I think we're about due, don't you?
By now you should be living green, have an organic vegetable garden out back, use alternative transportation for everywhere you go, and be recycling every bit of man-made flotsam that you use.
The politicians keep screaming about the 'crisis' we are in, and the Democrats especially keep telling us it is the "worst economy since the great depression". Well, they have talked us into a self-fulfilling prophesy, with all their gloom and doom, so let's show them what it is really like.
Governments cannot beat the market. None ever has, and I believe that none ever will. Propping up airlines, car makers, banks, et. al, is just another version of the giant train wreck that WAS the Soviet economy, before they discovered capitalism.
Now we appear to have eagerly turned down that old, lame road. Last one to the cul-de-sac please turn out the lights.
If Americans don't want American cars, then there is no need for American carmakers. And let me be first in line to say "screw the labor unions". Take your collectively-bargained wages and pensions that priced you right out of the market and eat them. They will go great with the Kale that you are growing.
If some banks close, others will open. There is money out there, and for the right price, lenders will lend it. The government does not need our hard-earned tax dollars to prop up mismanaged banks.
If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go under, let them. They are NOT "too big to fail". They dealt in securities markets, badly, as it turns out. If the heaviest of players cannot determine what sensible investing is, then they have no right to continue trying to find out. Get your mortgage the old-fashioned way. Earn a bank's trust. Hold a job. Make timely payments. Only buy what you can afford. Buying a house because you are betting it will increase in value so you can sell it to cover your costs is a terribly risky idea, as so many have found out.
Yep - I think it is time for a hard economic lesson, and a full depression might be just the thing. To match the real deal, where stocks fell from 332 to 42 in '29, we will need to see our market decline to 1,755.
Next, we need job losses. LOTs of job losses. Not this piss-ant 10th of a point here and there, where unemployment "soars" from 5.5 to 5.7 percent. No, we're talking let's see almost half of us out of work. Let's go to 40 percent. If that happens, then a LOT of those high-earners we hate so much will be next to us in the soup lines. I for one, really want to see Bill Clinton trying to figure out how the hell you dig up a potato.
We can stop worrying about how we are going to afford that 72" flat screen, and start worrying about how we are going to feed our kids tonight.
We can stop complaining about global warming and start working to heat our homes through the winter, with wood, oil, or anything else that burns. Maybe our paper money.
We can stop trying to keep up with the Joneses and start looking after our own ass...er...sets.
We can actually GO hungry so we can stop bitching about how obese children in this country are "starving under our own noses".
And we can share a park bench with a homeless person, because many of us will be homelss. And we will quickly come to understand the difference between being in the street by choice and by necessity.
Yes, I think a depression is exactly what we need. And from the ashes of all the liberal crap ideas we have been force-fed during the last hapless century and the dawn of the current one, perhaps will rise once again a moral, hard-working, self-sufficient, competitive, and self-governing society.
As they often say: No pain, no gain.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
America is no more
Today we welcome the transformation to a Marxist society.
It's the change we voted for.
It's been a wonderful experiment for 200 years, this "freedom" thing.
But reality had to take hold sometime. It's far better to be protected by the state than to actually have to exercise personal responsibility.
Now I just need to get on this gravy train and demand my share. It's only fair, right?
It's the change we voted for.
It's been a wonderful experiment for 200 years, this "freedom" thing.
But reality had to take hold sometime. It's far better to be protected by the state than to actually have to exercise personal responsibility.
Now I just need to get on this gravy train and demand my share. It's only fair, right?
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Crash
OK folks, this one is short.
I thought the economy was in the toilet. I thought the crash had come. I thought the bottom fell out, and that we were entering the next Great Depression.
I guess all these things may yet come to pass.
But to gain perspective, I looked back at conditions during the first Great Depression.
The market fell from a high of 333 to a low of 42.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart2:symbol=^dji;range=19281023,20081023;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on
Unemployment reached 25 percent at its peak.
http://www.thegreatdepression.co.uk/unemployment-during-the-great-depression/
Today the market would have to go down to 1,754 to reach an equivalent decline.
Unemployment is hovering around 6 percent. I remember 8 1/2 percent under famed Democrat Jimmy Carter. That wasn't so long ago, now was it?
Well now that we are about to put a true Marxist into office and majority support for him into both houses of Congress, we shall finally see what a red America will look like.
I can't wait, can you?
