JivinJ’s Life Links 9-25-08
by JivinJ
It appears the Archbishop’s warning isn’t going unheeded. Proponents of the bill don’t seem to fully grasp why doctors who oppose performing abortions don’t want to refer women to abortion providers….
In the letter he notes how FOCA will the have opposite effect of the supposed bi-partisan goal of reducing abortion.
However, there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can’t reduce abortions by promoting abortion…. No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions.
What did Barack Obama promise would be the first thing he did once elected president? That’s right.
Sep.25, 2008 3:58 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLuZEwipGEg
Way to go Palin, The national version of Phil Kline….
via Crooksandliars.com from Rocky Mountain News
Planned Parenthood is suddenly a lot richer because of Sarah Palin.
And the Republican vice presidential nominee will soon be receiving tens of thousands of thank-you notes.
A three-week-old Internet campaign is asking abortion-rights activists to send donations to Planned Parenthood in honor of the Alaska governor.[..]
One e-mail making the rounds on the Internet says: “Instead of (actually, in addition to) all of us all sending more e-mails about how absolutely horrible she is, let’s all make a donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin’s name.”
Katie Groke Ellis, field manager for the Planned Parenthood of the Rockies Action Fund, predicts that the five-state chapter of the group alone could draw $100,000 in donations.[..]
Planned Parenthood sends a handwritten thank-you card to the donor. If a donation is made in someone’s name, he or she gets one, too.
In this case, the Palin cards will go to Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s national headquarters.
The reason Sarah Palin will never release her medical history is, it includes a hospitalization in a psych ward with a diagnosis of suicidal/danger-to-self.
Peachpit,
Planned Parenthood is suddenly a lot richer because of Sarah Palin.
Pro-choicers are becoming poorer at the same time.
BrainDoc, I’m no Palin fan, but I would suggest that this type of charge not be publicized without proof. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to vote against Palin, let’s not get dirty.
According to FOCA, the government may not interfere with a woman’s choice to abort. Would this allow any methods of abortion that the woman might use, including drug or alcohol poisoning, causing “accidental” death of the fetus/baby and other such measures she sees fit?
FOCA sounds like a free-for-all, a “get out of jail free card” for all of the abortion industry. Very, very, dangerous. See NARAL’s description of the law – unbelievable.
As Justin Cardinal Rigali mentioned in his letter to Congress, no one can support FOCA without being a supporter of abortion.
God bless all public figure and private citizens who have the courage to speak out for LIFE.
FOCA is a BAD Law and MUST NOT Pass.
I have a question not relating to abortion, but…
What’s with this $700 billion bail-out thing I’ve been hearing about and more importantly–WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM???
I could be way off here, but this reminds me of the stock market crash in 1929 when a bunch of rich people poured their money into the economy… only to have it crash the following week. Does anyone know anything substantial and OBJECTIVE about this?
Thanks, Hal, for your fairness. If someone were to follow BrainDoc’s lead they could say the same (or worse) about Obama. It seems that in every election some people want so badly to see their candidate prevail they are willing to cross the line and spout inanities.
Obama’s position, cleary stated for all to see on the video, is one of the reasons he won the nomination. The “must have unfettered access to abortion at all costs crowd” loves the guy. Even Hil didn’t go before PP with such a promise, and it may have cost her dearly. People often complain about pro-lifers being a single issue constituency, but this is as clear of an example of a single issue voting bloc if there ever was one.
Jerry, I agree that their are pro-choice voters who are very single issue. It probably took the nomination of Palin to motivate them. McCain was seen as a moderate on “life” issues, although I don’t think he is.
I think Hillary didn’t go to Planned Parenthood because she thought everyone knew how strong she was on ‘choice.’ I doubt there is much difference between Clinton and Obama on abortion issues.
BrainDoc, that type of thing should have no influence on a person’s reputation. People who receive help for their diseases should be admired.
Erin, 7:21PM
Excellent point and thank you.
BrainDoc,
I hope you are equally “concerned” about Obama’s 25 year smoking habit and what effects this could have on his health. Also, Obama admitted to having a cocaine addiction in his youth.
If he fought off this addiction and got the help he needed then like Erin, I agree he should be admired for doing so.
I’m sure where Sarah Palin is concerned you would share this viewpoint.
Leah, 6:21PM
You, I, and every taxpayer in this country will bail them out.
Under Clinton the federal gov’t began putting massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to minorities and low income people.
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s federal reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage.
Political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.
Economists screamed that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the minute the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn’t get out of their loans by selling.
Now, food stamp backed mortgages have failed. The affirmative action time bomb set by Democrats has gone off.
Now at a cost of hundreds of billions, middle class people like you and I will have to bail out the Democrats two most important consituent groups, welfare recipients and Wall street bankers.
Also, Obama admitted to having a cocaine addiction in his youth.
I do agree with your overall point, Mary, but I think there’s a difference between using “a little blow” and being addicted to cocaine. It’s not a drug I’d want anyone trying a little bit of, but it is definitely possible to use it a few times and not struggle with an addiction to it.
I know more than one person who recreationally uses cocaine once a month or so. I love and trust someone who was once addicted to cocaine. There is really a huge difference between the two. Of course, you get addicted by using it a little bit at first, but that doesn’t mean that using it a little bit is the same as being addicted.
Alexandra,
I only know that Obama admitted to “using”. I have no sources as to whether or not he was addicted. If he was and rec’d help, great.
If Sarah Palin had psychiatric issues and rec’d help, great.
My only question is whether BrainDoc’s standards are equally applied to both candidates.
Mary I have read that people are calling on other countries to help now too. a UK writer thinks that other countries should chip in to help.
It seems no one helps the US when it is in trouble. There are lots of German and British banks affected by this but the American taxpayer would be bailing them out too. Is that fair?
I heard that the $700 Billion plan has failed to pass.
I must correct my post of 8:03PM
I should have used the word “using” instead of an addiction. I have no sources that state there was an addiction though I did hear of his using cocaine. My apologies.
I mean my post of 7:49PM!!!
Tax money… aha… that’s a lot of tax money. I pay my taxes to Canada, though.
I’m sure this never-ending, wasteful war we’re involved in had NOTHING to do with it…
Thanks for answering, by the way.
Planned Parenthood is suddenly a lot richer because of Sarah Palin.
And the Republican vice presidential nominee will soon be receiving tens of thousands of thank-you notes.
