Ford Motor Company wants another bailout. Only they don't want the government to give them money. They want YOU to give the government money.
Ford CEO Alan Mulally is asking Washington to raise the federal gas tax to make the price per gallon $4 AT THE LOWEST, according to the Wall Street Journal. Ford, you see, has a boatload of these crappy little green cars that it can't unload at any price, largely because the price of gas has fallen about 150 percent since last summer and people are back to buying SUVs and mid-size cars.
This tax increase idea already has been floated on Capitol Hill by a number of libs looking for all the ways they can to pay for their pork. So don't be surprised if by June, we're not well on our way to being right back where we were last summer.
So air up those tires and get a tuneup, eh.
(If you don't recognize the tire/tuneup line, you're probably not alone. That's what Obama said we should all do last summer when gas eclipsed $4. The media, naturally, didn't hold him in anything resembling contempt for saying, essentially, tough sh*t America.)
*****
From Politico:
The eye-popping national debt surpassed $11 trillion Monday, the largest in U.S. history.
The new Treasury Department figures on the national debt were released as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to project that the annual budget deficit will be higher than previously estimated by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The debt, which refers to the cumulative amount of money the government owes, hit $10.9 trillion on Friday.
The whopping number has major ramifications for President Barack Obama, who is trying to push through a raft of big-ticket bills on health care, energy, education and climate change — while also attempting to stabilize the swooning economy.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the numbers could force Congress to make "adjustments" to Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan.
Count on making some adjustments yourself. When all this hits the fan down the road, you, Jack & Jill taxpayer, will bend over to a degree you've never ever imagined.
*****
While everyone's roasting AIG execs, wonder if anyone will ask whether Barack Obama plans to return the $101,332 bonus last year from AIG in the form of political contributions? (according to Opensecrets.org. and reported Tuesday by CNN)
Just like the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac political contribution list, the biggest recipients from AIG were Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd (a Democrat, if you're wondering) and Barack Obama.
*****
Say what you will about George W. Bush's politics, but unlike his opponents, Bush puts the country first. He showed that during his eight years in office, and he's showing that now:
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) - Former President George W. Bush says he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush's speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.
He declined to comment about the Obama administration like former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney said Sunday that Obama's decisions are threatening the nation's safety.
Bush says he doesn't know what he'll do in the long term but says he'll write a book that will let people determine what they would have done if their most important job was to protect the country.
If this were Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, concerned first and foremost with their living legacies, they'd be in front of microphones every day getting in their digs on the current administration ... as the Clintons and Gore and Carter did to Bush every chance they got starting in January of 2001.
Not only has Bush NOT been visible, he refrains from taking shots when given the chance. Lord knows he easily could when what has happened in Washington the last two months is the antithesis of everything he believes in.
(Imported from March 18, 2009)
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Time to bail on the bailout
Most of you who know me know I'm a less-government kind of guy. I'm actually more Libertarian when it comes to matters of the federal government's size and scope where domestic policy is concerned.
And I say hell no to taxpayers forking over however many hundreds of billions of dollars to fix our financial mess. Because that's who's going to pay for it. You and me. That's the case any time you see "government" when a cost in monetary terms is involved. Our tax dollars pay for everything the government does.
So the government wants to bail us out of this financial "crisis"? And then more or less take over? C'mon people! If a builder constructs a house for you, and it collapses, do you want the same guy rebuilding it? Wake up already!
No matter what the lying libs say to their bretheran in the media, the government got us into this mess. It's in black and white, yet no one will report it. OK, almost no one. These worthless hack politicians, many of whom got richer while all of this was happening, are saying it's Bush's fault. Or McCain's fault. Or private enterprise's fault.
"See? It's capitalism! We need the government to be in charge of everything!"
And the sheep happily wag their tails and follow along.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1992, with a Democrat-controlled Congress, lending practices changed within the government-backed and unregulated entities known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack. A manual was put together entitled "Closing The Gap: A Guide To Equal Opportunity Lending".
The idea, if you are having trouble connecting the "equal-opportunity" dots, was to bring political correctness and inclusiveness and whatever else you want to call this touchy-feely B.S. into lending practices. People with no credit, bad credit, no job HAD TO, by government decree, be included on the HomeownerShipToNirvana.
