I live in a land called Mid-America. Here, we want less government involvement in our lives. And we're mostly non-elite, working middle-class. "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson
Queen Pelosi just can't help herself. For the second time, when the American people needed a Congress that would act in the interests of the nation as a whole, she fails to get the job done.
Rather than attempting to rally both Democrats and Republicans to fix the financial mess we're in, she plays partisan politics, trying to put all the blame on President Bush.
But the average American knows that it isn't primarily President Bush's fault, if fault has to be put on someone or something. If you read my previous post, you'll see this whole trend started with the Democrats in 1977 and then again several times over when they refused to reform the system. So Nancy's remarks are insulting, not only to her Republican colleagues, but to the Nation as a whole.
...when was the last time someone asked you for $700bn? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies: policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system...Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States. -- Pelosi remarks before Congress, Sept 29, 2008
Frankly, the failure is hers and her fellow Democrats. Her party is at risk in the upcoming elections. Maybe she thinks if the economy is bad enough, it will be good for the Democrats in November.
I can't see how, since she has caused this. Let's see if American voters are as smart as we hope they are.
I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. -- Thomas Jefferson
Backtrack to 1977 when the Community Reinvestment Act was inacted during Jimmy Carter's term. The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. Call it Affirmative Action for home and small business loans.
This law was strengthened in 1995 by Congress, signed by Pres. Clinton, and it was then that this so-called sub-prime mortgage baloney really started to take off. It was part of the liberal plan to provide means of home ownership to those who could not qualify -- or afford -- a conventional mortgage. This was a nice idea, but one which could not work. The backbone of the lending industry is that lendees pay back loans to lenders.
You remember conventional mortgages? Up until recently, in order to buy a home, you had to work and save for the down payment, which was normally 20 percent of the cost of the house. Then you had to be able to prove to the bank that you could repay the loan on the remaining 80 percent. This provided immediate equity, which protected not only the bank, but the home owner as well.
Then along comes the "sub-prime" mortgage. Much pressure was put on mortgage lenders to offer these more risky loans. Fannie Mac offered to buy them. The Justice department threatened legal action if lenders didn't comply. In fact, the law firm that Barack Obama worked for at that time sued Citigroup because they weren't making enough sub-prime lonas. So as time went along, more and more of these risky mortgages were made, until it seemed that anyone could get a home loan. People were even getting loans that were more than the home was valued, expecting home prices would always go up. When will anyone learn that all things that go up, eventually come down?
In 1999, the New York Times observed that eventually the bill would come due because of these loans. How prophetic, even for this paper, which would be expected to fully support a liberal cause.
In 2001, after taking office, President Bush warned Congress to do something about this growing problem, and in 2003 upgraded his warning that the problem could create systemic problems, which means it could affect the entire financial system. Legislation introduced was blocked. Later, in February 2005, Alan Greenspan warned of a collapse. But Democrats, such as Barney Franks, said Fannie Mae should do even more to get low-income people into home ownership.
In 2006, Sen. John McCain co-sponsored a bill to increase regulatory measures over government-back mortgages. The bill passed the Senate (with all Democrats voting against), but never made it off the House floor. See the Fox News report below for a summary.
Now, the same people -- people like Chris Dodd and Barney Franks -- who helped created the problem, want the American taxpayer to bail out these financial institutions that are holding all this bad debt. These American taxpayers are the ones who are working, paying their mortgages, and trying to save for their futures. Now we should be expected to bail out not only the lending institutions, but the homeowners also.
I find it ironic that Dodd and his ilk will hold Congressional hearings to fix blame for this. But he should be a witness, not an investigator.
It just may be that the government -- us -- will have to do something drastic, like buy up all these bad mortgages. Bush says we'll get our money back. But don't count on it. Government has a bad track-record.
Politicians -- who pander for votes -- say this is a good plan. Several large banks will be saved from disaster, and a lot of homeowners who can't pay the bill will get bailed out. In the meantime, those of us who currently pay the bills (the top 50 percent of wage earners pay 95 percent of all income tax) will end up paying even more.
But there are now some 200 economists who say the plan is deeply flawed.
No matter which way it goes, one thing remains. Most of our problems have started with the Federal government meddling in free markets. Yes, there should be oversight against abuse. But when government starts telling free markets how to behave, disaster is around the corner. This has been proven over and over, yet our government does it over and over.
Remember a few years ago when the Minutemen tried to present their position on border security at Columbia University? If not, you should google it. It is a good example of what happens if you try to present a conservative view to a liberal group.
Liberals want you to believe they stand for freedom of speech, of tolerance for other opinions, but the record shows the opposite. I've had the same experience on liberal disscusion boards. As long as I was in agreement with their world view, I was OK. Otherwise I was encourage to leave, and not in a nice way.
