There are signs that the sagging fortunes of the Wall Street titans are already being felt in myriad ways in the city.
Renowned defense lawyer Edward W. Hayes, a self-described night owl, long ago developed two measurements for gauging the ups and downs of Wall Street: the HEGI and the HESI, which stand for High End Girlfriend Index and High End Stripper Index. When the financial sector's business is good, he said, the traders and bankers spend huge sums on high-end girlfriends and in the VIP rooms of Manhattan's pricey strip joints.
Now, said Hayes, who represents many of the woman in the business, he is seeing evidence of the downturn.
"The strippers are getting killed -- it's terrible," he said. "It really started in the last month. What they really need are the guys who go in and spend $500."
#1
America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.
Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.
Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.
But even this doesn't fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.
#2
First we had Hurricane Katrina and Nagin's total inability to respond to the aftermath and now we have a financial Katrina according to the donks. As far as I'm concerned, the donks invented and caused this problem. The mess all started in Washington and now we are being asked as taxpayers to bailout D.C. There will be no end to it. There will be further requests for bailouts. And then more. I'm afraid, that in the absence of good American jobs, industry, and no energy policy, there will not be the economic foundation for further bailouts or for people to take care of their families. The Nanny state takes a step further towards socialism.
#3
These people are crazy to think that the other 50% of the country other than Democrats would stand still for a totalitarian socialist government. Heck, I doubt 50% of Democrats would stand still for such a thing.
There are a lot of guns in this country and a lot of good people in both parties who know how to use them.
Let 'em try to shove this down our throats. Just let 'em try.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/29/2008 01:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10324 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is getting allot of air time here in STL. It really is upsetting. Little if nothing is being done about it except radio show hosts complaining about it. Wish us luck here in the Show-Me state.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
09/29/2008 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Next thing you know they'll be raiding Lawrence Kansas.
#4
But wait, there's more! see this link about PA and the NRA:
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Obama_Wants_NRA_Ads_Ban/2008/09/27/135118.html?utm_medium=RSS
It was meant as a sign of respect, but now conservatives are saying Sen. Barack Obama's invocation of his "hero bracelet" bearing the name of a fallen soldier is being done against the family's wishes.
Is it true? What's the reality here?
Some background, first. During Friday night's presidential debate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., mentioned the moment when the mother of a fallen soldier gave him a hero bracelet bearing her son's name, Matthew Stanley.
"I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, 'Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son's name on it.'" McCain recalled. "He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, 'I will -- I will wear his bracelet with honor.'...And then she said, 'But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything -- promise me one thing, that you'll do everything in your power to make sure that my son's death was not in vain.' That means that that mission succeeds, just like those young people who re-enlisted in Baghdad, just like the mother I met at the airport the other day whose son was killed. And they all say to me that we don't want defeat."
But a month later, Ryan's father Brian -- who is no longer married to Tracy -- told Wisconsin Public Radio that his ex-wife had misgivings about Obama wearing the bracelet and mentioning their son on the campaign trail. It seems as though just as Tracy Jopek supports Obama and wants to end the war, Brian Jopek has a different take on what should happen in Iraq and may be more inclined to support McCain.
(You can listen to Brian Jopek about 10 minutes into THIS CLIP.)
After pointing out that he and Tracy are not married anymore, Brian says that "from what I understood from email exchanges with Tracy .she wanted to put a name, she wanted Sen. Obama to know Ryan's name...She wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event...She just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself."
Bryan Jopek went on to say that "because of some of the negative feedback shes gotten on the Internet, you know Internet blogs, you know people accusing her of or accusing Obama of trying to get votes doing it and that sort of thing, she has turned down any subsequent interviews with the media because she just didnt, she just didn't want it to get turned into something that it wasnt. She had told me that in an email that she had asked, actually asked Mr. Obama to not wear the bracelet anymore at any of his public appearances."
Conservatives are now criticizing Obama for exploiting a fallen soldier whose mother has asked him to stop wearing the bracelet or mentioning her son's name. I'm not sure what the reality is behind this story -- I have a call into the Obama campaign and Tracy Jopek to find out more about this story, and will let you know what they say.
I feel like McCain has earned the right to wear a fallen soldiers bracelet to honor that individual if he is asked. However, I don't think either candidate should inject this into politics. It seems to tarnish the fallen soldier a little
#3
I read my comment again. Hope ya all know what I meant. The soldier is not tarnished but the political process that would exploit wearing a bracelet with his/her name for political gain.