I thought the economy was in the toilet. I thought the crash had come. I thought the bottom fell out, and that we were entering the next Great Depression.
I guess all these things may yet come to pass.
But to gain perspective, I looked back at conditions during the first Great Depression.
The market fell from a high of 333 to a low of 42.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart2:symbol=^dji;range=19281023,20081023;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on
Unemployment reached 25 percent at its peak.
http://www.thegreatdepression.co.uk/unemployment-during-the-great-depression/
Today the market would have to go down to 1,754 to reach an equivalent decline.
Unemployment is hovering around 6 percent. I remember 8 1/2 percent under famed Democrat Jimmy Carter. That wasn't so long ago, now was it?
Well now that we are about to put a true Marxist into office and majority support for him into both houses of Congress, we shall finally see what a red America will look like.
I can't wait, can you?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Global Warming Anti-Science
Hello all,
I have taken these tidbits from The American Policy Roundtable, and you may find the full text here:
http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html
"Global Warming" is the hypothesis that our atmosphere heating up due to the (man-made) increase in "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide. The main source of greenhouse gas is burning of "fossil fuels" such as oil, coal, and wood. The increased gasses make the atmosphere act like a greenhouse and hold heat in - causing an overall rise in the Earth's temperature.
For anyone who professes to maintain a "scientific" attitude toward all things (Yes global warming fanatics, you are excused), here are some positions that refute the hypothesis of Global Warming:
A) Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
me: Why should these 17,000 scientists be ignored, while the 1,500 that signed the 1997 “World Scientists Call For Action” petition be considered almost God-like in their prognostication? Why should scientific research that refutes Global Warming or even Man's contribution to Global Warming be any less valid than its counterpart?
B) Wikipedia lists many sources of temperature data. I see no global warming trend. Satellite temperature readings show no warming since such readings began, 23 years ago. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe. And what about introduction of human error?
C) "Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes." Predictions of global warming come from computer models rather than historical data. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
D) The IPCC did not prove that man is causing global warming. Alarmists like to cite the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their predictions. What does the IPCC’s latest report say? “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
E) Let's be real. A little "global warming" wouldn't hurt anybody. Between 800 and 1200 AD "global warming" allowed the Vikings to settle in Greenland. Was that bad? What about creation of more hospitible and inhabitable land on earth? What about increased food production? What about more warm places to vacation?
F) Trying to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions quickly would be horrendously expensive, and it is doubtful that they would do anything to stop the climate from from changing. The Kyoto Treaty wanted us (America) to lower carbon emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels 2012. Reasoned estimates are that such a drive would cost 2.4 million jobs, over $300 billion in economic output, and more than $2,700 per year in household income.
For you libs: tax revenues for states would decline by nearly $95 billion because of lower earnings a property values. How are you going to pay to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses?
G) "The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right."
The United States (under the reviled Bush, I might add) "spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined."
U.S. companies "are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing...greenhouse gas emissions." Let's help them out with tax breaks and other incentives. Let's not punish them for producing and innovating, as Obama desires.
If you want some legitimate reasons to question the absolutism of Global Warming, I have given them to you. If you are only interested in spouting the party line: "Man Bad, Mother Earth Good, U.S. Worst Of All", then you have wasted your time reading this.
I have taken these tidbits from The American Policy Roundtable, and you may find the full text here:
http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html
"Global Warming" is the hypothesis that our atmosphere heating up due to the (man-made) increase in "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide. The main source of greenhouse gas is burning of "fossil fuels" such as oil, coal, and wood. The increased gasses make the atmosphere act like a greenhouse and hold heat in - causing an overall rise in the Earth's temperature.
For anyone who professes to maintain a "scientific" attitude toward all things (Yes global warming fanatics, you are excused), here are some positions that refute the hypothesis of Global Warming:
A) Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
me: Why should these 17,000 scientists be ignored, while the 1,500 that signed the 1997 “World Scientists Call For Action” petition be considered almost God-like in their prognostication? Why should scientific research that refutes Global Warming or even Man's contribution to Global Warming be any less valid than its counterpart?
B) Wikipedia lists many sources of temperature data. I see no global warming trend. Satellite temperature readings show no warming since such readings began, 23 years ago. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe. And what about introduction of human error?
