam is spending like a drunken sailor. READ MORE
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Media: As newspapers and TV networks struggle and the administration presumes to define a proper news organization, what does the journalism establishment demand? No fair if you guessed a government bailout. READ MORE
By SVETLANA KUNIN
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.
By MAX SCHULZ
Oil's surge to $82 a barrel in intraday trading Wednesday is significant for two reasons.
By IVAN OSORIO AND F. VINCENT VERNUCCIO
Disgraced former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer went on a rant last week. Hurling half-truths and red herring arguments in an article for Slate, he advocated jeopardizing public workers' retirement security for political ends.
.
On The Right
By BRAD O'LEARY
There are a few humorous "top 10 reasons why Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize" lists making the rounds these days. My personal favorite is: "It's his consolation prize for losing the Olympics."
.
On The Left
By E.J. DIONNE JR.
Is there room in the Republican Party for genuine moderates? Truth to tell, the GOP can't decide. More precisely, it's deeply divided over whether it should allow any divisions in the party at all.
.
Please do not reply to this newsletter as responses will not be read. To contact IBD Editorials and Investors.com customer support, email us at help@IBDeditorials.com.
(c) 2009 Investor's Business Daily. All rights reserved. Investor's Business Daily and IBD are registered trademarks of Data Analysis, Inc., an affiliate of Investor's Business Daily, Inc. Terms of Use | Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy
| ||||||
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
In Case You Haven't Seen This
If you haven't seen this SNL sketch on Obama, here it is. Really funny. Of course they're criticizing him for exactly the opposite reasons that I criticize him for. Nevertheless, it is quite humorous, and somewhat shocking considering the bluntness of the attack.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
On Weimar Hyper-inflation
Here's a short piece on our future, I mean, the Weimar Republic. Note the last two paragraphs and tell me if it isn't a harbinger.
I'm from the Federal Government and I'm Here to Help!
If you want a small example of the good the federal government can do when it becomes interested in promoting your welfare, and thus seeks to increase its nanny responsibilities, here you go:
In 1965 a report came out warning that 1 out of 4 black children were born out of wedlock*. In 2007, after over 40 years of LBJ's Great Society, a mere 71+% of black children are born out of wedlock†. By the way 50% of those children will live below the poverty line**.
Obviously what we need is a government that is looking to help even more people.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
You'll Enjoy This
If you haven't seen Glenn Beck's interview with the Attorney General of Connecticut, here it is. It's pretty good.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Be Very Afraid, Sad, or Mad, or All of the Above
If you haven't been paying attention:
The Congress of the United States just passed a bill targeting a select group of private citizens. Who? The AIG employees. Why? Because Congress had to do something to assuage their righteous anger. Of course this was all just a dog and pony show. Obama and his minions manufactured all of this to distract us from a bigger issue. Congress just tagged along because it was politically necessary to pretend that they shared the citizenry's ire over the issue.
Before you get too angry at the AIG bonus recipients, consider a few points:
The AIG bonuses were the result of legally binding contracts between an employer and its employees. The bonus pay-outs imply that the employees performed per the contracts.
Imagine that a company comes to you and says, "Mr. Hansenovich, we'd like you to come work for us. We need a guy that can do xyz, and your the best in the industry. Here's what we're offering: a $100,000 salary, plus if after a year you agree to stick around another year, we'll give you a $1 million bonus. Also, if you perform xyz during your first year, we'll give you another bonus of $2 million." So you agree, and both of you sign on the dotted line. Unfortunately, a year later your new company is struggling and needs a major loan to keep it running. Meanwhile you perform xyz and decide to stick around the next year. Should you get your bonus? Do you care where the company got its loan? Is that even relevant? Let's say the company is gasping for air purely as a result of your performing xyz just as requested. Do you still get your bonus? Absolutely!
Also, why is everyone angry with the employees and not the employer who wrote the contract?Very odd.
Another point: These bonuses were made law by the President's stimulus bill. His own Treasury Secretary had Chris Dodd include a provision that guaranteed these very bonuses. (Of course they both denied this first, and then later mea culpa'd when caught.) So now the very people who approved the bonuses, are now going to tax them at 90%. It's almost as if they intentionally created this controversy to help foment class warfare among the masses.
Also, could this have been an intentional distraction?
Consider this: AIG's bailout, written by Geithner himself, while working for Henry Paulson, gave over $170 billion to AIG. The bonuses amount to just under $170 million. That amounts to 1/10 of a percent of the bailout. Meanwhile, approximately $98 billion of the bailout money was funneled from AIG to foreign banks and Goldman-Sachs. This could be some sort of money laundering scheme, where AIG, under its government-appointed CEO, acts as a clearing house for the government to get money into hands that it could not give to directly.
Obama (or TOTUS): Be very angry. The rich are taking your money. Be very angry. The rich are taking your money. Be very angry... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... Be very angry...
Keep in mind that both Dems and Repubs approved this 90% tax bill.
Pray that these politicians never find it politically advantageous to come after you, or say, your church.
The Congress of the United States just passed a bill targeting a select group of private citizens. Who? The AIG employees. Why? Because Congress had to do something to assuage their righteous anger. Of course this was all just a dog and pony show. Obama and his minions manufactured all of this to distract us from a bigger issue. Congress just tagged along because it was politically necessary to pretend that they shared the citizenry's ire over the issue.
Before you get too angry at the AIG bonus recipients, consider a few points:
The AIG bonuses were the result of legally binding contracts between an employer and its employees. The bonus pay-outs imply that the employees performed per the contracts.
Imagine that a company comes to you and says, "Mr. Hansenovich, we'd like you to come work for us. We need a guy that can do xyz, and your the best in the industry. Here's what we're offering: a $100,000 salary, plus if after a year you agree to stick around another year, we'll give you a $1 million bonus. Also, if you perform xyz during your first year, we'll give you another bonus of $2 million." So you agree, and both of you sign on the dotted line. Unfortunately, a year later your new company is struggling and needs a major loan to keep it running. Meanwhile you perform xyz and decide to stick around the next year. Should you get your bonus? Do you care where the company got its loan? Is that even relevant? Let's say the company is gasping for air purely as a result of your performing xyz just as requested. Do you still get your bonus? Absolutely!
Also, why is everyone angry with the employees and not the employer who wrote the contract?Very odd.
Another point: These bonuses were made law by the President's stimulus bill. His own Treasury Secretary had Chris Dodd include a provision that guaranteed these very bonuses. (Of course they both denied this first, and then later mea culpa'd when caught.) So now the very people who approved the bonuses, are now going to tax them at 90%. It's almost as if they intentionally created this controversy to help foment class warfare among the masses.
Also, could this have been an intentional distraction?
Consider this: AIG's bailout, written by Geithner himself, while working for Henry Paulson, gave over $170 billion to AIG. The bonuses amount to just under $170 million. That amounts to 1/10 of a percent of the bailout. Meanwhile, approximately $98 billion of the bailout money was funneled from AIG to foreign banks and Goldman-Sachs. This could be some sort of money laundering scheme, where AIG, under its government-appointed CEO, acts as a clearing house for the government to get money into hands that it could not give to directly.
Obama (or TOTUS): Be very angry. The rich are taking your money. Be very angry. The rich are taking your money. Be very angry... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... Be very angry...
Keep in mind that both Dems and Repubs approved this 90% tax bill.
Pray that these politicians never find it politically advantageous to come after you, or say, your church.
Mr. Bernanke's Busy Week
What has Mr. Bernanke been up to this week?
In between meals he's been creating money, ex nihilo. Why? Why, to save our economy, of course. This week he picked $2 trillion dollars off of the money tree behind the Federal Reserve building on Constitution Ave. in Washington D.C. (Total number of references to the Federal Reserve in COTUS? Zero. Please ignore the irony of the street name. I digress...) He then loaded the money in a wheelbarrow, actually a LOT of REALLY BIG wheelbarrows and went to the Central Bank, filled out a deposit slip, and deposited the money in the account named "US Economy". I'm sure that must have been a fun transaction for the teller.
The beauty of this transaction is that Bernanke actually brought no money with him at all. Instead he just showed up at the bank with a deposit slip with the number 2,000,000,000,000 written on it and handed it to the teller.
Teller: How can I help you today?
Bernanke: I just need to deposit this money in my account.
Teller: What's the name on the account?
Bernanke: US Economy
Teller: One moment please. [Typing away.] Okay, Mr. ............. Bernanke?
Bernanke: Yes.
Teller: Do you have the money with you?
Bernanke: Yes, it's here in this deposit bag.
Teller: Very good. [Unzips bag.] Uhh, the bag is empty.
Bernanke: Yes?
Teller: Where's the money?
Bernanke: Oh, just add $2 trillion to my account. Trust me, it's okay.
Teller: But, I can't do that.
Bernanke: Sure you can. Just type it in. Here. [Takes keyboard. Types.] And there you are. In fact I threw in a couple million to your own account for fun.
Teller: That doesn't make any sense.
Bernanke: Doesn't matter. Oh, and I'd like to buy $300 billion in T-bills. Just take it out of the US Economy account.
Teller: Uhhh.....
Bernanke: Oh, and I'd like for your bank to buy $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Teller: Uhhh....
Bernanke: Go ahead and borrow the money from my US Economy account. I'll loan it to you at zero interest.
Teller: Uhhh....
Bernanke: Oh, and while your at it, send $5 billion to various auto parts manufacturers. Just take it out of the same account.
Teller: Uhhh.... I'm sorry, none of this is making any sense.
Bernanke: Quit thinking. I do the thinking around here. Just do it. Trust me, this will work. Don't believe me? Just read about the Wymar Republic in Germany. Oh wait, no, don't read about that, read about Zimbabwe's, no, Argentina... no, um... Just do it! Just because this has never worked in the history of the world, doesn't mean it won't.
Okay, so maybe it didn't go quite like that. Probably Bernanke just did all this over the phone. But the practical result is the same. What does that mean to you? It means that wheat, honey, gold, silver, and other commodities would be a very good investment right now. Actually, I suspect we'll see some more deflation, as prices continue to fall. But towards the end of this year, or the beginning of next, inflation will get happy. Real happy, making your dollars more and more worthless.
By the way, did you know that in the history of paper currencies, not one has ever NOT become worthless at some point. No, not one. Don't worry, I'm sure ours will be the exception. Oh, and yes, the Federal Reserve pulled this kind of stuff in the '30's. The difference? We were still on the gold standard. Lucky for us, were no longer subject to that silly concept.