Belgium may be best known for fine shotguns, rich chocolate and tasty waffles, but for you and me, this quaint little country is the home of the world's finest major-caliber battle rifle, the FN-FAL. Renowned throughout the world for its rugged reliability, the FAL was manufactured in 10 countries in its heyday and issued to over 70 armies, not to mention various irregulars and mercenaries.
In fact it was the FAL's calling card as the weapon of mercs that gained it the most notoriety.
Col. "Mad" Mike Hoare, an Irish-born World War II veteran who immigrated to South Africa and went on to become one of the Dark Continent's most celebrated mercenaries, unwittingly did more to promote the legend of the FAL as the merc's gun-of-choice when he led a daring hostage rescue mission into the Belgian Congo in 1964 and freed a group of Americans and Belgians. In the days following the raid, Mad Mike's men held off the rebels long enough to evacuate over 1,800 European and American civilians.
If the FAL, the "Fusil Automatique Legere," was not famous before, it would be now.
The FAL is a .308 Win. (7.62 x 51mm) gas-operated, short-stroke piston system available in semiautomatic and automatic versions. The FAL's standard payload is a 20-round detachable box magazine; 30-round magazines were also made for a squad automatic version of the FAL, but they're not desirable due to their length and "spring issues" with the elongated box. Balance at the link. As an aside. Original testing for the replacement of the M14 was conducted by the Special Forces weapons committee at Fort Bragg in the late 1950's, early 60's. The FN and the 7.62mm round won the competition. Colt AR-15/M-16 was howevere selected ultimated selected by DoD and the US Army.
#1
Sorry about the shoddy grammar. Should read "AR-15/M-16 was ultimately selected." Of everything I have lost over the years, I do miss my mind the most.
#2
Its a smooth shooting gun, never jams, with a handy fold down carry handle, but its heavy, real heavy compared to an AR-15. I'd say it would get real heavy with 6 or 8, 30-round mags added to it.
#3
Not as accurate as the M14 either, due to bolt lockup design, which is sensitive to number of rounds remaining in the magazine. Reliable though.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
09/29/2008 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Btw, this should read "Fusil automatique léger", since rifle (fusil) is a male word (as opposed to carbine, which is a female one, go figure).
Wouldn't the german G3 qualify as the Ultimate Battle Rifle? It was used almost as widely as the Fal, still is I think, by turkey notably, and was certainly as good, if german standards are up to what they should be.
Or what about the swiss Fass 57? IIUC, the swiss rifles are generally considered the best around, though no one buys them (except Swat teams and so for their current assault carbines, in limited numbers), because they're so expensive and so hard to manufacture...
#5
My big gripe with the M-16 was that it often took more than one hit to knock down a bad guy. Now, in Iraq, it seems to take a bunch of hits to knock down a guy in a flak vest (and the bad guys have them).
The M-14 and other NATO .308 weapons hit hard enough that even if it doesn't kill the guy, it knocks them down. And knocking them down is the key, once a guy is down he can't shoot while he is trying to get up.
In places like Iraq and Western Asia, the FAL or M-14 make more sense than the M-16. This stuff about the weight of ammo is bunch because you are more often in a mech unit and have a Bradley or LAV full of ammo to back you up. In a jungle TO, with reduced ability to resupply and you have to carry everything you shoot, a lighter weapon makes sense.
Also the .308 is an accuracy weapon that places more emphasis on marksmanship while the AK-47 short and the M-16 are more "spray and pray" weapons.
I originally qualified on the M-1 and we were expected to hit targets at 300m with iron sights, when I was training kids on the M-16, we never popped up a silouette at distances beyond 100m. I have always been a fan of weapons that have some punch, especially after shooting my way out of a sapper attack with a M1911 colt.
If you read enough anecdotal info on the .50 sniper rifle in Iraq, you realize that being able to reach out and touch someone at distance can reduce casualties. If you can whack a guy at 250m when he can't hit you back, it gives you a tactical and psychological advantage.
Posted by: James Carville ||
09/29/2008 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Shortly after the Second Boer War (18991902)(*), a discussion was begun in an unnamed officer's club about the best infantry weapon. Within the week, the discussion had grown to include the nearby NCO club. The discussion has spread to encompass virtually every military forum since, unabated and unresolved.
