This was an amnesty proposal awhile back. Thank goodness it did not pass.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Who's at fault for this economic problems???
I received this email and thought it was great. Enjoy!
It isn't often that public outrage peaks so close to an election, but this is a rare moment in history when "we the people" can exact a price from the political leadership that has duped, scammed and lied to them, contributing mightily to the current financial mess.
At the Senate Banking Committee hearings Tuesday, Democrats, led by Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut, seemed to think the mortgage crisis, aided and abetted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and other disasters, occurred on someone else's watch. Dodd, joined by ranking Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, criticized what he said was the ad hoc nature of the government's response to the financial crisis and complained that the Bush administration's proposals lack detail.
Some history is important. It was pressure from the Carter and Clinton administrations that forced Fannie and Freddie to grant more high-risk loans to people who otherwise would never qualify. They mostly wanted to promote not only new home ownership numbers, but also more home ownership in the minority community. That was a noble goal, but the cost
turned out to be too high.
Democrats would love to blame the Bush administration for a disaster they mostly helped to create. But, according to the White House, as early as April 2001, the administration warned that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large (government-sponsored enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in
financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity." As recently as June of this year, President Bush asked Congress to take the necessary measures to address growing foreclosures. "We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," he said. In July, Congress passed reform legislation, but it was too late.
It is an affront to the nation that some of the people who brought on the crisis (and financially and politically benefited from the status quo) were asking the questions at the Banking Committee hearing. They should have been in the witness chair. Dodd said the crisis was "entirely foreseeable and preventable." Then why didn't he try to prevent it? He should have been answering questions about the PAC contributions he received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (according to opensecrets.org, he's the Senate's no. 1 recipient of campaign contributions, $133,900, Barack Obama is no. 3, $105,849), his sweetheart Countrywide Financial mortgage rate and whether they influenced his inattentiveness to the growing mortgage crisis.
I'm not one to say that the Democrats are the only one who are at fault. I'm sure there are a number of people on both sides. But I do find it is quite interesting that some of the largest congressmen to benefit from Fannie May and Freddie Mac are Democrat and one of them wants to be the next President!
It isn't often that public outrage peaks so close to an election, but this is a rare moment in history when "we the people" can exact a price from the political leadership that has duped, scammed and lied to them, contributing mightily to the current financial mess.
At the Senate Banking Committee hearings Tuesday, Democrats, led by Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut, seemed to think the mortgage crisis, aided and abetted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and other disasters, occurred on someone else's watch. Dodd, joined by ranking Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, criticized what he said was the ad hoc nature of the government's response to the financial crisis and complained that the Bush administration's proposals lack detail.
Some history is important. It was pressure from the Carter and Clinton administrations that forced Fannie and Freddie to grant more high-risk loans to people who otherwise would never qualify. They mostly wanted to promote not only new home ownership numbers, but also more home ownership in the minority community. That was a noble goal, but the cost
turned out to be too high.
Democrats would love to blame the Bush administration for a disaster they mostly helped to create. But, according to the White House, as early as April 2001, the administration warned that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large (government-sponsored enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in
financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity." As recently as June of this year, President Bush asked Congress to take the necessary measures to address growing foreclosures. "We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," he said. In July, Congress passed reform legislation, but it was too late.
It is an affront to the nation that some of the people who brought on the crisis (and financially and politically benefited from the status quo) were asking the questions at the Banking Committee hearing. They should have been in the witness chair. Dodd said the crisis was "entirely foreseeable and preventable." Then why didn't he try to prevent it? He should have been answering questions about the PAC contributions he received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (according to opensecrets.org, he's the Senate's no. 1 recipient of campaign contributions, $133,900, Barack Obama is no. 3, $105,849), his sweetheart Countrywide Financial mortgage rate and whether they influenced his inattentiveness to the growing mortgage crisis.
I'm not one to say that the Democrats are the only one who are at fault. I'm sure there are a number of people on both sides. But I do find it is quite interesting that some of the largest congressmen to benefit from Fannie May and Freddie Mac are Democrat and one of them wants to be the next President!
Friday, September 19, 2008
How liberal the media is today...
Recently I watched the Republican National Convention and flipped through the different stations to see what type of commentary they were saying about. It was frustrating to listen to the commentators at NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and CNN. It just felt like they weren't being impartial in there journalistic approach. Keith Obermann was the worst appologizing to the TV for the video tribute to the surviviors of 9/11. It was so bad that he was demoted to a analyst instead of being the main commentator.
He really is such an idiot by the way. During his show he falsely accused Sara Palin of the following,
"After apparently taking erroneous information from the far-left-leaning website ThinkProgress on Tuesday to falsely accuse Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of slashing her state's Special Olympics budget, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Wednesday called the governor a liar in a rant with potential ties to a Daily Kos posting hours earlier." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/18/olbermann-uses-false-information-daily-kos-smear-palin
The fact is that she did not slash the funding but incresed it. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/17/olbermann-echoes-thinkprogress-lies-smear-palin
That wasn't bad enough but the media has been vicious towards Sara Palin. I understand that people are going to critic her and thats fine because she was the one who put herself in the publics eyes. However when people start attacking her pregnant daughter that crosses the line. Sure Obama stated that family is off limits, but that isn't going to stop the media, who makes it no secret that they want Obama, from attacking her daughter. I have Sirius radio and occasionaly listen to the Left Channel, which is the liberal talk show station, to see what they are talking about and it was unreal what the commentators were saying about her daughter.
Also there was the Charlie Gibson interview. Again I understand that he needs to be impartial in his interview to not show bias. Also I understand that he was going to ask the hard questions that people wanted to know. But he was so far left in his approach. I felt like he was trying to trick or badger her to say something that would negatively affect her.
I'm sure I'll go more into this topic with greater sources to back up what I'm saying but its just so obvious to me that the major news anchors are in Obama corner and doing all they can to help him and convince the public that he is the man to vote for.
He really is such an idiot by the way. During his show he falsely accused Sara Palin of the following,
"After apparently taking erroneous information from the far-left-leaning website ThinkProgress on Tuesday to falsely accuse Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of slashing her state's Special Olympics budget, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Wednesday called the governor a liar in a rant with potential ties to a Daily Kos posting hours earlier." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/18/olbermann-uses-false-information-daily-kos-smear-palin
The fact is that she did not slash the funding but incresed it. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/17/olbermann-echoes-thinkprogress-lies-smear-palin
That wasn't bad enough but the media has been vicious towards Sara Palin. I understand that people are going to critic her and thats fine because she was the one who put herself in the publics eyes. However when people start attacking her pregnant daughter that crosses the line. Sure Obama stated that family is off limits, but that isn't going to stop the media, who makes it no secret that they want Obama, from attacking her daughter. I have Sirius radio and occasionaly listen to the Left Channel, which is the liberal talk show station, to see what they are talking about and it was unreal what the commentators were saying about her daughter.
Also there was the Charlie Gibson interview. Again I understand that he needs to be impartial in his interview to not show bias. Also I understand that he was going to ask the hard questions that people wanted to know. But he was so far left in his approach. I felt like he was trying to trick or badger her to say something that would negatively affect her.
I'm sure I'll go more into this topic with greater sources to back up what I'm saying but its just so obvious to me that the major news anchors are in Obama corner and doing all they can to help him and convince the public that he is the man to vote for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