Happy days!
All info taken from these sources:
You can also listen to this.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
A Few Fun Facts
Thought you might enjoy a few numbers:
War Cost in 2008 Dollars*
Revolutionary War $1.8 billion
War of 1812 $1.2 billion
Mexican-American War $1.8 billion
Civil War: Union $45.2 billion
Civil War: Confederacy $15.2 billion
Spanish-American War $6.8 billion
World War I $253 billion
World War II $4.1 trillion
Korean War $320 billion
Vietnam War $686 billion
First Gulf War $96 billion
Iraq + Afghanistan $859 billion+* (ongoing)
*CRS Report for Congress
Length of Obama's 2010 Budget 141 pages§§
Revolutionary War $1.8 billion
War of 1812 $1.2 billion
Mexican-American War $1.8 billion
Civil War: Union $45.2 billion
Civil War: Confederacy $15.2 billion
Spanish-American War $6.8 billion
World War I $253 billion
World War II $4.1 trillion
Korean War $320 billion
Vietnam War $686 billion
First Gulf War $96 billion
Iraq + Afghanistan $859 billion+* (ongoing)
LBJ's War on Poverty 1965-2000 $8.29 trillion†
Obama's 2010 Budget $3.6 trillion
Total Cost 2008 Bailouts $7.8 trillion§
Obama's Stimulus Package $3.7 trillion••
Obama's Modified 2009 Budget $3.94 trillion††
Obama's Modified 2009 Budget $3.94 trillion††
Obama's 2010 Budget $3.66 trillion††
*CRS Report for Congress
††NPR
You do the math. Boy has that War on Poverty worked! What it really needs is...more money.
More numbers:
Length of Obama's 2010 Budget 141 pages§§
Stimulus addition to tax code 344 pages•••
US Tax Code 70,000+ pages†††
Length of Constitution 10 pages, 18 w/ amendments
†††bNet
If only the Constitution was worthy of 70,000+ pages, or at least 141 pages...
Small Joke for the Day
If you ever question whether dogs are man's best friend, try this experiment: Take your dog and your wife, put them both in the trunk of your car, drive around for an hour, stop and let them out. Which one is glad to see you?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
A Rush to Judgement
I emailed this response to a Real Clear Politics piece by Cathy Young.
"Cathy,
"I think in analyzing Rush's behavior, let's never forget that first and foremost Rush is a businessman. Would you have written this piece had Rush said, as you suggest, that he hoped "Obama succeeds in turning the economy around, but fails in foisting upon us the big-government programs he is seeking to enact." Rush, as a "highly trained" broadcast personality is well aware of the consequence of the term "fail". From a business stand point it's use has been a windfall. As is often said: He couldn't pay for this kind of advertising. This kind of rhetoric will only galvanize his base, which is foremost conservative, not necessarily Republican, and therefore likely to agree with his assessment. This also tweeks his enemies, who already look for every opportunity to justify their rabid determination to interpret every statement from Rush as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. You can bet that his listenership has gone up during this back and forth, as enemies and fans wait to hear the latest response from both sides.
"As far as the Republican Party looking as though they "are in thrall" with Rush: that is the Party's concern, not Rush's. Trust me, the Party leadership sees this whole thing in the same light as you. Why? Because they have lost their rudder. They are more concerned with image and votes than with principle. The last real leader they had, within the party, was Newt. Since then the party has acted and spoken like a toned down version of the Democrat Party. Conservatives don't want that, we want leadership. I think most conservatives are tired of the mealy-mouthed concern for bipartisanship the media has foisted upon the public. For the most part the Democrat Party, with it's willingly accomplices in much of the media, has successfully redefined bipartisanship as agreeing with Democrats on principle and merely debating differences in policy. Wrong! I want a party that boldly stands against big government on principle, regardless of political consequence. I'd rather go down in flames with my principles in tact then down in flames while appearing to have been complicit. For too long Republican party has tried to play nice and that has certainly NOT decreased the size, scope, and influence of the federal government.
"You also suggest that Rush's approach makes him "part of the problem". What problem? Incendiary rhetoric or socialist policies leaning toward historical fascism? For my part, I am not nearly as concerned with our fiscal problems as with our governance problem. No matter how bad this economic collapse ultimately is, free markets, left to themselves will, as they ALWAYS have, bring us back. The real "problem" is not Rush, but where Obama may take us. I suggest that your concern for political image in improperly defined bipartisanship is the problem. What I get from you and many in the media is a desire for a vibrant Republican party, but merely as an alternate voice on policy not principle.
"Conservatives have been concerned about our direction since Wilson, perhaps since T.R. The problem is that the very nature of institutions of all sorts is to enlarge itself and justify its existence. The institution of government is no exception. When any institution enlarges itself or increases its power or control, it rarely, if ever, decommissions itself. We've been on the precipice of full fledged Socialism for decades for this very reason. Government does not relinquish power. Reagan tried, but by then the reach was so mammoth it was too late. Too many of our institutions had become reliant on the existence of, and day to day functioning of, a massive federal government managing millions and billions (now trillions) of dollars. Too many politicians have gone out of their way to pimp the government, making her the hottest whore in the world, where every John seeks her attention. Just look at how the stimulus package played itself out. It created a line of Johns, willing to do whatever to get a piece.
"The beauty of the founders was that they recognized this potential and sought to limit the problem through the Constitution and its statement that essentially any powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as being the jurisdiction of the federal government are the sole responsibility of the states. Brilliant. Unfortunately for us and the world, 230 years of too many politicians and too few statesman have brought us to this point, a point I fear that can only end in ruin, sooner or later, and ultimately require a "hard restart". I hope we can forestall this but I fear not. So yes, on principle, Rush hopes that Obama fails, as do I. People have not changed since the dawn of history, and historical precedence bears me out. Nations come and go, governments rise and fall. If Obama succeeds we all fail. If he fails, just maybe there is a chance to save this great nation. Whatever happens, heck, we had a great run."
"I think in analyzing Rush's behavior, let's never forget that first and foremost Rush is a businessman. Would you have written this piece had Rush said, as you suggest, that he hoped "Obama succeeds in turning the economy around, but fails in foisting upon us the big-government programs he is seeking to enact." Rush, as a "highly trained" broadcast personality is well aware of the consequence of the term "fail". From a business stand point it's use has been a windfall. As is often said: He couldn't pay for this kind of advertising. This kind of rhetoric will only galvanize his base, which is foremost conservative, not necessarily Republican, and therefore likely to agree with his assessment. This also tweeks his enemies, who already look for every opportunity to justify their rabid determination to interpret every statement from Rush as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. You can bet that his listenership has gone up during this back and forth, as enemies and fans wait to hear the latest response from both sides.
"As far as the Republican Party looking as though they "are in thrall" with Rush: that is the Party's concern, not Rush's. Trust me, the Party leadership sees this whole thing in the same light as you. Why? Because they have lost their rudder. They are more concerned with image and votes than with principle. The last real leader they had, within the party, was Newt. Since then the party has acted and spoken like a toned down version of the Democrat Party. Conservatives don't want that, we want leadership. I think most conservatives are tired of the mealy-mouthed concern for bipartisanship the media has foisted upon the public. For the most part the Democrat Party, with it's willingly accomplices in much of the media, has successfully redefined bipartisanship as agreeing with Democrats on principle and merely debating differences in policy. Wrong! I want a party that boldly stands against big government on principle, regardless of political consequence. I'd rather go down in flames with my principles in tact then down in flames while appearing to have been complicit. For too long Republican party has tried to play nice and that has certainly NOT decreased the size, scope, and influence of the federal government.
"You also suggest that Rush's approach makes him "part of the problem". What problem? Incendiary rhetoric or socialist policies leaning toward historical fascism? For my part, I am not nearly as concerned with our fiscal problems as with our governance problem. No matter how bad this economic collapse ultimately is, free markets, left to themselves will, as they ALWAYS have, bring us back. The real "problem" is not Rush, but where Obama may take us. I suggest that your concern for political image in improperly defined bipartisanship is the problem. What I get from you and many in the media is a desire for a vibrant Republican party, but merely as an alternate voice on policy not principle.
"Conservatives have been concerned about our direction since Wilson, perhaps since T.R. The problem is that the very nature of institutions of all sorts is to enlarge itself and justify its existence. The institution of government is no exception. When any institution enlarges itself or increases its power or control, it rarely, if ever, decommissions itself. We've been on the precipice of full fledged Socialism for decades for this very reason. Government does not relinquish power. Reagan tried, but by then the reach was so mammoth it was too late. Too many of our institutions had become reliant on the existence of, and day to day functioning of, a massive federal government managing millions and billions (now trillions) of dollars. Too many politicians have gone out of their way to pimp the government, making her the hottest whore in the world, where every John seeks her attention. Just look at how the stimulus package played itself out. It created a line of Johns, willing to do whatever to get a piece.
"The beauty of the founders was that they recognized this potential and sought to limit the problem through the Constitution and its statement that essentially any powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as being the jurisdiction of the federal government are the sole responsibility of the states. Brilliant. Unfortunately for us and the world, 230 years of too many politicians and too few statesman have brought us to this point, a point I fear that can only end in ruin, sooner or later, and ultimately require a "hard restart". I hope we can forestall this but I fear not. So yes, on principle, Rush hopes that Obama fails, as do I. People have not changed since the dawn of history, and historical precedence bears me out. Nations come and go, governments rise and fall. If Obama succeeds we all fail. If he fails, just maybe there is a chance to save this great nation. Whatever happens, heck, we had a great run."
Thursday, February 26, 2009
It's About Time!
In case you were not aware, a very important piece of legislation passed recently. You've probably been distracted by things like $800 billion stimulus packages, $3.6 trillion budgets, a worsening economy, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, encroaching socialism, and Barney Franks lisp. None of those things, though, could have distracted anyone from noticing the growing epidemic of chimpanzee/monkey violence against humans. I swear a day does not go by that I'm not subjected to another horrifying account of primate on primate (read: humans, according to the American Scientific) savagery.
But wait! Have no fear, Speaker Pelosi is here! On Tuesday, Feb. 24 2009, Congress took decisive action to stem the tide of a monkey business that was festering by the minute. (Enjoy the mixed metaphors). Yes, they voted to protect primates from other primates by regulating the chimpanzee trade, making it illegal, in some situations, to transport baboons, et al, across state lines.