(*) Some believe the discussion began shortly after the battle of Actium, (September 2nd, 31 BC)."
-- Anonymous
Iran is a problem from hell. The next US president, be it Barack Obama or John McCain, is going to have plenty to worry about: the Wall Street financial crisis, the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan's internal crisis, the relentless military build-up of China and the temptation it will soon have of trying to retake Taiwan militarily. But you can be sure of this. At some stage during the next presidency, Iran will blow up into a full-scale crisis that will dominate global politics and that may indeed be more important even than the other problems listed above.
The new president will have one modestly useful extra resource, a bipartisan report commissioned by two former US senators and written primarily by Middle East expert Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. The Weekend Australian has obtained a copy of the report, to be released later this week. Before I got the report, I had a long discussion with Rubin. Rubin is a Republican, but the report he wrote was the consensus work of a bipartisan taskforce that includes Dennis Ross, Obama's key Middle East adviser.
The report is sobering and in some ways shocking reading. It begins baldly: "A nuclear weapons capable Islamic Republic of Iran is strategically untenable." It points to the disastrous consequences of an Iran with nuclear weapons: "Iran's nuclear development may pose the most significant strategic threat to the US during the next administration.
Continued on Page 49
#1
I disagree. Because of the preparedness of George W. Bush, much of the worst of the Iranian threat has been, if not neutralized, then strongly ameliorated.
He has done everything within his power to insure that our allies and our military have the best available defenses against Iranian missiles, and that the next Republican president will be fully able to decisively crush Iranian militarism and nuclear weapons/offensive missile capability with an unmatched ferocity.
The creation of any number of innovative technologies to create a layered missile defense was an extraordinary achievement, and only with unwavering white house support were operational systems able to be developed, tested and deployed in time to achieve this.
In the face, I will add, of persistent Democrat attempts to stop it at several levels.
#3
See also FREEREPUBLIC > IRAN'S NEW SPACE BOOSTER MAY HAVE ICBM CAPABILITY; + WND > NEW AL QAEDA THREAT: THERMOBARIC BOMBS [Crude, Off-the-Shelf, + has power of a small Nuke], + SAME > OP-ED > BIBLE PROPHECIES = ISRAEL ATTACKS DAMASCUS, RUSSIA INVADES. ME Events predicted or inferred by various differens Biblical Prophets appear to be occurring/manifesting, and in quick real-time "Ripple/Domino" fashion???
#4
NOT JUST NUCLEAR IRAN,ALBEIT 'TIS A BIGGIE/BENCHMARK, BUT ALSO NUCLEAR ISLAMISM-RADICALISM-MILITANCY-ANARCHISM-TERRORISM ......@!
STATES + GROUPS-NETWORKS.
As the broad "Third Arm/Branch" of GLOBAL MONOTHEISM, the Islamist Jihad will fail to validate nor stop the natural implosion of ISLAM = ISLAMISM [anti-Reform]WIDOUT NUCLEAR PARITY-SUPERIORITY VV NON-ISLAMIC WORLD + MIL POWERS.
* "ATTACKING WHERE THE US = US-ALLIES/NATO-EU ARE NOT" > AS LONG AS THE POST-DUBYA USA LIMITS ITSELF = BULK OF INTERNATIONAL MILOPS + COMMITMENTS TO IRAQ + AFGHANISTAN, IRAN + ISLAMIST MILITANTS-TERRS + ALIGNED BELIEVE THEY WILL GET THEIR NUKES = SAVE + REJUVENATE THEIR JIHAD.
E.g. POTUS OBAMA > WILL PAKISTAN ALLY + HISTORICALLY ANTI-WESTERN CHINA TOLERATE A US-ALLIED/NATO MILFOR PRESENCE IN PAKISTAN OR EVEN INDIA, ETC.???
MANY CHIN NETTERS > SUPPOR UNILATER CHIN MIL INTERVENTION IN PAKISTAN, ETC IFF THE US ATTACKS AND INVADES SAME!
Markets didn't cause the Great Depression - the government did. Roosevelt is now venerated only partly because he won WWII. But the main reason he is such a widely-admired figure is the same reason that Obama is viewed as some kind of conquering hero - good publicity from a left-wing media and intelligentsia.
