Reading this made me absolutely sick to my stomach. Don't think that I can't see right through things. Fannie doesn't all of the sudden "have a heart." They only forgave the loan for self-serving political reasons, not because it was the morally right thing to do.
Fannie Mae forgives loan for woman who shot herself
(CNN) -- Fannie Mae said it will set aside the loan of a woman who shot herself as sheriff's deputies tried to evict her from her foreclosed home.
Fannie Mae foreclosed on the Akron, Ohio, home of Addie Polk, 90, after acquiring the mortgage in 2007.
Addie Polk, 90, of Akron, Ohio, became a symbol of the nation's home mortgage crisis when she was hospitalized after shooting herself at least twice in the upper body Wednesday afternoon.
On Friday, Fannie Mae spokesman Brian Faith said the mortgage association had decided to halt action against Polk and sign the property "outright" to her.
"We're going to forgive whatever outstanding balance she had on the loan and give her the house," Faith said. "Given the circumstances, we think it's appropriate."
Residents of Akron have rallied behind Polk, who is being treated at Akron General Medical Center. She was listed in critical condition Friday afternoon, according to Akron City Council President Marco Sommerville.
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, mentioned Polk on the House floor Friday during debate over the latest economic rescue proposal.
"This bill does nothing for the Addie Polks of the world," Kucinich said after telling her story. "This bill fails to address the fact that millions of homeowners are facing foreclosure, are facing the loss of their home. This bill will take care of Wall Street, and the market may go up for a few days, but democracy is going downhill."
Neighbor Robert Dillon, 62, used a ladder to enter a second-story bathroom window of Polk's home after he and the deputies heard loud noises inside, Dillon said.
Don't Miss
Revamped bailout bill picks up 17 votes in House
Jackson: Bill should address root cause, not symptoms
iReport.com: Begging for bailout help
The human face of economic uncertainty
"I was calling her name as I went in, and she wasn't responding," he said.
He found her lying on a bed, and he could see she was breathing. He also noticed a long-barreled handgun on the bed, but thought she just had it there for protection. He touched her on the shoulder.
"Then she kind of moved toward me a little and I saw that blood, and I said, 'Oh, no. Miss Polk musta done shot herself,' " Dillon said.
He hurried downstairs and let the deputies in. He said they told him they found Polk's car keys, pocketbook and life insurance policy laid out neatly where they could be found, suggesting that she intended to kill herself.
"There's a lot of people like Miss Polk right now. That's the sad thing about it," said Sommerville, who had met Polk before and rushed to the scene when contacted by police. "They might not be as old as her, some could be as old as her. This is just a major problem." Watch Polk's neighbor describe what he saw »
In 2004, Polk took out a 30-year, 6.375 percent mortgage for $45,620 with a Countrywide Home Loan office in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The same day, she also took out an $11,380 line of credit.
Over the next couple of years, Polk missed payments on the 101-year-old home that she and her late husband purchased in 1970. In 2007, Fannie Mae assumed the mortgage and later filed for foreclosure.
Deputies had tried to serve Polk's eviction notice more than 30 times before Wednesday's incident, Sommerville said. She never came to the door, but the notes the deputies left would always disappear, so they knew she was inside and ambulatory, he said.
The city is creating programs to help people keep their homes, Sommerville said. "But what do you do when there's just so many people out there and the economy is in the shape that it's in?"
Many businesses and individuals have called since Wednesday offering to help Polk, Sommerville said.
"We're going to do an evaluation to see what's best for her," he said. "If she's strong enough and can go home, I think we should work with her to where she goes back home. If not, we need to find another place for her to live where she won't have to worry about this ever again."
For his part, Dillon hopes his neighbor of 38 years can return to her home.
"She loves that house," he said. "I hope they can get her back in. That would make me feel better because I don't know what they're going to put in there once she leaves."
He said the neighborhood is declining because so many people have lost their homes.
"There's a lot of vacant houses around here. ... Now I'm going to have a house on my left and a house on my right, vacant," he said. "That don't make me feel good, because we were good neighbors, we trusted each other, and we looked out for each other.
"This neighborhood is shot, to me, from what it used to be," he added.
"When I moved here, if it were like it is now, I would have never moved here. But it was a nice neighborhood. ...
"I'll just tough it out. I'm too old to start thinking about buying another house."
Sommerville said that by the time people call for help with an impending foreclosure, it's usually too late.
"I'm glad it's not too late for Miss Polk, because she could have taken her life," Sommerville said. "Miss Polk will probably end up on her feet. But I'm not sure if anybody else will."
Friday, October 3, 2008
Why I Support CA Prop. 8 (as well az AZ Prop. 102)
I was asked ealier this evening to explain why I support these ballot initiatives, and here is my response. Take the time to read carefully and THINK; you might actually learn something . . .
Let me begin by clarifying something: as a gay man myself, I am not "anti-gay rights." I simply do not share the same sense of entitlement that a lot of gay men have. I am one of those folks who believes in the real American way, that gay or straight, black or white, male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, you need to quit whining about "injustice" and pay your way in society for the rights we enjoy and that that our country has firmly stood for and fought for since its founding.
Just over two years ago, I made the bold decision that I would stop being a whiny gay man who felt entitled just because he was "different" and thought he HAD to, for reasons that I still honestly cannot articulate to this day, always be Democrat and liberal. I subscribed to that for many years, and it got me absolutely nowhere, and I was nothing but unhappy and depressed almost 24/7. I decided that, even though I'm gay, there must be a better way to live my life, that I did not have to forever sit in the same miserable abyss of emptiness that so many other gays seemed content with sitting in and are absolutely determined to stay in.
Once I started realizing that I was a capable and highly intelligent person with actual potential (regardless of sexual preference) and started putting the gifts God gave me to good use, I reached a point of success, personally and socially and financially, that I could have never otherwise imagined. I realized that society is not nearly as "homophobic" as many gay people imagine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of resentment, jealousy and hate I have experienced as a gay man has come from other GAY men, not all of these "homophobic" straight folks. In fact, every str8 person who was a friend of mine before I came out is still a friend of mine to this day. Even those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have gone out of the way to let me know that they still like me as a person and I will always be their friend, because I am Casey first, and a gay man second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about many gay men I have encountered in the past nine years. There are some pleasant exceptions (and you all know who you are and I thank you dearly BC, GC, MP, SR, TB, and most recently JS), but let me say very clearly that those exceptions are clearly the most very precious jewels in the deepest rough.