How will this work, you ask? Well, it's a well known fact that apes despise domestic travel. Once in their home state they become very attached, and the very thought of visiting other states makes them go, well, ape. If we can just get people to not vacation with their simian friends, the growing primate brutality problem will largely disappear.
Who will ever forget the story of the Alabaman Howler Monkey being taken by its family to see Mt. Rushmore. The family stopped for snacks at a 7-Eleven, where an unwitting clerk declared, "Welcome to South Dakota!" Three people were killed and the clerk has not been able to even see Curious George books without experiencing an anxiety attack.
For some reason, unknown to people who study such things, chimps and other monkey-types never become violent when left in their home state. Well documented, non-violence by organ-grinder monkeys is attributed to the fact that, for such monkeys, nomadism is the norm and, therefore, its own kind of home. Hopefully, Congress, exempted these simians from said law. After all, who doesn't love watching an out of state monkey in a little outfit and hat grinding away?
Now can I just say, when I read about this bill I could not stop laughing. I laughed to the point of tears. To think that this is what my country has become. Pelosi and her minions mean to tell me that the founding fathers pledged their "Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] Sacred Honor" for this? Brave soldiers trod with bloody feet through the snow so that our Congress of pathetic human refuse could debate and vote to outlaw the transport of primates across state lines. They will foam at the mouth at the thought of someone restricting the "right" of a mother to slaughter her own unborn child, but don't you dare try to sell a monkey to a private citizen in another state.
Only 95 representatives voted against the measure, which means plenty of Republicans as well as Democrats thought enough of this idiotic bill to see it pass.
Consequently, I'm done. I can't take it anymore. I am no longer a member of any political party. There is no honor in Washington. The Republicans of late have shown a concern for fiscal responsibility. But lets not be fooled; they were brought to this conclusion kicking and screaming. They want power and influence just like the other side of the aisle. Yes, the Republicans stood firm against the stimulus bill, but I don't believe for a moment that the party at large really opposed it. It was just political expediency, not honor. Where was their honor during the Bush years? Washington corrupts EVERYONE!
The latest: Utah's getting a new congressional representative in exchange for a rep in D.C. The caveat? The Utah rep is an "at large" rep that represents the whole state. What the h---? Where is that in the constitution? I thought "at large" reps were called Senators. So basically "ha ha" to everyone outside of Utah. I've got two people representing my district; you get only one. You see, Utah was scheduled to get a new rep after the next census anyway. This way we get one early, but in the way Congress wants it. I'll gladly wait for the census and take my constitutionally supported representatve, thank you. Obviously an at large rep (one that would include Salt Lake) will have a better chance of being a Democrat, since if he/she were given a district, as is usual, it likely would have included a majority of rural Utah; way too conservative.
Who's for this: Orrin Hatch. I can't stand that guy! Nay, as a senator, I despise him. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but no doubt his only interest is senatorial perks; which of course means he's right where he belongs: in a 100 member country club for slimey pigs, who care nothing for liberty and limited government, but lust for power and influence. The free corporate jets and cars with drivers is just too much for those hearty folk to resist. No doubt some of them arrive in D.C. with starry eyes, and visions of Mr. Smith in their heads. But no sooner do they get off the plane, then they find themselves the favorite prostitute of some lobbyist with money and perks coming out of his ears. The next thing you know, they've traded their honor for a pair of stilettos and black fishnet stockings.
I fear the time has past that voting can do anything to stem the tide. On December 16, 1774, in Boston's Old South Church, Samuel Adams walked to the pulpit and declared, "This meeting can do nothing more to save the country." Soon after, a group of patriots, loosely disguised as Mohawk Indians, were seen dumping British tea into the harbor. Perhaps it may be said that "voting can do nothing more to save the country." That something must be done is evident, but what I do not know; but aligning myself with one of the two prevailing political parties is certainly not it.
If you need me you can find me either digging a bunker behind my house or running military drills with my children in the basement. If I'm not in one of those two places, try to find where Obama is holding political prisoners. I may be there.
But wait! Have no fear, Speaker Pelosi is here! On Tuesday, Feb. 24 2009, Congress took decisive action to stem the tide of a monkey business that was festering by the minute. (Enjoy the mixed metaphors). Yes, they voted to protect primates from other primates by regulating the chimpanzee trade, making it illegal, in some situations, to transport baboons, et al, across state lines.
How will this work, you ask? Well, it's a well known fact that apes despise domestic travel. Once in their home state they become very attached, and the very thought of visiting other states makes them go, well, ape. If we can just get people to not vacation with their simian friends, the growing primate brutality problem will largely disappear.
Who will ever forget the story of the Alabaman Howler Monkey being taken by its family to see Mt. Rushmore. The family stopped for snacks at a 7-Eleven, where an unwitting clerk declared, "Welcome to South Dakota!" Three people were killed and the clerk has not been able to even see Curious George books without experiencing an anxiety attack.
For some reason, unknown to people who study such things, chimps and other monkey-types never become violent when left in their home state. Well documented, non-violence by organ-grinder monkeys is attributed to the fact that, for such monkeys, nomadism is the norm and, therefore, its own kind of home. Hopefully, Congress, exempted these simians from said law. After all, who doesn't love watching an out of state monkey in a little outfit and hat grinding away?
Now can I just say, when I read about this bill I could not stop laughing. I laughed to the point of tears. To think that this is what my country has become. Pelosi and her minions mean to tell me that the founding fathers pledged their "Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] Sacred Honor" for this? Brave soldiers trod with bloody feet through the snow so that our Congress of pathetic human refuse could debate and vote to outlaw the transport of primates across state lines. They will foam at the mouth at the thought of someone restricting the "right" of a mother to slaughter her own unborn child, but don't you dare try to sell a monkey to a private citizen in another state.
Only 95 representatives voted against the measure, which means plenty of Republicans as well as Democrats thought enough of this idiotic bill to see it pass.
Consequently, I'm done. I can't take it anymore. I am no longer a member of any political party. There is no honor in Washington. The Republicans of late have shown a concern for fiscal responsibility. But lets not be fooled; they were brought to this conclusion kicking and screaming. They want power and influence just like the other side of the aisle. Yes, the Republicans stood firm against the stimulus bill, but I don't believe for a moment that the party at large really opposed it. It was just political expediency, not honor. Where was their honor during the Bush years? Washington corrupts EVERYONE!
The latest: Utah's getting a new congressional representative in exchange for a rep in D.C. The caveat? The Utah rep is an "at large" rep that represents the whole state. What the h---? Where is that in the constitution? I thought "at large" reps were called Senators. So basically "ha ha" to everyone outside of Utah. I've got two people representing my district; you get only one. You see, Utah was scheduled to get a new rep after the next census anyway. This way we get one early, but in the way Congress wants it. I'll gladly wait for the census and take my constitutionally supported representatve, thank you. Obviously an at large rep (one that would include Salt Lake) will have a better chance of being a Democrat, since if he/she were given a district, as is usual, it likely would have included a majority of rural Utah; way too conservative.
Who's for this: Orrin Hatch. I can't stand that guy! Nay, as a senator, I despise him. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but no doubt his only interest is senatorial perks; which of course means he's right where he belongs: in a 100 member country club for slimey pigs, who care nothing for liberty and limited government, but lust for power and influence. The free corporate jets and cars with drivers is just too much for those hearty folk to resist. No doubt some of them arrive in D.C. with starry eyes, and visions of Mr. Smith in their heads. But no sooner do they get off the plane, then they find themselves the favorite prostitute of some lobbyist with money and perks coming out of his ears. The next thing you know, they've traded their honor for a pair of stilettos and black fishnet stockings.
I fear the time has past that voting can do anything to stem the tide. On December 16, 1774, in Boston's Old South Church, Samuel Adams walked to the pulpit and declared, "This meeting can do nothing more to save the country." Soon after, a group of patriots, loosely disguised as Mohawk Indians, were seen dumping British tea into the harbor. Perhaps it may be said that "voting can do nothing more to save the country." That something must be done is evident, but what I do not know; but aligning myself with one of the two prevailing political parties is certainly not it.
If you need me you can find me either digging a bunker behind my house or running military drills with my children in the basement. If I'm not in one of those two places, try to find where Obama is holding political prisoners. I may be there.
Friday, February 20, 2009
And the Patrick Henry Award Goes to....
Hope you enjoy this as much as I did. I have no comment other than, "Here! Here!"
Friday, February 6, 2009
Hurry Up and Wait
So to recap:
In 1996 Congress mandated a switch from analog TV broadcasting to digital. This switch was set to take place at midnight Dec. 31, 2006. So, of course, in 2005 Congress decided that too many (approx. 70 million) people would suddenly be without Tom Brokaw (Happy Birthday!). So they extended the switch date to Feb. 17, 2009. Of course, now the President is poised to sign a bill extending the switch to June 12, 2009. Approximately some 6 million people haven't gotten their taxpayer funded digital converter coupons, or boxes, or whatever.
Anyway, now many TV stations are upset and seeking waivers to allow them to make the switch on second original schedule date of Feb. 17. Apparently they are upset that they've wasted money promoting and preparing for this switch only to have it extended once again. Also, some stations had not budgeted for keeping the analog equipment running all the way to June. (They must have NOT noticed that the federal government was involved.)
The problem is that TV stations are businesses that actually have market accountability. Therefore these kinds of things matter. Government, of course, could not care less. Their response: "What? Don't you have 300 million people voluntarily (aka I don't want to go to jail, and I'm not an Obama appointee) sending you a portion of their hard earned funds just to see you light a match to it?"
Of course some stations are happy for the extension. Oddly, according to an NPR report, the majority of stations not seeking waivers are affiliated with PBS. Shocker!
Pray for Keynes
So what exactly is the economic principle underlying the President's stimulus package? Pure Keynesian economics. John Maynard Keynes, a British economist, taught that a big burst of deficit spending by the government could resuscitate an economy. The current stimulus package is widely seen as the first real big test of Keyensian doctrine. Reagan (Happy Birthday!) used Keynesian, Friedman (money supply), and Mullen (supply-side) as a three legged stool which, of course, did work. This will be the first time, however, that Keynes' approach is all by itself, sort of (obviously the Fed is still manipulating the money supply.) Anyway, it's fun to be part of history, a little experiment of sorts. If it works, than great. If it fails, well, too bad; just move over you're hogging the gutter!
This morning, NPR correspondent David Kestenbaum reported that after interviewing some Keyensian economists he was surprised to find that even some of them had their doubts about the President's stimulus package. You can hear the audio here.
Mixed Message?