Now, I know my Lib friends will say I'm biased or generalizing or misleading (without offering specifics, naturally ... that's the Lib way, after all), so here, direct from that manual, are a few examples of what the Fed put in place in terms of considering loan applicants:
Credit History: Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor.... In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should be willing to consider extenuating circumstances. For lower–income applicants in particular, unforeseen expenses can have a disproportionate effect on an otherwise positive credit record. In these instances, paying off past bad debts or establishing a regular repayment schedule with creditors may demonstrate a willingness and ability to resolve debts....
Down Payment and Closing Costs: Accumulating enough savings to cover the various costs associated with a mortgage loan is often a significant barrier to homeownership by lower-income applicants. Lenders may wish to allow gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies to cover part of these costs. . . .
Sources of Income: In addition to primary employment income, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept the following as valid income sources: overtime and part–time work, second jobs (including seasonal work), retirement and Social Security income, alimony, child support, Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, welfare payments, and unemployment benefits.
Accepting these new criteria was not limited to Fannie and Freddie, either, and it wasn't voluntary in the private sector. The Fed warned private banks:
"Did You Know? Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor’s net worth in class actions."
Of course, all we've heard for the last three or four years that "PREDATORY LENDERS" have been responsible for the collapse of the housing market and, now, that those same PREDATORY LENDERS are responsible for the mess we're in.
Funny, considering the FACT that nine years ago, Democrats, including Slick Willie himself before he left the White House, bragged that "affirmative action lending policies are one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton administration," touting the fact that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."
Those are their words, not mine. And I should point out that bad loans certainly were not and are not limited to minorities, lest I be labeled a racist.
But folks, the bottom line is that Fannie and Freddie, with these new lending practices, took on more than $1 TRILLION in bad loans. Can anyone reading this even comprehend that? I can't! When you add Countrywide, and Bear Stearns and all these other failing lending institutions to the mix ... well, I'm not sure we've ever invented a number for as high as this pricetag goes.
And I've seen in the relatively few instances any of this has been mentioned, let alone asked of the power-broker Democrats, the answer is "Well, who's been president the last eight years?" or "Hey! Republicans who controlled Congress for 10 years could have fixed it!"
I'll grant you that Republicans didn't do enough. Too many got on board the gravy train in terms of ridiculous spending and everything else.
Those who stood up and warned us were shot down, from Bush himself to McCain and to appointees put in charge of overseeing various sectors of this country. For example, in 2003, Greg Mankiw (chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors) reported that Fannie and Freddie, as well as a number of key private financial institutions, were well on their way to insolvency.
One of the men behind this mess, Congressman Barney Frank (a longtime ranking member of and now the chairman of the House Banking Committee) blasted him for "being worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than concern about housing."
I've already detailed the number of Democrat politicians, their handlers and their advisors, from Franklin Raines to Jamie Gorelick to Chris Dodd (the Democrat chair of the Senate Banking Committee) to Barack Obama himself who have gotten rich and/or benefitted in various ways throughout this economic meltdown.
And I've also detailed how the government has mismanaged social security and medicare to the precipice of insolvency.
We know they want to nationalize health care. And the oil industry. And now the banking industry.
And we trust them to do right by us why?
No way in hell, I say. The markets will correct themselves. They always have. We just need the government to get the hell out of the way.
As usual.
(Imported from Sept. 26, 2008)
Adendum:
Just heard/read about one provision in this bailout package that no doubt is one of the reasons for the holdup.
A large chunk of money in the Democrat plan is earmarked for ACORN. That's the organization that fueled Barack Obama's original run for state senate and has contributed mightily toward his ascension in the political world.
It's also the organization ... a community organization, if you will ... that for years and years and years has been charged with widespread voter fraud ... EVERYWHERE. That they dabble in public housing is the reason they're on the dole here.
There's no telling what else is in this bill. I'm frankly ashamed of any Republican who's on board with simply "getting something done." And that includes President Bush.
And it's time for Senate and House Republicans to start screaming and not stop until SOMEBODY listens.
(Imported from Sept. 27, 2008)
And I say hell no to taxpayers forking over however many hundreds of billions of dollars to fix our financial mess. Because that's who's going to pay for it. You and me. That's the case any time you see "government" when a cost in monetary terms is involved. Our tax dollars pay for everything the government does.
So the government wants to bail us out of this financial "crisis"? And then more or less take over? C'mon people! If a builder constructs a house for you, and it collapses, do you want the same guy rebuilding it? Wake up already!
No matter what the lying libs say to their bretheran in the media, the government got us into this mess. It's in black and white, yet no one will report it. OK, almost no one. These worthless hack politicians, many of whom got richer while all of this was happening, are saying it's Bush's fault. Or McCain's fault. Or private enterprise's fault.