A three-week-old Internet campaign is asking abortion-rights activists to send donations to Planned Parenthood in honor of the Alaska governor.[..]
One e-mail making the rounds on the Internet says: “Instead of (actually, in addition to) all of us all sending more e-mails about how absolutely horrible she is, let’s all make a donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin’s name.”
Katie Groke Ellis, field manager for the Planned Parenthood of the Rockies Action Fund, predicts that the five-state chapter of the group alone could draw $100,000 in donations.[..]
Planned Parenthood sends a handwritten thank-you card to the donor. If a donation is made in someone’s name, he or she gets one, too.
In this case, the Palin cards will go to Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s national headquarters.
PeachPit
I already knew Planned Parenthood was evil, but this really goes beyond belief even for them.
These pro death people have the audacity to say how “absolutely horrible” Sarah Palin is?
What’s “horrible” is promoting abortion!
These people must not have any conscience.
Go McCain/Palin!
Patricia,
In all honesty economics is way over my head.
Allowing people to borrow beyond their means to pay is insanity and banks that would do this would expect to fail. Without federal interference, no banks would have issued these mortgages.
You and I for instance would have no right to expect a loan for a few millions dollars which I know I for certain could never repay, why then should people have been issued home loans they otherwise would have been denied?
Leah 8:25PM
In fact the war didn’t. This goes back to gov’t interference and “good intentions” by the Democrats.
Leah 8:26PM
You’re entirely welcome.
Mary, didn’t Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae give contributions to Democrats, one being B. Obama?
I’ve just heard Sen. Lindsay Graham say on Fox News that the deal did not go through today partly because the Dems want 20% to go to ACORN. He said that ACORN has a very inefficiently-run housing program. ACORN is a radical leftist community organizing operation with which Obama has strong ties.
Eileen#2 9:18PM
I understand that to be the case. Also his economic advisors were said to be the heads of these companies, which are really gov’t agencies.
You are right about ACORN. Apparently they were involved in voter fraud as well.
Mary,
Acorn weeds out their bad seeds. The people who committed voter fraud were fired and turned in.
inefficient? Much of what they do is counseling services.
http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=8145
ACORN opposes the bailout. They were never going to get a cut of the money. If Graham said that, he’s just wrong again.
PIP,
I hope so. Time will tell.
Regarding the Guttmacher “findings”, I find it fascinating that their headline starts with the words “NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES NEEDED”, as if it was their job to make a political statement to the reader before the reader even saw the stats. Kind of gives a new meaning to the word “bias”, doesn’t it?
Patricia,
In all honesty economics is way over my head.
Allowing people to borrow beyond their means to pay is insanity and banks that would do this would expect to fail. Without federal interference, no banks would have issued these mortgages.
You and I for instance would have no right to expect a loan for a few millions dollars which I know I for certain could never repay, why then should people have been issued home loans they otherwise would have been denied?
Posted by: Mary at September 25, 2008 8:30 PM
me too!
Yeah I remember when I was first a single mom, I got a letter from my credit card co telling me that they had raised my limit by $2000! I was stunned to say the least. I was an unemployed single mom of 4 kids!
Two years ago, my bank gave me a $15000 line of credit! They begged me to take it! I did use it to pay of a credit card bill for car repairs as soon as I got a job. But I never use it for anything. I save money to buy for things I need.
They say that household debt in Canada is worse than in the US! I often wonder, as I drive to work, how people in my neck of the woods can afford to drive $35000 to $40,000 trucks! It must all be through loans. I have no debts, thank God!
Mary and Patricia, those are the reasons that many Republicans in the House are against the current bailout proposal, and why it may fail.
The only question in my mind is which way will be worse for the country, a failure of the bailout, or the success of the bailout?
I think that in the long run, a success of this bailout proposal may cause more problems than it cures, so I’m having a hard time supporting it.
Fox news is claiming that McCain blew the bailout deal.
IMO, both McCain and Obama should never have been a part of this in the first place.
Doyle: I agree with you. I just can’t see how the government can do it.
And what does $700 Billion MEAN? The number is so fantastic, it’s beyond ridiculous.
The Vatican claims that it is greed which has fuelled this whole situation. People living way beyond their means.
Greed, yes. But I wouldn’t say it is the greed of the homeowners; rather the greed of the lenders. Shark lending is way out of control.
Also, I’m not happy with any of the candidates on how they are handling this, it is pretty pathetic.
Patricia,
Keep in mind that the democrats have enough votes to pass whatever plan they wish, just that they KNOW that the majority of Americans are opposed to the Paulson Plan, McCain included. They “need” Republican fingerprints on their plan so that they can claim a gotcha moment later.
McCain and Obama were hired to be senators first. That’s their primary job and I applaud McCain for dropping everything and saying “Let’s fix this, my presidential aspirations be darned.”
Obama? “Call me if you need me. I wanna debate NOW!”
Who’s fighting for us? Who’s REALLY fighting for us?
(I’m not jumping on you, P. The situation has me unnerved.)
no that’s ok Carder. I don’t really understand what’s going on to be honest. How can you lend people money, who can’t afford to repay? Is this even ethical?
I do know McCain was being proactive.
How does one fix this situation?
Patricia, my BIL used to be a mortgage broker and let’s just say he has some stories! They could pretty much get anyone into a house and walk away.
I know that when we were just applying to rent a house the rental agency inflated our income on the forms to make us look like more attractive candidates. Now, we didn’t default on our payments, so I guess it was ok in our particular case, but how many people do?
It’s a mess.
Amid all the talk, Patricia, I’m gathering that some would prefer conservativism to win the day: cut capital gains tax, allow the capitalism work it out, work out loans, etc. Mind you, I’m the last person to talk about financial matters. Please don’t ask me to define derivatives, assets, securities, bundles, etc. Over my head.
To answer your first question: Back in the day, some say during Jimmy Carter, the idea that people were “entitled” to own a home shoud be enabled to do so, especially low-income/minority citizens. They were trying to halt a practice known as “red-lining”, meaning that some were discriminated from obtaining loans.
An act was passed, and later on down the road, the gov’t pressured lenders to loan to these folks, in spite of good business practices to the contrary. So things like loaning to illegal immigrants, no down payments, using welfare checks as proof of income, unemployment checks as well, they all took place. Ethical? I think the current situation speaks for itself.