Financial downturns are unpleasant, but they do not need to turn into the Great Depression, which historians now agree was the product primarily of a number of egregious policy mistakes. For almost 80 years, we have thus felt safe from a recurrence of the "Great Depression" phenomenon, primarily on the basis of "we have learned from those mistakes -- nobody would today be so stupid." Sadly recent events suggest that this optimism may have been misplaced and that politicians, never the most economically intelligent of mankind, may be working towards the considerable feat of constructing a Great Depression -- Mark II.
The bull market before 1929 was sold for a generation as unprecedented in size, representing an apogee of speculation that had never been seen before and would never be seen again. We now know that to be rubbish. Radio Corporation of America, the Google or Microsoft of the period, never sold for more than 28 times earnings, a generous valuation to be sure but nothing compared to the stratospheric prices reached by the more fashionable dot-coms in 1999-2000. The stock market capitalization to Gross Domestic Product ratio peaked in 1929 at 75%, above the long-term average of 58%, equal to the 1966 peak, but less than half of the 185% it reached in 1999 and still substantially less than the 105% of GDP at the end of 2007. Then there was housing, which in the 1920s enjoyed no great boom outside Florida (partly because mortgage finance was then very conservative) and so did not represent a giant overhang of overpriced assets ready to crush the economy when markets turned.
#1
I believe that the left has discovered that in the absence of perception of a depression, nobody except kooks and morons want their agenda. After all, the last time they had massive free reign to push America towards socialism was the 1930's.
Unable to get their agenda through under any other circumstances, they have decided to return to those times by doing all they can to enhance the perception of depression.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/29/2008 20:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Creditanstalt collapse can directly be attributed to the French. The US had set up a system by which the Creditanstalt would loan money at low interest to Germany, which would use it to pay war reparations to France and England. France and England would then repay the "loan lease" repayment to the US.
But the French, determined to punish the Germans (and who had hoped to reduce Germany to an agrarian state earlier), declared the Germans in default over a late delivery of a ship full of telephone poles.
So the French Army occupied the Ruhr, which was Germany's industrial heartland. This suddenly pulled the rug out from German debt to the Creditanstalt, which threw it into bankruptcy.
#5
I think he misses the boat, because we are starting from the opposite side of the field. In the GD, the government didn't interfere for a long time, and did too little. The solution was government intervention and explosive growth via deficit spending and credit.
But now we are up to our ears in government intervention and credit. They will no longer work because they have become vitiated through over use. That is, neither economic growth or inflation will allow us to continue with ever growing spending.
So all we can do is cut spending. And not just cut the rate of spending. Next year, tax revenues are going to be in the basement. But there will be no more credit for the government to borrow money from.
They will still want to spend money like a drunken sailor, but the Treasury will be bare. At that point, what they want doesn't matter. They can no more buy a hamburger than can an ordinary person if he can't pay for it.
#6
"They can no more buy a hamburger than can an ordinary person if he can't pay for it."
'Moose, the Dems will steal the hamburger from the ordinary person and then scream that the Republicans did it. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/29/2008 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#7
They had the advantage of master saleman/propagandist Roosevelt the last time around. I don't think Obama will prove to be as persuasive. Roosevelt could have sold sand to the Saudis.
#10
But now we are up to our ears in government intervention and credit. They will no longer work because they have become vitiated through over use. That is, neither economic growth or inflation will allow us to continue with ever growing spending.
So all we can do is cut spending. And not just cut the rate of spending. Next year, tax revenues are going to be in the basement. But there will be no more credit for the government to borrow money from.
They will still want to spend money like a drunken sailor, but the Treasury will be bare. At that point, what they want doesn't matter. They can no more buy a hamburger than can an ordinary person if he can't pay for it.
I completely agree with these points. Our problem isn't insufficient government - it's too much government, to the point that, in an economic slump, we can't even pay for ordinary expenditures (entitlements, defense, et al), let alone extraordinary ones. Even as our deficits skyrocket, I expect defense to be substantially cut in the years ahead, whether under McCain or Obama.
#11
The big five parts of government are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Defense and Discretionary, which really just means "everything else". And of course, not counting the interest on the national debt.
The logical way to cut Social Security without shafting anybody, is with the idea of returning it to what it was supposed to be: a *full* retirement for minimum wage workers with no other retirement.
Those "advanced in the system" or receiving benefits should have the option of still getting their stipend, or getting a little *more* than their stipend in an income tax deduction.