Just yesterday, Obama showed his true liberal colors:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Hmmm. Get in their face.
Here's the guy that was going to be a new type of politician, run a nicer camapaign, and just be an all-around great guy.
But if he's losing, watch out. He'll do what most liberals do. And that's GET IN YOUR FACE. SHOUT YOU DOWN. PUSH YOU OUT. THROW THINGS AT YOU. DESTROY SOME PROPERTY.
It's brown shirts all over again. If you think I'm nuts, then you haven't been paying attention.
A man wearing a Democratic pin walks into a bar and sees a picture of President Bush hanging behind the bartender. He calls the bartender over and says, "You should take that picture down. George Bush is a blight upon this nation. He should be impeached."
The bartender, a life-long Republican, is completely offended. "Why you liberal piece of garbage. How dare you come into my bar and tell me how to run my business!"
"Listen, I'm the customer, so I'm always right." the man says. "That picture offends me, so I want you to take it down."
"That tears it," the bartender says, "How would you like it if I came into your bar and told you what to do?"
"Well, you'd be the customer, so you'd be right," the man says.
"Fine, then let's switch places," the bartender says.
So, they do. The man takes the bartender's place behind the bar, and the bartender walks outside, waits a moment, and then comes back inside. The bartender sits at the bar and says to the bar, "You should take that pin off. The Democrats are destroying our country with their liberal agenda."
"Sorry," the man says, "but we don't serve Republicans here."
Now, with the passage of the House's new energy bill -- which looks like it provides some new drilling, but really doesn't inspire any -- she is not only taking credit, but saying the Republicans have had it wrong.
This is the same person who closed Congress to go on a book tour, while her subjects where suffering from $4-a-gallon gasoline. Now that the markets have lowered that somewhat, she allows a vote. I guess it was now convenient for her. How condescending to us Middle Americans. Plus it's now closer to the elections, so if timed right, will be a boost at the polls, I'm sure she's thinking.
Again, politics before country.
The bill has problems, but all compromises are that way, and I guess it's better to have something, than nothing. However, what really galls me is her comments:
She contrasted her party's plan with "the status quo, which is preferred by Big Oil" and the Bush administration, "or change for the future to take our country in a new direction."
What? She's the one who was trying to block any legislation at all. Remember, she was trying to save the planet.
She insisted that Republicans "must set aside their drill-only mentality."
The Republicans never had a drill-only mentality. Their proposed bill went much further than even the current Democrat version.
Also, in her usual dictatorial ways, the bill was introduced to the House, but no admendments, no committe hearings, no substitutes: it was take it or leave it.
Nancy "my-way-or-the-highway" Pelosi is now fully in charge of the U.S. government. This is how democrats rule. Ask yourself one question: Is this what I want for my country?
Thanks to three U.S. Senators (from the Democrat party), China will be developing Iraqi oil instead of U.S. or Western oil companies. The same senators and party that keep saying we shouldn't be messing with other nation's internal affairs have been doing just that: meddling in a big way, and all because of politics.
Reported by Frederick Kagan in Weekly Standard, as well as the New York Observer, among others, is the fact that John Kerry, Chuck Shumer, and Claire McCaskill, through their involvement with Iraqi politics, caused the Iraqi government to reject any bids by U.S. oil companies. Hence, Iraq went with China, which turned out to be less politicalized.
Here's what our three nitwits in the Senate said:
“It’s bad enough that we have no-bid contracts being awarded for work in Iraq. It’s bad enough that the big oil companies continue to receive government handouts while they post record breaking profits. But now the most profitable companies in the universe – America’s biggest oil companies – stand to reap the rewards of this no-bid contract on top of it all,” McCaskill said. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect these dots – big oil is running Washington and now they’re running Baghdad. There is no reason under the sun not to halt these agreements until we get revenue sharing in place,” McCaskill said.
However, the Observer put it in perspective:
It is uncommon for oil companies to receive no-bid contracts of this type. It is especially unusual in this case since more than 40 companies were seeking the servicing deal that Iraq is prepared to give to the four companies. Iraq’s central government has defended the award process, saying Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP have provided free advice and support over the past two years, enabling the companies and the government to build a close relationship.
Now, instead of Iraqi oil profits flowing to American and western companies, they go to Chinese. Instead of us getting back some of the $500 billion plus we've spent rebuilding Iraq, we, the American taxpayer, get stuck with the bill. As usual.
The Democrats. Is this the party you want in power? The party that has essentially taxed us to death over the last 70 years? And again, intefering when they should not.
Another point I want to make is the term "government handout" used by our three senators. It seems the Dems, anytime you can save money on taxes (which is what they are talking about, because the oil companies get tax savings for development) it's a handout. But in reality, it's that the oil companies get to keep more of their profits.
