Here is the definitive reasons for the mess we are in!!

This was written by an Econimics Prof from the University of Cinn. OH.
And TRY and remember this, The President can PROPOSE all kinds of thing's and crazy acts, but it is all those 535 people with their hands deep into your pockets that do the actual voting and instituting of said proposals!!! He THEN signs his name too the bill, thereby cementing in everyones mind that he did this all by himself! Yeah, gimme a break from all the whining when you get caught with your hand in the till!!

"How can you vote Republican when they so messed up the economy?" a liberal
friend screams at me with such vehemence that I had to put the phone a full
arms length from my ear.

Of course, my friend never heard of the Community Reinvestment Act. He is
one of those mindless liberals who thinks that George Bush and the
Republicans are responsible for everything from Global Warming to Hurricane
Katrina to the attempted genocide of the entire black population of New

He claims to be informed but he doesn't remember those dire warnings going
back nine years ago that the Community Reinvestment Act would eventually
cause a major financial and banking crisis in this country.
The Community Reinvestment Act was pushed hard by Bill Clinton, although it
originated under Jimmy Carter. Asked about it the other day on one of the
morning TV talk shows, Clinton said times back then were different. Fannie
and Freddie had lots of money and he (in his infinite wisdom) decided that
the money should not go to share holders or to executive compensation, but
should be used to put the poor into homes.

As you can imagine, wonderful things happen when the government strong arms
corporations as to how they should spend their money and, better yet, how
they should assess the qualifications of home buyers. So the country's
biggest buyers of mortgages were pressured into lowering the qualifications
of applicants, in order to increase the percentage of poor that got
mortgages. By 2006, 30% of all mortgages went to people who in any other
circumstances wouldn't qualify.

Now the political left would like you to know that the CRA-controlled
institutions did not lend the largest percentage of sub-prime mortgages. But
that's information by deception, because the mortgage business is a
competitive business. If the government strong arms one part of the
business, the other part will respond. And strong arm was what the Clinton
administration did, even using the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
to pressure banks to lend more money to the disadvantaged. Caught in the
act, a spokesman for the office noted that its abuse of power was "for the
best of intentions:" the same inclination used to pave the road to hell.
In the short run, all sorts of money was to be made by lowering standards
and processing sub-prime loans for the poor. The Wall Street Journal raised
concerns about Fannie's and Freddie's capital requirements. Senator Phil
Gramm (R, TX) raised issues about community pressure groups, such as Barack
Obama's ACORN, extorting money from banks by holding their feet to the CRA
fire, and threatening to militate against mergers and acquisitions unless
the banks entered into preferential agreements with community groups.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act cut down on CRA reporting requirements and upped
the ante for groups such as ACORN, forcing them to disclose their
relationships with local banks.

Fannie and Freddie became big contributors to the Democratic Party. The
sub-prime business paid off-at least while the bubble was growing. And the
Kerry, Hillary and Obama campaigns have numbered among the leading
recipients of the largess of the two mortgage lenders.
Franklin Raines, the Fannie Mae C.E.O. from 1999 to 2004, had been budget
director in the Clinton administration. The left would not like you to be
reminded that Raines has been a consultant to the Obama campaign, according
to the Washington Post, and that Freddie and Fannie number among the top 5
contributors to Obama's run for the presidency. Raines is being sued for
the recovery of 50 million in compensation acquired by the alleged
manipulation of Fannie's books. Now, that's not change we can believe in.
That's Washington as we have come to know and "love" it.

The Bush administration in 2003 tried to change the system, to no avail.
Congressman Barney Frank, (D, MA ) was in the forefront of stopping the Bush
proposal to take control out of Fannie and Freddie and put it into a third
overseeing organization. Frank too has emerged in the current crisis as one
of the major critics of the administration.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan continued to raise the alarm
over Fannie's and Freddie's weak capitalization. His concerns were ignored.
Former Congressman Michael Oxley (R,OH), then chairman of the House
Financial Services Committee and co-author of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
introduced a bill in 2005 in response to the growing problem, but Fannie and
Freddie put their lobbyists to work and the bill died
Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, who is now Chairman of the Banking Committee
and who appears alongside Majority Leader Harry Reid on television to
discuss the current bailout negotiations, has had harsh words for the Bush
administration for its alleged role in the crisis.

But the rest of us should have some harsh words for Senator Dodd. After
all, the Bush administration in 2003 and Senator Phil Gramm even earlier, in
1999, had been working to change the system. Dodd, like Obama, has been a
big recipient of campaign funds from Fannie and Freddie, organizations that
Dodd oversees. Dodd has apparently been more consumed with campaign
contributions from the mortgage giants than the responsibilities of

When I point out the long trail of Obama's corruption stretching back to
his days in the Illinois legislature, my liberal friends invoke moral
equivalence, "They're all corrupt."
There is no shame among the left. When they think Bush is responsible for
the collapse of the banking system, they scream at you. When you point out
that the Community Reinvestment Act created a pattern of abuse that now
threatens the entire financial system, without hesitation liberals say,
"They're all corrupt."