Those who are "intermediate in the system" but still have income just get the tax deduction to the amount they have paid in to the system. And those just starting have their total FICA payments converted to an IRA.
This again omits the minimum wage earners who continue through the system as is, except facing a real retirement income that is enough to live on, not just a couple hundred bucks a month.
Medicaid should be controlled and paid for by the States with a lump sum. The States figure out how to use or not use the money. The system should be designed for multi-State pools of health care resources, eventually eliminating the need for federal involvement at all.
Medicare has to be means tested, and prioritized so that less expensive, more effective treatments are fully covered, and very expensive yet ineffective treatments are not. Not that radical, really. If you are 90 years old and need a heart lung xplant, you might as well forget it.
Defense is going to be the trickiest to cut. Instead, the president should authorize some ways in which the DoD can make money, and there are some legitimate ways, to augment their budgets.
The Chinese have had involvement of their military in private enterprise for years, and with some constraints, it's not such a bad idea.
#12
Social Security? My prediction is that we will all continue to pay in, but those of us with more than minimum income will end up getting nothing at all back, ie in the end just another progressive tax. In the meantime, I read the other day that 30% of those aged 65-69 are working at least part-time, and 10% of those 70-75... which means they are still paying into the SS fund, when they were expected only to be receiving. I don't know if that will change things significantly, or whether it will balance out people living longer and getting more at the far end.
#13
TW - the lady who handles my IRA recently called and asked if I intended to start taking Social Security since I just turned 62. I nearly fell off my chair laughing. I told her I intend to work at least until I'm 70, and maybe longer depending on my health, and will start taking SS only when I have to and won't be penalized for it.
As long as my health is good, why would I try to live on SS at 62? IIUC, SS receipients who work are penalized, so why start so soon if you don't have to? And what would I do all day? Oh, I've got plenty I could do, but if I started taking SS at 62 I'd have no money to do it. For decades.
SS & Medicare are a pharking mess. Thanks, government. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/29/2008 23:32 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Happy belated birthday, Barbara dear. I hope it was even more enjoyable than you deserve!
. . . it's likely to be a bad thing for us all. But then again, Jim Geraghty at National Review proposes a more favorable scenario:
Just about very vulnerable House member voted no today.
If House Democrats want to pass a left-wing, ACORN-heavy, union-proxies, salary-setting bill, fine. Let Senate Democrats pass that one, too. Let Barack Obama go on record in favor of it.
At the heart, the rescue plan is a phenomenally unpopular proposal that is necessary to avert disaster that, for some reason, the public doesn't quite think is real yet.
Let the Democrats pass the bill and let the unpopular Bush sign it. The Republicans running for House and Senate and McCain, for that matter can denounce it until their throats are hoarse every day from now until Election Day. Every voter will no that at a moment when most Americans were struggling, the Democrats voted along party lines to "bail out Wall Street."
The bailout might save Wall Street, and ensure a Republican tsunami on Election Day to strip out the worst parts of the bill in 2009...
Posted by: Mike ||
09/29/2008 16:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10326 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This will be absolute politcal suicide for the democrats. I doubt they have the courage to undertake such a move. What we are witnessing is econ-class warfare, ie, the working man, earner and American taxpayer vs the entitlement class, non-earner and greedy carpetbaggers led by the democrats.
#2
Timing is everything. If Obama wins, with a rubber stamp congress and a big media tailwind he can do anything he wants next year. Hillary to SC, reinstate the "fairness doctrine", ANYTHING.
And the democrats are stretching this crisis out because they figure it's to their benefit, and increases the chances of the above happening.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
09/29/2008 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If House Democrats want to pass a left-wing, ACORN-heavy, union-proxies, salary-setting bill, fine. Let Senate Democrats pass that one, too. Let Barack Obama go on record in favor of it.
Obama doesn't have an opinion on the bailout package until he gets elected and then he will follow the dictates of the left-wing donk ideologs in his party and Congress. He is not the messiah of change.
#6
The real problem is the fact that people believe in that mindset that this is Grandpa's Democratic party. Suprise! It is not.
It takes Americans a long time to look at what is really happening. They study it eventually (I Believe), and they are studious of some very diverse history.
Give them time to do their homework. Assign it often.
They are bored with keeping up and resigned their fate to anyone they see everyday. Also understand that the VP pick is just an average American Housewife who happened to join the pta that led to state government. They can relate to that. I can in a way find it comforting.