When I wake up in the morning, I am eager to start my day with a smile on my face. When I walk down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, or Hillcrest in San Diego, or the Castro in SF, I might be the only person in the vicinity with a real smile on his face and who is proud of what he has achieved and what he stands for and happy and content with who he is as a person, but that's just fine with me. I can only control my own attitude and nobody else's. If all of these other gay men want to be bitter and miserable their entire lives, and deprive themselves of the happniess and fulfillment they could and would otherwise achieve, than they in the end are in reality more "homophobic" than any straight person. However, that is really beyond my control, as I can only decide my attitude and my beliefs and no one else's. Believe me, I had to resign myself to that fact a long time ago, but it sure lifted a burden from my shoulders that in hindsight, I never even needed to assume in the first place!
As to why I support Prop. 8, it's not a gay issue at all. It's not about gays, it's about marriage as an institution and what it was always intended to stand for, and what it should always stand for. Prop. 8 takes nothing away from gay people here in CA that we do not get already through domestic partnership.
I was fortunate to grow up in a household where I was raised by both a mother and a father (who believe it or not, are still together now 33 years and counting). The majority of gay men I have met since coming out in 1999 were unfortunately not afforded the experience of growing up in a good, decent, and healthy loving home (many admit they were either abused, were children of divorce, or were raised by day care centers or neighborhood babysitters rather than loving parents), so I can understand why they are so quick to "jump the gun" and dismiss the legitimacy of marriage and allow their sexual orientation do their thinking for them on this issue.
Furthermore, pushing a gay marriage agenda has always been shown to erode, not enhance. society's support towards gays. Many who otherwise support gay rights, believe we deserve to be treated with dignity and be free from discrimination or hate crime, all of the sudden change their tone when gays start crossing the threshold by insisting on "marriage" rights. It's a classic case of being given an inch of good intention from decent people, and exploiting and abusing it by going miles and miles beyond what was intended. The marriage issue is where people finally draw the line and say, wait a minute, that's enough! Personally, if a same sex couple are truly in love, why do they need a traditional and legal sacrament to prove that? Perhaps a lot of gays who think they are "in love" and have found their "life partner" have deep insecurity about whether or not the person they are with really cares about them at all, and they therefore need legal "marriage rights" from the government to continue to subsscribe to their own divorce from reality. Most gay "relationships" I have seen are based on anything but love, and are instead basically nothing more than "friends with benefits." This makes a mockery out of what a real, loving relationship entails, and society should not be forced to pretend that this resembles anything close to a genuinely committed relationship between two people that is worthy of any type of legal recognition.
Ironically, so many gay people don't realize that it is best for their own good, intended or not, that society generally looks down on the idea of "marriage" for same-sex couples. Deep down, most gays and lesbians know that, although I'll concede that few are as bold as I am to actually come out and say it. It's the big "pink elephant" in the gay community that ultimately, we can't simply dismiss and ignore, try as we might.
Sooooo . . . I hope I've answered your question. I know this was probably more of a "personal testimonial" than a simple yes or no answer to a ballot measure in my home state. However, it is my personal experiences that have shaped me into who I am today and that finally enabled me to "get a clue" and rejoin the real world with everyone else. I could not be any happier, while "mainstream" gays could not be any more nasty and bitter, just as I once was. I will never digress back in that direction ever again . . . ugh!!!
Regards,
Casey
Let me begin by clarifying something: as a gay man myself, I am not "anti-gay rights." I simply do not share the same sense of entitlement that a lot of gay men have. I am one of those folks who believes in the real American way, that gay or straight, black or white, male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, you need to quit whining about "injustice" and pay your way in society for the rights we enjoy and that that our country has firmly stood for and fought for since its founding.
Just over two years ago, I made the bold decision that I would stop being a whiny gay man who felt entitled just because he was "different" and thought he HAD to, for reasons that I still honestly cannot articulate to this day, always be Democrat and liberal. I subscribed to that for many years, and it got me absolutely nowhere, and I was nothing but unhappy and depressed almost 24/7. I decided that, even though I'm gay, there must be a better way to live my life, that I did not have to forever sit in the same miserable abyss of emptiness that so many other gays seemed content with sitting in and are absolutely determined to stay in.
Once I started realizing that I was a capable and highly intelligent person with actual potential (regardless of sexual preference) and started putting the gifts God gave me to good use, I reached a point of success, personally and socially and financially, that I could have never otherwise imagined. I realized that society is not nearly as "homophobic" as many gay people imagine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of resentment, jealousy and hate I have experienced as a gay man has come from other GAY men, not all of these "homophobic" straight folks. In fact, every str8 person who was a friend of mine before I came out is still a friend of mine to this day. Even those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have gone out of the way to let me know that they still like me as a person and I will always be their friend, because I am Casey first, and a gay man second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about many gay men I have encountered in the past nine years. There are some pleasant exceptions (and you all know who you are and I thank you dearly BC, GC, MP, SR, TB, and most recently JS), but let me say very clearly that those exceptions are clearly the most very precious jewels in the deepest rough.
When I wake up in the morning, I am eager to start my day with a smile on my face. When I walk down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, or Hillcrest in San Diego, or the Castro in SF, I might be the only person in the vicinity with a real smile on his face and who is proud of what he has achieved and what he stands for and happy and content with who he is as a person, but that's just fine with me. I can only control my own attitude and nobody else's. If all of these other gay men want to be bitter and miserable their entire lives, and deprive themselves of the happniess and fulfillment they could and would otherwise achieve, than they in the end are in reality more "homophobic" than any straight person. However, that is really beyond my control, as I can only decide my attitude and my beliefs and no one else's. Believe me, I had to resign myself to that fact a long time ago, but it sure lifted a burden from my shoulders that in hindsight, I never even needed to assume in the first place!
As to why I support Prop. 8, it's not a gay issue at all. It's not about gays, it's about marriage as an institution and what it was always intended to stand for, and what it should always stand for. Prop. 8 takes nothing away from gay people here in CA that we do not get already through domestic partnership.
I was fortunate to grow up in a household where I was raised by both a mother and a father (who believe it or not, are still together now 33 years and counting). The majority of gay men I have met since coming out in 1999 were unfortunately not afforded the experience of growing up in a good, decent, and healthy loving home (many admit they were either abused, were children of divorce, or were raised by day care centers or neighborhood babysitters rather than loving parents), so I can understand why they are so quick to "jump the gun" and dismiss the legitimacy of marriage and allow their sexual orientation do their thinking for them on this issue.
