The Last Two Years

The Last Two Years

By Randall Hoven

The Obama/Biden ticket’s entire campaign theme is based on “the last eight years.”  Maybe we should really look at “the last two years,” or the time period when both the House and the Senate were run by Democrats.

In December 2006, after six years of Bush and the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature, a snapshot of our economy looked like this.

 

 

If you recall, that 2006 election was considered a referendum on Iraq.  The people wanted change, so they threw out the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats.  Welcome Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

 

Here is how they handled Iraq once in office:  Harry Reid told us that the Iraq war was “lost” and the surge was not “accomplishing anything.”   Senator Obama introduced legislation that would have prevented the surge and would have taken all US troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (that would be seven months ago, as you read this) .

 

Were they right?

 

Barack Obama now admits that “the surge succeeded.”   So much for that change.  And as the surge succeeded, Congress’s approval ratings plummeted.  The latest CBS/New York Times poll has it at 12%, well less than half of the already low level it stood at when the Republican Congress was being tossed out in 2006.

 

The Democratic Congress did a great job, if what you’re looking for in a Congress is continual investigation of Republicans.  Did the White House out CIA agent Valerie Plame?  No, it was the anti-White House Richard Armitage at State, but Congress investigated anyway.  Did Alberto Gonzalez, with White House urging, fire nine prosecutors for political reasons?  Probably not, and it wouldn’t be a crime anyway, but Congress investigated, and is still investigating.  Did the CIA, under orders from the White House, “torture” prisoners?  No evidence of that yet, but Congress is on the case.

 

What Congress would not investigate was anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  In fact, they fought against such investigations and cast aspersions against anyone who would even doubt the soundness of those institutions.  Here is what Barney Frank said:

 

These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.  The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

 

You can also see on YouTube how Democrats treated the regulators trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

 

But now we know what happened.  Fannie and Freddie were run corruptly and ineptly and went bankrupt.  Their $1.5 trillion portfolios had to be rescued by the government this year.  Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed CEO of Fannie Mae who was vigorously defended by Congressional Democrats, was sued by government regulators for cooking the books to the tune of $10 billion to increase his own bonuses to the tune of tens of millions.  He settled his suit for an estimated $25 million.

 

On the other hand, here is what the New York Times had to say in 2003 .

 

The Bush administration is rightly pushing for the Treasury Department to regulate the two giants, along with the network of federal home loan banks. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae provide financing to lenders by creating a secondary market for mortgages. All told, these two institutions’ debt portfolio exceeds more than $1.5 trillion. Their current regulator is ill equipped to keep tabs on Freddie’s and Fannie’s sophisticated hedging strategies and the other financial moves they use to manage their huge investments.

 

And here is what John McCain said on the Senate floor:

 

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…  I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation.  If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

 

So on the big things, the surge in Iraq and the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to our recent financial mess, the Democrats were wrong.  Dead wrong.  One hundred eighty degrees out wrong.

 

On the other hand, who supported the surge?  George W. Bush and John McCain.

 

Who tried to strengthen the oversight and regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  George W. Bush and John McCain.

 

In the case of the surge, Bush and McCain got their way.  The result?  Apparent victory in Iraq, a country that is now a democracy, at peace with its neighbors, no longer a WMD threat, no longer a terrorist sanctuary, and no longer filling hundreds of mass graves with hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.

 

In the case of Fannie and Freddie, Bush and McCain did not get their way – Barney Frank did.  The result?  The failure of Fannie and Freddie, law suits against their executives and the spark that sent banks failing and stocks falling across the globe to the point of threatening a Great Depression.

 

Let’s vote for change.  Let’s undo what we did in 2006.

 

Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or  via his web site, kulak.worldbreak.com/.

BREAKING NEWS !!!!

BREAKING NEWS !!!!
This morning, from a cave somewhere in Pakistan, Taliban Minister of Migration Mohammed Omar, warned the United States that if military actions against Iraq continues, Taliban authorities intend to cut off America’s supply of Convenience Store Managers and possibly Motel 6 Managers.
 

FURTHER…. if this action does not yield sufficient results….. Cab Drivers will be next, followed by DELL and AOL Customer Service Reps.
 

Finally, if all else fails, they have threatened to send us no more candidates for President of the United States!


 

It’s gonna get ugly !!

 

The Obama salute’s creepy predecessor

Thomas Lifson
Nothing more than a creepy coincidence, of course, but the famous Obama hand salute does have an interesting precursor. The O-slaute:


 

 

 

 

:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The LCA Broadside blog found the following picture

Turns out this picture comes from the German Propaganda Archive. Those hands belong to Der Führer, and are captioned by the Archive: “The hands of the Führer organize his speech. This picture captures Hitler’s hands as he speaks of the unity of the National Socialist and socialist ideas.”

Imagine if a conservative candidate were using a hand sign from the National Socialists!

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

 

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

 

 

This is the most interesting thing I’ve read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.

 

 

I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.

 

 

How Long Do We Have?

 

 

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the   University  of  Edinburgh  , had this to say about the fall of the  Athenian   Republic  some 2,000 years earlier:

 

 

‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.’