Not to mention Fannie and Freddie were doing their share of cooking the books.
So it’s all blown up. Five weeks before Election Day.
I couldn’t be more heart-broken.
I was watching the news yesterday and they were discussing how regulations passed under the Clinton administration required mortgage lenders to accept welfare and unemployment checks as “proof of income” to qualify for a mortgage on a house. There’s your culprit, if finding the culprit will help anything.
It (the regulations) amounted to the biggest give away in the history of our country. Sure, the mortgage companies, banks, etc. made a huge bundle on those regulations, but they were not the source of them…. our government was.
So now who has to pay for the mistakes of our government? We do, of course…. but maybe not in a way that would simply bail out those who made huge profits because of the regulations during the “housing boom” a few years back.
House Republicans are working out a plan to offer insurance to wall street firms (at a price to them, not us). I hope they come up with something we can all get behind. I have zero confidence that the current bailout plan being offered will improve the situation for more than a month or two at best. We need something better than that.
Oh, and Patricia…
One detail I left out, The reason the gov’t pressured these lenders so much (as I understood it) is that by not doing so, they would risk being accused of not following the law, which in turn would stand of the way of these lenders to grow.
And I’m heart broken not because of the money. It’s knowing that if this costs McCain the presidency, the unborn are guaranteed to perish.
Woe unto us.
Patricia,
I applaud you that you are debt free!! My husband and I are diligently working on Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace to become debt free in 2 years.
Carder @ 9;52,
And I’m heart broken not because of the money. It’s knowing that if this costs McCain the presidency, the unborn are guaranteed to perish.
Woe unto us.
I’m with you. People shouldn’t make McCain a scapegoat for this mess. I’m blown away that the MSM is expecting a solution after one day of meetings in Washington. Most of them couldn’t figure things out in a thousand years.
Doyle,
You’re exactly right. It was government intervention (by politically correct Democrats) that caused this problem in the first place. It’s quite a shame.
Democrats repeatedly blocked reforms for Fanny Mae and Freddy mac. Especially by liberal democrat Barney Frank, his ex-boyfriend is an executive for Fanny mae.
The numberous events leading up to this were not confined to one party. The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed under Clinton, but initially only got through the Senate with Republican support along party lines. It had wide bipartisan support and was veto-proof when it finally passed in both the Senate and the House, but banks had been trying to get it repealed since the 80s.
Blame falls just about everywhere on this one — Republicans, Democrats, lenders, borrowers…
It is pretty scary, though. I don’t really understand it all because it’s so complex.
Honestly, I have no idea what’s going on. I don’t get economics AT ALL. I’ve tried. It makes my brain twitch.
carder, why did it take 10 days after the DOW crashed for McCain to say “Wait, here I come!”
I dunno why it’s such a big deal for the candidates to be involved any more than any other senator. They don’t have any greater power than that at this point.
“Katie Groke Ellis, field manager for the Planned Parenthood of the Rockies Action Fund, predicts that the five-state chapter of the group alone could draw $100,000 in donations.[..]”
——————————————–
I guess the key words here are “predicts” and “could draw”…
In this economy, I highly doubt people would give that high, no matter how pro-abort they are…
I “predict” only 10% of what they predicted they could generate would come true…
Same as the supposed millions PP “planned” to pour into the Obaminator’s campaign coffers…
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 26, 2008 9:10 AM
Hi PIP, I don’t agree that it’s greed on the part of the homeowners. The lenders make money off of every loan they close. They first, tell these people (some very clueless about money – and I’m not saying they are dumb it’s very hard to grasp for many people) that they are “approved” for “X” number of dollars. MANY people think “Well, then that’s what I’ll get a mortgage for.” They aren’t thinking how that will actually fit into a budget. They forget about bills like insurance and property taxes which, especially if this is their first house, they have no clue how much that adds to their monthly mortgage.
So they close on the house and I am NOT exaggerating when I say that you don’t know how much money you have to bring to closing until a day (two if you’re REALLY lucky) before you close and you won’t know what your monthly mortgage payment will be until you sign the papers.
The lenders don’t care. They tell you the APR “really doesn’t matter.” (It does.) And next year they’ll call you and tell you “Hey, we can lower that payment for you.” And you think “Great! My payment will go down $100.00 when in reality what was then a 29 year mortgage (because you paid for one year on your 30 year mortgage) is back to a 30 year. Or worse they say “We can REALLY save you some money if you just extend your mortgage to 35 or 40 years.”
You do it and then they make more money, you again have trouble paying and the cycle repeats. This happens ALL the time. Yes, people are living outside their means but the lenders are there to feed them a line about how they can “help.”
I’ve said no to this scenario multiple times over my three home purchases but my sister almost fell for it and was going to give up a mortgage with a 6% interest rate for one that was 7 3/4% extended over a longer period of time. She asked me to look over the lenders papers and I told her she was getting screwed. Thank goodness she kept her old mortgage and thankfully she just thought it would be nice to have a lower payment and didn’t HAVE to have a lower payment so it wasn’t a necessity to change the mortgage.
The lenders are sales people, the more they sell the more they make and they are VERY motivated.
How can you lend people money, who can’t afford to repay? Is this even ethical?
Patricia, if you want to take the risk, you go for it. That’s the way it works. In return for your your increased risk, you get a higher return – a higher percentage rate of the loan. The plot then thickens because it’s not like the deal remains solely between that lender and the borrower. I’ll make another post on it.
…..
I do know McCain was being proactive. How does one fix this situation?
Ain’t no “fixing” it. The gov’t will try to keep the credit market operating by taking on additional debt – that’s the essence of Bush’s $700 billion plan. Uncle Sam takes the bad loans off the books on the lending institutions, which then (as the plan goes…) can resume normal lending operations.
On McCain – the one person most to blame for the whole “mess” is Phil Gramm, who I think is McCain’s co-chairman for the campaign, and one of the inner circle, if not the main dude, for being a McCain financial advisor.
Lynn Turner, former Securities and Eschange Commission chief accountant:
“I like John McCain, but given what I know about Phil Gramm, I wouldn’t vote for McCain. If McCain gets in, we’ll have more of the same deregulatory mess.”
PIP, I TOTALLY misread your post. Sorry!!! I agree with you, it’s the lenders. ;)
Kristen, agreed that lenders are often salespeople.
Most car dealerships work the same way.