C) "Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes." Predictions of global warming come from computer models rather than historical data. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
D) The IPCC did not prove that man is causing global warming. Alarmists like to cite the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their predictions. What does the IPCC’s latest report say? “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
E) Let's be real. A little "global warming" wouldn't hurt anybody. Between 800 and 1200 AD "global warming" allowed the Vikings to settle in Greenland. Was that bad? What about creation of more hospitible and inhabitable land on earth? What about increased food production? What about more warm places to vacation?
F) Trying to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions quickly would be horrendously expensive, and it is doubtful that they would do anything to stop the climate from from changing. The Kyoto Treaty wanted us (America) to lower carbon emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels 2012. Reasoned estimates are that such a drive would cost 2.4 million jobs, over $300 billion in economic output, and more than $2,700 per year in household income.
For you libs: tax revenues for states would decline by nearly $95 billion because of lower earnings a property values. How are you going to pay to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses?
G) "The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right."
The United States (under the reviled Bush, I might add) "spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined."
U.S. companies "are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing...greenhouse gas emissions." Let's help them out with tax breaks and other incentives. Let's not punish them for producing and innovating, as Obama desires.
If you want some legitimate reasons to question the absolutism of Global Warming, I have given them to you. If you are only interested in spouting the party line: "Man Bad, Mother Earth Good, U.S. Worst Of All", then you have wasted your time reading this.
This too, shall pass
Wowsers - the Dow has lost 15% of its value in 1 week! That's a shaker, and no mistake.
Here's my take. We are building. We are buying. We are innovating. We are servicing. All this has not stopped, and will not stop. Oil is coming down in price. The dumb-o-cratic leadership have decided we may drill for our own oil - at least a little bit, and Obama even said we might relook at nuclear and clean-coal energy alternatives. Halleluja - the blind have seen the light.
I have stopped looking at my investments. They are as sound as any, and my losses so far are on paper. I will not cash out and make those losses real. I hope you refrain from such action as well.
My real regret right now is that I do not have some money laying around to dump into the market. These are the times that make people rich, if they have the resources and the nerve to invest. Warren Buffett must have confidence. He just bought $3 billion of GE stock. Now why do that if the world is going to hell in a handbasket? Hmmm?.
At the seasoned age of 51, I have now lived through 3 or 4 market "crashes" since I began investing. They all hurt. They are all frightening. But in each case, the recovery has been bigger and substantially more sustained than the crash. If you were to look at a stock market time line on Yahoo here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
you will see that the current downturn is still not as drastic as it seems when looking up close. Check out the dip from January 1973 to July of 2004 (1.5 years) when the Dow went from 1,020 (that's right, one thousand and twenty) to 607.
That's a "loss" of 40% FORTY PERCENT, sustained over a year and a half. Funny - I don't even remember it being dinner table conversation in my house.
Now the Dow has been as high as 14,000, and is currently in the high nine thousand range.
Personally - I believe it will recover and do so quite nicely. It may take a little bit - maybe more than a week! Holy smokes. Can we ever survive?
Sure we can. Take a breath. Go for a walk. Watch a movie. Have some ice cream. Read a good book. Live your life. Stop watching the news. Just stop. We'll be OK.
Even if Obama gets into office.
Here's my take. We are building. We are buying. We are innovating. We are servicing. All this has not stopped, and will not stop. Oil is coming down in price. The dumb-o-cratic leadership have decided we may drill for our own oil - at least a little bit, and Obama even said we might relook at nuclear and clean-coal energy alternatives. Halleluja - the blind have seen the light.
I have stopped looking at my investments. They are as sound as any, and my losses so far are on paper. I will not cash out and make those losses real. I hope you refrain from such action as well.
My real regret right now is that I do not have some money laying around to dump into the market. These are the times that make people rich, if they have the resources and the nerve to invest. Warren Buffett must have confidence. He just bought $3 billion of GE stock. Now why do that if the world is going to hell in a handbasket? Hmmm?.
At the seasoned age of 51, I have now lived through 3 or 4 market "crashes" since I began investing. They all hurt. They are all frightening. But in each case, the recovery has been bigger and substantially more sustained than the crash. If you were to look at a stock market time line on Yahoo here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
you will see that the current downturn is still not as drastic as it seems when looking up close. Check out the dip from January 1973 to July of 2004 (1.5 years) when the Dow went from 1,020 (that's right, one thousand and twenty) to 607.
That's a "loss" of 40% FORTY PERCENT, sustained over a year and a half. Funny - I don't even remember it being dinner table conversation in my house.