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation even has a web site so you could
see how well your bank is meeting its obligations under the CRA. Those of
you who had money in Washington Mutual, which just went belly up, will be
happy to know that WaMu, over the five individual reporting periods, had
almost exemplary ratings on its commitment to CRA. That should give WaMu
depositors great joy, to compensate for the financial mess they may be in.
If WaMu had been less responsive to the CRA and more responsive to the
market, maybe it wouldn't be insolvent.

I am not suggesting that the CRA by itself led to the current crisis, but
the CRA was the first and most important part of the food chain. The CRA
caused the expansion in the number of questionable loans that lending
institutions made, but Wall Street and insurance underwriters were all too
willing to package these loans, enhance their ratings through convenient
exercises in fantasy, sell them, and insure them with reserves that were
more inadequate than the incomes of the people who got the loans in the
first place..

The best thing that can emerge from the current financial crisis is the
realization that the government needs to stop directing economic decision
making. In a sense, the government is putting out a fire it started when it
both created the CRA and assessed lending institutions by how well they were
doing in response to the program. When Clinton decided, in his usual
arrogance, that he knew better than the market how banks should lend money,
the seeds were sown for the current financial disaster.

If you want to blame Bush for the current crisis, it might make you feel
good, reinforce your sense of how the world works, enable you to find a
meeting of the minds when you next engage your liberal friends over wine and
quiche, but like so many things you believe and which make you feel good, it
has no correspondence to reality.


Anonymous said...

Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has spent the last few years ridiculing Alan Greenspan, John McCain and others who sought more regulation for Fannie Mae's market-distorting schemes, the basis of this financial crisis. Now he says "the private sector got us into this mess." His partner in crime, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a chief beneficiary of Fannie Mae lobbyists' largesse, claims this mess is the result of poor oversight -- without even hinting at the fact he is in charge of oversight of banks. They sound like pimps complaining about the prevalence of STDs among prostitutes.

Anonymous said...

You Tube and Warner Music Group today pulled a highly popular video that very succinctly and clearly spelled out the roots of the current economic crisis.
The 9:59 video entitled "Burning Down the House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis" played four different songs under a fast moving video sequence that very clearly tied Democrats like Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson and Barack Obama to policies and corruption related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It cleverly showed how the "affordable mortgage" programs sent an economic virus through the entire economy and showed Republican efforts to intervene and regulate being blocked.
For Obama and all congressional Democrats, it was a devastating video. The video had almost a perfect viewer rating and had been viewed some 1.2 million times according to the You Tube counters. Sometime around 3:45 EDT the video disappeared with the banner saying "This Video is no longer available due to a copywrite claim by Warner Music Group."

Anonymous said...

by Anonymous X
The economics Prof states
"Fannie and Freddie became big contributors to the Dem party".
To be honest the Prof should have continued and in an equally big way to the Repubs.
They gave BIG to everyone and every thing.
I know a little bit about somethings but not a lot about everything. I do know I saw some kind of bank/economic crisis coming in some form. I never saw the huge problem that we seem to be in.
I saw a problem coming because in my profession I saw an individual buy
10 houses to flip, all with mortgages purported to be for an owner occupied home. One was sold for a profit, one for breakeven and 8 have been forclosed on.
I saw so many 80/20 mortgages I thought buyers had lost their minds. I saw real estate agents talk the unknowing into thinking the income from a multifamily home would cover all the expenses of owning that home. I saw $100k money pits become $350k money pits in 5-6 short years. Of course they are now $100k money pits that can't be sold for any price.
If I thought a problem was brewing I know the smart people knew it was coming. It's all about the $$$ people. The rich have gotten richer and we're going to pay to clean up the mess.
Everett, this is part of the great transfer of wealth I have previously referred to. You are worried it is going to happen, it already has.

Sam said...

I dunno, that's a lot of BS without any paragraphs so I won't read it, sorry Everett.

Casting blame for what happened ain't going to fix anything either.

You mentioned Phil Gramm, who is detested in Texas as much as anywhere. Sorry, he's been on the deregulation kick for 20 years. There's an old Texas saying that if there ain't a TV camera safe with Phil Gramm around. He now is on the board of UBS, and major player in the credit crisis and not on the good side.

And McCain had to kick him off his election team for being an a-hole, saying Americans were a bunch of "whiners."

But your point that there are 535 in the House of Representatives and they couldn't fix anything is a really good one. It is a true shame. -sam

Everett said...

Hey Sam, it is 'kind of ' in paragraphs now! It is just the way 'blogger' spaces it out, not me! So you can read it now. See Ya!

Old NFO said...

Good post Ev, of course the LWL will pick it to death, but it's all there... I wonder if Frank and Dodd could be sued for negligence???

Sam said...

Well Old Nfo, I hold most of the members of Congress in contempt anyway, but you really have to catch them with their pants down to get them - and in some cases such as that Senator from Idaho with the "wide stance," even that isn't good enough.

Remember, their approval rating makes the President look good!

