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
Remember how Obama and the Democrats promised us a new world order, where everyone would like us and we'd all get along?
That's not how the world works. We may wish for something different, more friendly, but it doesn't exist, so you have to deal with reality as it is. You don't apologize on the world stage, you don't bow to dictators, and you don't appease tyrants.
Now they are laughing in our faces. From the Telegraph in the UK:
Just a few years ago the United States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes, strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the face of the world’s most powerful nation. Now Washington appears weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach. From Tehran to Tripoli, the Obama administration has been pathetically slow to lead, and afraid to condemn acts of state-sponsored repression and violence...
In contrast to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, President Obama fails to see the United States as an exceptional nation, with a unique role in leading the free world and standing up to tyranny. In his speeches abroad he has frequently found fault with his own country, rather than projecting confidence in American greatness. From Cairo to Strasbourg he has adopted an apologetic tone rather than demonstrating faith in America as a shining city upon a hill, a beacon of freedom and liberty. A leader who lacks pride in his own nation’s historic role as a great liberator simply cannot project strength abroad...
It has also become abundantly clear that the Obama team attaches little importance to human rights issues, and in contrast to the previous administration has not pursued a freedom agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere. It places far greater value upon engagement with hostile regimes, even if they are carrying out gross human rights abuses, in the mistaken belief that appeasement enhances security. This has been the case with Iran, Russia and North Korea for example. This administration has also been all too willing to sacrifice US leadership in deference to supranational institutions such as the United Nations, whose track record in standing up to dictatorships has been virtually non-existent.
She claims the Democrats put the American people ahead of politics. But she is definitely playing politics. Her article in USA Today (see my post from Nov 10) was more of a campaign message for minority whip.
But she didn't expect to lose her Speaker job, even as late as Nov. 2. Or did she?
"The early returns show so far that a number of Democrats are coming out and we are on pace to maintain the majority in the House of Representatives," said Pelosi.
The speaker does not expect to lose her job and says that this election is going to be decided by the people. "This election will not be determined by the pundits or it won't be determined by a few precincts in the East, it's an election that will take place all across America and we are very proud of it."
But the history books have been written, and she is wrong again.
One note on the map: I believe the author left a couple of blue districts red, but in some cases, the results still haven't been determined. But the map, in general, does illustrate the historic election of 2010.
The Associated Press is reporting on a 60 Minutes interview with President Obama:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is acknowledging in the wake of this week's election rout that he hasn't been able to successfully promote his economic-rescue message to anxious Americans.
Sorry, "dude," but we got your message and rejected your plan. How come you can't see that yet?
The story continues:
Obama also said he recognizes now that "leadership is not just legislation," and that "it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand."
Oh my. Yes, we do understand. Can you understand us? I'm not sure.
It is going to be an interesting two years.
It saddens me that so many people think it was only the Republicans who were responsible for the financial meltdown. But it is only a small part of the story. The fact the Democrats also had a large play is not only fact, but recorded on CSPAN video. The Republican failure wasn't that they saw the problem coming much earlier, but they let the Democrats intimidate them and didn't stand up for their own principles.
It was kind of like "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
I think putting the blame on only Republicans is a failure to take personal responsibility (see my earlier post about Barney Franks). This seems typical of the Democrat party today, and possibly most politicians.
Here's a compilation of CSPAN videos that will -- hopefully -- help enlighten those who can't see the actual truth. Or at least get you thinking critically, instead of using simple-minded talking points.
As it now stands, if Congress does not act, doctors who treat Medicare patients face a 21 percent rollback in reimbursement rates beginning Tuesday...an American Medical Association poll of its members showed that if the planned cuts go into effect, two-thirds of doctors now treating Medicare patients will limit their Medicare cases, if not quit altogether. This will also affect military -- both active duty and retired -- because their Tricare insurance is tied to Medicare. Happy Memorial Day.
Democrats continually weak on national security
Why would they refuse to send 6,000 national guard troops to the border with Mexico? Excerpt: Senate Democrats managed Thursday to block deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, but the proposal still garnered a majority of senators, showing widespread support for a border-security-first strategy and underscoring why President Obama is having difficulty trying to win an immigration-legalization bill.