On January 22nd Obama signed an executive order to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay. On January 23rd he reinstated funding for abortions in foreign countries. So to recap: if you are a foreign unwanted fetus, you would be better off being a terrorist. Excellent.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Comments Fixed
For those hundreds of readers who tried to leave comments and couldn't: the problem is fixed. Yeah!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Farewell G. W.
It’s official. Barack Obama is now the leader of the free world. The left is euphoric, the right is nervous, and Wall Street still can’t make up its mind. Americans, however, have not had any trouble making up their minds about the now former President, George W. Bush. In fact, President Bush leaves with some of the lowest approval ratings in polling history. As of January 16, Real Clear Politics has the 43rd president with a disapproval rating of over 65%. Ouch! That has got to hurt. Fortunately for President Bush and the rest of us, though, approval ratings do not a man make.
I personally am unhappy with some of the actions taken by President Bush. I am very disappointed that government spending increased during his presidency; that the size of the federal government and its influence in our daily lives actually increased. I am even more disturbed at his approach to the current financial mess. To hear a United States President say that he is “abandoning free market principals to save the free market” is more than saddening.
However, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment and acknowledge the good he has done. I have not been herded into the media induced, maniacal hatred for President Bush. Consequently, I am capable of seeing some things as they really are, and not how they appear through I-Hate-Bush spectacles. Therefore, as a matter of honor and respect, I have taken this opportunity to send the former president home with my personal heartfelt appreciation.
Thank you, President Bush, for keeping us safe. Thank you for seeing the enemy for what it is – a psychopathic group of crazies hell-bent on destroying anything that disagrees with it, in particular Judaism and Western civilization. Thank you for taking the fight to our enemy’s backyard, far from the borders of our blessed nation. Thank you for not putting your faith in the UN, but in the ability of this great nation to accomplish good in the world. Thank you for being proactive in the fight against terrorism, even in the face of global criticism. Thank you for allowing me to keep more of what I earn. Thank you for valuing the life of the unborn and taking a moral stance on social issues.
What I admire most about you, though, is that you did all this at the risk of political image. I admire you for not putting your finger in the wind to make decisions. I admire you for sticking to your principles in spite of a rabid and foaming media who had devoted its every thought to tearing your presidency and its image to shreds. I admire you for having the guts to stand up to UN sloth and European effeminacy. I admire you for ignoring the NY Times Editorial Board. I admire you for ultimately sticking to correct principles of safety and security. Thank you for sacrificing yourself to protect the freedoms which allow negative poll numbers to be published. We all, even your political enemies, owe you a debt of gratitude, whether they have the honor to acknowledge it or not.
I salute you, sir. I salute you.
So, while the left pushes for your imprisonment, while the media continues to malign and marginalize you, and while the self-anointed elitists of Washington, Hollywood, and academia persist in scorning you, I will hold you in esteem for placing my and my family’s safety ahead of your approval ratings. Thank you, sir. And again, I salute you.
President George W. Bush, God bless you and yours.
I personally am unhappy with some of the actions taken by President Bush. I am very disappointed that government spending increased during his presidency; that the size of the federal government and its influence in our daily lives actually increased. I am even more disturbed at his approach to the current financial mess. To hear a United States President say that he is “abandoning free market principals to save the free market” is more than saddening.
However, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment and acknowledge the good he has done. I have not been herded into the media induced, maniacal hatred for President Bush. Consequently, I am capable of seeing some things as they really are, and not how they appear through I-Hate-Bush spectacles. Therefore, as a matter of honor and respect, I have taken this opportunity to send the former president home with my personal heartfelt appreciation.
Thank you, President Bush, for keeping us safe. Thank you for seeing the enemy for what it is – a psychopathic group of crazies hell-bent on destroying anything that disagrees with it, in particular Judaism and Western civilization. Thank you for taking the fight to our enemy’s backyard, far from the borders of our blessed nation. Thank you for not putting your faith in the UN, but in the ability of this great nation to accomplish good in the world. Thank you for being proactive in the fight against terrorism, even in the face of global criticism. Thank you for allowing me to keep more of what I earn. Thank you for valuing the life of the unborn and taking a moral stance on social issues.
What I admire most about you, though, is that you did all this at the risk of political image. I admire you for not putting your finger in the wind to make decisions. I admire you for sticking to your principles in spite of a rabid and foaming media who had devoted its every thought to tearing your presidency and its image to shreds. I admire you for having the guts to stand up to UN sloth and European effeminacy. I admire you for ignoring the NY Times Editorial Board. I admire you for ultimately sticking to correct principles of safety and security. Thank you for sacrificing yourself to protect the freedoms which allow negative poll numbers to be published. We all, even your political enemies, owe you a debt of gratitude, whether they have the honor to acknowledge it or not.
I salute you, sir. I salute you.
So, while the left pushes for your imprisonment, while the media continues to malign and marginalize you, and while the self-anointed elitists of Washington, Hollywood, and academia persist in scorning you, I will hold you in esteem for placing my and my family’s safety ahead of your approval ratings. Thank you, sir. And again, I salute you.
President George W. Bush, God bless you and yours.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
What!
[This was originally posted on December 18, 2008. I've toned down the rhetoric a bit out of respect for the former president, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for having sacrificed his political image to protect his country.]
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."
Saturday, January 24, 2009
News Flash 2012
[I wrote this last year as well. It's short and crude, but somewhat humorous.]
We now interrupt our programming for this breaking news…
"A ring of rogue entrepreneurs has been infiltrated by federal agents. Agents obtained recordings of the group discussing ways to make more money than they are already allotted according to international income tables. The culprits were apprehended just moments ago. They were found with a handwritten copy of the original constitution of the United States and a banned copy of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Agents are now searching their residences and expect to find information that will lead them to a larger underground free-market movement called Common Sense. Groups like these have been known to push mythical alternate histories regarding the origin of the United States of America. One such story suggests that an insurrection, or revolution, over taxes and unwanted government intervention erupted into what they call “The War of Independence”, but historians now understand to be the Proletariate Uprising of 1776.
"In the late 20th century groups like these were known to promote laws that would rob citizens of their Social Security Benefits. They also opposed the Universal Healthcare Movement. More recently they fought vigorously against SWI, the Spread the Wealth Initiative, which ultimately has culminated in the prosperity that we all now equally enjoy.
"Any persons that have information regarding or are connected in any way to this group are encouraged to come forward and put their country first by assisting Federal Agents in weeding out these anti-peace-and-stability groups before they do any permanent damage. Informants will be rewarded with letters of recommendation in their personal files and a one time 10% increase in their personal food allocation."
Now back to our program.
We now interrupt our programming for this breaking news…
"A ring of rogue entrepreneurs has been infiltrated by federal agents. Agents obtained recordings of the group discussing ways to make more money than they are already allotted according to international income tables. The culprits were apprehended just moments ago. They were found with a handwritten copy of the original constitution of the United States and a banned copy of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Agents are now searching their residences and expect to find information that will lead them to a larger underground free-market movement called Common Sense. Groups like these have been known to push mythical alternate histories regarding the origin of the United States of America. One such story suggests that an insurrection, or revolution, over taxes and unwanted government intervention erupted into what they call “The War of Independence”, but historians now understand to be the Proletariate Uprising of 1776.
"In the late 20th century groups like these were known to promote laws that would rob citizens of their Social Security Benefits. They also opposed the Universal Healthcare Movement. More recently they fought vigorously against SWI, the Spread the Wealth Initiative, which ultimately has culminated in the prosperity that we all now equally enjoy.
"Any persons that have information regarding or are connected in any way to this group are encouraged to come forward and put their country first by assisting Federal Agents in weeding out these anti-peace-and-stability groups before they do any permanent damage. Informants will be rewarded with letters of recommendation in their personal files and a one time 10% increase in their personal food allocation."
Now back to our program.
A Typical News Day at NBC
[I wrote this last year somewhere in the midst of the presidential campaign. I don't remember why I wrote it or for what. Perhaps catharsis. This how the media typically slants a report. It's not that it's not factual, so much as the way it's presented.]
“…So make sure you grab an umbrella on the way out tomorrow. John?”
“Thanks, Nancy.
“In further news, the McCain campaign reported today that Presidential nominee Barack Obama was in the distant past associated with a ‘60’s radical, William Ayers. According to them, Ayers was associated with a 60’s protest group called The Weather Underground, who allegedly detonated a few explosive devices as part of their protesting the Vietnam war. NBC questioned Senator Obama at the homeless shelter where he frequently volunteers regarding this. [Video of children at school and on the playground.] He responded: “Ayers is just a guy on my street. Years ago we worked together on education issues.” NBC has been unable confirm the McCain camps allegations. However we did learn that Ayers and Obama did indeed work on improving education among Chicago’s underprivileged children.
“In other news, NBC learned today that 72 yr old John McCain, who could be the oldest elected president in history, has been plagued with melanoma in the past. [Slideshow of pictures of McCain with bandage on face.] Melanoma is a highly dangerous skin cancer that is often recurring and can be deadly. Experts estimate that in 2008 alone 8,400 deaths will be attributed to melanoma. We questioned a dermatologist at the University of Illinois regarding this:
[Video clip of doctor in office]
“Melanoma is very deadly. John McCain is lucky to be alive. He literally could keel over at any minute. At his advanced age it only becomes more and more difficult for him to keep the cancer at bay and when it does return, and it will, it will be that much more difficult to fight. He should expect to spend a lot of his coming years in a hospital or doctor’s office.”
“Tune in later tonight as NBC does a one hour special report on melanoma.”
“Julia?”
“Thanks, John.
[Video of Palin at rally.] “Gov. Palin spent the day campaigning in Pennsylvania today. Meanwhile, our Alaska correspondent was following a breaking story. Apparently Gov. Palin’s maverick-ness did not extend to the Wasilla PTA. Let’s go to Bruce on the scene in Wasilla. Bruce?”
“Thanks, Julia.
“Julia, I’m standing in front of the home of Robert and Janice Clayborn. This is where the Wasilla PTA has held their meetings for the past 22 years. It was here that then PTA member Sarah Palin met Glenda Barns, mother of three, fellow PTA member, and member of the Alaska Hunting Association. At the time Glenda’s 14 yr old daughter, like many of the youth in this small town, was struggling with math. Apparently Glenda’s daughter, Tyanne, soon began meeting Mrs. Palin at the Palin residence where Mrs. Palin would help her with her math.
[Video of Bruce interviewing Glenda Barns.]