It's tough to figure out what's really happening, with all these experts pontificating and analyzing. I will say that many people liked what LBJ did for the "war on poverty" and rural electrification programs. But LBJ dies a troubled man, with Vietnam on his shoulders.

Every administration tries to do something meaningful about poverty. For Clinton is was the re-investment act and with Bush it was the "compassionate conservative" approach that was a wee bit too Southern Baptist for some. Many consider both programs to be huge failures, unlike LBJ's success (well, some didn't like LBJ one bit!).

Ultimately, part of the reason is simply ... us. We elected the boneheads and we bought the junk from the credit companies. We educated the kids that sold us the complex financial packages like 401(k) that are now tanking, and nobody can understand what the heck they are.

Personally, I would never blame a president or political party or some old fart like Alan Greenspan. It was all of us, maybe not specifically you or me, but collectively we did it. -sam

Anonymous said...

No Sam, it was'nt "us". I didnt buy a house beyond my means to afford it. I chose a low risk 401K, with a mix of bonds and stock so it wouldnt be soley tethered to wall streets whims. The recent financial crisis in America is NOT a bi-partisan one. It was created by Democrats (some of whom have already had the integrity to admit they were wrong in their well-intentioned actions that created it). We’ve seen it on Barney Franks 2003 speech on YouTube, and now the Wall Street Journal has called out the Democrats who have the most responsibility.
It’s time for some accountability. To paraphrase Sen Obama (who took the second most amount of money from Freddie and Fannie after Chris Dodd), Words do matter

Anonymous said...

My favorite Barney Frank quote from Dec 10, 2003:
"I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."

Sam said...

Gee, so opinionated. I even used the word "collectively." I know plenty of Republicans who invested unwisely. I know of many things that powerful Republicans in Washington D.C. did not do to help prevent this mess. You must just be pissy because Rhode Island is a solid 4 electoral votes for Obama.

And who the heck is "Barney Frank"? Sounds like a goofy cartoon for kids put on by some gay metro-sexuals in LA.

If you want to read the best thinkers of conservative right of center politics - not Republican swag - read George Will or somebody intelligent. Consider this from his September 24th column:

"This crisis has arrived during the ninth month of a vast demographic deluge -- the retirement of 78 million baby boomers. As the population ages, the welfare state -- primarily, a transfer-payments pump providing pensions and medical care for the elderly -- requires more rapid economic growth to generate increasing revenue. To the extent that today's crisis results in large amounts of capital being allocated by considerations other than those of economic efficiency, the nation will be consigned to less-than-optimal economic growth."

I read that to believe that the boomers cause the problem, friend. I can't wait for your next version of "No, Sam ..."
-Yeah, Sam

Anonymous said...

Hey Sam, if you want to know who Barney Frank is, and how like yourself, he tried to blame the private sector for a mess he helped create, read the first comment.

Anonymous said...

Compare Enron and Fannie Mae, why are'nt Johnson and Raines behind bars? Never mind, they are Obama's advisers

responsible citizen said...

Uh Sam?
Why is it that when someone disagrees with your opinion that person is : "opinionated and pissy?" You might consider looking in the mirror considering the tenor of your response to the anonymous poster.

I tend to agree with the anonymous respondent who is insisting on individual accountability, rather than your insistence on collective responsibility. To invoke that roots of this problem are collective results in two problems:
1. It dismisses the integrity of those who have chosen to live within their means and keep a cap on their own credit risks while investing with caution. Why lump the prudent and responsible citizen in with those who didn't plan wisely?

2. To frame this as a collective issue reduces the culpability of those who have worked to feather their own nests at the cost of the common good. Those who have acted greedily, or those who have acted stupidly need to be called to accountability. We also need to recognize the predators in the lending industry who misled some folks, who for reasons beyond their control, lack some of the rational capacities to recognize a dangerous mortgage offer when it is set in front of them. ( I tried counseling one severely impaired women living on SSI that she could should not take the loan some bank officer extended to her for purchasing her own home. Heck- she was incapable of reasoning because of schizophrenia and drug addiction- She was at my door every week looking for food because she couldn't manage her income.--what loan officer would ever consider this person qualified for a home mortagage?)
I've exercised financial responsibility and have attempted to live within my means. Now I have to pony up for those who wallowed in excess?? I see the bailout as a necessary evil, but want some assurance that those who have acted only in their self-interests will not find a gold mine in that package.

Anonymous said...

Resp. Citizen
I agree this bailout is a necessary evil. Though I beleive the market could adjust without it. However there is nothing written into it to prevent the same root problems from occuring again. If subprime loans to minorities are not made, groups like ACORN (which Barry Hussein Obama was a community organizer for) will sue that they are not following the community reinvestment act, which is what started this snowball downhill. Also we could have done without pork barrel provisions that did not get passed on their own merit, written into it.

Sam said...

To Responsible Citizen -

I understand your argument. I'm a self-made man myself and pay off everything on time. I'm mad about this too.