Furthermore, pushing a gay marriage agenda has always been shown to erode, not enhance. society's support towards gays. Many who otherwise support gay rights, believe we deserve to be treated with dignity and be free from discrimination or hate crime, all of the sudden change their tone when gays start crossing the threshold by insisting on "marriage" rights. It's a classic case of being given an inch of good intention from decent people, and exploiting and abusing it by going miles and miles beyond what was intended. The marriage issue is where people finally draw the line and say, wait a minute, that's enough! Personally, if a same sex couple are truly in love, why do they need a traditional and legal sacrament to prove that? Perhaps a lot of gays who think they are "in love" and have found their "life partner" have deep insecurity about whether or not the person they are with really cares about them at all, and they therefore need legal "marriage rights" from the government to continue to subsscribe to their own divorce from reality. Most gay "relationships" I have seen are based on anything but love, and are instead basically nothing more than "friends with benefits." This makes a mockery out of what a real, loving relationship entails, and society should not be forced to pretend that this resembles anything close to a genuinely committed relationship between two people that is worthy of any type of legal recognition.
Ironically, so many gay people don't realize that it is best for their own good, intended or not, that society generally looks down on the idea of "marriage" for same-sex couples. Deep down, most gays and lesbians know that, although I'll concede that few are as bold as I am to actually come out and say it. It's the big "pink elephant" in the gay community that ultimately, we can't simply dismiss and ignore, try as we might.
Sooooo . . . I hope I've answered your question. I know this was probably more of a "personal testimonial" than a simple yes or no answer to a ballot measure in my home state. However, it is my personal experiences that have shaped me into who I am today and that finally enabled me to "get a clue" and rejoin the real world with everyone else. I could not be any happier, while "mainstream" gays could not be any more nasty and bitter, just as I once was. I will never digress back in that direction ever again . . . ugh!!!
Regards,
Casey
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Did Palin Kick Ass Or What?
What else can I say?
No matter how many people on CNN's "panel" atempt to say otherwise (especially the fat woman whose name I forget), Sarah Palin clearly won tonight's VP debate. She went up against someone who's been part of the Washington establishment since even before she was even married, and clearly took him to task and succeeded (especially when speaking about the current economic situation).
Joe Biden, on the other hand, proved himself to be the same bumbling fool that he has been during his entire Congressional career. He made crystal clear his belief that the way to solve our current financial crisis is by doing the same things that got us into this crisis in the first place (more excessive regulation, specifically the CRA law passed in 1977, believing that politicians who have not even taken ONE finance class know how to better run banks and thrifts that the banks and thrifts themselves).
And btw, do you know that I still remember that SAME Joe Biden as the irreverent jerk who presided over Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings in 1992, when I was only 13 years old? Every time I hear the name "Joe Biden" I have a flashback to those hearings when I saw the Senator who was absolutely determined, from the get go and even before the Anita Hill fiasco, to keep a brilliant black man off of our nation's high court. Oh wait, aren't the Democrats supposed to be more "sensitive" to minority rights? Oh well . . .
Again, Sarah Palin was absolutely brilliant, and to a blind observer not familiar with her or Biden or their resumes, Sarah Palin would have seemed like the seasoned politician with decades of experience, while Biden would have seemed like the "inexperienced" one who only served as a small town mayor and PTA member. I absolutely love it!
And did any of you catch Palin saying "there you go again" no matter how subtle she was at trying to slip it in? That was Ronald Reagan's classic line from his debates (against Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984) so she has obviously learned some lessons from the best! She also talked about the "city on a hill" and it is about time. I grew up during the Reagan years, and can ohly hope that our country eventually wises up and remembers the great things that happened in the 1980's and how we have gone downhill ever since we strayed away (and our current financial crisis is the culmination of that).
No matter what your political slant, you must admit that tonight, Sarah Palin thrived while Joe Biden floundered. I cannot wait to see Sarah Palin in person when she comes to SoCal on Saturday. She is truly awesome, and will not just make a great 1st female VP, but a great VP who will not be afraid to ruffle some feathers that have needed to be ruffled for quite some time!
AND TO THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK I AM A TRAITOR FOR BEING GAY AND SUPPORTING THE GOP TICKET, BOTH BIDEN AND PALIN MADE EQUALLY CLEAR TONIGHT THAT THEY ARE BOTH OPPOSED TO GAY "MARRIAGE." IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU NEED TO HIT REWIND ON YOUR DVR AND WATCH THE DEBATE AGAIN. THEY BOTH SAID IT WORD FOR WORD THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS ONLY FOR "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN." THE ISSUE IS SETTLED SO THROW YOUR PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE SISSY FIT OVER SOMETHING ELSE!!!
And btw, if you live in CA, vote yes on Prop. 8 . . . . believe me, it is best for the gay community and for our state as a whole. If you want to take me to task on that, reply to this e-mail and let me know because I'd be happy to do you the honor =)
No matter how many people on CNN's "panel" atempt to say otherwise (especially the fat woman whose name I forget), Sarah Palin clearly won tonight's VP debate. She went up against someone who's been part of the Washington establishment since even before she was even married, and clearly took him to task and succeeded (especially when speaking about the current economic situation).
Joe Biden, on the other hand, proved himself to be the same bumbling fool that he has been during his entire Congressional career. He made crystal clear his belief that the way to solve our current financial crisis is by doing the same things that got us into this crisis in the first place (more excessive regulation, specifically the CRA law passed in 1977, believing that politicians who have not even taken ONE finance class know how to better run banks and thrifts that the banks and thrifts themselves).
And btw, do you know that I still remember that SAME Joe Biden as the irreverent jerk who presided over Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings in 1992, when I was only 13 years old? Every time I hear the name "Joe Biden" I have a flashback to those hearings when I saw the Senator who was absolutely determined, from the get go and even before the Anita Hill fiasco, to keep a brilliant black man off of our nation's high court. Oh wait, aren't the Democrats supposed to be more "sensitive" to minority rights? Oh well . . .
Again, Sarah Palin was absolutely brilliant, and to a blind observer not familiar with her or Biden or their resumes, Sarah Palin would have seemed like the seasoned politician with decades of experience, while Biden would have seemed like the "inexperienced" one who only served as a small town mayor and PTA member. I absolutely love it!