How's that stimulus bill working out?
The economic rebound last quarter turned out to be slower than first thought, one of the reasons unemployment is likely to stay high this year. The only thing the stimulus is stimulating is the growth in government. Democrats have had control of the Congress for three years, but as usual, liberal programs do not work.
Fannie and Freddie still broken. But of course...
The oil spill in the Gulf isn't the only calamity the administration is ignoring. As a result of the BP accident, anywhere from $400,000 to $7 million worth of crude oil is leaking into the ocean each day, threatening widespread environmental damage. A much larger leak - $232 million per day - has come from taxpayer vaults since Sept. 7, 2008, when mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac came seeking the first billion-dollar patch for their fiscal mismanagement. And there's no plug in sight for that gusher.
Obama struggling to show he's in control of oil spill
A defensive President Obama sought Thursday to quell doubts about his handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, insisting that his administration has been "in charge" from the moment it began and bristling that critics who accuse it of being sluggish to react "don't know the facts." But at times during a 63-minute news conference in the East Room of the White House, the president seemed to undercut his own argument. He enumerated a litany of fumbles and lapses...(and he wants the government to run our health care system?)
And finally, but not least by a long shot:
The BIG Lie
"The Democratic Congress and the Obama administration share a strong commitment to fiscal discipline and common sense in our budget, and we must continue to do everything in our power to boost our economic recovery, rein in the deficits we inherited, and remain responsible stewards of the public purse. After President Bush and Republicans in Congress turned record surpluses into record deficits and nearly doubled the national debt, Democrats are returning our nation to a course of fiscal responsibility." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on her own party's quadrupling of even the worst Bush deficit
According to Stephanie Condon at CBS news, Rand Paul, a Tea-Party supported libertarian who won the GOP Senate nomination for Kentucky, has some pretty extreme views about race.
She quotes Rand Paul as saying this in an NPR interview:
"What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," Paul said.
But to Condon it gets worse. She writes "However, he added":
"I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."
So supporting local initiatives as opposed to Federal mandates is now an extreme view. I guess in the liberal mindset, it is.
It gets better. I couldn't make this stuff up:
Paul's views on the issue first came under scrutiny last month during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal.
"I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that," he said. "I don't like the idea of teling [sic] private business owners -- I abhor racism... I do believe in private ownership."
The Courier-Journal in an editorial said that Paul's remarks were "repulsive" and declared that it could not endorse either Republican in the Senate primary.
Paul's primary opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, attacked Paul's extreme views during the primary campaign, though that clearly did not deter enough voters from supporting Paul. Now that Paul is in a broader campaign, his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, is using the same strategy.
"These are not the views of mainstream Kentuckians," Conway said about Paul's beliefs in an interview with Talking Points Memo.
This is all well and fine, I guess, because she is quoting others, except for the reference to extreme, which is her own opinion inserted into a news story. She used the same term in her lead, which makes it hard to view this as an objective story. She should have stated that Paul's opponent used the term.
Now that the Tea Party-backed Rand Paul has the GOP nomination for Kentucky's open Senate seat, the media and his Democratic opponent are pouncing on his extreme libertarian views -- particularly with respect to his position on racism in private businesses and whether he would have supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [emphasis mine]
This would have you believe that Paul would not have supported the Civil Rights Act and would not be against racist practices in private businesses, and while not true, Paul has a little trouble articulating his philosophy.
I could understand some neophyte reporter writing a weak report, but to have it clear her editors is beyond me. And for the Louisville Courier-Journal to label Paul's comments as "repulsive" is repulsive to me, but at least they did it in an editorial. But it seems nowadays if you disagree with the "establishment liberal religion" you are racist somehow. Not sure I understand this, but I get tired of hearing it.
So, someone tell me how this CBS news article is an unbiased report. From my point of view, this is so biased that it makes the people over at Fox news look like amateurs.
For another look at Paul and racism in a more balanced way, see this article at Outside the Beltway.
Note: Condon's story has received several updates since I wrote this, but she has not changed her lead or the tone of the story.