But your understanding of the national and global credit markets is surprisingly weak. That's why I used the term "collectively." How did 10 of the mortgage economy which defaulted cause 100% of the credit market to seize up?

The reasons are several. Developers built too many housing units. Energy prices soared. Consumers - 70 percent of the US economy in terms of money - stopped buying goods. Big companies shuttered and unemployment surged. Another 10 percent of the housing market was sold as "sub-prime" mortgages with no credit checks at all. Meanwhile, your mortgage notes were bundled as hedges using Credit Default Swaps (CDS) on Wall Street. These hedges and CDS were sold all over the world, to pension funds, and to 401(k) plans.

What happened was a complete failure of the American Economic Model. You can stick your head in the sand and say "It's not me!" but the fact is, the system of which we are a part collapsed.

When casting blame, many economists have been saying for the last 7 years that sub-prime and the complex financial repackaging was a bomb waiting to go off. This was all on Bush's watch. But he wanted nothing to do with that, and in fact kept promoting deregulation and the value of home ownership.

I find the witch hunt quite amusing, that people want a scapegoat like Barney Frank or even some arcane aspect of the solutions to the Great Depression. If it makes you feel better, have fun.

Still, the 700 billion fix does not solve the root of the problem with the American Economic Model. I completely agree with that conclusion.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect Sam, you stated:
"many economists have been saying for the last 7 years that sub-prime and the complex financial repackaging was a bomb waiting to go off. This was all on Bush's watch. But he wanted nothing to do with that, and in fact kept promoting deregulation and the value of home ownership."
More Bush bashing, the origins of the sub-prime disaster lay in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) introduced by Jimmy Carter and then ruthlessly enforced by Bill Clinton to force the banks to give mortgages to the poor to lever them onto the housing ladder – in reckless disregard of the fact that they would not be able to meet the repayments. That was what lay behind the implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that in turn sparked this whole crisis.
In the Spectator, Dennis Sewell records how under the Clinton regime a civil rights activist named Roberta Achtenberg was determined to change banking behaviour to counter what she saw as racism in keeping minorities from enjoying the same level of home ownership as whites. Under this pressure, from the 1990s onwards the banks abandoned their previously rigorous lending criteria – and every attempt BUSH made to REFORM the mortgage market was BLOCKED by the Democrats. Sorry Sam, cant blame Bush for this one.

Anonymous said...

Anon X
Palin has more executive experience than Biden, Barry and McCain combined. She targeted corrupt politicians in her own party and is well respected by the majority of people in her state. Biden told 14 bold faced lies during the debate and the media didnt call him out on any one of them, had Palin said one lie it would be all over the news. Just in case you didnt notice when Biden lied here is a list:
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false.

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the off-topic post, I meant to post it on the previous thread.

Everett said...

No problem!! I'm glad to see it anywhere. I was so pissed at that lying bastard I threw my tv in the garbage! Well not really but I sure wanted to!
The reason McCain voted against a lot of those bills lieing Joe talked about was because of all the bullshit attached too them that he McCain wouldn't go along with. That is called Integrity! Something he knows nothing about!

Anonymous said...

Bugmon sez:


Blame game? ...read up smarty-pants


Boot Chris Cox !

Ps to Sam :
... I hate to see a fellow independent voter get pig-piled on .
Hope you are ok

responsible citizen said...

Uh, Sam.
My post was written from the perspective of a pluralistic deontologist,this means that I was addressing the ethical implications of the situation. Simply put:
there are certain actions, by certain persons that contributed to the state of affairs. This approach to the siuation is not to blame others, nor seek as sacrificial scapegoat- as if that could make this situation just vanish, or provide some false comfort, control, or assurance.

Be assured that I do have a sufficient understanding of the complexity of the financial situation- thanks to my cousins who work in NYC and international finance.

Again, my concern is with the morality of the actions that led to this problem. Greed versus Prudence and an obligation to act for the common good.

To seek the truth regarding the culpability of certain actors and their actions is to demand accountablity. There's nothing naive nor simplistic to that desire and ethical obligation.

Again, to surrender the situation to collective actions may also surrender any hope for truth, justice, and reform. Just like a fine physician would diagnose the specific disease afflicting a patient and suggest a treatment- one that may call the patient to accountability for the abuses that have led to illness, so must we name and address the actors and actions that have contributed to this financial disaster.

The truth will set us free.

Sam said...

Hey Responsible, I think we're starting to agree here - things like moral hazard and the fact that America was founded on the concept of freedom of the individual, along with the responsibility that requires.

And as an independent, free thinker (thanks Bugmon), frankly I'm confused by all the big, unattainable promises, flip-flopping, lying, deception, and mud-slinging. I can see why Everett wants to chunk the TV down Mohegan Bluffs!

Same for when I listen to McCain, too.

And really, I'm not a very political person or even very good at analyzing all this mess. I do know that the turnout is a key factor - isn't it something that in our great nation, about a third of the voters won't vote at all? I think we have one of the lowest turnout rates of all the democracies of the world!