Glenda: After a couple of study sessions Ty…Tyanne brought over some cookies she had baked to give to Mrs. Palin.
Bruce: As a token of her appreciation?
Glenda: Yeah. It was just that one time. I think she only went to the Palin’s once or twice after that.
[End of video.]
Bruce:
“Only one problem: [Sinister music begins, black and white photos of Palin, etc.] PTA rules forbid any board members from accepting any gifts of more than $50 in value. We’ve been unable to get an answer from Gov. Palin as to the estimated value of the cookies, no doubt due to the strict gag the McCain camp has on Mrs. Palin answering questions from the press. So we contacted a gourmet cookie shop in New York who says a plate of two dozen cookies, depending on the type, could run anywhere from $75 to $125. Gov. Palin may have said ‘No thanks’ to the bridge to nowhere, but she apparently said ‘Yes’ to the cookies.
“We’ll be following this story to hopefully get a response from the Palin camp on this, and to see if the cookies somehow influenced decisions made on the PTA board.”
“Julia?”
“Wow! Thanks Bruce. Uh, Bruce?”
“Yes, Julia?”
“Why do you think the Palin’s won’t answer questions about this? It would seem such a simple thing. Not answering questions would seem to give the impression that they’re hiding something.”
“Yes, Julia. That’s our thought as well. We’ve got thirteen investigators up here looking into it, and as soon as we hear something we’ll let you know.”
“Thanks, Bruce. Great job!”
“New poll numbers are in and it’s looking more and more like this race is over…….”
“…So make sure you grab an umbrella on the way out tomorrow. John?”
“Thanks, Nancy.
“In further news, the McCain campaign reported today that Presidential nominee Barack Obama was in the distant past associated with a ‘60’s radical, William Ayers. According to them, Ayers was associated with a 60’s protest group called The Weather Underground, who allegedly detonated a few explosive devices as part of their protesting the Vietnam war. NBC questioned Senator Obama at the homeless shelter where he frequently volunteers regarding this. [Video of children at school and on the playground.] He responded: “Ayers is just a guy on my street. Years ago we worked together on education issues.” NBC has been unable confirm the McCain camps allegations. However we did learn that Ayers and Obama did indeed work on improving education among Chicago’s underprivileged children.
“In other news, NBC learned today that 72 yr old John McCain, who could be the oldest elected president in history, has been plagued with melanoma in the past. [Slideshow of pictures of McCain with bandage on face.] Melanoma is a highly dangerous skin cancer that is often recurring and can be deadly. Experts estimate that in 2008 alone 8,400 deaths will be attributed to melanoma. We questioned a dermatologist at the University of Illinois regarding this:
[Video clip of doctor in office]
“Melanoma is very deadly. John McCain is lucky to be alive. He literally could keel over at any minute. At his advanced age it only becomes more and more difficult for him to keep the cancer at bay and when it does return, and it will, it will be that much more difficult to fight. He should expect to spend a lot of his coming years in a hospital or doctor’s office.”
“Tune in later tonight as NBC does a one hour special report on melanoma.”
“Julia?”
“Thanks, John.
[Video of Palin at rally.] “Gov. Palin spent the day campaigning in Pennsylvania today. Meanwhile, our Alaska correspondent was following a breaking story. Apparently Gov. Palin’s maverick-ness did not extend to the Wasilla PTA. Let’s go to Bruce on the scene in Wasilla. Bruce?”
“Thanks, Julia.
“Julia, I’m standing in front of the home of Robert and Janice Clayborn. This is where the Wasilla PTA has held their meetings for the past 22 years. It was here that then PTA member Sarah Palin met Glenda Barns, mother of three, fellow PTA member, and member of the Alaska Hunting Association. At the time Glenda’s 14 yr old daughter, like many of the youth in this small town, was struggling with math. Apparently Glenda’s daughter, Tyanne, soon began meeting Mrs. Palin at the Palin residence where Mrs. Palin would help her with her math.
[Video of Bruce interviewing Glenda Barns.]
Glenda: After a couple of study sessions Ty…Tyanne brought over some cookies she had baked to give to Mrs. Palin.
Bruce: As a token of her appreciation?
Glenda: Yeah. It was just that one time. I think she only went to the Palin’s once or twice after that.
[End of video.]
Bruce:
“Only one problem: [Sinister music begins, black and white photos of Palin, etc.] PTA rules forbid any board members from accepting any gifts of more than $50 in value. We’ve been unable to get an answer from Gov. Palin as to the estimated value of the cookies, no doubt due to the strict gag the McCain camp has on Mrs. Palin answering questions from the press. So we contacted a gourmet cookie shop in New York who says a plate of two dozen cookies, depending on the type, could run anywhere from $75 to $125. Gov. Palin may have said ‘No thanks’ to the bridge to nowhere, but she apparently said ‘Yes’ to the cookies.
“We’ll be following this story to hopefully get a response from the Palin camp on this, and to see if the cookies somehow influenced decisions made on the PTA board.”
“Julia?”
“Wow! Thanks Bruce. Uh, Bruce?”
“Yes, Julia?”
“Why do you think the Palin’s won’t answer questions about this? It would seem such a simple thing. Not answering questions would seem to give the impression that they’re hiding something.”
“Yes, Julia. That’s our thought as well. We’ve got thirteen investigators up here looking into it, and as soon as we hear something we’ll let you know.”
“Thanks, Bruce. Great job!”
“New poll numbers are in and it’s looking more and more like this race is over…….”
How McCain Let the Election Slip Through His Fingers...Maybe
This was originally posted on September 29, 2008 on my family blog, Gibblets 'n Gravy.
[WARNING!! This is also very long and boring. No attempt has been made to correct previous errors in grammar, spelling, or factual content. This is a blog of my personal opinions, not the New York Times....Wait, maybe it's more like the New York Times than I thought.]
So Thursday was the first presidential debate; placed smack dab in the middle of the financial meltdown on Wall Street. The president submits a bill, Henry Paulsen's bill, to congress. The Dems in congress pick up the bill and run with it adding some earmarks along the way. Meanwhile the American electorate is chiming in on the bail out at a clip of 2:1 or 3:1 against. Congressional offices are reporting calls coming at a 200:1 and 300:1 against. Another report I heard was 95% of Americans were against the proposed bail out plan. Those numbers are pretty dramatic. I suspect that the 2 or 3:1 ratios are more accurate. Anyway, it's a slam dunk against the plan.
The day before the debate, Wednesday, McCain suspends his campaign and heads for Washington. Before he arrives the Dems fake a throw to first base by announcing they and the Repubs have agreed on a plan, which comes as news to the Repubs. McCain, Obama and congressional leaders meet with Pres. Bush in the White House and apparently the meeting "blows up", which Democratic leaders immediately blame on McCain, despite the fact that there had never been a deal to "blow up" in the first place. Of course the media, that group of conscientious journalists is only too happy to go along with the ruse. Thursday comes and McCain agrees to attend the debate after all. By this time the Dems are pointing the finger at the Repubs for holding up passage on the bill, because the Dems want a bipartisan bill, aka. Repubs agreeing with Dems. Again the press seems content to report it as such. Leave it to the Repubs to mess everything up.
Now, curiously, no one in the press seems particularly interested in a couple of obvious questions. First: Although I am no constitutional scholar, I'm pretty sure that passage of a bill in both houses of congress requires only a simple majority, ie. 51%. Someone might want to look into that, maybe its 53% or 61% or 55.3%. Maybe its 59% and two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert. But I'm pretty sure it's 51%. Also, the last time I checked, the Dems currently hold majorities in both the Senate and the House of Reps. That being the case, my question is, and should be for any respectable journalist: Why haven't the Dems passed the bill despite the Repubs? Nothing could be simpler. Hold a vote, and if all the Dems vote "Yea" than it passes. The bill is sent back to the President where it originated and he signs it. Done!
Question number two: Did Barack Obama support the Dems version of the bail out? Yes or no?
A little political thought brings us to the obvious answers that no Dem wants to explain or Obama for that matter. The fact is the Dems did not want there fingerprints exclusively on this bill, no way, no how. Why? They knew the bill could potentially blow up in America's collective face, and they do not want to hand the Repubs an easy argument. "Excuse me Mr. Voter, we hate to interrupt that fantastic meal of Alpo and gutter water, but we'd like to point out that the bail out bill which has brought you to this point was passed by the Dems without a single Republican vote. Please remember that in November." Obama did not want to be within a mile of that thing. He's got nowhere to go. For him it's a lose-lose proposition. I'm sure he was ecstatic when Bush called him and requested that he meet at the White House. "Uh...ummm...um...u...yes, Mr. President...ummmm....uh....can I...umm...bring my...uh...ummm biohazard suit?" See Obama can't be for it because America hates it. And he can't be against because, as the public face of his party, if he comes out against it, the bill is dead, dead, dead. There is no way the Dems push their bill if B. H. Obama comes out against it. Consequently B. H. just hems and haws about needing to see the final version of the bill before taking a stance. He maybe an empty suit, but he does at least have some people behind him with a sense of the politico.
McCain is in a very different situation: Oppose the President's bill and your a maverick opposing Bush and standing with the American people, who are almost entirely opposed to the boondoggle.
So they show up at the debate and Mr. Lehrer walks up on stage, sets up a baseball tee, puts a ball on it, and hands McCain a Louisville Slugger and asks, Senator do you support the bail out plan?" This is the moment. I'm watching, I'm waiting. With his response he can possibly secure the election and hand his party a big victory, all the while handing Obama and his Demo club a painful defeat. Hit it McCain. Come on John, big swing. So what does he do? He puts down the Louisville Slugger, grabs the bat his son picked up on bat day at the D-backs game (you know, the skinny, little short ones) and tops the ball off the tee, knocking it into the ground about five feet in front of him. His response? "Um sure, I hope to..."
What?! What was he thinking?
Somewhere in an alternative universe a McCain said: "My friends, I, like the rest of America, couldn't be more opposed to the plan as it currently stands. It's terrible. It would place a ridiculously high and unnecessary burden on the American people. The citizenry of this great nation has spoken loud and clear. They do not want this bill and they are right. I stand with them; the hard working men and women of this country who scrimped and scraped whatever they could, not to play funny money games on Wall Street, but to put themselves and their families in a respectable, modest home. I will not support a bill that punishes the people who did things right, and rewards the fat cats on Wall Street who got too greedy, or protects Washington from the scrutiny that it deserves for their part in this crisis.