"See? It's capitalism! We need the government to be in charge of everything!"
And the sheep happily wag their tails and follow along.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1992, with a Democrat-controlled Congress, lending practices changed within the government-backed and unregulated entities known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack. A manual was put together entitled "Closing The Gap: A Guide To Equal Opportunity Lending".
The idea, if you are having trouble connecting the "equal-opportunity" dots, was to bring political correctness and inclusiveness and whatever else you want to call this touchy-feely B.S. into lending practices. People with no credit, bad credit, no job HAD TO, by government decree, be included on the HomeownerShipToNirvana.
Now, I know my Lib friends will say I'm biased or generalizing or misleading (without offering specifics, naturally ... that's the Lib way, after all), so here, direct from that manual, are a few examples of what the Fed put in place in terms of considering loan applicants:
Credit History: Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor.... In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should be willing to consider extenuating circumstances. For lower–income applicants in particular, unforeseen expenses can have a disproportionate effect on an otherwise positive credit record. In these instances, paying off past bad debts or establishing a regular repayment schedule with creditors may demonstrate a willingness and ability to resolve debts....
Down Payment and Closing Costs: Accumulating enough savings to cover the various costs associated with a mortgage loan is often a significant barrier to homeownership by lower-income applicants. Lenders may wish to allow gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies to cover part of these costs. . . .
Sources of Income: In addition to primary employment income, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept the following as valid income sources: overtime and part–time work, second jobs (including seasonal work), retirement and Social Security income, alimony, child support, Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, welfare payments, and unemployment benefits.
Accepting these new criteria was not limited to Fannie and Freddie, either, and it wasn't voluntary in the private sector. The Fed warned private banks:
"Did You Know? Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor’s net worth in class actions."
Of course, all we've heard for the last three or four years that "PREDATORY LENDERS" have been responsible for the collapse of the housing market and, now, that those same PREDATORY LENDERS are responsible for the mess we're in.
Funny, considering the FACT that nine years ago, Democrats, including Slick Willie himself before he left the White House, bragged that "affirmative action lending policies are one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton administration," touting the fact that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."
Those are their words, not mine. And I should point out that bad loans certainly were not and are not limited to minorities, lest I be labeled a racist.
But folks, the bottom line is that Fannie and Freddie, with these new lending practices, took on more than $1 TRILLION in bad loans. Can anyone reading this even comprehend that? I can't! When you add Countrywide, and Bear Stearns and all these other failing lending institutions to the mix ... well, I'm not sure we've ever invented a number for as high as this pricetag goes.
And I've seen in the relatively few instances any of this has been mentioned, let alone asked of the power-broker Democrats, the answer is "Well, who's been president the last eight years?" or "Hey! Republicans who controlled Congress for 10 years could have fixed it!"
I'll grant you that Republicans didn't do enough. Too many got on board the gravy train in terms of ridiculous spending and everything else.
Those who stood up and warned us were shot down, from Bush himself to McCain and to appointees put in charge of overseeing various sectors of this country. For example, in 2003, Greg Mankiw (chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors) reported that Fannie and Freddie, as well as a number of key private financial institutions, were well on their way to insolvency.
One of the men behind this mess, Congressman Barney Frank (a longtime ranking member of and now the chairman of the House Banking Committee) blasted him for "being worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than concern about housing."
I've already detailed the number of Democrat politicians, their handlers and their advisors, from Franklin Raines to Jamie Gorelick to Chris Dodd (the Democrat chair of the Senate Banking Committee) to Barack Obama himself who have gotten rich and/or benefitted in various ways throughout this economic meltdown.
And I've also detailed how the government has mismanaged social security and medicare to the precipice of insolvency.
We know they want to nationalize health care. And the oil industry. And now the banking industry.
And we trust them to do right by us why?
No way in hell, I say. The markets will correct themselves. They always have. We just need the government to get the hell out of the way.
As usual.
(Imported from Sept. 26, 2008)
Adendum:
Just heard/read about one provision in this bailout package that no doubt is one of the reasons for the holdup.
A large chunk of money in the Democrat plan is earmarked for ACORN. That's the organization that fueled Barack Obama's original run for state senate and has contributed mightily toward his ascension in the political world.
It's also the organization ... a community organization, if you will ... that for years and years and years has been charged with widespread voter fraud ... EVERYWHERE. That they dabble in public housing is the reason they're on the dole here.