So at least we're talking about it, putting forth pros and cons, and treat it like a serious thing. If I haven't made by mind up - remember, I never really said I was pro-Obama - please forgive me. At least I'll be there in the voting booth doing by civic duty. -sam

Everett said...

Uh Bugmon, The Responsible citizen response said it all a lot more eloquently than I could.Hell I had to go look up what a pluralistic deontologist was!
And being the old fogey, unread, no TV, no movie watcher that I am. who the hell is Chris Fox? The reference is too esoterical for me man!

Sam said...

Let's remember that 700 big clams for a bail-out is small potatoes compared to what Bush has done to the national deficit - over 4 TRILLION DOLLARS.

And much of those 700 big clams can be paid back when cheap notes are sold on the market during reverse auctions.

So it turns out this was a huge diversion from the real issue, that our national deficit will grow from 6 trillion to 11 trillion.

How did Bush do it? Well, we fought a few wars on the national credit card and gave the rich people a tax break. Let's see here, less money coming in, more money to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Congress and the media went along with it!

But oh no, no, we can't rescue our economy because that would be un-American. So what's the big deal about bumping up our national debt a few percent?

That's some powerful "pucker factor" there, amigos. An extra 4 or 5 trillion dollars for ... what? We're losing in Afghanistan. Iraq seems OK but I don't trust the populace as far as I can throw them. Gee, great!

Anonymous said...

Bugmon sez:

....sorry ev that was Chris Cox

Steve NH 1075 said...

We are getting driven over the cliff toward radical Socialism by a slow under-current of perversions of our American spirit that is happening little by little starting many many decades ago which is now becoming apparent in the current melt down.

Couple this with Barack Obama early political training with the Socialist "New Party", a hard-left group whose endorsement Obama received in his 1996 run for the Illinois State Senate, and his clear Bill Ayers & ACORN connections. We are in deep trouble here.

Drudge is about to put out a story that confirms that BO attempted to directly influence the Irag Government about troop with-drawls in secrete so it coincided with his message.

This guy is littered with manipulation which we all hope will come to roost before election day for all our sakes. Perhaps the Logan Act could be used? God knows his legal machine is staying off the discovery requests about is birth certificate, brought forth by a PA Dem.

Read CBS's Dean Reynolds account of traveling with BO, and then ask yourself if this guy is Dangerous.


His speech's express lofty ideals that appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.

Steve NH 1075 said...

Dean Reynolds link didn't come through? Let's try again: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07

Anonymous said...

If Barak Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known Castro-sympathizing, bomb-planting terrorist.
Which is to say: the man it appears that America will elect as President --because of his links with America's domestic terrorist enemies-- would be considered too dangerous (by America's own Intelligence agencies) to be a bodyguard for America's President

Sam said...

Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me. He's certainly was a good enough man to become a US Senator. I guess when faced with the prospect that McCain is losing Electoral votes, the hard-core right wing-nuts have to fall back on character assassination. I find it rather amusing. So let me see here, if Obama is such a terrorist as you claim, why isn't he in a stainless steel cage in Gitmo or Levinworth?

Because he ain't!

Anonymous said...

Bugmon Sez:

I have to agree with Sam here .... the ' Obama is a terrorist ' argument will only connect with the very-uninformed / stupid voters which polly arent enough to do him in.
Btw I love " troop with-drawls".
Is that a briggade from Alah-Bammah?

Everett said...

Hey bugmon, just a friendly reminder, lets not badmouth folks when their fingers make a spelling mistake here. I do it all the time and BTW there were three in your comment. 'nuff said Have a good one.

Sam said...

Yeah, my "smell checker" ain't so good either, Everett.

And you know, things are just way over-heated with the presidential erections - I mean elections. The media feeds it like a raging fire and then some pointy-headed analysts and talk show hosts have to bloviate (a real word) all about it, spinning it left, right, and somewhere in Outer Space.

So I'm taking a break. Happy Columbus Day on Monday, by the way. That's a big one in my books, not that anyone celebrates it anymore, or knows what it means. -sam

Anonymous said...

Nobody is saying obama is a terrorist, just that he had a long working relationship with one. A relationship he tried to disavow, just like he's trying to do now with ACORN. At first he touted his community organizing experience with them. Now with One million fraudulent registrations exposed, One million?. And a RICO case? Where is the media on this? Where is the media on Obama’s well-established working and financial relationship with ACORN? Why in its ACORN-related stories is ACORN described as a “non-partisan organization” that is “not attached to either candidate” when Obama funneled $800,000 in campaign cash (much of it probably gathered illegally from non-existent or foreign donors) right to his ACORN buddies, and then scrubbed his FEC disclosure forms to cover it up? Speaking of Obama’s donors, where is the media on the rampant fraud in Obama’s campaign finance operations, which regularly collects millions from foreigners, the dead, and guys named Doodad Pro? No doubt those donors will be bused to polling places by Obama’s cronies at ACORN to consummate their support come November.

Anonymous said...

The story of Obama’s political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot — after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates’ petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with.
Despite his words today about “change” and “cleaning up the mess in Washington,” Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates.
Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.
Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic party: “People don’t come to Obama for what he’s done, they come because of what they hope he can be.”

catt said...