And did any of you catch Palin saying "there you go again" no matter how subtle she was at trying to slip it in? That was Ronald Reagan's classic line from his debates (against Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984) so she has obviously learned some lessons from the best! She also talked about the "city on a hill" and it is about time. I grew up during the Reagan years, and can ohly hope that our country eventually wises up and remembers the great things that happened in the 1980's and how we have gone downhill ever since we strayed away (and our current financial crisis is the culmination of that).
No matter what your political slant, you must admit that tonight, Sarah Palin thrived while Joe Biden floundered. I cannot wait to see Sarah Palin in person when she comes to SoCal on Saturday. She is truly awesome, and will not just make a great 1st female VP, but a great VP who will not be afraid to ruffle some feathers that have needed to be ruffled for quite some time!
AND TO THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK I AM A TRAITOR FOR BEING GAY AND SUPPORTING THE GOP TICKET, BOTH BIDEN AND PALIN MADE EQUALLY CLEAR TONIGHT THAT THEY ARE BOTH OPPOSED TO GAY "MARRIAGE." IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU NEED TO HIT REWIND ON YOUR DVR AND WATCH THE DEBATE AGAIN. THEY BOTH SAID IT WORD FOR WORD THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS ONLY FOR "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN." THE ISSUE IS SETTLED SO THROW YOUR PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE SISSY FIT OVER SOMETHING ELSE!!!
And btw, if you live in CA, vote yes on Prop. 8 . . . . believe me, it is best for the gay community and for our state as a whole. If you want to take me to task on that, reply to this e-mail and let me know because I'd be happy to do you the honor =)
EXCELLENT Video on Root Causes of Subprime Meltdown
Please take ten minutes of your time to watch this video. It is RIGHT on the money, and repeats exactly what I wrote about at length in several of my blogs. So those of you who did not have the time (or desire lol) to read all that I had to say, please watch this because it repeats the EXACT truth, only in a more exciting and appealing video format =)
Obama WAY Too Extreme On Abortion
This is quite an interesting post I came across earlier. Although I have never cared all that much for Pat Buchanan, everything he brings up is 100% accurate and can be verified, fact checked, etc.
Although I am generally pro-choice (yet at the same time believe that not one DIME of public money should pay for any abortion whatsoever), I agree that the late term, "partial birth" abortion procedure is absolutely grotesque. Unless it is necessary to save the mother's life, I see no infringement on women's rights if the procedure is banned. A preganant woman could have made her "choice" in an earlier trimester of her pregnancy, which would make this nauseating procedure completely unnecessary.
I also have serious problems with Obama's views regarding fetuses that somehow miraculously SURVIVE an abortion procedure. Just as on any other issue, we see that Obama has absolutely no principles or solid conviction, but rather will take whatever position on whatever issue that he thinks will procure more votes for himself. Take the time to carefully read this:
A Catholic Case Against Barack
by Patrick J.
Buchanan
In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.
But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.
For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary.
"
Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure.
"
And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women.
"
As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death.
"
Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.
How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?
If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?
How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.
When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor.
Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:
"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous.
"
Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v.
Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?
Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.
"
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.
What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v.
Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?
And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?
Although I am generally pro-choice (yet at the same time believe that not one DIME of public money should pay for any abortion whatsoever), I agree that the late term, "partial birth" abortion procedure is absolutely grotesque. Unless it is necessary to save the mother's life, I see no infringement on women's rights if the procedure is banned. A preganant woman could have made her "choice" in an earlier trimester of her pregnancy, which would make this nauseating procedure completely unnecessary.
I also have serious problems with Obama's views regarding fetuses that somehow miraculously SURVIVE an abortion procedure. Just as on any other issue, we see that Obama has absolutely no principles or solid conviction, but rather will take whatever position on whatever issue that he thinks will procure more votes for himself. Take the time to carefully read this:
A Catholic Case Against Barack
by Patrick J.
Buchanan
In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.
But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.
For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary.
"
Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure.
"
And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women.
"
As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death.
"
Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.
How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?
If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?
How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.
When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor.
Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:
"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous.
"
Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v.
Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?
Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.
"
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.
What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v.
Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?
And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?
Monday, September 29, 2008
How Democrats Caused The Current Economic Crisis
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can point the finger all they want at Republican economic policy as the cause of our current financial crisis. In reality, however, it is a series of Democrat-sponsored legislation and regulation that has gotten us to this point. While Democrats love to point out that President Bush's approval rating is at an all time low, what they neglect to mention is that Congress's approval rating is even LOWER. Due to the recent antics of both Reid and Pelosi, this should come as no surprise. They want to blame the Republicans for the financial crisis, and they want to blame the Republicans for today's defeat of the taxpayer funded "bailout" plan for distressed corporations whose own fiscal irresponsibility, through no fault of the American taxpayer, sealed their fate.
Furthermore, this entire Fannie-Freddie fiasco can be traced back to Liberal Democrat regulatory policies and "cronyism" with the top executives at both of the mortgage giants. To add insult to injury, today's Democrats want the American taxpayer to foot the bill for their own history of disastrous, quasi-socialist economic regulations and policies. There is simply no denying this fact, and here, in as straightforward a manner as possible, is the precise chain of events that led us to where we are today:
1.) Fannie Mae was established by President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) as part of his New Deal reforms, which in hindsight, did way more long-term harm than good to our nation by drastically increasing government regulation and suffocating the free enterprise system at the very core of the American economic machine. The threat to our economy had reached its climax by 1980, when, due to excessive and constraining government regulation, inflation and mortgage interest rates were at all-time highs. If Ronald Reagan had not been elected to restore laissez-faire economic policies, our economy could have very well collapsed completely.
2.) Fannie Mae's history is a textbook "precursor" to this economic crisis. I'll let Fannie itself do the talking here by citing its own website. Fannie's own words might as well be an "allocution" of its responsibility for where we are now:
"At Fannie Mae, we exist to serve America's housing market. We provide a critical source of liquidity, stability, and affordability to America's housing finance system."
"We raise capital from Wall Street and from investors in the U.S. and across the globe by selling our debt securities and use the proceeds to buy mortgages and finance housing in the United States."
"We also help lenders package the home loans they make into mortgage backed securities, making the loans easier for lenders to sell. These activities expand and replenish the flow of mortgage capital across the nation, making mortgages more affordable and more available."