"My friends, I suspended my campaign so that I could come to Washington and help produce a bill that protects the taxpayers, holds Wall Street accountable and shines the light of truth on all involved in this fleecing of the American public, from Washington to Wall Street. I sat in that meeting with Senator Obama in the White House and, my friends, the bill being put forth by the President and my associates across the aisle is a terrible bill. You may have seen the Democratic leadership try to suggest that they already had a bill in hand before I arrived yesterday. This is true, however it was not a bipartisan bill. The large majority of Republicans were dead set against the President's and the Democrats', make-the-taxpayers-pay, version of a bail out. I said, No! Senator Obama and the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and in the House and if they want this bill; a bill that punishes blue-collar America, than they will have to pass it without my vote, without the American people's support, and without the support of most of the Republican party. I say again, if President Bush, Senator Obama and the Democrats in congress like this bill and are comfortable with it, then let them pass it by themselves. They don't need me or my party's support in order to pass it. They have a majority. Now, I want to reach across the aisle and work with my friends in the Democratic party to bring about a responsible bill. Something has to be done or our economy could suffer even more. Consequently, it is my intention at the close of this debate to return to Washington to continue pushing for a bipartisan bill that puts the American people first. But as far as the one currently supported by Senator Obama, the President and my associates across the aisle, it stinks and the American people know it stinks; so if Senator Obama, President Bush, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi want that bill passed, they will have do it over the objections of me and the American people.
My friends, the question I'd like to ask, that has never been answered is this: Senator Obama, where do you stand on this bill? I presume you are for it as you have never opposed it. Are you for it or against it? Will you stand with me and the American people in opposing this earmark-ridden, pork-barrel-filled, taxpayer-punishing excuse for a bail out plan? The American people want to know. They need your support. Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time for bipartisanship. Now is the time to stand toe to toe with your own party, if necessary, in defense of the American people. And do not say that you need to see the particulars. You've seen them. You were in the same meeting with me. The President was there, the congressional leaders of your party were there, and they agree on the bill. Do you, Senator Obama, stand with your party or the American people? We both sat in that meeting and I came away with more than enough information to know that it was a bad bill. Do not tell us that you are not sure? We were there together. Your lack of opposition lends tacit support. What say you, Senator Obama? Are you for or against the existing bail out?
So there you have it. Obama can't support the bill because the people hate it, yet if he defies his party, he kills the existing version and hands control of the situation to the Repubs. It would have been high drama with McCain calling the shots, and he and his party the beneficiaries. I really think that moment could have changed the face of the campaign. Whether or not there was actually a definite Democrat version of the bill beyond basic principles is irrelevant. It was the Democrats who suggested that they had a deal reached and ready to go, and that McCain was not needed in the negotiations. At worst McCain is merely promoting the Democratic version of events, yet with a winning twist.
Now, I'm no big McCain fan. However, for the good of the nation I want him to win. Why? Because at the very least I know that McCain, no matter how much we disagree, will have the best interests of the nation at heart. I don't think anyone doubts that he would put his country first. B. H. Obama, on the other hand, is an unknown quantity. So much of his past has been ignored or glossed over that it's apparent that for him no news is good news. Would he put America first? I'm not sure. That alone should cause us all some concern.
Anyhow, that's it. There's my three dollars and twenty-two cents worth. Take it for what it's worth, but if I had been McCain's adviser, that's the counsel I would have given. But alas, it was not be. Whether or not it would have worked will never be known. But it would have been a better response than, "Sure, I hope to support it." Ugh!
[WARNING!! This is also very long and boring. No attempt has been made to correct previous errors in grammar, spelling, or factual content. This is a blog of my personal opinions, not the New York Times....Wait, maybe it's more like the New York Times than I thought.]
So Thursday was the first presidential debate; placed smack dab in the middle of the financial meltdown on Wall Street. The president submits a bill, Henry Paulsen's bill, to congress. The Dems in congress pick up the bill and run with it adding some earmarks along the way. Meanwhile the American electorate is chiming in on the bail out at a clip of 2:1 or 3:1 against. Congressional offices are reporting calls coming at a 200:1 and 300:1 against. Another report I heard was 95% of Americans were against the proposed bail out plan. Those numbers are pretty dramatic. I suspect that the 2 or 3:1 ratios are more accurate. Anyway, it's a slam dunk against the plan.
The day before the debate, Wednesday, McCain suspends his campaign and heads for Washington. Before he arrives the Dems fake a throw to first base by announcing they and the Repubs have agreed on a plan, which comes as news to the Repubs. McCain, Obama and congressional leaders meet with Pres. Bush in the White House and apparently the meeting "blows up", which Democratic leaders immediately blame on McCain, despite the fact that there had never been a deal to "blow up" in the first place. Of course the media, that group of conscientious journalists is only too happy to go along with the ruse. Thursday comes and McCain agrees to attend the debate after all. By this time the Dems are pointing the finger at the Repubs for holding up passage on the bill, because the Dems want a bipartisan bill, aka. Repubs agreeing with Dems. Again the press seems content to report it as such. Leave it to the Repubs to mess everything up.
Now, curiously, no one in the press seems particularly interested in a couple of obvious questions. First: Although I am no constitutional scholar, I'm pretty sure that passage of a bill in both houses of congress requires only a simple majority, ie. 51%. Someone might want to look into that, maybe its 53% or 61% or 55.3%. Maybe its 59% and two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert. But I'm pretty sure it's 51%. Also, the last time I checked, the Dems currently hold majorities in both the Senate and the House of Reps. That being the case, my question is, and should be for any respectable journalist: Why haven't the Dems passed the bill despite the Repubs? Nothing could be simpler. Hold a vote, and if all the Dems vote "Yea" than it passes. The bill is sent back to the President where it originated and he signs it. Done!
Question number two: Did Barack Obama support the Dems version of the bail out? Yes or no?
A little political thought brings us to the obvious answers that no Dem wants to explain or Obama for that matter. The fact is the Dems did not want there fingerprints exclusively on this bill, no way, no how. Why? They knew the bill could potentially blow up in America's collective face, and they do not want to hand the Repubs an easy argument. "Excuse me Mr. Voter, we hate to interrupt that fantastic meal of Alpo and gutter water, but we'd like to point out that the bail out bill which has brought you to this point was passed by the Dems without a single Republican vote. Please remember that in November." Obama did not want to be within a mile of that thing. He's got nowhere to go. For him it's a lose-lose proposition. I'm sure he was ecstatic when Bush called him and requested that he meet at the White House. "Uh...ummm...um...u...yes, Mr. President...ummmm....uh....can I...umm...bring my...uh...ummm biohazard suit?" See Obama can't be for it because America hates it. And he can't be against because, as the public face of his party, if he comes out against it, the bill is dead, dead, dead. There is no way the Dems push their bill if B. H. Obama comes out against it. Consequently B. H. just hems and haws about needing to see the final version of the bill before taking a stance. He maybe an empty suit, but he does at least have some people behind him with a sense of the politico.
McCain is in a very different situation: Oppose the President's bill and your a maverick opposing Bush and standing with the American people, who are almost entirely opposed to the boondoggle.
So they show up at the debate and Mr. Lehrer walks up on stage, sets up a baseball tee, puts a ball on it, and hands McCain a Louisville Slugger and asks, Senator do you support the bail out plan?" This is the moment. I'm watching, I'm waiting. With his response he can possibly secure the election and hand his party a big victory, all the while handing Obama and his Demo club a painful defeat. Hit it McCain. Come on John, big swing. So what does he do? He puts down the Louisville Slugger, grabs the bat his son picked up on bat day at the D-backs game (you know, the skinny, little short ones) and tops the ball off the tee, knocking it into the ground about five feet in front of him. His response? "Um sure, I hope to..."
What?! What was he thinking?
Somewhere in an alternative universe a McCain said: "My friends, I, like the rest of America, couldn't be more opposed to the plan as it currently stands. It's terrible. It would place a ridiculously high and unnecessary burden on the American people. The citizenry of this great nation has spoken loud and clear. They do not want this bill and they are right. I stand with them; the hard working men and women of this country who scrimped and scraped whatever they could, not to play funny money games on Wall Street, but to put themselves and their families in a respectable, modest home. I will not support a bill that punishes the people who did things right, and rewards the fat cats on Wall Street who got too greedy, or protects Washington from the scrutiny that it deserves for their part in this crisis.
"My friends, I suspended my campaign so that I could come to Washington and help produce a bill that protects the taxpayers, holds Wall Street accountable and shines the light of truth on all involved in this fleecing of the American public, from Washington to Wall Street. I sat in that meeting with Senator Obama in the White House and, my friends, the bill being put forth by the President and my associates across the aisle is a terrible bill. You may have seen the Democratic leadership try to suggest that they already had a bill in hand before I arrived yesterday. This is true, however it was not a bipartisan bill. The large majority of Republicans were dead set against the President's and the Democrats', make-the-taxpayers-pay, version of a bail out. I said, No! Senator Obama and the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and in the House and if they want this bill; a bill that punishes blue-collar America, than they will have to pass it without my vote, without the American people's support, and without the support of most of the Republican party. I say again, if President Bush, Senator Obama and the Democrats in congress like this bill and are comfortable with it, then let them pass it by themselves. They don't need me or my party's support in order to pass it. They have a majority. Now, I want to reach across the aisle and work with my friends in the Democratic party to bring about a responsible bill. Something has to be done or our economy could suffer even more. Consequently, it is my intention at the close of this debate to return to Washington to continue pushing for a bipartisan bill that puts the American people first. But as far as the one currently supported by Senator Obama, the President and my associates across the aisle, it stinks and the American people know it stinks; so if Senator Obama, President Bush, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi want that bill passed, they will have do it over the objections of me and the American people.
My friends, the question I'd like to ask, that has never been answered is this: Senator Obama, where do you stand on this bill? I presume you are for it as you have never opposed it. Are you for it or against it? Will you stand with me and the American people in opposing this earmark-ridden, pork-barrel-filled, taxpayer-punishing excuse for a bail out plan? The American people want to know. They need your support. Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time for bipartisanship. Now is the time to stand toe to toe with your own party, if necessary, in defense of the American people. And do not say that you need to see the particulars. You've seen them. You were in the same meeting with me. The President was there, the congressional leaders of your party were there, and they agree on the bill. Do you, Senator Obama, stand with your party or the American people? We both sat in that meeting and I came away with more than enough information to know that it was a bad bill. Do not tell us that you are not sure? We were there together. Your lack of opposition lends tacit support. What say you, Senator Obama? Are you for or against the existing bail out?