I would like to know what Obama means when he talks about a tax reduction for any business making under $250,000. There are many business that make that gross that amount but they net a lot less. So what is going to be taxed, gross or net??

Anonymous said...

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won’t pay for it. It’s the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.
This isn’t free enterprise. It’s old-fashioned-liberal tax, spend, and regulate. It’s plain ol’ big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.
His is a “Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan,” and it’s totally at odds with investment and business.
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.
Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he’s also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital

Anonymous said...

Obama was confronted by a plumber in an Ohio neighborhood this weekend. The man asked Obama, "Why do you want to raise my taxes? My business makes more than 250k a year." Obama told him he needed to "spread" the wealth to those who don't have what he has.

Sam said...

Problem is, McCain doesn't have a plan at all, so it's hard to judge the two. McCain has flip-flopped more than Kerry did, and worse yet, sends contradictory messages. Republicans have become quite irritated that THEIR candidate can't put forth any coherent business plan.

And if you think Obama really WILL put his pie-in-the-sky plan into effect, there are 635 reasons why he will not - the US Congress. He'd be lucky to push the pendulum a few degrees one way or the other, and that's reality. -sam

Everett said...

Even if the dems win total majority in both Houses of Congress, it is going to be that small group of Dems who have NOT completely lost their minds who will wield ALL the power in Congress. I'm speaking of that group of folks called the "Blue Dog Coalition"! Whoever their leader is will be the one deciding how 'the nancy' will steer the vote on things. Can't remember who he is, but we will be hearing a lot from him after the election no matter who is elected President.
I'm still socking away a good supply lead and bread.

BTW, is anybody interested at all in why China has such a large standing military and why it grows every day? From Men, to ships of all kinds, to planes, and even rockets and missiles and ventures into space? Attila's descendants et al are about to ( in 25-50 yrs?)extract their revenge. Oh go ahead and call me a worry wart, but a lot of thinks that have happened in the near past have come about after meself had been thinking of those possibilities. I'm not a Mage, or a se'er,(sp) but I do occasionally chance to see the handwriting on the wall.

Everett said...

Even if the dems win total majority in both Houses of Congress, it is going to be that small group of Dems who have NOT ccompletely lost their minds who will wield ALL the power in Congress. I'm speaking of that group of folks called the "Blue Dog Coalition"! Whoever their leader is will be the one deciding how 'the nancy' will steer the vote on things. Can't remember who he is, but we will be hearing a lot from him aftet the election no matter who is elected President.
I'm still socking away a good supply lead and bread.

BTW, is anybody interested at all in why China has such a large standing military and why it grows every day? From Men, to ships of all kinds, to planes, and even rockets and missiles and ventures into space? Attila's descendants et al are about to ( in 25-50 yrs?)extract their revenge. Oh go ahead and call me a worry wart, but a lot of thinks that have happened in the near past have come about after meself had been thinking of those possibilities. I'm not a Mage, or a se'er,(sp) but I do occasionally chance to see the handwriting on the wall.

Sam said...

Well there are all kinds of Democrats, some moderate, some downright conservative (yay!), and some so far to the left it's unreal. A Michigan Democrat is very different from a San Fransisco one, a Rhode Island one, or a Louisiana one. They do not think in lock-step, a problem with the Democratic party - no unity. They'll fight over the most trivial things, trust me. They do not and cannot speak with a "unified voice" as the Republicans do.

Then there's China. Thanks for bringing that up. So much of our attention is one maybe 100,000 known terrorists, perhaps double that number, but certainly not millions. China has one of the largest armies and navies in the world, at least next to ours.

Everett, you probably know they have one heckuva submarine fleet now, smaller subs that are so quiet they can hardly be detected. That's why the US Navy is spending billions on advanced underwater pinging sonar - you know, the whale killer machines (watch for the upcoming Supreme Court decision).

The next moves by China are to take over Taiwan, which could end up as a world war. The US has been stockpiling weapons in Taiwan. Meanwhile China has fired land-based missiles that look like they can actually hit the island nation. Meanwhile they intend to enforce their territorial borders in Tibet and Russia, much to the consternation of the Tibet hippies and even the Russian government.

And we sit around the kitchen table talking a couple of Jihad nut cases? -sam

Anonymous said...

The democrats are increasingly veering to the left. Just ask Joe Lieberman how they feel about conservative members. I dont think we'll see any more Zell Millers either. If you read sources like strategypage you will see China has a massive army that is far from modernized. They are about 20 years behind in technology and tactics. They know they cant be more than a regional power, they are still working on their first aircraft carrier. Their subs are accident prone and crews are inexperienced. Sure they can take Taiwan but would rather reabsorb it diplomaticaly. As for Al-Qaeda, sure they only number in the thousands. But their only one in an alphabet soup of Jihad groups that are allied in local and global jihad and would like to see the US suffer, Iran has slogans painted on their missles during parades that say "death to USA" and they're only a few months away from being able to put nukes on them. There are a billion muslims and if only one half of one percent are involved either actively or passivly in violent jihad thats still 50 million. Of course India and Israel suffer worse from attacks than us and even china has an occasional attack by their Uighur muslims jihadists. Not much is said about attacks thwarted in our own country since 9-11. The fort Dix six, and that group arrested in Lackawanna NY among them. I saw a list of about 2 dozen different groups and individual who were planning attacks. AQ doesnt want to waste time with little attacks like those anyway, they have vowed to kill 10 million americans including children as revenge. Just read their press releases. Memri.org is a good place to read translated documents or watch translated videos to see how they really feel.