There's no telling what else is in this bill. I'm frankly ashamed of any Republican who's on board with simply "getting something done." And that includes President Bush.
And it's time for Senate and House Republicans to start screaming and not stop until SOMEBODY listens.
(Imported from Sept. 27, 2008)
Monday, July 6, 2009
Shrillary is at it again
Hillary Clinton over the weekend, spouting her usual garbage about North Korea's reported nuclear test:
"Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration, and I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea, and I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now."
Typical. Two truths are at play here. The Libs say this kind of crap because they know that the media won't call them on it, won't ask the question that Mrs. Clinton deserves thrown in her face, and because they're counting on a majority of voters to be dense enough to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
The facts are that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, with an assist from Jimmy Carter, "negotiated" a deal with North Korea in 1994 that called for the communist state to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program and, in return, we'd help them build two nuclear reactors (for peaceful purposes ... wink, wink). Clinton also later agreed to drastically ease economic sanctions against North Korea.
What the North Koreans have done since that time is increase their nuclear capability with reactors, equipment, etc., that the Clinton administration gave them, all the while laughing in the world's face over the "negotiated" agreement. For Hillary to make that statement is ludicrous, albeit completely parallel with the Democrats' playbook of "Blame Bush" for everything.
What Mrs. Clinton and other Libs are saying is that if only we weren't concentrating so much on Iraq, we'd be better able to deal with North Korea, Iran, etc.
OK, what of the Iraq War's role in North Korea's and Iran's venture into nuclear weapondry? Well, let's say for a moment that we weren't in Iraq these last four years. How exactly would the diplomatic path that the Libs (here and around the world) insist we follow in every crisis situation change? They'd insist we talk and negotiate and only then pursue sanctions, and all the while, the North Koreans and Iranians would be busy doing exactly what they've been doing.
After all, they've thumbed their noses at every other negotiated deal. How did all those U.N. sanctions and resolutions on Iraq from the mid-'90s until 2002 work out? How about those U.N. resolutions that the Hezbos disarm in Lebanon? Heck, the U.N. even threw in some trooops to make sure that would happen. And when the Israeli-Lebanon conflict erupted earlier this year, turned out the Hezbos were better armed than some countries!
And that negotiated deal with North Korea? Kinda obvious how that one worked out, huh?
And we're supposed to continue talking to these people or pursuing "negotiated" deals or more U.N. sanctions? How many more deals do we need to make with these tinhorn dictators before we learn that they've no intention of living up to their ends of the bargains? How many more sets of U.N. resolutions and sanctions before we learn that body has morphed into an utter failure?
What exactly is it going to take for this country to wake up?
(Imported from Oct. 10, 2006)
"Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration, and I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea, and I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now."
Typical. Two truths are at play here. The Libs say this kind of crap because they know that the media won't call them on it, won't ask the question that Mrs. Clinton deserves thrown in her face, and because they're counting on a majority of voters to be dense enough to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
The facts are that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, with an assist from Jimmy Carter, "negotiated" a deal with North Korea in 1994 that called for the communist state to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program and, in return, we'd help them build two nuclear reactors (for peaceful purposes ... wink, wink). Clinton also later agreed to drastically ease economic sanctions against North Korea.
What the North Koreans have done since that time is increase their nuclear capability with reactors, equipment, etc., that the Clinton administration gave them, all the while laughing in the world's face over the "negotiated" agreement. For Hillary to make that statement is ludicrous, albeit completely parallel with the Democrats' playbook of "Blame Bush" for everything.
What Mrs. Clinton and other Libs are saying is that if only we weren't concentrating so much on Iraq, we'd be better able to deal with North Korea, Iran, etc.
OK, what of the Iraq War's role in North Korea's and Iran's venture into nuclear weapondry? Well, let's say for a moment that we weren't in Iraq these last four years. How exactly would the diplomatic path that the Libs (here and around the world) insist we follow in every crisis situation change? They'd insist we talk and negotiate and only then pursue sanctions, and all the while, the North Koreans and Iranians would be busy doing exactly what they've been doing.
After all, they've thumbed their noses at every other negotiated deal. How did all those U.N. sanctions and resolutions on Iraq from the mid-'90s until 2002 work out? How about those U.N. resolutions that the Hezbos disarm in Lebanon? Heck, the U.N. even threw in some trooops to make sure that would happen. And when the Israeli-Lebanon conflict erupted earlier this year, turned out the Hezbos were better armed than some countries!