As of 3:30 pm CDT, there were about 220 comments posted on this story. Obviously, CBS visitors are mostly liberals. It's hard to read such hate-filled, vile attacks they make on their political opponents. These people don't debate the issues, they just make personal attacks. After the second reference to Nazism, I quite reading...
From Chris Plante, WMAL Radio, Washington DC. He can be heard at their web site, 9 am to noon, EST.
"They slime and they slander and they malign. This is part of an orchestrated campaign...to keep people at home. And you know why they're freaked out — and this is an expression of the fact that they are totally freaked out. Their rhetoric is just...it's Hugo Chavez rhetoric — it's just — I'm sorry — your Republican members of the House 'are aiding and abetting terrorism' (a charge uttered by House Democrat Whip James Clyburn). What terrorism, you hack — you sickening — and you know it's 'Well, people need to be responsible on talk radio.' ON talk radio? You're a member of Congress — you're a senior member of Congress — and you're accusing your fellow (congressmen) of aiding and abetting terrorism because of peaceful protest?
"How many arrests were there, Congressman? How many police officers were injured? How many windows were smashed upon Capitol Hill buildings? How many? How many? Tell them about this terrorism that you're so concerned about, you pathetic hack. Y'know — "why this situation is overheated" — why is this situation overheated? That's why it's overheated, because of what the congressman said right there. They're so freaked out because Middle America is waking up and they [the congressional left] mean to shut us up. They mean to make us sit back down, get back on the couch, and their strategy for doing that — and that's what this is — their strategy for doing that is to slime everyone at these protests with tar — with a broad brush saying you're all terrorists.
"Now they're aiding and abetting terrorists? So obviously Tea Party people are terrorists that the Republicans are 'aiding and abetting.' So now they're calling Middle America terrorists. Nancy Pelosi saying out there, with the swastikas and stuff.... Again, that's Lyndon LaRouche [a Democrat] — except one sign that I saw at a rally — one picture of a swastika with a circle and red slash through it — saying no national socialism. That was not an endorsement of Nazism. That was a suggestion that you're the new version of that, Nanny Pelosi.
"And you can agree or disagree with that, but if you're going to go after these people, then let's compare them with liberal protests, which the news media will not do. And they're going to show the peaceful protests of tens of thousands of Americans on the West Front of the Capitol, and then show you the video or that audio I just played of police coming in on horseback to clear out liberals who are smashing the place up? Of course not — of course they're not. The hypocrisy of the news media is staggering."
Did you know that the payroll of the postal service is higher than for national defense? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in December 2008, the payroll of the postal service was $3.4 billion, and national defense/interntional relations was $3.3 billion.
President Obama used the postal service as an example why his health care reform would be just fine. From the LA Times, Aug 17, 2009:
President Obama is urging Americans not to worry if the federal government dispenses healthcare insurance. After all, he argues, competition from the government-subsidized U.S. Postal Service hasn't hurt FedEx or UPS. "If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right?" he asked last week at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H. "No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems." Conservatives think the White House model is more revealing than the president might intend. As the Washington Times editorialized this morning: "If the president considers the Postal Service as an example, we should all be scared." The case: "Despite numerous advantages that FedEx and UPS could only dream of having, the Postal Service loses money."
Comparing the post office with a proposed government-run insurance plan is probably counterproductive for the President’s aims. But making the analogy and deriding the government-run mail carrier — while acknowledging that private-sector UPS and FedEx are “fine” — provides some nice ammo for those of us who think the government should be less involved in both health care and mail delivery.
A story today in the Boston Globe quotes Sen. John Kerry as accusing the Republicans of "bullying" tactics in the Coakley/Brown race. While it's a weak story -- and quite hypocritical for a Democrat to say, considering Coakley's attack ads -- I figured reader comments -- at least some of them -- would support Kerry.
Not so. I scanned about half the comments and found not one in support of Kerry.
It seems people are gunning for both Kerry and the Globe. While I'm not sure if all the comments are from Bostonians, it seems that the days of Democrat rule may be coming to an end.