Sam said...

Well, I believe you're right that the world we live in is restive - meaning ready to fight at the drop of a hat. Perhaps in my old age I'm wanting to do what's best for my country and not meddle in foreign affairs. Funny, our homeland defenses seem weaker than any time since WWII.

While parts of our southern boarders do seem to be hardened, a lot of the security measures at airports and marine ports are laughable at best, and some of the billion dollar technologies proved to simply not work. The Coast Guard built some fast tactical ships that couldn't be used at sea because "they might split in half." The Air Force recently was caught transporting two fully armed, ready-to-explode nuclear warheads. I just say it's time to do something for MY country, where I live and where I pay my taxes.

Anonymous said...

If obama is elected he will make the global poverty act in his own words "a priority" the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years would amount to $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. (already about 72 billion a year)
I dont mind "spreading the wealth" as obama told Joe the plumber, so much if it was only to other Americans, but we all know spreading it around the world will not benefit most of those its intended for but will line the pockets of every tin pot politician and their cronies instead. During a time of financial crises as we have now we cant afford this plan. Heck, we couldnt afford it if the economy was good either

Everett said...

Why the hell are we giving out 72 billion dollars a year in foreign aid? It never gets to the people it is intended for. Somebody please show me definitively, how this money has actually helped anyone? And then please explain to me, in words of one or two syllables why we don't keep this money at home and fix our schools, our crumbling infrastructure, roads, bridges etc., and and feed aevery single hungry kid and person in this country before handing it over to a bunch of ungrateful people who despise us for having any money in the first place. And now comes along Obama asshole and he wants to dig the hole deeper for each of us to try and climb out of! Just what am I missing here that this shit head thinks that we should be feeding the world and leaving our own people to die and fade away? He has got to be the biggest global Socialist in the world today and I'll bet the cChinese just love the hell out of him! I just find it incomprehensible that so many people in this country are so STUPID as to go along with this guys beliefs. And just how is it possible that he has yet to be vetted by the FBI and others as to his eligiblity to become President of this country? Just his associations with Ayers and Reszco should have disqualified him at the beginning of the primaries! WTF is going on?????

Sam said...

Whew, Everett is on a roll! Anyway, I must agree that we send too much money overseas. Here are a few examples.

1. We used to spend millions in Mali, a very poor African nation, and delivered them American wheat and rice. The President of Mali said screw you, I'm getting a boatload of seeds and fertilizer, and the farmers all the sudden did extremely well - poverty almost vanished. The US diplomats were pissed.

2. Every year we unload billions on Israel, a country I respect although I have no clue why they need billions because their economy is doing great. A bunch of this money is sent back to the US so that relatives can start businesses, build houses, and build synagogues back in the US. Is this really needed?

3. Columbia is a major source of cocaine, as we all know, but with billions in investment, cocaine traffic is at an all-time high. While it is nice to support a democratic country in Latin America, which should I pay for what turns out to be MORE drugs? It makes no sense.

4. US Ambassador Headquarters. For some reason we're still living in the days of royalty when an ambassador needs a freaking 30-room mansion complete with footmen, butlers, maids, guards, chefs, fine wine, and ... more mansions. We just built the largest ambassador complex in the world in Iraq and I think we have to give it back to the locals in a few years.

5. The UN. Don't get me wrong, we need an international effort to help with international problems, but the corruption and waste of money -- and lack of doing things right -- seems to be a giant waste of effort. If we're going to spend money, why not do it right and get some results?

6. Fighting disease overseas. Again, something I support, although I prefer charities and the use of generic drugs rather than thinking we can solve all those problems overseas, when we have huge problems here in our own damn country.

When I hear that McCain might cut the budget, he is NOT talking about these kinds of things, but rather the few percent we pay for needed agencies like the DOT, EPA, NOAA, DOE, and things like that. I don't know if he is the answer, although Obama is downright scary as well. Real scary. Be very afraid. -sam

Anonymous said...

Bugmon sez:


..."shit head"??

This man Barak Obama that you call ' asshole' and 'shit head 'might actually get elected to be pres.
How will you deal with that? Move to Canada?
What would you think of someone who called John Mcain an asshole and a shit head?

You reppremanded me for having fun with someones spelling ( which is pretty trivial) , but you go about swearing and namecalling (dissing) someone for something that he hasn't even done yet?
How can anyone take you seriously after that?
You sound like a deciple of the Rush Limbugger / Mark Simone / shawn hannedy etc.. etc.. school of terroism

am I right?