So there you have it. Obama can't support the bill because the people hate it, yet if he defies his party, he kills the existing version and hands control of the situation to the Repubs. It would have been high drama with McCain calling the shots, and he and his party the beneficiaries. I really think that moment could have changed the face of the campaign. Whether or not there was actually a definite Democrat version of the bill beyond basic principles is irrelevant. It was the Democrats who suggested that they had a deal reached and ready to go, and that McCain was not needed in the negotiations. At worst McCain is merely promoting the Democratic version of events, yet with a winning twist.
Now, I'm no big McCain fan. However, for the good of the nation I want him to win. Why? Because at the very least I know that McCain, no matter how much we disagree, will have the best interests of the nation at heart. I don't think anyone doubts that he would put his country first. B. H. Obama, on the other hand, is an unknown quantity. So much of his past has been ignored or glossed over that it's apparent that for him no news is good news. Would he put America first? I'm not sure. That alone should cause us all some concern.
Anyhow, that's it. There's my three dollars and twenty-two cents worth. Take it for what it's worth, but if I had been McCain's adviser, that's the counsel I would have given. But alas, it was not be. Whether or not it would have worked will never be known. But it would have been a better response than, "Sure, I hope to support it." Ugh!
Washington D.C.: the Real Enemy
I originally posted this on my family blog, Gibblets 'n Gravy. It seems more appropriate here. The original title was A Little Political Rant...Okay, a Big Rant.
[Warning!! Only read if you are very bored. This is very long. In fact too long. I tried to re-edit this piece before reposting it here but got too bored to finish.]
Like many of you, well, some of you, okay only you very dull people with no jobs and nothing to do but nurse your broken careers, I have been following the recent political/financial goings-on in Washington. And having seen enough to test the fortitude of any man's stomach, I feel the need to stand on my "holier than thou" soap box and let loose.
Let me begin by stating that, no surprise to those who know me, I am a conservative; pretty hard-core, right wing conservative. A republican, yes, but only tenuously. Frankly, I'd like to throw out the whole lot of them and start fresh, perhaps with a new conservative party, perhaps the Constitution Party; I don't know...But suffice it to say, I am pretty disgusted with what happened when, for the first time in forever, we had a Republican president with a Republican congress. Apparently Washington D.C. turns everyone into a Democrat. When it came to fiscal issues, apparently the President and the Repubs in congress tried to distance themselves from Clinton by moving to the right of Barney Frank, but to the left of Bill Clinton. Perhaps when they take the oath of office they are injected with some kind of microchip that makes them talk like Ronald Reagan but vote like Tip O'Neal. They must have started doing this when Newt Gingrich was railroaded out of town. Anyway, my point is: I'm a conservative and I only affiliate with the Republican party in hopes that by voting in the primaries I might be able to move the party to the right. If I thought a more constitutional party could get some serious clout more easily than changing the current Repub party, I'd jump in head first.
Well, in case I haven't bored you enough, let me continue. If any of your friends (or you, for that matter) suffer with insomnia, please lead them to my blog. It will not only provide them a cheap alternative to Ambien, but it will also inflate my ego by falsely legitimizing this blog. And so to continue: Suffice it to say that if you think that this financial snafu is the result of George "The Hurricane Maker", "The Levy Breaker", "The Incoherent", "The War Monger", "The Devil Himself" Bush, the rascally Republicans, greedy CEO's and a greedy Wall Street then you must like your Kool-Aid nice and sweet. (Let me point any possible Bush haters to this New York Times article. Congressional Democrats booted this bill, one of several attempts by the President to take on Fannie and Freddie mismanagement.) Take 10 minutes and read the history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and you will quickly see some potential problems that unfortunately, yet inevitably, moved from potential to reality. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, government sponsored institutions that are not required to file with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commision - the Wall Street Police), hold about half...HALF... of the $12 trillion worth of mortgages in the US, that is about $6,000,000,000,000. If you think the current crisis is going to only cost $700 billion, read this and weep: "The July 30, 2008 law enabling expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increased the national debt ceiling by US$800 billion, to a total of US$ 10.7 Trillion in anticipation of the potential need for the Treasury to have the flexibility to support the federal home loan banks." Ouch! If everything goes really bad, we, you are potentially on the hook for $10.7 TRILLION. Now, admittedly, most of the mortgages are and will remain in good standing. But I'm sure that you can see that $700 billion is a drop in the bucket.
Essentially Fannie and Freddie exist to buy up bad loans, ie. loans that no respectable bank would want to touch because the loan recipient wouldn't qualify in the free market; too much risk. They (Fannie & Freddie) repackage the questionable loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sell them on Wall Street. Respectable banks at that point are willing to buy the MBS because they have the "implicit" guarantee of the federal govt, aka you. Well, when the unqualified loanees began defaulting on their loans, they began to flood the market with inventory bringing the loaners (and possibly an entire economy) to a halt. We'll just have to wait and see.
You'll pardon a little history...I hope: Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of the New Deal. FDR pushed it with the intent to enable unqualified people to qualify for loans, in hopes that it would create a need to build more homes, thus more jobs, etc. Undoubtedly, like almost all of the New Deal, it did NOT work. In 1965 LBJ "privatized" Fannie mae to take it off the books as his Great Society was a bit on the costly side and it looked better to have Fannie Mae not showing up on an accounting ledger. Don't worry, I'm sure LBJ was not flimflamming anyone. In 1970, as a result of a 1968 law (still LBJ), Freddie Mac was created to put competition in the market for Fannie Mae. If you believe in the free market you should laugh here. Again don't worry, no shenanigans I'm sure.
In 1995 (can you say Clinton), Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities. This is where our trouble directly begins. Essentially the affordable housing requirements set by HUD (the Dept. of wHoring and Urban De-flowering, I mean Housing and Urban Development) force lending institutions to make a certain amount of bad loans for the good of the community. Again, laughter appropriate here. You see, if Bank "X" must give 10% of it's loans to certain economic groups, or certain ethnic groups, regardless of income qualifications, than under-qualified loanees would be able to buy a house, and homeownership is a good thing. Right?! Well, despite the senselessness of such loans, in order to avoid any perception in congress of wrongdoing, the banks made bad loans. (Keep in mind that Fannie and Freddie make up about half of US mortgages, most of which are questionable from the word go which means they took on an disproportionate amount of risky loans.) Well the percentage of loans that are made to these groups kept going up, due to tax incentives and the ever watchful HUD and CBC (Congressional Black Caucus). Essentially it became a protection racket. The Barney Frank's and the Charlie Rangel's in congress would increase the requirements and the lending institutions would comply. What else were they going to do. If you questioned the system you were labeled a racist or uncaring where the needy are concerned. To prove my point, recently on one of these political talking heads shows a Republican pointed this HUD, CBC stuff and an Obama supporter responded with, "So your blaming this current financial mess on poor people?" Well that was the first and last time I heard the truth about this topic. Political correctness rears its head and silences truth. Gosh we're sensitive and tolerant.
Meanwhile, I wonder why Chris Dodd, D-CT was getting "VIP" loans from Country Wide Home Loans. Oh yeah, he's the Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. Oh, and he's received more $$ from Fannie and Freddie in contributions than any other guy in Washington (Barack Obama 2nd, John Kerry 3rd). Hmm. Don't worry. I'm sure Dodd is just looking out for you! That Chris Dodd, always working hard for you! What a guy! Don't get too excited, you Republicans, your the next three on the list headed by my state's very own Robert Bennett. In fact if you'll notice, ALL the people working on this "bail out" are in the top 26 money-takers: Chris Dodd-D, Barney Frank-D, Nancy Pelosi-D, Harry Reid-D, John Boehner-R, Robert Bennett-R, Roy Blunt-R, Chris Bond-R. Frankly, when it's all added up the Dems got about 30% more than the Repubs. So the Repubs were engaging in "financial relations" just a little less than the Dems, who were basically running a financial cat house. Very comforting.
So back to 1995: from this point on, sub-prime loans became accepted as meeting "Affordable Housing" requirements. Oooh! Ooh! Can I have one?! Please?! Over time this became a great way to not only get a first house (as opposed to the age old way of getting money from Mom & Dad), but also a great way to speculate in a housing market that was returning well over what people were forking out in sub-prime and interest-only loans. (Thanks, in part, to a complicit Federal Reserve who was constantly manipulating interest rates so as to induce more borrowing). This created incentives to buy homes, which in turn created an incentive to build more homes, which created an incentive to loan more $ for houses, which created reasons to build more houses, which created...Hey, wait a second. Something's going on here. Does anyone see a potential problem here?
So here we are, staring like deer in the headlights of an...aircraft carrier (97,000 tons of floating steel. And as anyone who has ever dropped steel in water knows, it definitely does not float. No matter how small a piece of steel, it will not float. So, then, how does 97,000 tons of steel float???????? Magic.)
But I digress...
So what is the point of all this? Simply that you really need to get a life! You just waisted who knows how much time reading this pitifully boring drivel from and unemployed musician. My plan? to default on any and all loans and apply for a bail out. Unfortunately this probably won't work because I didn't take on enough bad loans. If I had only been smart enough to take out mortgages in the billions of dollars then I'd be sitting pretty. All you tax paying saps would be on the hook for my bad debts.
Now to the real point:
Basically, we are probably in for some difficult times. Only this time when we tie all our goods to the tops of our cars and head West looking for work we'll watch DVD's on our overhead DVD players. That will at least take the sting out of near starvation. At the very least it will keep the children occupied while Mommy and Daddy try and find a barn to sleep in for the night.
If I sound a little peeved and cynical you're right. The idea that the very fools and scalawags who created this mess are actually posturing themselves as capable of fixing this is beyond laughable. Every time I see Barney Frank or Chris Dodd speak about this, or criticize Bush or anyone else, while the so called journalists just soak it up, and spew it right back out with no attempt to point out the hypocrisy of these very people, well..........
Let me leave you with this from the aforementioned 2003 New York Times article regarding Bush's proposal to move regulatory oversight for Fannie and Freddie from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (created in 1992 as part of HUD) to a new agency under the Treasury Dept., which is headed by Presidential appointment:
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank D-MA, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Rep. Melvin L. Watt, D-NC, agreed.
"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." Mr. Watt said.