Now the Dow has been as high as 14,000, and is currently in the high nine thousand range.
Personally - I believe it will recover and do so quite nicely. It may take a little bit - maybe more than a week! Holy smokes. Can we ever survive?
Sure we can. Take a breath. Go for a walk. Watch a movie. Have some ice cream. Read a good book. Live your life. Stop watching the news. Just stop. We'll be OK.
Even if Obama gets into office.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Feeding the Hogs
How is it, friends and foes, that we are giving our money to the very people that caused our economic troubles, in order that those people might "fix" the trouble?
How is it, friends and foes, that the people that killed the messenger in 2001, 2004, and 2005 when warned of Fannie and Freddie improprieties, are today trying to escape all blame for the debacle? Why aren't Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, and Chris Dodd being investigated? Where are the calls to see Maxine Waters "frog marched out of the Congress"?
How is it, friends and foes, that a bill that is rammed down our throats as an "emergency measure" intended to fend off economic collapse has billions and billions of pork barrel spending added to it to convince reluctant representatives to even vote for it?
How is it, friends and foes, that the very folks that called again and again for reform of Freddie and Fannie in 2001, 2004, and 2005 are ignored and even excoriated for somehow being implicit in the collapse of these entities? George Bush, John McCain, and a host of other Republican lawmakers warned loudly and often of the coming crisis. Their reward was to have voters put Democrats in power in 2006. At the end of the Democrats' reign, the dam burst, we all are soaked, and no one seems to remember who was warning us that this would come to pass. How is this?
How is it, friends and foes, that the American Public would even consider voting for the very people that caused this to happen to us in the upcoming national elections?
We seem to be feeding the hogs.
I am at a loss.
How is it, friends and foes, that the people that killed the messenger in 2001, 2004, and 2005 when warned of Fannie and Freddie improprieties, are today trying to escape all blame for the debacle? Why aren't Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, and Chris Dodd being investigated? Where are the calls to see Maxine Waters "frog marched out of the Congress"?
How is it, friends and foes, that a bill that is rammed down our throats as an "emergency measure" intended to fend off economic collapse has billions and billions of pork barrel spending added to it to convince reluctant representatives to even vote for it?
How is it, friends and foes, that the very folks that called again and again for reform of Freddie and Fannie in 2001, 2004, and 2005 are ignored and even excoriated for somehow being implicit in the collapse of these entities? George Bush, John McCain, and a host of other Republican lawmakers warned loudly and often of the coming crisis. Their reward was to have voters put Democrats in power in 2006. At the end of the Democrats' reign, the dam burst, we all are soaked, and no one seems to remember who was warning us that this would come to pass. How is this?
How is it, friends and foes, that the American Public would even consider voting for the very people that caused this to happen to us in the upcoming national elections?
We seem to be feeding the hogs.
I am at a loss.
Friday, September 26, 2008
It IS Clinton's fault
Well kiddies,
this guy got it right, and had to put it in the form of a bedtime story for most "amuhruhcains" to understand.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRmNTE2ZGMyY2UwOGVhZDczYTcxM2MxNDU1ZGNkNmE=
The mortgage meltdown is Clinton's fault.
Repeat after me:
It's Clinton's fault.
It's Clinton's fault.
It's CLINTON'S FAULT, FAULT, FAULT!!!.
This story is really so simple it is amazing.
1) Government (read - meddling) tells banks they must issue risky loans to create opportunitiy for poor people and minorities to own homes.
Now children, all this really says is: banks must provide mortgages to people that cannot hope to pay them back. If they fail to make payments, then the government promises to redistribute your and my wealth to pay off the loans.
2) Government (read - meddling) tells Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they must BUY the risky loans that the banks have made. Government (read - meddling) tells Fannie and Freddie that there will be PUNISHMENT if they do not buy the loans.
3) The banks are happy. The housing market is on a roll. Ever-growing home prices hide the risky loans, and allow banks to a) make more loans, and b) show more assets and accounts receivable on their books. This makes banks look fabulously wealthy.
4) Fannie and Freddie are happy. They buy more loans and list them as "assets".