This only makes sense. Depending on which poll you look at, 17-21 percent of Americans consider themselves liberal. The other 80 percent are conservative or moderate (about evenly split).
Obama vs. the banks
Obama's proposed "fee" on banks to pay the cost of the TARP program is absurd. Most of the banks that were provided with TARP funds have paid them back with interest. This makes no sense, but points out his liberal belief that banks are bad. '
Why doesn't he charge GM or Chrysler, or AIG, for the money we gave them, yet haven't paid back, and probably won't? (As of Jan 28, 2010: I was informed by a friend who works for GM after I wrote this post that GM is now planning to pay back TARP funds.)
Crony capitalism
An interesting post on crony capitalism by John Stossel. The more I learn about what's going on in government, the more nervous I get.
Liberalism through quotes
"Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared." Who said this? See The Last Decade of Liberalism in 40 Quotes.
“The plan I’m announcing tonight," President Obama said on September 9th, "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."
“My plan," the President said, "would bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family…"
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit," the President said, "either now or in the future."
"No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," he said. He said he wouldn’t cut Medicare. People who like the plans they have wouldn’t lose their coverage.
And, Americans were promised an open, honest debate. "That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together," then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail, "not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN."
But the bill raises health care costs, according to the White House OMB.
While Obama states the current bill will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, this is chump change compared to the $10 trillion in deficits his spending is forecasted to cause. If I owe my credit card company $10,000, this is like making a payment of $132. That doesn't even cover the interest.
If the bill will cost $2 trillion by most estimates, how is this lowering the deficit? This can only happend through higher taxes.
It raises premiums according to the the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office talking. It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class Americans.
It plunders Medicare by half a trillion dollars and forces people off the plans they have — including millions of seniors.
It allows the federal government for the first time in our history to use taxpayer dollars for abortions. It raises feeds and taxes across the board, and the states may have to raise taxes to fund unfunded provisions of this 2,000+ page atrocity.
So a President who was voted into office on the promise of change said he wanted lower premiums. That changed. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes. That changed. He said he wanted lower costs. That changed. He said he wouldn’t cut Medicare. And, that changed too.
The fact the Democratic leadership had to bribe many of its members to vote for the bill should give you pause, if nothing else.
While our sympathies go out to the Kennedy family over Sen. Ted Kennedy's death last night, the whole affair again points to liberal hypocrisy.
Back in March, Rush Limbaugh made the comment that the national heath care bill would eventually be named for Ted Kennedy. He caught all kinds of flack -- from Democrats and liberals -- for his comment.
For example, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called Limbaugh's comments about Sen. Kennedy "truly outrageous." "“Leader Limbaugh crossed the line. National Republicans must stand up to their leader, Rush Limbaugh, and tell him that enough is enough.”
Yet now, after the Senator's death, Democrats are tripping all over themselves to name the bill in honor of Kennedy.
If a conservative suggests something, it's a horrendous deed; if a liberal suggests the same thing, it's just great.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, you're not living on the same planet. It is one of the reasons debating a liberal is just about impossible.
Both parties -- Democrats and Republicans -- have failed. Both are to blame for the problems we have, and both don't have real solutions. Our government has failed us. Politians are only interested in keeping and exercising power, and for decades have done nothing constructive, except dig us deeper into an already deep hole.
When George Washington stated "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master," he was right.
When Ronald Reagan said that government was the problem, not the solution, he was right. When Thomas Paine said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one," he was right.
Thomas Jefferson judged government correctly:
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Have we lost our way? This nation was founded on the principal that excessive government was tyranny, and what we have today is quickly approaching that condition, if it is not already here.
The Constitution of the United States states that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are to be granted to the States and Local governments! Much of what our Federal government in Washington has done over the last several decades is unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court has gone along with this takeover.