I do think it was “greed” or just wanting to live beyond one’s means that got the borrowers into the hot water they’re in, however.
Everybody knows about credit default swaps and CDO’s, right? They are what are primarily behind the “crisis” we’re having.
It worked like this:
Flat Stanley, who doesn’t have the greatest credit, and maybe he’s behind on a couple credit cards, goes in for a loan.
The lending bank is thinking that real estate prices will keep going up, up, and away, and even if old Stanley is a bit of a risk, they can still offload the mortgage to other investors. So, Stanley gets his house, at 10 or 11% interest. That’s an example of a “subprime loan.”
An investment bank, thinking that the high interest rate will look good to investors, buys the loan from the lender, and combines it with other mortgages into bundles called collateralized debt obligations, or “CDO’s.” It also subdivides them into “tranches” (cool word, huh?) which each have their own risk/reward ratio, i.e. higher payout but higher risk, or lower on each, etc. The investment bank sells the tranches and CDO’s to investors, after having gotten insurance for the investors (these are subprime loans after all). The insurer gets paid the premium for the insurance from the investment bank, and in return the bank has passed the risk of loan default to the insurer, which is a “credit default swap.”
As long as Flat Stanley sends in the money every month, everybody’s happy – the lender got paid by the investment bank, who paid the insurer and who got paid by the investors, who make money from interest payments into the pool which is their part of the CDO.
But when the music stops, then the insurer is hurting. Stanley ain’t got no money, and AIG (for an example) has to get bailed out by Uncle Sam.
Under Clinton the federal gov’t began putting massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to minorities and low income people.
Mary, what have you actually seen to that effect?
…..
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s federal reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage.
:: laughing :: Now wait a minute. The Federal Reserve? I think you’re paraphrasing from some some at least slightly wacky website here.
…..
Political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices. Economists screamed that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the minute the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn’t get out of their loans by selling. Now, food stamp backed mortgages have failed. The affirmative action time bomb set by Democrats has gone off.
It was a Republican, Phil Gramm, who put us on the course, most of all. I don’t think any lenders were truly forced into anything. If they made higher-risk loans, they did so willingly because of the much higher interest rates they received. Do you have any links showing any real examples of “economists screaming” at the time?
….
Now at a cost of hundreds of billions, middle class people like you and I will have to bail out the Democrats two most important consituent groups, welfare recipients and Wall street bankers.
This isn’t a partisan thing, since both Democrats and Republicans have been involved all along. I guess I’ll have to tell the Phil Gramm story.
It was government intervention (by politically correct Democrats) that caused this problem in the first place. It’s quite a shame.
Jasper, actually it was a Republican (Gramm) who engineered bypasses for the controls which would have prevented much of the mess.
…..
Democrats repeatedly blocked reforms for Fanny Mae and Freddy mac. Especially by liberal democrat Barney Frank, his ex-boyfriend is an executive for Fanny mae.
Both parties have responsibility, almost across the board, in all this stuff, but as far as I’m concerned Fannie and Freddie should have been allowed to fail. They were publicly traded and if the stock goes to zero then so be it. I guess the gov’t felt that system liquidity would be damaged too much, though.
I don’t really give a rip whose “fault” it is. We are in massive debt as a nation. Yep. Fact. Doesn’t our next president “inherit” the mess just as the president before him?? Didn’t Bush “inherit” 9/11 for all of the missteps of Clinton and how he weakened our national security?
“While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas — where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often “slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are.” Acorn’s new goals are municipal “living wage” laws targeting “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks — efforts styled as combating “predatory lending.” Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive “donations” that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.
According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward “undisguised authoritarian socialism.” Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain “exit visas.” “How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?” asks Stern, adding, “This is the road to serfdom indeed.”
In Your Face
Acorn’s tactics are famously “in your face.” Just think of Code Pink’s well-known operations (threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you’ll get the idea. Acorn protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and Acorn has burst into a closed city council meeting there. Acorn protestors in Baltimore disrupted a bankers’ dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protestors against the mayor’s home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports Acorn said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.”
This is an excerpt from Stanley Kurtz’s article on NRO about Obama and ACORN.
Phil Gramm used to be chairman of the Senate Banking committee, and he kept turning down requests from the Securities and Exchange Commission for more money to police Wall Street. In 1999, Gramm got a banking deregulation bill passed that cut out rules going back to the Depression that kept some separation between securities firms, investment banks, insurers and commercial banks. The stage was set for somewhat of a repeat, at that point, and we’re now reaping some of the “rewards.” Ironically, Gramm left the Senate in 2003 to become a highly-paid lobbyist for Switzerland’s biggest bank, UBS. Due to Gramm’s deregulation bill, UBS was able to buy PaineWebber (big US investment firm), and Gramm was henceforth lobbying Congress for UBS on banking and mortgage matters. And lo and behold, this spring UBS has to write down $37 billion in losses, most of it from CDO’s which Gramm laid the groundwork for. Poetic justice, I guess.
The main deal was Gramm tucking a 262 page addition into an omnibus spending bill late in 2000. It was called “The Commodity Futures Modernization Act” but it went well beyond the futures arena. Gramm declared that the act would keep the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from being in the business of regulating new financial products called “swaps” (we now know them as credit default swaps – a huge part of the problem we’re now having). He said it would “protect financial institutions from overregulation.” Well there ya go, Phil, you got what you wanted….. Gramm had gotten millions from friends in the financial services industry during his years in Congress, so perhaps no surprise.
Gramm’s insertion contained things that had been wanted by Enron, for example, things that exempted energy trading from gov’t regulation. Enron was rather “in the family” for Gramm since his wife was formerly CFTC chairwoman, and she’d gotten Enron’s energy futures contracts exempted from gov’t regulation. Later, she was on Enron’s board.
Now that “swaps” would be unregulated, and now that a bank could also be an insurer, hedge fund, etc., (or vice-versa), a $62 trillion market in swaps blossomed, almost four times the size of the whole US stock market. And, due to Gramm’s swap-related provisions in the bill, this enormous market would be unregulated – there was no surety that the insurers had the required assets to cover the risks they were guaranteeing. This dwarfs Enron, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.
McCain was Gramm’s campaign chairman when he ran for President, and I know the two are friends, but McCain would do well to cut himself loose from Gramm.