WAKE UP, AMERICANS. For the 49 percent of you out there currently thinking of Obama and his party, you will get what you wish for. More government. More inteference in your lives. More taxes. More of the same ol shit that has been handed out from Washington since FDR took power.
I love it when liberals call it the so-called "war on terror." Notice they always put quotes around the term. It's ok to have a war on poverty, etc, but why not terror. Because they think that Bush has created it for his own diabolical reasons.
At the height of the protests on Friday demonstrators chanted slogans threatening more London bombings, praising the "magnificent" 9/11 hijackers and waving placards saying "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay" and "Europe you'll come crawling when Mujahideen come roaring".
Mr Davis said last night: "Clearly some of these placards are incitement to violence and, indeed, incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.
"Whatever your views on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder.
Back on June 27, I reported that when oil was at $142 per barrel, a 118 percent increase over the last year, that gas prices over the same period went up $1.09 a gallon, an increase of 36 percent, from $2.98 to $4.07. Here in North Texas, the most we paid was $4.00.
Now, with oil hitting just over $101 a barrel, we are paying $3.50 a gallon. The price of oil has droped about $45 dollars from its high of $147, or 31 percent. Gas, however is only down 12.5 percent.
Where's the love, Exxon? Are they trying to make up lost ground?
Once you get used to paying more for a commodity, it's hard to get prices down.
It doesn't take a moron to see that the left-wing in this country isn't really about freedom of speech, woman's rights, equal opportunity -- unless you are totally ignoring everything going on around you. Take a conservative woman with five kids, not from New York, or Boston, or San Fransicso, but from a small town, and she's just not good enough.
We've been hearing this for years, yet we've not really internalized what the left thinks it means to be conservative from a small town.
But it's been this way for a hundred years. Modern liberalism, which has nothing to do with classic liberalism (as Thomas Jefferson stood for), is really a nice name for facism.
Yes, you read that right. I used the term facism, in its purist sense, and do not mean to relate it negatively to the evils of Nazism, etc. But facism is an ideology in which all people think the same, put the state ahead of the invividual in the sense that the state becomes the new religion. If having government control -- and provide -- everything you need from birth to death, then if that isn't facism, I don't know what is. It's a nationalistic socialism. Individualism is out, statism is in. This is modern liberalism.
With the nomination of Gov. Sara Palin to the Repuplican ticket for Vice President, we've seen how the media, the left, and hollywood view us middle class, middle Americans from small towns. We're just not good enough.
But regardless, Sara has the left scrambling fast. They are angry. If you don't think so, go to DailyKos, Huffington Post or TruthDig and read some of the opeds and reader comments.
I say bullshit to all this. We can out-vote them. We've done it before, and I say we need to do it again. My point is that regardless of how you feel about McCain-Palin, it's better than having a Muslim socialist in the White House.
Well, it didn't take long for the Democrats to come out and say that Sarah Palin didn't have enough experience to become Vice President, regardless that Barack Obama has even less executive experience. It was fun to watch a couple of the debates between Republicans and Democrats.
It's just a fact that Palin has more executive experience -- not a lot, but more -- than Obama, but any good Democrat won't admit that.
The McCain-Palin team brings more experience to Washington that Obama-Biden. At least one has some executive experience. Romney would have been a better choice, given his expertise in economics and his vast executive experience. But Palin caught the nation's attention and that's what you need to do sometimes in politics.
On a more stormy front, it didn't take the liberal New York Times any time at all to point out the "failings" of the Bush administration over Katrina, as Gustav put New Orleans in its sites.
This time around, the party’s off. Or at least it is for Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain, who on Sunday sought to focus attention on efforts to prepare for Hurricane Gustav at the expense of carefully laid plans for this week’s Republican National Convention.
In some ways, it was a nightmare moment for Republicans. The hurricane’s approach put front and center once more some of the worst failings of the Bush presidency at the very moment Mr. McCain was to begin presenting a vision of the post-Bush Republican Party to the nation.
You gotta get pretty tired of the "it's Bush's fault" whenever anything -- and I mean anything -- happens. Yes, our federal government was not as responsive as it should have been three years ago, but let's look at the real situation.
National disaster preparation and action starts with the local government, then state, then federal. Three years ago, New Orlean's local government was a total failure, as was the state. FEMA wasn't prepared to meet the lack of planning at the local level. So it took a team effort to fail, just as this time, it took a team effort to succeed.
When we start relying on the federal government for our well-being -- instead of ourselves -- we are in big trouble. This is a huge difference between liberals and conservatives. One group wants the feds to be responsible for everything, the other group looks to the individuals involved.
We are at a critical point in our history. Do we want big government to take care of us, or do we want to take care of our selves?