3.) It gets even worse, as Fannie Mae continues its own self-indictment:
" At first, Fannie Mae, as a government agency, was authorized only to buy Federal Housing Administration (FHA) - insured mortgages, thereby replenishing the supply of lendable money for these government-backed loans."
"In 1968, Fannie Mae became a privately-owned company operating with private capital on a self-sustaining basis. Its role was expanded to buy mortgages beyond FHA-insured mortgages, thereby reaching out to a broader cross-section of Americans."
"In 1992, major legislation was enacted to modernize the regulatory framework applicable to the corporation. Regulatory responsibility was given to a newly-created Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The new law included modernized capital standards and new affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae."
Whew . . . If all of this makes your stomach turn, please take a break because it only gets worse from here.
4.) The first real "nail in the coffin" came in 1977. A Democrat controlled Congress passed one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation in our nation's history, which was subsequently signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter. This piece of legislation was called the "Community Reinvestment Act" or CRA. It placed increased pressure on financial institutions to "lend to minority groups who, at the time, represented a disproportionately low percentage of American homeowners."
This pathetic piece of legislation, which increased the already tight regulatory grip our government exerted over our banks and financial institutions, proclaimed that:
"Regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered" and allowed greater regulatory oversight "to encourage (in other words require) such institutions to help meet the credit needs of local communities in which they are chartered."
Banks with a low CRA ranking risked denial of applicaions (from regulatory agencies such as the FDIC and Federal Reserve) to lend in new markets, open new deposit facilities, and merge with sister financial institutions. This legislation passed despite staunch opposition from the banking industry, most likely with the expectation that it would remedy the "injustice" of the times.
5.) Under the adminitration of Reagan and Bush the first, this legislation was pretty much forgotten and laid dormant. However, that all changed after Democrat Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency. President Clinton significantly expanded the overall reach of CRA in order to achieve his "multicultural" home ownership goals. In fact, in November 2000, the Clinton HUD agency enacted new government regulations providing over TWO TRILLION dollars in mortgages for "affordable housing" for over 20 million otherwise putridly uncreditworthy families. This was the biggest EVER expansion of housing aid in our nation's history, with President Clinton using Carter's CRA as a precursor.
Clinton seemed to think that all Americans, regardless of their credit worthiness, were somehow "entitled" to own a home, irrespective of the risk that banks assumed by giving exorbitant mortgages, at initially subprime rates, to individuals who no bank in their right mind, prior to CRA, would have even considered for any type of mortgage whatsoever.
6.) Of course, in order to create the impression that a family making less than $50,000 per year somehow qualified for a $500,000 mortgage, a new revolution in the home financing industry was needed. And what was that revolution? You guessed it- SUBPRIME LENDING!!! Of course, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew, deep down, that these mortgages would ultimately default. So what did they do? Remaining true to their original principles (see above), the mortgages were "repackaged" into mortgage backed securities, making the loans easier for lenders to sell. Which financial institution was the biggest buyer of these securities? WASHINGTON MUTUAL!!! As we all know now, WaMu is no more. It was seized by the FDIC last Thursday in the biggest bank failure in our nation's history.
In conclusion, starting from Fannie Mae's inception during the New Deal era, our nation's economy was on a runaway train to failure once "shit hit the fan" as it certainly has at this present moment. The Democrats were more concerned with "social justice" than our nation's economic well-being, and we now see where that has ultimately led us. Nonetheless, prominent congressional Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid still insist, for whatever reason, on pointing the finger at Republicans. However, the facts don't lie. This current financial disaster has occurred due to a series of extreme economic gaffes by Democrat-controlled Congresses and Democrat presidents. Utopian idealism has been forced to concede to economic reality, and as we all know by now, the results sure aren't pretty.
Furthermore, this entire Fannie-Freddie fiasco can be traced back to Liberal Democrat regulatory policies and "cronyism" with the top executives at both of the mortgage giants. To add insult to injury, today's Democrats want the American taxpayer to foot the bill for their own history of disastrous, quasi-socialist economic regulations and policies. There is simply no denying this fact, and here, in as straightforward a manner as possible, is the precise chain of events that led us to where we are today:
1.) Fannie Mae was established by President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) as part of his New Deal reforms, which in hindsight, did way more long-term harm than good to our nation by drastically increasing government regulation and suffocating the free enterprise system at the very core of the American economic machine. The threat to our economy had reached its climax by 1980, when, due to excessive and constraining government regulation, inflation and mortgage interest rates were at all-time highs. If Ronald Reagan had not been elected to restore laissez-faire economic policies, our economy could have very well collapsed completely.
2.) Fannie Mae's history is a textbook "precursor" to this economic crisis. I'll let Fannie itself do the talking here by citing its own website. Fannie's own words might as well be an "allocution" of its responsibility for where we are now:
"At Fannie Mae, we exist to serve America's housing market. We provide a critical source of liquidity, stability, and affordability to America's housing finance system."
"We raise capital from Wall Street and from investors in the U.S. and across the globe by selling our debt securities and use the proceeds to buy mortgages and finance housing in the United States."
"We also help lenders package the home loans they make into mortgage backed securities, making the loans easier for lenders to sell. These activities expand and replenish the flow of mortgage capital across the nation, making mortgages more affordable and more available."
3.) It gets even worse, as Fannie Mae continues its own self-indictment:
" At first, Fannie Mae, as a government agency, was authorized only to buy Federal Housing Administration (FHA) - insured mortgages, thereby replenishing the supply of lendable money for these government-backed loans."
"In 1968, Fannie Mae became a privately-owned company operating with private capital on a self-sustaining basis. Its role was expanded to buy mortgages beyond FHA-insured mortgages, thereby reaching out to a broader cross-section of Americans."
"In 1992, major legislation was enacted to modernize the regulatory framework applicable to the corporation. Regulatory responsibility was given to a newly-created Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The new law included modernized capital standards and new affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae."
Whew . . . If all of this makes your stomach turn, please take a break because it only gets worse from here.
4.) The first real "nail in the coffin" came in 1977. A Democrat controlled Congress passed one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation in our nation's history, which was subsequently signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter. This piece of legislation was called the "Community Reinvestment Act" or CRA. It placed increased pressure on financial institutions to "lend to minority groups who, at the time, represented a disproportionately low percentage of American homeowners."