I have been saying for several days the bailout was the worst of bad ideas and now we know Treasury won't even abide by taxpayer concerns.
We are sooo screwed.
1. The tranching is a mere formality, and the Treasury boys as much as said so. They could take the $700 billion max as soon as the bill has passed,
2. However, they do not plan any action immediately, will wait a couple of weeks. They want to focus their efforts on stronger companies but also made noise about protecting the financial system. This, by the way, is the Japanese convoy system all over.
#1
Like I said, there is a reason Paulson is trying to ram this handout bill through in the shortest time possible - once this monstrous turd has been sitting awhile, and its implications sliced and diced, its stink will be so pervasive that no Congresscritter will own up to having supported it verbally, let alone vote for it.
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."
That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "
In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.
Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.
The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"
Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.
Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he'll find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
#2
Has anyone reported what fraction of the high-risk mortgages went to people with low incomes who could not legitimately afford 'starter' homes and what fraction went to middle class people who could not legitimately afford the McMansions or second (investment) home mortgages they got? One high-end Las Vegas investment McMansion could cost us the same as five or ten ACORN defaults. And at least with the little houses we can still find a rental market for them after foreclosure.
#5
This video on youtube pretty much sums up the Democrats part in the mess - including Barney Frank, Chris Dodd (receiver of the most contributions from Freddie and Frannie Mac), and Barak Obama (who sued citybank to _FORCE_ them to make subprime mortgages). As well as Bush'es and McCain's attempts to regulate it (blocked by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd).
Fred, have Ethel ready with your pills before you watch it. Spread it far and wide.
#6
I don't know why McCain doesn't go for broke and shine the light on Frank and other vermin that got us into this mess. Name names; show linkages of BO to this financial debacle.
As looney as Ron Paul is, he is starting to somehow make sense. We are really in trouble when that occurs.
#7
At least we're getting down to the nuts and who caused this. I was shaking my head in disbelief at the b.s. that was going on.
"A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense".
They did, mission accomplished.
#8
It behooves us to make sure every living voter (the dead ones vote for the Dems) sees the video to know who built the bomb and refused to regulate it before it blew up.
#9
I would love to see this thing fail in the House - just to put a hurtin' on Pelosi and Frank. Look, the market is down severely today because they think this thing will not help - not since the people who created the mess are the ones who are blaming everyone but themselves and acting like they are the ones to come to again to save the bacon. Frank, Pelosi, Dodd and Schumer need to summarily investigated by the FBI for the crime of sedition for what they have done.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/29/2008 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#10
F**king idiot McPain, instead of going to DC and wasting time doing nothing, should have been cramming facts about this debacle into his senile head. There was a golden opportunity to directly confront and drive a giant wooden stake thru Hussein over this. He could have taken the whole Dummo machine down. What did he do ? Stumbled and mumbled and lost ground. Why in hell can't we have an actual Republican as a candidate? One who can formulate actual ideas and respond when required. Why are we constantly suffering dead dogs ? Dole, Bushie II, now this poor guy. We ought to be pulling away. We are not. I'm getting really worried.
#11
Barney Frank makes my skin crawl every time I hear him talk--and whenever he talks you feel like he is lying and deflecting blame for his own monumental stupidity. How this total pedophiliac loser page molester keeps getting elected in Massachusetts baffles me.
#12
WE #10. I was disappointed in that McCain didn't go for the messiah man's jugular in the debates. He had a lot of material he could have used--Bill Ayers, Fannie and Freddie, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, the campaign kickbacks from Fannie and Freddie, the pressure on banks by Fannie and Freddie to make these worthless loans, the unwillingness of some of the donks to have any regulation in the banking industry, Rezko, re-distributing everyone's wealth, big spender, big government, taxes, no energy bill that makes any sense, wanting to go into Pakistan, etc. He needs to tap into the anger of Americans over this mess created by very liberal unprincipled obstructionists in Congress--no gas or long gas lines, the increased cost of everything, few good jobs, etc. He needs to hang these things on BO and his party of obstructionists. He has to show BO is a glib, slippery empty suit not ready for primetime. He needs to show that BO is not an agent of change but just big government Democrat of old. Same old, same old. These debates are tools of the main street media for the most part where they want to be the one's that pick the candidate of their choice--not the best venue for McCain. He'd better be prepared the next two debates or he's in trouble--and so are we. He was, I think, trying to show that he alone can reach across the aisle and get something done. He should have learned after his support of the immigration bill.