5) George Bush and select Republicans begin warning congress that this has gotten out of hand. When? Oh, 2004. They begin shouting at congress in 2005. Congress could care less. In fact, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) stated he "has no plans to hold even a single oversight hearing to look into special “VIP” housing perks that Countrywide gave powerful congressional Democrats [Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad] at the same time it was hiking mortgage rates on you and me. See:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/surprise_democrats_block_investigation_into_countrywide_mortgage_scandal/
6) Nobody does nothing, not noway, not nohow.
7) House prices plunge, poor people and minorities default on their loans, and all those "assets" turn into "liabilities".
Can you spell "liabilities"?
I knew you could.
8) Banks and Fannie and Freddie run out of money to make loans because first they have to write down the new debt, and then their market capitalization falls dramatically because of it (i.e. their stock prices become nearly worthless).
Finally - when did all this start? Hmmm, let's see. Jamie Gorelick, Frank Raines, James Johnson, all Fannie execs. were advisors to Bill Clinton in the 90's, and basically drove Clinton's policy mentioned in item 1.
All of these, by the way, are now advising Barak Obama on economics. Holy Mother of God.
All of these, by the way, got fabulously wealthy from pay and bonuses as the mortgage giants racked (wrecked) up the books.
See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=75586
Oh, and guess who was shouting loudest that we needed more oversight - especially with Fannie and Freddie? John McCain.
Who?
John McCain. 2005. He was calling for 'change' in 2005. He was ignored by: Barak Obama.
See: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/17/obama-mccain-and-fnma-reform/
Who started the mess?
Well, all evidence points to Bill Clinton and the Democrats.
I always knew that scallywag was up to something! And we all thought it was just sex :)
James Jones
this guy got it right, and had to put it in the form of a bedtime story for most "amuhruhcains" to understand.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRmNTE2ZGMyY2UwOGVhZDczYTcxM2MxNDU1ZGNkNmE=
The mortgage meltdown is Clinton's fault.
Repeat after me:
It's Clinton's fault.
It's Clinton's fault.
It's CLINTON'S FAULT, FAULT, FAULT!!!.
This story is really so simple it is amazing.
1) Government (read - meddling) tells banks they must issue risky loans to create opportunitiy for poor people and minorities to own homes.
Now children, all this really says is: banks must provide mortgages to people that cannot hope to pay them back. If they fail to make payments, then the government promises to redistribute your and my wealth to pay off the loans.
2) Government (read - meddling) tells Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they must BUY the risky loans that the banks have made. Government (read - meddling) tells Fannie and Freddie that there will be PUNISHMENT if they do not buy the loans.
3) The banks are happy. The housing market is on a roll. Ever-growing home prices hide the risky loans, and allow banks to a) make more loans, and b) show more assets and accounts receivable on their books. This makes banks look fabulously wealthy.
4) Fannie and Freddie are happy. They buy more loans and list them as "assets".
5) George Bush and select Republicans begin warning congress that this has gotten out of hand. When? Oh, 2004. They begin shouting at congress in 2005. Congress could care less. In fact, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) stated he "has no plans to hold even a single oversight hearing to look into special “VIP” housing perks that Countrywide gave powerful congressional Democrats [Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad] at the same time it was hiking mortgage rates on you and me. See:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/surprise_democrats_block_investigation_into_countrywide_mortgage_scandal/
6) Nobody does nothing, not noway, not nohow.
7) House prices plunge, poor people and minorities default on their loans, and all those "assets" turn into "liabilities".
Can you spell "liabilities"?
I knew you could.
8) Banks and Fannie and Freddie run out of money to make loans because first they have to write down the new debt, and then their market capitalization falls dramatically because of it (i.e. their stock prices become nearly worthless).
Finally - when did all this start? Hmmm, let's see. Jamie Gorelick, Frank Raines, James Johnson, all Fannie execs. were advisors to Bill Clinton in the 90's, and basically drove Clinton's policy mentioned in item 1.
All of these, by the way, are now advising Barak Obama on economics. Holy Mother of God.
All of these, by the way, got fabulously wealthy from pay and bonuses as the mortgage giants racked (wrecked) up the books.
See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=75586
Oh, and guess who was shouting loudest that we needed more oversight - especially with Fannie and Freddie? John McCain.
Who?
John McCain. 2005. He was calling for 'change' in 2005. He was ignored by: Barak Obama.
See: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/17/obama-mccain-and-fnma-reform/
Who started the mess?
Well, all evidence points to Bill Clinton and the Democrats.
I always knew that scallywag was up to something! And we all thought it was just sex :)
James Jones
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