The 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now we are seeing how our Republic works. If the people think the Federal government is taking too much power, we resist. This is not un-American, as Nancy Pelosi would have you believe. As one resident of San Franciso (Pelosi's home turf) said in a comment on www.sfgate.com:
I've been a Democrat since I came back from the War in 1968. Let me get this straight: When I demonstrated in the street for Affirmative Action, Womens Lib and Gay rights, I was being Patriotic. But if you demonstrate in the street against secret legislation not open to the public for discussion, you are Unamerican? What am I missing here? Obama declared August 1st as being: "The People's Deadline" for passing Healthcare that the Congress hadn't even read yet and the public didn't have any details about. He was acting and sounding just like Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. All those enlightened 20th Century Progressive Dictators were always spouting off about "The People's This & The People's That". I'm a Liberal Democrat, but this guy is a buffoon. POWER TO THE PEOPLE-EVEN THE REPUBLICANS!
Read more comments at the SFGate. I think you'll find the comments from this liberal bastion interesting.
I see a glimmer of hope that the American people will not let the Federal government become the tyranny our founders feared so much.
Susan Estrich -- who is orginally from Massachusetts and now lives in California -- basically condemned Rick Perry, governor of Texas, in a recent op-ed.
"What makes it easy for Perry to "fire up" the crowds, as local headlines put it, is what makes it irresponsible for him, or anyone else who calls himself a leader, to do so."
Isn't this what politicians from both sides attempt to do: "fire up" crowds? What is her problem?
Is Washington spending too much money? I don't know. If the people of Texas want to give theirs back, if they really think they have more than they'll need to educate their kids and care for their sick and help their newly homeless, then all I can say is that California most certainly does not and would be happy to have any leftovers from anywhere. Gov. Perry, meet Gov. Schwarzenegger. His hand is out. But angry talk by those who are supposed to be leaders can only lead to even angrier words or deeds by those who follow them, not understanding that it was just political talk in the first place.
Give me a break. We're not going to give California money. Texas is one of the few states with a budget surplus, so we really don't need to have the feds tell us what to do. Texas has been run by conservatives for at least the last 12 years; California by liberals. We have lower unemployment, lower housing costs, a balanced budget and do not need government handouts to survive.
Tell that to California democrats, who have basically destroyed their state.
I'm actually talking about Joe Conason, a writer for the New York Observer. A recent editorial he wrote can be used as a case-study of how liberals view history. I'll point out some of his more obvious mis-statements, but I don't have the time or room here for a line-by-line blow, so don't accuse me of cherry-picking.
The only sentence in his piece that is factually true is the first one:
As Barack Obama's economic advisers confront choices that vary from bad to worse in their mission to revive the financial sector and the broader economy, it is worth remembering that those choices were in essence inherited by the president, who is still new to his office.
Choices that vary from bad to worse. Well, there are better choices, such as tax reform, fiscal constraint, a balanced budget, just not what Obama is actually doing. But he did inherit this mess, so these two statements are mostly true.
Next,
Listening to his critics, especially on the right, it would be easy to believe that the president is personally responsible for ballooning deficits, gigantic bailouts, ridiculous bonuses, nationalized institutions and careening markets.
But the president (along with Congress) is responsible for ballooning deficits, gigantic bailouts (even though started by Bush, but continued by this president), ridiculous bonuses (signed into law by Obama), nationalized institutions (taking over AIG; Geithner's expanded power request), and careening markets.
And of course,
Ever since Election Day 2008, the usual suspects have been hard at work, deflecting responsibility from the Bush administration (and the Republicans in Congress) for the catastrophic effects of conservative policy enacted during the past eight years.
But if you actually paid any attention, you'd know this is not really true. Of course, many Republicans are to blame as well, but it is the Democrats who are mostly responsible for this mess, starting with the Community Investment Act during Jimmy Carter's years, then strengthened during Bill Clinton's reign, with the continued pressure applied to financial institutions to lend, lend, lend...and when the Bush adminstration saw problems six years ago, they were blocked by the Democrats (Franks and Dodd) of any regulatory overall.
He goes on about how it's all a con game, how Republicans never get blamed for anything, how it's always Democrats who get blamed for economic woes, and on and on. Since when have Republicans never been blamed for everything. What world does Joe live in.
But here's one of my favorites, used by anyone on the left:
According to conservative theory, the mere announcement of massive tax cuts for the rich by a Republican president ought to have stimulated euphoria in the markets and rapid growth.