Well whoopee-do to you Mr. Frank and Mr. Watt! You guys really helped the little guy this time. No doubt the coming meltdown will only hurt the rich and not at all weaken "the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." Barney and Melvin hard at work for the little guy! Always working hard, those guys! I think the article has a typo, I think Barney Frank is not the ranking Democrat, but the rank Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
It's a good thing my TV weighs 97,000 tons, otherwise the next time I saw one of these carnival ride workers passing blame and telling us how they're going to clean up their stinky mess I'd be tempted to rip it off the wall and throw it in my bathtub where it would no doubt float because it's got steel AND plastic in it, and I know for a fact that plastic floats!
[Warning!! Only read if you are very bored. This is very long. In fact too long. I tried to re-edit this piece before reposting it here but got too bored to finish.]
Like many of you, well, some of you, okay only you very dull people with no jobs and nothing to do but nurse your broken careers, I have been following the recent political/financial goings-on in Washington. And having seen enough to test the fortitude of any man's stomach, I feel the need to stand on my "holier than thou" soap box and let loose.
Let me begin by stating that, no surprise to those who know me, I am a conservative; pretty hard-core, right wing conservative. A republican, yes, but only tenuously. Frankly, I'd like to throw out the whole lot of them and start fresh, perhaps with a new conservative party, perhaps the Constitution Party; I don't know...But suffice it to say, I am pretty disgusted with what happened when, for the first time in forever, we had a Republican president with a Republican congress. Apparently Washington D.C. turns everyone into a Democrat. When it came to fiscal issues, apparently the President and the Repubs in congress tried to distance themselves from Clinton by moving to the right of Barney Frank, but to the left of Bill Clinton. Perhaps when they take the oath of office they are injected with some kind of microchip that makes them talk like Ronald Reagan but vote like Tip O'Neal. They must have started doing this when Newt Gingrich was railroaded out of town. Anyway, my point is: I'm a conservative and I only affiliate with the Republican party in hopes that by voting in the primaries I might be able to move the party to the right. If I thought a more constitutional party could get some serious clout more easily than changing the current Repub party, I'd jump in head first.
Well, in case I haven't bored you enough, let me continue. If any of your friends (or you, for that matter) suffer with insomnia, please lead them to my blog. It will not only provide them a cheap alternative to Ambien, but it will also inflate my ego by falsely legitimizing this blog. And so to continue: Suffice it to say that if you think that this financial snafu is the result of George "The Hurricane Maker", "The Levy Breaker", "The Incoherent", "The War Monger", "The Devil Himself" Bush, the rascally Republicans, greedy CEO's and a greedy Wall Street then you must like your Kool-Aid nice and sweet. (Let me point any possible Bush haters to this New York Times article. Congressional Democrats booted this bill, one of several attempts by the President to take on Fannie and Freddie mismanagement.) Take 10 minutes and read the history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and you will quickly see some potential problems that unfortunately, yet inevitably, moved from potential to reality. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, government sponsored institutions that are not required to file with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commision - the Wall Street Police), hold about half...HALF... of the $12 trillion worth of mortgages in the US, that is about $6,000,000,000,000. If you think the current crisis is going to only cost $700 billion, read this and weep: "The July 30, 2008 law enabling expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increased the national debt ceiling by US$800 billion, to a total of US$ 10.7 Trillion in anticipation of the potential need for the Treasury to have the flexibility to support the federal home loan banks." Ouch! If everything goes really bad, we, you are potentially on the hook for $10.7 TRILLION. Now, admittedly, most of the mortgages are and will remain in good standing. But I'm sure that you can see that $700 billion is a drop in the bucket.
Essentially Fannie and Freddie exist to buy up bad loans, ie. loans that no respectable bank would want to touch because the loan recipient wouldn't qualify in the free market; too much risk. They (Fannie & Freddie) repackage the questionable loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sell them on Wall Street. Respectable banks at that point are willing to buy the MBS because they have the "implicit" guarantee of the federal govt, aka you. Well, when the unqualified loanees began defaulting on their loans, they began to flood the market with inventory bringing the loaners (and possibly an entire economy) to a halt. We'll just have to wait and see.
You'll pardon a little history...I hope: Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of the New Deal. FDR pushed it with the intent to enable unqualified people to qualify for loans, in hopes that it would create a need to build more homes, thus more jobs, etc. Undoubtedly, like almost all of the New Deal, it did NOT work. In 1965 LBJ "privatized" Fannie mae to take it off the books as his Great Society was a bit on the costly side and it looked better to have Fannie Mae not showing up on an accounting ledger. Don't worry, I'm sure LBJ was not flimflamming anyone. In 1970, as a result of a 1968 law (still LBJ), Freddie Mac was created to put competition in the market for Fannie Mae. If you believe in the free market you should laugh here. Again don't worry, no shenanigans I'm sure.
In 1995 (can you say Clinton), Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities. This is where our trouble directly begins. Essentially the affordable housing requirements set by HUD (the Dept. of wHoring and Urban De-flowering, I mean Housing and Urban Development) force lending institutions to make a certain amount of bad loans for the good of the community. Again, laughter appropriate here. You see, if Bank "X" must give 10% of it's loans to certain economic groups, or certain ethnic groups, regardless of income qualifications, than under-qualified loanees would be able to buy a house, and homeownership is a good thing. Right?! Well, despite the senselessness of such loans, in order to avoid any perception in congress of wrongdoing, the banks made bad loans. (Keep in mind that Fannie and Freddie make up about half of US mortgages, most of which are questionable from the word go which means they took on an disproportionate amount of risky loans.) Well the percentage of loans that are made to these groups kept going up, due to tax incentives and the ever watchful HUD and CBC (Congressional Black Caucus). Essentially it became a protection racket. The Barney Frank's and the Charlie Rangel's in congress would increase the requirements and the lending institutions would comply. What else were they going to do. If you questioned the system you were labeled a racist or uncaring where the needy are concerned. To prove my point, recently on one of these political talking heads shows a Republican pointed this HUD, CBC stuff and an Obama supporter responded with, "So your blaming this current financial mess on poor people?" Well that was the first and last time I heard the truth about this topic. Political correctness rears its head and silences truth. Gosh we're sensitive and tolerant.
Meanwhile, I wonder why Chris Dodd, D-CT was getting "VIP" loans from Country Wide Home Loans. Oh yeah, he's the Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. Oh, and he's received more $$ from Fannie and Freddie in contributions than any other guy in Washington (Barack Obama 2nd, John Kerry 3rd). Hmm. Don't worry. I'm sure Dodd is just looking out for you! That Chris Dodd, always working hard for you! What a guy! Don't get too excited, you Republicans, your the next three on the list headed by my state's very own Robert Bennett. In fact if you'll notice, ALL the people working on this "bail out" are in the top 26 money-takers: Chris Dodd-D, Barney Frank-D, Nancy Pelosi-D, Harry Reid-D, John Boehner-R, Robert Bennett-R, Roy Blunt-R, Chris Bond-R. Frankly, when it's all added up the Dems got about 30% more than the Repubs. So the Repubs were engaging in "financial relations" just a little less than the Dems, who were basically running a financial cat house. Very comforting.
So back to 1995: from this point on, sub-prime loans became accepted as meeting "Affordable Housing" requirements. Oooh! Ooh! Can I have one?! Please?! Over time this became a great way to not only get a first house (as opposed to the age old way of getting money from Mom & Dad), but also a great way to speculate in a housing market that was returning well over what people were forking out in sub-prime and interest-only loans. (Thanks, in part, to a complicit Federal Reserve who was constantly manipulating interest rates so as to induce more borrowing). This created incentives to buy homes, which in turn created an incentive to build more homes, which created an incentive to loan more $ for houses, which created reasons to build more houses, which created...Hey, wait a second. Something's going on here. Does anyone see a potential problem here?
So here we are, staring like deer in the headlights of an...aircraft carrier (97,000 tons of floating steel. And as anyone who has ever dropped steel in water knows, it definitely does not float. No matter how small a piece of steel, it will not float. So, then, how does 97,000 tons of steel float???????? Magic.)
But I digress...
So what is the point of all this? Simply that you really need to get a life! You just waisted who knows how much time reading this pitifully boring drivel from and unemployed musician. My plan? to default on any and all loans and apply for a bail out. Unfortunately this probably won't work because I didn't take on enough bad loans. If I had only been smart enough to take out mortgages in the billions of dollars then I'd be sitting pretty. All you tax paying saps would be on the hook for my bad debts.
Now to the real point:
Basically, we are probably in for some difficult times. Only this time when we tie all our goods to the tops of our cars and head West looking for work we'll watch DVD's on our overhead DVD players. That will at least take the sting out of near starvation. At the very least it will keep the children occupied while Mommy and Daddy try and find a barn to sleep in for the night.
If I sound a little peeved and cynical you're right. The idea that the very fools and scalawags who created this mess are actually posturing themselves as capable of fixing this is beyond laughable. Every time I see Barney Frank or Chris Dodd speak about this, or criticize Bush or anyone else, while the so called journalists just soak it up, and spew it right back out with no attempt to point out the hypocrisy of these very people, well..........
Let me leave you with this from the aforementioned 2003 New York Times article regarding Bush's proposal to move regulatory oversight for Fannie and Freddie from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (created in 1992 as part of HUD) to a new agency under the Treasury Dept., which is headed by Presidential appointment:
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank D-MA, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Rep. Melvin L. Watt, D-NC, agreed.
"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." Mr. Watt said.
Well whoopee-do to you Mr. Frank and Mr. Watt! You guys really helped the little guy this time. No doubt the coming meltdown will only hurt the rich and not at all weaken "the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." Barney and Melvin hard at work for the little guy! Always working hard, those guys! I think the article has a typo, I think Barney Frank is not the ranking Democrat, but the rank Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
It's a good thing my TV weighs 97,000 tons, otherwise the next time I saw one of these carnival ride workers passing blame and telling us how they're going to clean up their stinky mess I'd be tempted to rip it off the wall and throw it in my bathtub where it would no doubt float because it's got steel AND plastic in it, and I know for a fact that plastic floats!
A Blog for the Bored
So here goes...
After some encouragement from others, I thought I'd go ahead and put together a blog of my personal rants. I don't profess to be any kind of specialist; I have no degree in political science, or law, or anything else that would recommend my thoughts on anything to just about anyone. I'm just a regular Joe-six-pack (no particular race implied) without the six pack, unless it's root beer. So why would you read anything on this blog? I don't know. Surely you want the answer to that question secured by therapist-client privilege.
At any rate, enjoy. Feel free to respond, comment, disagree, pigeon-hole, overreact, question, ignore, etc.
Take luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