I doubt anything such will happen, though, and it’s pretty wild – were McCain to win, Gramm, the very guy who laid the groundwork for the crisis we’re now in – could be Secretary of the Treasury.
We are in massive debt as a nation. Yep. Fact. Doesn’t our next president “inherit” the mess just as the president before him??
Carla, no doubt. How does it end?
Only one of two ways: hyperinflation or deflation. The gov’t has given no evidence that it will tolerate real deflation, therefore I think the Dollar will be debased on a continuing basis – the gov’t will in effect “print the money” no matter what…
You know, the way it has become all Obama all the time around here these days, I think Jill has a secret crush on him. She could never admit it in public of course, but she can’t stop talking about him or playing with pictures of him. And, at the same time, nary a word about McCain. Sure sounds like a crush to me!
I find it fascinating that their headline starts with the words “NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES NEEDED”, as if it was their job to make a political statement to the reader before the reader even saw the stats.
Doyle, there indeed is quite a bit of misinformation out there, and they spoke to that:
“The findings run counter to claims by antiabortion activists that high abortion rates among minorities are the result of supposed aggressive marketing by abortion providers to minority communities.”
I don’t know that the findings are anything really “new” – it’s basically saying that minority wommen have more unwanted pregnancies, per capita, than do white women, and that’s been the case for a long time already.
The only question in my mind is which way will be worse for the country, a failure of the bailout, or the success of the bailout?
Doyle, good comments. My opinion – in the short term the success is better, in the long term the failure would be better.
…..
I think that in the long run, a success of this bailout proposal may cause more problems than it cures, so I’m having a hard time supporting it.
It certainly adds to the biggest problem of all, in the long run as you said, the gov’t debt.
Haha, Kristen, no worries. I was about to reply to your post but then found your retraction. I completely agree about the lenders.
On an interesting note, Here is what a Clinton said about it:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185197&title=Bill-Clinton-Pt.-1
How about some posts about the implosion of the McCain campaign?
How someone messed up and released an ad claiming he won the debate today, which was filmed a few days ago, meaning the whole “Im not going to debate” thing was a total lie, that backfired badly….
Or how several prominent conservatives are calling for Palin to step down
Or how about how several of McCain’s aids have called her “clueless” and said that the debate prep has been “a disaster”
Or a note about the fact that the only talk about abortion in this election is coming from you, rather than the candidates you claim will care about it? In fact, your candidate has made it clear that NOTHING comes before the economy. At least Obama says you can focus on more than one thing at a time!
Then theres the fact that Virginia and Missouri, once considered to be leaning towards McCain, are dead heats! And Michigan, a toss up state only a few weeks ago, is now solidly leaning Obama?
And the media-ignored senate races – which are indicating several more republican seats will be lost?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185198&title=bill-clinton-pt.-2
He’s not a fan of PUMAs apparently.
All,
Don’t believe the lies liberals are telling about the financial mess. Liberal Democrats are responsible for this social experiment, handing out loans to people on welfare. They disregarded all warnings.
this foxnews video explains it completely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0
Fanny and Freddie are filled with Democrats. Their major political contributions are for Democrats. Dodd #1, Obama #2. Obama advisor Franklin Raines was an executive at Fanny and made 90 million in 6 years,
…and they have the nerve to point the finger now. But hey, what else would one expect from a bunch of character-less pro-aborts. They are liars at heart.
These pigs can’t even admit that baby killed at 25 weeks has rights.
btw: B. Hussain Obama went to the gym today :) he said to call him to we need him.
Bum.
Or how several prominent conservatives are calling for Palin to step down
No kidding. Even Kathryn Jean Lopez, Jill’s lady-crush over at NRO, has jumped right off the Palin bandwagon:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTUzNTM3MDk0MmI3ZWM1N2ZkZDAwZTFmMjA5Nzk3MWM=
Kathleen Parker, also at NRO, is outright calling for her to withdraw:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=
Spread the Word – especially to our Hispanic brothers and sisters:
Eduardo Verastegui speaks out against abortion, and Obama.
Eduardo Verastegui, the star of the movie, “Bella”, has created a special video message in which he speaks out against abortion, and specifically about how Hispanics are targeted for abortion in the USA. He also speaks out against Barack Obama and his extreme, pro-abortion positions. (Three cheers for Eduardo for telling it like it is!!)
In the original video, he shows scenes from “Dura Realidad” – the Spanish version of the graphic film on abortion entitled,”The Hard Truth”.
View Verastegui in Spanish with English subtitles on YouTube:
(this version has no graphic images of aborted babies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GDSNYnnjmE
View the original Verastegui message in Spanish which includes the film “The Hard Truth” or “Dura Realidad” which is a very graphic abortion video.
Warning: “Dura Realidad” contains VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES OF ABORTED BABIES, and actual abortion procedures.
http://durarealidad.com/
Don’t believe the lies liberals are telling about the financial mess.
Jasper, even were we to put Fannie and Freddie solely at the feet of the Democrats, what Phil Gramm, (McCain’s campaign co-chairman?) has done dwarfs that.
Whoa, At least there is a much stronger possibility that McCain and Palin will have more principled and wiser advisors. Obama and Biden would be a disaster. Actually the biggest complaint I keep hearing is that McCain campaign advisors are not letting Palin be herself.
Doug,
Most of my info was from an article written by Ann Coulter. I will point out I am no fan of hers, but if you can dispute what the woman says and prove her wrong you will convince me.
Lenders were pressured Doug, the Democrats wanted more minorities and low income people in homes. Democrats wanted an end to “red-lining”, which was seen as discriminatory.
Also, Bill Clinton himself on Good Morning America admitted the Democrats blocked reform on Fannie and Freddie. (Obama and the Democrats should have known dissing the Clintons would come back to bite them). Why do you suppose they would block reform?
Let me see, maybe because Sen. Chris Dodd got a sweetheart deal from Countrywide Mortgage?
Because one of Obama’s financial advisors is Franklin Raines who headed Fannie Mae and raked in millions.
Any truth to what I’ve heard of Barney Frank’s (former?) boyfriend working at Freddie or Fannie?
Oh and concerning the Federal Reserve, I did “miswrite” that.
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare checks and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. Massive pressure was put on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities.
The LA Times said in 1992 that a majority Democrat congress “mandated that Freddie and Fannie increase their purchases of mortgages for low income and medium income borrowers”.