This pathetic piece of legislation, which increased the already tight regulatory grip our government exerted over our banks and financial institutions, proclaimed that:
"Regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered" and allowed greater regulatory oversight "to encourage (in other words require) such institutions to help meet the credit needs of local communities in which they are chartered."
Banks with a low CRA ranking risked denial of applicaions (from regulatory agencies such as the FDIC and Federal Reserve) to lend in new markets, open new deposit facilities, and merge with sister financial institutions. This legislation passed despite staunch opposition from the banking industry, most likely with the expectation that it would remedy the "injustice" of the times.
5.) Under the adminitration of Reagan and Bush the first, this legislation was pretty much forgotten and laid dormant. However, that all changed after Democrat Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency. President Clinton significantly expanded the overall reach of CRA in order to achieve his "multicultural" home ownership goals. In fact, in November 2000, the Clinton HUD agency enacted new government regulations providing over TWO TRILLION dollars in mortgages for "affordable housing" for over 20 million otherwise putridly uncreditworthy families. This was the biggest EVER expansion of housing aid in our nation's history, with President Clinton using Carter's CRA as a precursor.
Clinton seemed to think that all Americans, regardless of their credit worthiness, were somehow "entitled" to own a home, irrespective of the risk that banks assumed by giving exorbitant mortgages, at initially subprime rates, to individuals who no bank in their right mind, prior to CRA, would have even considered for any type of mortgage whatsoever.
6.) Of course, in order to create the impression that a family making less than $50,000 per year somehow qualified for a $500,000 mortgage, a new revolution in the home financing industry was needed. And what was that revolution? You guessed it- SUBPRIME LENDING!!! Of course, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew, deep down, that these mortgages would ultimately default. So what did they do? Remaining true to their original principles (see above), the mortgages were "repackaged" into mortgage backed securities, making the loans easier for lenders to sell. Which financial institution was the biggest buyer of these securities? WASHINGTON MUTUAL!!! As we all know now, WaMu is no more. It was seized by the FDIC last Thursday in the biggest bank failure in our nation's history.
In conclusion, starting from Fannie Mae's inception during the New Deal era, our nation's economy was on a runaway train to failure once "shit hit the fan" as it certainly has at this present moment. The Democrats were more concerned with "social justice" than our nation's economic well-being, and we now see where that has ultimately led us. Nonetheless, prominent congressional Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid still insist, for whatever reason, on pointing the finger at Republicans. However, the facts don't lie. This current financial disaster has occurred due to a series of extreme economic gaffes by Democrat-controlled Congresses and Democrat presidents. Utopian idealism has been forced to concede to economic reality, and as we all know by now, the results sure aren't pretty.
PRAISE GOD ALMIGHTY!!! Proposed taxpayer funded "bailout" fails!
It now looks as though chances are slim to none that taxpayers will have to foot the bill to clean up the financial mess left in the wake of the subprime mortgage meltdown. Although we are currently in a desperate financial crisis, and something should be done, it is absolutely nonsensical for the taxpayers to take the falll for a disaster that was not even our fault in the first place. Common sense tells us that if we don't learn from the mistakes of history, history is bounf to repeat itself. For Congress to have approved such a plan would have commenced a repeat of FDR's disastrous New Deal legislation (part of which was the creation of Fannie Mae in the first place), which may have provided some temporary help, but ultimately led to decades of massive government regulation and suffocation of the free market and free enterprise system, culminating in a near economic collapse by the end of the 1970's. At that time, inflation and interest rates had skyrocked to record levels, and anyone who was alive during the 1970's cab tell you about the fuel crsis we experienced back then. Had we not elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 to take a hacksaw to all of this government regulation and control, our economy indeed might have completely collapsed. We oughjt to know better by now that bigger government and excessive regulation doesn't solve problems. On the contrary, it exacerbates them. In fact, as I will explain later, it was one instance of such regulation, enacted into law during the Carter administration, and capitalized upon by the Clinton administration, that ultimately led to the mess which we now find ourselves in, and which the Democrats insist will be solved by even MORE regulation (when regulation they supported led to this fiasco in the first place) and by saddling taxpayers with the bill.
Here are some reasons, consistent with fundamental economic principles, that a govenment bailout, no matter how dire the need, is a horrible idea that would, just like New Deal programs, lead to an even more massive crisis:
1.) America was designed to operate as, and should always operate as, a capitalist, FREE MARKET economy. That means than rather than micromanage the markets with excessive regulation, the government needs to "back off" and allow the natural rules of the market to operate. One of these natural rules is that the greater potential for return on an investment, the greater the risk. Individuals and investment banks who were "betting the farm" on these bonds and securities backed by subprime loans should have known the risks they were taking, and that this artificial "mortgage boom" would eventually go bust. Some scrupulous financiers knew of the impending doom, so they passed around these bonds and securites like a "hot potato" by unloading such risky investments, all ythe while making a nice, handsome profit for themselves by doing so. Those who were left holding them when the subprime mortgages started defaulting ended up getting screwed, but that was ultimately their own fault. Just because the "hot potato" gets thrown to you does not mean you need to catch it, or even touch it. In this case, people should have ducked as far down as possible and gotten out of the way. Any investment involves risk, and the greater the potential for profit, the greater the risk. These are simple rules of a free market economy, and our govenment has no business interfering with them. Throughout history, all centrally planned, socialist-leaning economies have failed both completely and miserably. The market needs to be allowed to run itself, and sometimes shit happens, but that will make people and the banks accountable and teach them to invest more wisely and conservatively the next time. On the other hand, when big brother interferes, no one learns their lesson and we're bound to have another crisis before long
I've been investing since I was 19 years old, when my late grandfather gave me a generous financial gift under the condition that I invest at least half of it and take it upon myself to learn how to invest money wisely. I clearly remember one of the last conversations I had with my grandfather less than a year before his death in early 2007. Even with his health deteriorating, he gathered the strength to shake his finger in my face and say, "Casey, don't you DARE invest a cent in anything back by this subprime mortgage stuff. Shit is gonna hit the fan big time, and I only pray the Lord takes me before that happens." Lucky for grandpa, his prayers were answered, and lucky for me, I steered clear of the bad investments he warned me about.
2.) Speaking of accountability, what message does it send that good old Uncle Sam will be there to bail you out when things go sour? In an era of extreme fiscal IRRESPONSIBILTY in Corporate America, corporations will hardly see the need to make sweeping changes in the way they do things if they know they can always depend on the federal governement to save them from an ultimate fate. Shareholders will not put enough pressure on company executives to be more fiscally responsible for this exact same reason.