I still like you , but I have alittle less repect for you after those comments

Sam said...

Ease your rudder, Bugmon, and ease off the main sheet to leeward for a minute and let's steer for clear water away from these rocks.

There are going to be people that say Obama is a false Messiah or that he should be shot at a moment's notice. I could only expect worse from the American people. I don't think Everett was doing more than a good ole Yankee rant against a Kennedy person, if'n you know what I mean. I'm surprised there weren't any more sailor cuss words in there.

You're supposed to chuckle and go "yup, well ain't that something?"

But come on, you've known Everett for a while and he is no fan of anybody that smacks of a Kennedy Democrat, nothing personal, just hates their guts. Been probably six generations of Littlefields that feel the same way (that WAS funny). Everett is a known quotient, a lovable bear of a man, and always seems be there in an emergency.

In about exactly two weeks, it will all be over, Bugmon. Somebody will win the presidency and it won't be George Bush. That's good enough for me, although some folks want to make it sound like if Obama was elected, the people would rise in revolt, form militias, and the Earth would spin out of its orbit.

How quaint.

Everett said...

Well Bugman, Looking for respect is not the reason I started this blog and it is still not. Maybe if the"O" gets elected I'll tone it down a little and call him President shithead. Not likely though. The American people have been "dissing" the presidents since we've had them. And Have you seen the those woeful "O" people at the McCain rally's wearing the t-shirts with the four letter "C" word them when referring to a lady and current VP nominee? What do you think of them?
What would I think of someone who called McCain the same names? I'd call him someone who does not like the man! But do not see it as a reason to respect him less, he's just voicing his opinion as did I.
Move to Canada? Well it appears that after all their years of drifting closer to Socialism they are slowly shifting course back to the right or don't you follow what happens to the North? But NO, I'm staying put. Family has been here in US for 360+ years and about 340 here on BI. No reason to move anywhere. Whatever the ill's of this country, it is still the best one on the face of the planet no matter how much some assholes and shitheads try their best to destroy it. Keep your eye on the "Silent Majority". When the times finally arrives they will step up to the plate and wield the tools of rectification, you know, votes, guns, knives, pitchforks etc. Have a good one. TIFNzqbet

Anonymous said...

by Anonymous X

Hey Everett, the 4 letter "c" word
T-shirts refer to what McCain called his wife in front of some reporters some years ago.
I think it's meant to be a not so inside joke about how McCain really feels about women.

Anonymous said...

Bugmon sez:

To hear something like this .... " Keep your eye on the "Silent Majority". When the times finally arrives they will step up to the plate and wield the tools of rectification, you know, votes, guns, knives, pitchforks etc. Have a good one." ... is very distubing.

I hope that I'm not hearing that the far right plans to do away with an oponent if they get elected by the american people.

Is that your jist?

Everett said...

No! NO! and again I say NOOOOOO!! Why do you insist on turning every comment in to a negative direction? I DID NOT say we were going to kill him or anybody else!! That is the lefts' mantra and what they are good at. Plain and simple so even you can understand it. THE SILENT MAJORITY WILL STEP UP AND DO THE VOTING THAT WILL RECTIFY WRONGS PERPETRATED!!

I say again that we should NOT vote for even one single sitting senator or congessman! Turn over the whole crop of rotten apples that infest that den of thieves known as Washington DC. I don't believe that there is one completely honest one in the whole damned bunch! Why in hell has NOTHING been done about Barney Frank, Chis Dodd and the other culprits in the fannie/freddie fiasco? Barney even has the balls to blame it all on the Republicans! What a two faced lying bastard!
I give up. I hope you are completely happy with your messiah after he gets elected. Shortly after that happens, there will be no more of this name calling anywhere as it will ALL be deemed racist and we will all be put in jail by the PC police!!! Maybe you can get a job as the local informer for this community and finally join the communist/socialist elite you so ardently desire.

Brigid said...

Thank you for posting that.

Hope all is well with you and the family.

big hut

Sam said...

Oh come on, Everett, you probably said the same stuff when Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton were elected President. No big deal, the sun will still come up, and I try not to let Washington politics get me down - the action is in local government anyway, where usually it's not a Republican versus Democrat thing.

But some of these "lifers" in federal and state legislatures really do stink to high heaven. Face it, you can't survive as a professional politician (yukko, about as bad as a transvestite hooker) unless you know how to extort money! It's the pure definition of organized crime!

I'd be OK with some experienced statesmen, women, and even moss-backs but the ethics laws are a real joke. Every day is another crime, seems like. "I'll give you my vote for that bill if you help elect Bobby Sue upstate, send me over a case of Dom champagne, and a ticket to the Socks." "How about a home remodeling job instead?" You know the drill ...

I talked with a lobbyist woman several years ago about a bill we needed passed real bad, as the clock was ticking or we'd lose millions of bucks. "I'll try, Sam, but I don't think I have the time to screw all those old men."

Serious, she actually said that.