Clinton’s secretary of HUD, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie for racial discrimination and proposed that 50% of all loans from Freddie and Fannie go to low and middle income people by year 2001.
In his first year in office, Bush’s chief economist, N.Gregory Mankiw, warned that the govt’s explicit subsidy of Fannie and Freddie, combined with loans to unqualified buyers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system.
Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no “concern about housing”. The NY Times reported that Fannie and Freddie were “under heavy assault by the Republicans,” but these entities still had “important political allies” in the Democrats.
Jasper 2:40PM
Excellent video. Thank you. How interesting that Obama is the #2 recipient of contributions from Fannie.
He went to the gym? Is it possible to vote “present” from there?
Whoa @ 2:44,
Kathleen Parker, also at NRO, is outright calling for her to withdraw:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=
Oh, please. Is Parker also suggesting that she herself is qualified to take her place?
what are you talking about Doug? Phil Gramm?
You know, the way it has become all Obama all the time around here these days, I think Jill has a secret crush on him. She could never admit it in public of course, but she can’t stop talking about him or playing with pictures of him. And, at the same time, nary a word about McCain. Sure sounds like a crush to me!
Ray, I don’t know – maybe it’s like the Aurora, IL deal or the Phil Kline thing, and then we pro-choicers will be pretty well satisfied in the end, in the first place.
I’m pretty conservative, economically speaking, and overall I wish people like McCain (versus others in Congress) would have been in power in the past, were we to draw a balance right now.
I guess I’d say that since McCain is perceived as having some weaknesses, that bloggers like Jill who favor him naturally want to focus on trying to hurt the opponent versus extolling McCain’s virtues.
Janet asked me a wise and pertinent question – what would Obama mean to men, if he won? (paraphrasing).
And the answer is mostly nothing. I do want Supreme Court justices who favor the rights of women, but I think that much more immediate issues are swamping (and will continue to swamp) abortion rights as an issue.
In the end, would I have been “better off” had Gore won, or had Kerry won? Maybe, maybe not – the actions of the US Federal Gov’t in financial markets are not to be denied, and there’s no way to say how things would have been had a different sitting President been there.
“I guess I’d say that since McCain is perceived as having some weaknesses, that bloggers like Jill who favor him naturally want to focus on trying to hurt the opponent versus extolling McCain’s virtues.”
No, it’s the “right to life”. All other rights descend from the right to life. If a man (or woman) doesn’t support the right to life of the unborn then the rest of their moral platform is weak and unstable at best. Jill is trying to make the point that a man who might possibly be our next president wouldn’t even support a bill that would provide care for infants who survive abortion. There are people who post at this site who try to continue to drive home the point that these infants wouldn’t survive anyway — some might and some might not but at least give them palliative care and not leave them in the trash. To have someone who is that morally depraved to possibly be running our country is very disturbing. I say keep putting the message about Obama out there.
Lenders were pressured Doug, the Democrats wanted more minorities and low income people in homes. Democrats wanted an end to “red-lining”, which was seen as discriminatory.
Mary, good answer. I had not heard that, but even if so, this was obviously going to alter the actuarial risk/reward ratio (of “approved” lendees), and the lenders would have been compensated for the increased risk – Phil Gramm’s deleting of rules to the contrary ensured that, if nothing else.
You know what – what you said about Clinton and the Democrats and Chris Dodd, Countrywide Mortagage – it makes a good point. Yes – in no way are Democrats in any way not guilty in the financial “crisis” thus far nor with respect to the gov’t debt, etc. My point is that the Republicans are just as guilty, or even moreso if we look at what has happened under Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr.
…..
Oh and concerning the Federal Reserve, I did “miswrite” that.
Cool – I figured; heh.
…..
The LA Times said in 1992 that a majority Democrat congress “mandated that Freddie and Fannie increase their purchases of mortgages for low income and medium income borrowers”. Clinton’s secretary of HUD, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie for racial discrimination and proposed that 50% of all loans from Freddie and Fannie go to low and middle income people by year 2001.
Well, did Cuomo’s proposals go through or not?
I hear you, though, on what the LA Times said – I certainly trust you there – and it doesn’t sound out of character for the times.
(I was much against Clinton from the get-go. He was the man who promised “$2 in tax cuts for every $1 in spending increases,” and what we got was $12 in spending increases for every $1 in spending cuts.)
…..
In his first year in office, Bush’s chief economist, N.Gregory Mankiw, warned that the govt’s explicit subsidy of Fannie and Freddie, combined with loans to unqualified buyers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no “concern about housing”. The NY Times reported that Fannie and Freddie were “under heavy assault by the Republicans,” but these entities still had “important political allies” in the Democrats.
Okay – good job. Agreed that a Barney Frank will take a dogmatic position regardless of what is the most good for the most people, even when it is clear.
I will say that is has been clear for more than 30 years, and that both parties have really ignored it while they had the White House and/or Congress.
As I said to Jasper, I think Fannie and Freddie should have been let go. Publicly-traded companies, the investors take the risks. Too bad the gov’t felt it had to get involved in the first place.
And Mary – long ago I mentioned a letter my paternal grandfather wrote about his life thus far, dated January 1934 (I think). I have it at home, and have 99% of it translated; just have to get some of the cursive writing “translated”as best I can with my dad.
Nothing political here – Grandpa was as “Conservative” as anybody reading this, and what’s interesting is that it was right after the bottom of the Depression….
Opinionated,
Youtube yanked the video with the aborted babies.
LIfenews.
“I guess I’d say that since McCain is perceived as having some weaknesses, that bloggers like Jill who favor him naturally want to focus on trying to hurt the opponent versus extolling McCain’s virtues.”
Eileen the Deuce: No, it’s the “right to life”.
Well, I gotta disagree. Jill posted poll results a while back where “not returning the money when a cashier gives you too much money back” was seen as worse than having an abortion.
what are you talking about Doug? Phil Gramm?
Jasper, as far as people who put the US on the course that led to the current economic “crisis,” then yes (of course).
Looking at it on a broader scale, both major parties are horribly guilty and there are almost no past Senators or Concgesspersons who can claim they really acted fiscally responsbly while in office. Same for all the past Presidents after Ike, party notwithstanding.
Doug, my response was within the context of why Jill continues to post about Obama and BAIPA.
” Jill posted poll results a while back where “not returning the money when a cashier gives you too much money back” was seen as worse than having an abortion.”