Why should distressed corporations receive such special treatment? Does the government ever do this for individuals or families? When a family is going broke because dad blew thousands of dollars at the casino, and mom maxxed out the credit cards at the mall, and as a result the kids have no health insurance and are going hungry, does the government ever step in and offer that family a "bailout" ? Of course not. Why should corporations guilty of financial mismanagement on an even GREATER scale be afforded this privilege. We need more fiscal accountability in corporate america, and "Wall Street Welfare" will completely retard this at a time we need it the most.
3.) Furthermore, and perhaps most disturbimg, had this proposed "bailout" packaged passed, it would have given our government a majority ownership interest in what are supposed to be publicly-held companies. Say good-bye to capitalism, say hello to socialism. At first, I thought that there would be nothing wrong with this as long as, once the company was back on track, the government would IMMEDIATELY liquidate its interest in the company and turn complete control back over to provate shareholders where it belongs. However, our federal government for years has been obsessed with the entire "money is power" mentality. If our government pumps all of this money into distressed corporations, the government will say it only makes sense that it gets to run the company and "call the shots." And even when the federal government could liquidate its interests, once it has enjoyed its privilege of running these corporations for so long according its own agenda, do you really think the government will be eager to all or the sudden "cash out" so quickly? Even if they do, is there a guarantee that even a cent of the government's profits will be returned to its own "shareholders," the American taxpayers? Anyone who honestly thinks that would happen is seriously deluded.
The argument has been made, even by President Bush himself, that even though government interference in the markets is not exactly desirable, it is necessary at present as a "last resort" due to the extreme risk that massive corporate failures would pose to our nation's entire economic structure, as well as the economic structure of other capitalist nations that depend on the strength of our markets for their own economic well-being. There is definitely some truth to this argument, which is why several in the GOP have proposed an alternate "bailout" plan that would not cost one cent of taxpayer money.
Rather than a "bailout," this plan would have instead, according to today's edition of Investor's Business Daily, created a government insurance fund for troubled assets. Who would pay the premiums? By golly, it would be the very financial firms that own these assets! The greater the risk of the assets held, the higher the premiums (this is an example of GOOD regulation that would make the firms think twice before deciding which assets to take on). Other highlights of the alternate plan are as follows:
-Corporate tax breaks and EASED regulation (like the Liberals would ever go for either) would have allowed private capital "off the sidelines" and to be drawn into the market by removing the burdensome, Democrat backed regulations and tax obstacles which currently impede the formation of such private capital. There is a MAMMOTH amount of private capital out there in our country and in the world (think Sultan of Brunei, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim, Boone Pickens, Michael Milken, even OPRAH!), and many owners of that capital would be more than willing to provide it to save our economy were it not for so many regulations and obstacles getting in the way. Yet, the Democrats still have the gall to insist that MORE regulation will solve the current crisis?
-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be barred from repackaging "unsound" mortgages as securities. In other words, if Fannie and Freddie choose to back a mortgage, they get stuck with it permanently; no more hot potato!
-The plan also allows much stricter SEC audits of failed companies. Had such a policy been in place, it is very unlikely that Fannie and Freddie, back in 2003, would have been able to overstate company earnings by over TEN BILLION DOLLARS to boost the size of bonuses for their top executives. By the way, aren't former execs from companies like Enron and Worldcom currently sitting in federal prison a similar type of fraud?
At the same time, former Fannie Mae CEO Frank Raines is serving as a top advisor to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Perhaps Mr. Raines knows, deep down, that he is "up the creek" and that his only hope of avoiding criminal charges is an Obama victory, followed by an Obama promise (if it hasn't been made already) that as president, his justice department won't pursue criminal charges against him and his other former cronies at Fannie and Freddie. Mr. Raines probably also assumes that the $125,000 Senate campaign contribution that Fannie made to Obama (second highest to any Senate campaign) will grant him automatic immunity.
If true, this is absolute corruption, both at the corporate and political levels, at the grandest of all scales!
Also keep in mind a rather snide comment Raines made to Fannie Mae shareholders in 1999 (who have since lost practically their entire investment after Raines walked away with nearly $100 million when he left Fannie in 2005 before "shit hit the fan") :
"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks."
As today's IBD article further points out, "Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats, and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for 700 billion dollars."
However, since the taxpayer funded "bailout" will likely not become a reality, much to the chagrin of Democrats, we as taxpayers will not be forced by the federal government to clean up this mess that we did not even create.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid can point their fingers at the Republicans all they want for today's events. This is indeed ironic, because if the bailout plan was not doomed to fail already, Pelosi pretty much sealed its fate when she made downright insipid and self-serving partisan comments right before the plan went to vote.
Pelosi and Reid (who actually make President Bush seem competent in comparison with their antics as of late) also conveniently forget that it was Liberal Democrat-sponsored legislation and regulations that practically provided Fannie and Freddie with a "free pass" and paved the way for this economic crisis.
More on that in the next blog . . . In the meantime, I think I'll buy an expensive bottle of wine to celebrate, now that I know I won't need to fork over the money to cover our nation's economic losses =)
Cheers,
Casey
Here are some reasons, consistent with fundamental economic principles, that a govenment bailout, no matter how dire the need, is a horrible idea that would, just like New Deal programs, lead to an even more massive crisis:
1.) America was designed to operate as, and should always operate as, a capitalist, FREE MARKET economy. That means than rather than micromanage the markets with excessive regulation, the government needs to "back off" and allow the natural rules of the market to operate. One of these natural rules is that the greater potential for return on an investment, the greater the risk. Individuals and investment banks who were "betting the farm" on these bonds and securities backed by subprime loans should have known the risks they were taking, and that this artificial "mortgage boom" would eventually go bust. Some scrupulous financiers knew of the impending doom, so they passed around these bonds and securites like a "hot potato" by unloading such risky investments, all ythe while making a nice, handsome profit for themselves by doing so. Those who were left holding them when the subprime mortgages started defaulting ended up getting screwed, but that was ultimately their own fault. Just because the "hot potato" gets thrown to you does not mean you need to catch it, or even touch it. In this case, people should have ducked as far down as possible and gotten out of the way. Any investment involves risk, and the greater the potential for profit, the greater the risk. These are simple rules of a free market economy, and our govenment has no business interfering with them. Throughout history, all centrally planned, socialist-leaning economies have failed both completely and miserably. The market needs to be allowed to run itself, and sometimes shit happens, but that will make people and the banks accountable and teach them to invest more wisely and conservatively the next time. On the other hand, when big brother interferes, no one learns their lesson and we're bound to have another crisis before long
I've been investing since I was 19 years old, when my late grandfather gave me a generous financial gift under the condition that I invest at least half of it and take it upon myself to learn how to invest money wisely. I clearly remember one of the last conversations I had with my grandfather less than a year before his death in early 2007. Even with his health deteriorating, he gathered the strength to shake his finger in my face and say, "Casey, don't you DARE invest a cent in anything back by this subprime mortgage stuff. Shit is gonna hit the fan big time, and I only pray the Lord takes me before that happens." Lucky for grandpa, his prayers were answered, and lucky for me, I steered clear of the bad investments he warned me about.