And that negotiated deal with North Korea? Kinda obvious how that one worked out, huh?
And we're supposed to continue talking to these people or pursuing "negotiated" deals or more U.N. sanctions? How many more deals do we need to make with these tinhorn dictators before we learn that they've no intention of living up to their ends of the bargains? How many more sets of U.N. resolutions and sanctions before we learn that body has morphed into an utter failure?
What exactly is it going to take for this country to wake up?
(Imported from Oct. 10, 2006)
Path to another 9/11?
Path To 9/11 gets four stars but probably not for the reason most who know me think. This is something everyone should watch (it still can be viewed free on ABC's Web site), not once but as often as needed to keep fresh in mind that there are fanatical people in this world who are committed to one thing and one thing only.
It's too bad so many remain mired in political agendas, finger-pointing and outright nutball conspiracy mindsets -- or worse, the uninformed state of denial in which none of this is real. That serves one purpose: to distract attention from what every American, every person on this earth who values his or her own life, needs to focus upon.
This movie/docudrama/whatever offered a stark reminder of one very sobering fact. In any life and death struggle (i.e. war), the side that is most committed to its cause wins. These fanatical freaks with their twisted version of Islam are more than willing to die for their purpose. Can more than a fraction in this country say the same?
Hell no, they can't. We're more concerned with doing what's "right" ... we can't listen to the enemy's phone calls, trace their bank records, look in laptops or address books or even use means far short of what common sense should tell anyone is actually extreme in questioning those who are captured. We've spent billions upon billions on intelligence-gathering methods, training that ensures we have the most capable people in place to do a job and the equipment to do that job, yet we tie their hands at every turn.
If Team A and Team B line up to play a football game, and Team A is given a strict set of rules while Team B is allowed to do whatever it pleases, who wins? Well, Team B isn't playing by any rules in this case while Team A does little more than bicker in the huddle.
That we have not endured another episode on the level of 9/11 is part testimony to the hard work that's going on behind the scenes (and I mean WAY behind the scenes, as virtually nothing positive is reported these days) and part fluke. I say fluke, because the circumstances by which America was hamstrung before 9/11 largely remain in place -- we are shrouded in an environment of CYA because there's just too damn much concern with rules that rightly (in most cases, anyway) govern a civilized society day by day but should not have a thing to do with fighting a war.
Path To 9/11 didn't make me despise Bill Clinton's administration any more than I already did. It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
But it reminded me that we're at war with a global enemy whose intent is to kill as many of us as possible by using any means available. We're not going to talk them down. So we damn sure better get in the game.
(Imported from Sept. 12, 2006)
It's too bad so many remain mired in political agendas, finger-pointing and outright nutball conspiracy mindsets -- or worse, the uninformed state of denial in which none of this is real. That serves one purpose: to distract attention from what every American, every person on this earth who values his or her own life, needs to focus upon.
This movie/docudrama/whatever offered a stark reminder of one very sobering fact. In any life and death struggle (i.e. war), the side that is most committed to its cause wins. These fanatical freaks with their twisted version of Islam are more than willing to die for their purpose. Can more than a fraction in this country say the same?
Hell no, they can't. We're more concerned with doing what's "right" ... we can't listen to the enemy's phone calls, trace their bank records, look in laptops or address books or even use means far short of what common sense should tell anyone is actually extreme in questioning those who are captured. We've spent billions upon billions on intelligence-gathering methods, training that ensures we have the most capable people in place to do a job and the equipment to do that job, yet we tie their hands at every turn.
If Team A and Team B line up to play a football game, and Team A is given a strict set of rules while Team B is allowed to do whatever it pleases, who wins? Well, Team B isn't playing by any rules in this case while Team A does little more than bicker in the huddle.
That we have not endured another episode on the level of 9/11 is part testimony to the hard work that's going on behind the scenes (and I mean WAY behind the scenes, as virtually nothing positive is reported these days) and part fluke. I say fluke, because the circumstances by which America was hamstrung before 9/11 largely remain in place -- we are shrouded in an environment of CYA because there's just too damn much concern with rules that rightly (in most cases, anyway) govern a civilized society day by day but should not have a thing to do with fighting a war.
Path To 9/11 didn't make me despise Bill Clinton's administration any more than I already did. It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
But it reminded me that we're at war with a global enemy whose intent is to kill as many of us as possible by using any means available. We're not going to talk them down. So we damn sure better get in the game.
(Imported from Sept. 12, 2006)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)