We have really sunk pretty low, haven’t we?!
Eileen, no questions about Jill’s motivation – her reasons are hers (no quibbling about that nor that she “shouldn’t” do stuff) and it’s her deal, period.
That stated, I do think what I said about a lot of the approaches to the Presidential question is true.
Despite all the fairly shrill criticism of Obama, once the Republican convention “bounce” occurred, and as more things have come out about Palin, Obama’s popularity has done nothing but go up, up, up….
Doug,
Yes I do remember you mentioning your grandfather’s letter. I’m sure his account will make for some fascinating reading, as well as family history.
“Looking at it on a broader scale, both major parties are horribly guilty and there are almost no past Senators or Concgesspersons who can claim they really acted fiscally responsbly while in office. Same for all the past Presidents after Ike, party notwithstanding.”
absolutely not Doug. Wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o
Jasper,
Another great video. By the way I watched the debate tonite. Tedious. Too rehearsed. McCain started out slow then picked up speed. Obama started out fast then started babbling.
It was a colossol bore.
In the past first debates have always been like this. That’s why I liked Saddleback. No media and more spontaneous debate.
Doug,
A continuation of my 9:38PM post. …and you KNOW how I LOVE history and family sagas! :)
OBAMA from debate tonight: “We’re also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad.”
THE FACTS: Some of the abuses that occurred stemmed from the 1999 repeal of a Depression-era law that separated banks from brokerages. In legislation supported by former President Clinton and Robert Rubin, now a top Obama adviser and treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, this separation was ended — allowing banks and insurance companies to sell securities.
I hope the FBI investigates all these bank failures, if they do they will find the fingerprints of the Democratic party all over the place. This should be a knock-out punch to the Democrats this election if the truth comes out about who got rich off of the failure.
See where the deregulation of Fannie came from and who caused it and who got rich off it:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307149667289804
By the time the third debate (subject economics) rolls around a lot more about the cause of this failure should come out and McCain should be ready to rip Obama and the rest of the Democrats a new ahole because they are responsible for this mortgage mess that lead to the banking collapse.
Yes it is ALL the DEMOCRATS fault, never EVER the REPUBLICANS fault, they shoulder the blame for all of this!
will you guys listen to yourselves? To be honest I read this thread and the liberals are saying that there are massive failures on both ends and conservatives are busy blaming all the liberals for this.
A little humble pie goes a long way.
And I agree Mary, our debates are too scripted. That is mainly because debates used to be hosted by actual organizations to ask real questions, but now they are hosted by their own parties so it never addresses the true issues that matter to real people!
That is why were are holding a RALLY in St. Louis for the debate! It’s called: Take Back the Debate! We Demand Substance, NOT the Same Old Song And Dance! (the flier has biden and palin’s heads on marge and homer simpson dancing lol)
We will have 6 people with real stories there to tell their stories and we are applying for tickets for those people to ask their questions to the candidates. We are currently talking with area police about a place to rally but planning on it being at Northmoor Park! More information as it develops!
PIP, 3:49
That’s why I liked the Saddleback Church debate. It was real people asking real questions, the candidates having to think on their feet. Not you have 2 minutes for this, 5 minutes for that and I’LL ask all the questions of zombie like candidates who have been overrehearsed. I could also do without the post debate analysis, reanalysis, and reanalysis of the reanalysis!
I also question if they even change people’s minds. I recall the Nixon/Kennedy debate in which Kennedy outshined Nixon, hands down.
The election was a huge squeaker and could have been contested by Nixon if he had persisted. Old Joe Kennedy’s mobster friends helped win it.
PIP 3:39am
The facts are the facts and we’re just presenting the info. Even Bill Clinton implicates Democrats in this. If there’s any documentation out there implicating Republicans or conservatives, I’m ready to view it with an open mind.
ts 1:21am
These debates usually start with a slow and tedious first, followed by debates that are at least tolerable to watch, sometimes even interesting.
Maybe the candidates become more relaxed and comfortable with experience. The first time must be pretty terrifying.
“Looking at it on a broader scale, both major parties are horribly guilty and there are almost no past Senators or Concgesspersons who can claim they really acted fiscally responsbly while in office. Same for all the past Presidents after Ike, party notwithstanding.”
absolutely not Doug. Wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o
Jasper, I’m out in the wilds of Wisconsin with such a poor internet connection that I can’t watch that – it goes for a couple seconds at a time with long pauses in-between.
I’ll try later – we’re going to a more “civilized” area later today. I did hear one snippet the guy was saying: “a lot of bad securitized debt..” and that’s certainly true. Yet no party did anything to stop the possibility or formation of that. Phil Gramm’s bill specifically laid the groundwork for it, and it’s only now that things are changing.
The facts are the facts and we’re just presenting the info. Even Bill Clinton implicates Democrats in this. If there’s any documentation out there implicating Republicans or conservatives, I’m ready to view it with an open mind.
Mary, Phil Gramm is directly responsible for allowing things to go unregulated, in the first place, and that in part led to the failing of Fannie and Freddie, for instance. Those two are only a small piece of what is “wrong” now, however – the rest of the “subprime crisis” dwarfs them.
No question that the Democrats aren’t blameless, but Gramm’s influence and actions alone accounts for more problems than can be laid at the Democrats’ doorstep.
I was never for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – “publicly traded government sponsored enterprises.” What the heck is that? It’s a bastardization of free market and gov’t. However, whether or not they had the gov’t behind them, they were considered “too big to fail” just like the private firms that will be bailed out here pretty soon, so in the end it makes no difference, really.
MH: several prominent conservatives are calling for Palin to step down
The past three weeks have been bad for McCain – a reversal of the upward trend that went July-August-into September. Obama’s lead is now beyond the statistical error in the polls, and McCain’s camp knows that “if the election were held today…”
October starts next week and it’ll get to make-or-break time. It’d be awkward to replace Palin at what is already “this late date” but a little more erosion in the polls and who knows?
Doug,
You’re certainly right about the gov’t running much of anything, its asking for disaster.
I see so much opportunity for community action and sensible city gov’t when I look at all these abandoned homes that could be bought for a pittance by some family stuck in a housing project or unable to afford a home otherwise. They could be assisted with low cost loans to fix up their property. People would have homes, neighborhoods and communities would be revitalized, and a tax base for the city established. Instead houses are left abandoned, crime flourishes, and people face foreclosure.