2.) Speaking of accountability, what message does it send that good old Uncle Sam will be there to bail you out when things go sour? In an era of extreme fiscal IRRESPONSIBILTY in Corporate America, corporations will hardly see the need to make sweeping changes in the way they do things if they know they can always depend on the federal governement to save them from an ultimate fate. Shareholders will not put enough pressure on company executives to be more fiscally responsible for this exact same reason.
Why should distressed corporations receive such special treatment? Does the government ever do this for individuals or families? When a family is going broke because dad blew thousands of dollars at the casino, and mom maxxed out the credit cards at the mall, and as a result the kids have no health insurance and are going hungry, does the government ever step in and offer that family a "bailout" ? Of course not. Why should corporations guilty of financial mismanagement on an even GREATER scale be afforded this privilege. We need more fiscal accountability in corporate america, and "Wall Street Welfare" will completely retard this at a time we need it the most.
3.) Furthermore, and perhaps most disturbimg, had this proposed "bailout" packaged passed, it would have given our government a majority ownership interest in what are supposed to be publicly-held companies. Say good-bye to capitalism, say hello to socialism. At first, I thought that there would be nothing wrong with this as long as, once the company was back on track, the government would IMMEDIATELY liquidate its interest in the company and turn complete control back over to provate shareholders where it belongs. However, our federal government for years has been obsessed with the entire "money is power" mentality. If our government pumps all of this money into distressed corporations, the government will say it only makes sense that it gets to run the company and "call the shots." And even when the federal government could liquidate its interests, once it has enjoyed its privilege of running these corporations for so long according its own agenda, do you really think the government will be eager to all or the sudden "cash out" so quickly? Even if they do, is there a guarantee that even a cent of the government's profits will be returned to its own "shareholders," the American taxpayers? Anyone who honestly thinks that would happen is seriously deluded.
The argument has been made, even by President Bush himself, that even though government interference in the markets is not exactly desirable, it is necessary at present as a "last resort" due to the extreme risk that massive corporate failures would pose to our nation's entire economic structure, as well as the economic structure of other capitalist nations that depend on the strength of our markets for their own economic well-being. There is definitely some truth to this argument, which is why several in the GOP have proposed an alternate "bailout" plan that would not cost one cent of taxpayer money.
Rather than a "bailout," this plan would have instead, according to today's edition of Investor's Business Daily, created a government insurance fund for troubled assets. Who would pay the premiums? By golly, it would be the very financial firms that own these assets! The greater the risk of the assets held, the higher the premiums (this is an example of GOOD regulation that would make the firms think twice before deciding which assets to take on). Other highlights of the alternate plan are as follows:
-Corporate tax breaks and EASED regulation (like the Liberals would ever go for either) would have allowed private capital "off the sidelines" and to be drawn into the market by removing the burdensome, Democrat backed regulations and tax obstacles which currently impede the formation of such private capital. There is a MAMMOTH amount of private capital out there in our country and in the world (think Sultan of Brunei, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim, Boone Pickens, Michael Milken, even OPRAH!), and many owners of that capital would be more than willing to provide it to save our economy were it not for so many regulations and obstacles getting in the way. Yet, the Democrats still have the gall to insist that MORE regulation will solve the current crisis?
-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be barred from repackaging "unsound" mortgages as securities. In other words, if Fannie and Freddie choose to back a mortgage, they get stuck with it permanently; no more hot potato!
-The plan also allows much stricter SEC audits of failed companies. Had such a policy been in place, it is very unlikely that Fannie and Freddie, back in 2003, would have been able to overstate company earnings by over TEN BILLION DOLLARS to boost the size of bonuses for their top executives. By the way, aren't former execs from companies like Enron and Worldcom currently sitting in federal prison a similar type of fraud?
At the same time, former Fannie Mae CEO Frank Raines is serving as a top advisor to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Perhaps Mr. Raines knows, deep down, that he is "up the creek" and that his only hope of avoiding criminal charges is an Obama victory, followed by an Obama promise (if it hasn't been made already) that as president, his justice department won't pursue criminal charges against him and his other former cronies at Fannie and Freddie. Mr. Raines probably also assumes that the $125,000 Senate campaign contribution that Fannie made to Obama (second highest to any Senate campaign) will grant him automatic immunity.
If true, this is absolute corruption, both at the corporate and political levels, at the grandest of all scales!
Also keep in mind a rather snide comment Raines made to Fannie Mae shareholders in 1999 (who have since lost practically their entire investment after Raines walked away with nearly $100 million when he left Fannie in 2005 before "shit hit the fan") :
"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks."
As today's IBD article further points out, "Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats, and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for 700 billion dollars."
However, since the taxpayer funded "bailout" will likely not become a reality, much to the chagrin of Democrats, we as taxpayers will not be forced by the federal government to clean up this mess that we did not even create.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid can point their fingers at the Republicans all they want for today's events. This is indeed ironic, because if the bailout plan was not doomed to fail already, Pelosi pretty much sealed its fate when she made downright insipid and self-serving partisan comments right before the plan went to vote.
Pelosi and Reid (who actually make President Bush seem competent in comparison with their antics as of late) also conveniently forget that it was Liberal Democrat-sponsored legislation and regulations that practically provided Fannie and Freddie with a "free pass" and paved the way for this economic crisis.
More on that in the next blog . . . In the meantime, I think I'll buy an expensive bottle of wine to celebrate, now that I know I won't need to fork over the money to cover our nation's economic losses =)
Cheers,
Casey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)