#14
No more "reaching across the aisle". Give 'em hell.
The other day TW corrected me for being furious at George Bush. Well, I still am. Maybe he was just trying to "work with the Democrats" but he should have been screaming bloody murder...not just about the mortgage meltdown but about everything...the war, the energy crisis, global warming...everything. Everything they say or do has one purpose and one purpose only which is to get Republicans out of the White House and a donk into it. They have absolutely no scruples whatsoever how they do it. The gloves need to come off and they need to come off quick or else we are gonna get a donk in the White House.
#15
Chided, perhaps, dear Ebbang Uluque6305. ;-) I'm not such an expert that I'm entitled to correct anyone on matters political. I do understand your anger, but the president can only work with the Congress he's given, and this one was definitely not full of statesmen who differed only on approach but not objectives. President Bush and Senator McCain have been trying to fix the subprime loan thingy since 2003 and 2005 respectively, and McCain tried to put through another bill in 2007. Pelosi, Reid & Co. shut down all those efforts. Would you rather Bush had fought for that -- and lost -- or to get funding to continue the war in Iraq? At least Bush finally pushed the war funding through, which may well be why we're able to argue blame for the financial mess now.
#16
Yes, TW, but how do we continue to fund the war when we've just gone $700 billion deeper into debt than we already were? As commander in chief, Bush needed to factor this into the equation. Sigh. Maybe he did and this was the best he could do.
#17
And what's more, the donks are being allowed to blame Bush for this mess. He let them sucker him into this position where it's being perceived as all his fault due to the "last eight years of the Republican administration's failed economic policies." Then they point to McCain and tell us he'll do the same as Bush. Well, some of us understand that it's not entirely Republican economic policies. But the donks and the MSM are gonna keep repeating their mantra until everybody believes it is. Bush let them sucker him into this. He's been out maneuvered. If I was really paranoid I'd point out how peculiar it is that all this came to a head just before the election. But what I am saying is that the gloves need to come off now. Blame needs to be assigned in a very loud, clear voice because the trouble we're in now is bigger than Iraq. Bush can't go on TV anymore with a generic, watered down history of this problem. He needs to get detailed and specific about why lending policies were loosened and who warned about it and who tried to reform it and when and why they were not successful. He needs to name names and give them hell in a very public manner. Otherwise it's 1932 and Barack Hussein Roosevelt is about to take office.
#19
Think of it this way, if someone is trying to kill you, your bank is on fire, and your home just fell in, what do you do first.
FIRST kill the bastard shooting at you
SECOND put out the bank fire
and THIRD rebuild your home.
Do it any other way and you either lose your life, or you get killed, KILL THE BASTARD TRYING TO KILL YOU, all other is a very far second.
In other words, first win the war, second fix the financial crisis, and third, "Fix" your home (Get it out of hock)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/29/2008 19:48 Comments ||
Top||
#20
This whole thing reminds me of the end of the CAINE MUTINY. After Queeg's (BUSH) trial the lawyer gives the officers (DEMS) the riot act because there disloyalty again and again more or less pushed Queeg into some of his questionable decisions. A little support early on and things might have been different.
That's not to say Queeg is innocent or anything, but that nobody is and everyone remembers that Queeg was nuts and not the officers culpability.
#21
I hope McCain can lay out his case for being President. He said he was going to put off the debate and went to Washington. He went to New York first to show up at a photo op session with Bill Clinton where they lavished praise all over each other.
All I can figure is that the Clinton's aren't too enamored with the Democratic Party's Presidential choice. Can't have two messiahs in the party can we? I think McCain was trying to bring in the undecided Democratics and the Hilliary followers. He seemed to be trying to communicate that he really could reach across the aisle and get things done. He needs to hammer Obama in the upcoming debates. It would be good if Palin could put Biden down for the count. Obama and Biden are going to keep up the mantra that McCain was part of failed policies of Bush. They will continue to try to link McCain/Palin to Bush.
Congress is going home. They will continue to dither around hoping things will get worse in the economy--after all they are the party of doom, gloom, despair and quagmire. They will try to railroad through the Freddie Krueger bailout plan at that time.
Fox cable news is all over this but the other stations are the "Usual Suspects" and are reporting some celebrity crap or bashing Bush and the trunks.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