The problem was the gov’t demanding loans be issued to anyone who wants them, with minimal requirements. Reform was possible and was resisted by Democrats.
Exactly where in Wisconsin are you?? You may not be too far from me.
Mary, I believe that the Act referred to by conservative commentators who are trying to lay the blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Democrats is the Community Reinvestment Act.
Wiki article on the CRA here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
However, as the wiki article notes, the lenders who are in the most trouble now are the ones who were not, in fact, regulated by the CRA, and were thus NOT OBLIGATED to make loans to low-income borrowers.
Further, a study shows that the loans originating from the lenders who WERE regulated by the CRA:
(1) constituted only 23% of all loans and 9.2% of high-cost loans.
(2) were twice as likely to be retained in the originating bank’s portfolio than loans made by other institutions.
and
(3) were less likely to be foreclosed upon than other loans.
Study here:
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
So…nice try on trying to blame minorities and poor people for the financial crisis, but no dice.
Facts,
Spare me. I have in no way blamed the poor or minorities for the current crisis. I view them as victims of idiotic politicians and gov’t interference, as all too often they have been in the past and are now. This just being another example. I also blame Democrats who profitted very handsomely from these gov’t agencies, Obama being just second to Chris Dodd in receiving contributions from these corrupt agencies, while fighting any kind of reform. Please refer to my previous posts, especially 9/26 4:20PM. I would also recommend you view the videos Jasper has posted. 2:40PM and 10:12PM 9/26.
Yes it is ALL the DEMOCRATS fault, never EVER the REPUBLICANS fault, they shoulder the blame for all of this!
will you guys listen to yourselves? To be honest I read this thread and the liberals are saying that there are massive failures on both ends and conservatives are busy blaming all the liberals for this.
A little humble pie goes a long way.
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2008 3:39 AM
PIP, are you even watching the crisis unfold? Senators Dodd and Reid and Pelosi are pointing the blame at George Bush and the Republicans. Sure, ther are Republicans to blame but when they look into who was responsible for the deregualtion without oversight and the policy changes that led to this meltdown it will point to Clinton and the Democrats. I am merely pointing out that the Democrats who are in charge of overseeing this bailout are some of the very ones who who gained the most from the failing banks. And it is they who are falsely pointing the finger at Bush and the Republicans. When the facts come it sure their will be Republicans involved but there will be 2-1 Democratic leaders who got their hands greased. And it is completely disingenuine for Harry Reid and Christopher Dodd and Nancy Pelosi Obama to keep going on television and blaming it on the Republicans when the person who made the law changes that allowed banks to sell mortgage securities was Clinton and biggest recievers of political contibutions from Fannie and Freddie were Christopher Dodd #1 and Barack Obama #2 (even though he has only been a Senator for two years and represents himself as a Washington outsider, huh????).
Mary, today – the little town of Gillette, northwest of Green Bay. Then we head south, ending up around Milwaukee.
Barack, change you can believe in while I stick it to you. How the gell did he get the second most political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when he has onle been a Senator for less than two years? How coul he have his claws that deep into Washington without even being in Washington? I hope Americans care about this. The media sure hasn’t made much of an effort so far to investigate how/why Obama got sucg a political funfaising cash cow from Fannie and Freddie. I have faith that most Americans care more about having representatives that are honesty and who take responsibility for their actions then the power of any political party or promises of social welfare and the right to kill babies without regulation.
Doug,
You can’t be serious! I’m not far from Gillette.
Doug,
Have you ever been to the Brat stop in Kenosha for a brat and a schooner? Its only about 30 minutes south of Milwaukee and just off the tollway at highway 50.
Sorry, I call it the tollway cause it becomes a tollway in Illinois. It just off 294 at HWY 50 in Kenosha.
Obama couldn’t even wipe his ass without his aides telling him how to fold the toilet paper.
He is a Washington insider on steroids. The “chosen one” was chosen by the greasiest Washington insiders in politics and is being run as an agent of change.
Istill get those highway numbers confused. It may actually be called Interstae 94 there and not Interstate 294. But it is a great place for a pit stop. Convenient, right off the highway, good food, I recommend the brat but their prime rib sandwich is inexpensive and good. They have frosted schooners of beer with a wide selection of imports. Loaded with big screen TV’s and all the sports. And you can get fed and in and out in 15 minutes if you want. Depending on who is traveling with you, I recommend you just belly up to the bar instead getting seated at a table.
TS,
There is a 294, the Illinois Tri-State Tollway, as well as a 94. I’ve driven both often.
294 skirts Chicago but can be just as jammed and backed up as anything in the city. If you’re talking Kenosha, then its I-294.
truthseeker-
see my comments above. I”m not happy at anyone’s handling of the crisis. But I admit that blame falls on both parties, not just one.
PIP,
Google Community Reinvestment Act and look at the wikipedia for a simplistic explanation of what happened here. Ughhh
You can’t be serious! I’m not far from Gillette.
Mary, down in Appleton, now, but yeah – from route 22 in Gillette if you go a couple blocks down E. Main St., then turn left (north) on Richmond and go another block, there’s the substation.
Small world, eh?
Have you ever been to the Brat stop in Kenosha for a brat and a schooner? Its only about 30 minutes south of Milwaukee and just off the tollway at highway 50.
Truthseeker, no, never even heard of it until now.
I’ll be in the Milwaukee area later, so maybe cruise down there and try it.
Coincidence – last night I was in this place in Appleton, WI The Old Bavarian and had a couple bratwurst after a good deal of beer.
Had a “boot” – this great big glass that costs you $50 “if you take it or break it.” Thing holds like 3 liters…..
There were some “Bavarian” looking people in there… old guy with a massive white beard at least two feet long, guys with hats that had feathers and stuff on them, lederhosen, women in traditional dresses, etc… Oktoberfest.
Doug,
I could have joined you in Appleton!
Doug,
Where in Appleton are you? Will you be there a while? I’m on my way to Oshkosh.
Let’s all go to Appleton! (I wish I could!)
Doug and Mary, have a brat, and soft pretzel with a slice of swiss cheese for me! Yumm. PROST!
Mary, I worked late, and tomorrow go to Hilbert, then to Milwaukee.
We’ll likely be back in the Badger state, though – We Energies is spposedly giving us another purchase order, larger than the present one, my boss says.