Tax cuts for the rich is not part of conservative theory. Obviously Mr. Conason has not bothered to study conservative theory. This is part of the kool-aid crowd's attempt to advance class warfare, so we know where he gets this theory. Yes, the last two tax cuts did cut taxes for the rich -- they cut taxes for everyone. I got one. I'm sure he got one.
Actual studies have shown that rebates and government spending are not stimulatory. But long-term tax relief for everyone -- including small business (which make around $250,000, or part of the "rich") are the real engines of growth, because growth is then put in the hands of people who create growth. Governments never create growth. This is a fact, based on economic history.
But I guess, for Mr. Conason, facts are truely an inconvenience.
To so-called liberals, the only reality is what they tell you it is. As Katha Pollit wrote a few months ago (emphasis mine):
Only Democrats, it seems, reward their most loyal supporters -- feminists, gays, liberals, opponents of the war, members of the reality-based community -- by elbowing them aside to embrace their opponents instead.
While the article this appeared in was complaining of Obama's choice of Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation, what is interesting to me is the phrase: members of the reality-based community.
What the fuck does that mean?
I guess that means if I'm not a Democrat, my reality isn't real. Something I made up.
I'm sorry. I'm so tired of "liberal," "progressive," crap like this. I'm tired of being called all sorts of things because I believe in liberty, individual freedom and responsibility, instead of the fucking government getting in all my business, which means elitist (she teaches at Princeton, which she points out is an elite institution) folks like Katha, who are so special that they know best, want to control what I say, what I read and what I believe in. From before birth to after death. This is not liberal or progressive in any sense of the word, so don't you believe this claptrap shit at all, or else you'll be living soon in a nation modelled after Cuba or East Germany.
These are the same people who are so stupid that Geithner's plan for the banks is to do that same thing done in the United Kingdom, which failed. Or Japan tried for 10 years, and failed. Or the New Deal, which extended the depression (and actually created a second repression within the depression in 1937). So why will it work now? And we have a stupid, ignorant, tax-evader for our secretary of treasury, an Obama goonsquad character.
So Katha, this is a warning to you and your friends. Today, I'm not going to treat anyone who wants to destroy my country with any kind of tolerance or kindness. I can give as good as I have gotten.
Obama Apologizes to Special Olympics for Bowling Joke President Obama called the chairman of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver, to say he was sorry for an offhand remark on the "The Tonight Show."
Sen. Dodd's Political Future Cloudy After AIG Bonus Controversy As head of the banking panel, Sen. Christopher Dodd has become a convenient target for voter anger over the economic crisis.
U.S. Budget Deficit Forecast to Hit $1.8 Trillion This Year The Congressional Budget Office says the deficit under President Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable.
Iranian Leaders Ignore Obama's Outstretched Hand Iran's supreme leader snubs President Obama in response to a warm video issued by the White House seeking a "new beginning" with Iran.
$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.
13 Firms Receiving Federal Bailout Funds Owe $220M in Back Taxes The House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the delinquent taxes in a review of tax records from 23 of the firms.
House Kills Effort to Investigate Lobbyist-Lawmaker Ties The proposal would have forced the House Ethics Committee to launch a probe into ties between the source and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks.
Did Tim Geithner lie about knowing of AIG bonuses? Treasury Secretary may have known a lot more than he admits about the huge and controversial bonuses paid out by insurance giant AIG to its employees. The New York Times reports that Geithner admitted knowing about bonuses at AIG two weeks ago after claiming this week he only learned about them later.
Big labor ignores a basic freedom of Democracy ...union bosses, egged on by Democrats from Capitol Hill to the White House, display world-class hypocrisy, violate international labor standards, and contradict their own sales pitch as they desperately promote "card-check" legislation to drive secret ballots from union-authorization elections.
Headlines from just this morning, March 20, 2009, the first day of spring. I haven't been collecting them. This is after a little more than 2 years of a Democrat majority in the White House, and some 60 days of the Obmana administration.
Could it get any worse? Seems more like a long winter ahead of us.
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.
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."