 

 

‘A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.’

 

 

‘>From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.’

 

 

‘The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years’

 

 

‘During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

 

 

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

 

 

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

 

 

3. from courage to liberty;

 

 

4. from liberty to abundance;

 

 

5. from abundance to complacency;

 

 

6. from complacency to apathy;

 

 

7. from apathy to dependence;

 

 

8. from dependence back into bondage’

 

 

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline UniversitySchool of Law,   St. Paul ,    Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000  Presidential election:

 

 

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

 

 

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

 

 

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

 

 

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

 

 

Professor Olson adds: ‘In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…’ Olson believes the   United States  is now somewhere between the ‘complacency and apathy’ phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already  ;having reached the ‘governmental dependency’ phase.

 

 

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the    USA  in fewer than five years.

 

 

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

 


WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, 
BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

 

Your spirit-lifter of the day

Saturday Night Live: open thread; Sarah Palin’s a good sport

How to buy the presidency

How to buy the presidency

Rick Moran

“Change and Hope” translated means “I am changing the fundraising game forever,” and “I sure hope all these donations are legal.”

From CNN:

Barack Obama’s campaign announced Sunday the Democratic presidential candidate raised $150 million in donations in September, setting a new high-water mark in campaign fundraising.

In a campaign video, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said a record 632,000 new donors gave to the campaign, with the average contribution under $100. More than 3 million donors have given so far.
The Obama campaign raised $65 million in August.
Regardless of the stunning haul, Plouffe told supporters the campaign still needed more money because of “the slime that we’re getting from the McCain campaign.” Plouffe cited recent attack ads and automated phone calls in battleground states and said the campaign needed to have every resource to “fight back.”
“Their campaign is going to descend even more into the gutter,” he said.
Plouffe also said the campaign was expanding its reach to compete “aggressively” in West Virginia.
Tightening polls in Georgia and North Dakota meant more money and resources could be sent to those two states in the remaining days, he said.
“We can’t afford to make any cuts. We have to execute everything we think is required to win,” Plouffe said of their battleground strategy. “None of us can look back on the night of November 4 or the morning of November 5 and wished we had done something extra.”

Not one story on Obama’s record haul mentioned the total amount Obama has raised and spent in the primary and general election campaigns in order to be elected President of the United States.

Not one.

Not CNN.

Not the AP.

Not AFP.

Not Reuters.

Not Bloomberg.

Not Time Magazine.

Not the Washington Post.

Not the New York Times.

Not The Hill.

Not Politico.

I managed to find this Newsmax piece from September 29th that gives a number for Obama’s total fundraising. I cannot speak to the accuracy or provenance of this number. But it sounds about right.

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won’t disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain’s campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

That $427 million was before September’s haul of $150 million. That means that, if the number is accurate, Barack Obama has raised  $577 million – more than half a billion dollars – to buy himself a presidency.

About half of that – $269 million – is from donations of under $200. Why is that important? Those donations do not have to be individually reported to the FEC. They could be coming from anywhere – including overseas. We are trusting that the Obama campaign is voluntarily following the law and returning donations that are illegal – including those that exceed the $2300 limit for individuals.

No word from the Obama campaign, from the FEC, or from anyone else whether that is being done or not. How much has been returned? What safeguards do they have in place to assure that the donations are on the up and up?

Wouldn’t those be some interesting questions to ask the campaign?

Chuck Schumer has a lot of explaining to do

Chuck Schumer has a lot of explaining to do

Thomas Lifson
Susan Schmidt of the Wall Street Journal has discovered a disconcerting coincidence: Senator Chuck Schumer took a highly unusual step of publicly criticizing a bank, sparking a run on it, just as big Democrat hedge fund donors were examining assets of the bank in hopes of buying them on the cheap should the bank fail.

Schumer of course denies any impropriety. But the odor from this is very, very bad. If a Republican had done something like this, the headlines and network news features would be screaming for his head.

 

Read the excellent article here. A few samples:

 

Sen. Schumer’s office said recently he didn’t know anything about Oaktree’s possible interest in IndyMac until after the bank failed. Oaktree Chairman Howard Marks said he never talked to the senator about IndyMac. [….]

 

The group of investors led by Oaktree are big political contributors, predominantly to Democrats. They have donated more than $700,000 to Senate Democrats and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the four years that Sen. Schumer has chaired the campaign committee.

 

Oaktree’s Mr. Marks gave the Democrats’ Senate Campaign Committee $20,000 in late March. Executives of his firm and three other equity firms that considered investing in IndyMac along with Oaktree — Thomas H. Lee Partners, Ares Capital Management LLC and Fortress Investment Group LLC — have been generous donors to the DSCC under Sen. Schumer’s chairmanship, as have many Wall Street financial-services firms.

 

Mr. Marks said he is a longtime Democratic donor and has gotten fund-raising calls from Sen. Schumer. But, he said, “I know him socially. I’ve never talked business with him.” [….]

 

We were interested in taking a look,” said Mr. Marks. His firm has raised $11 billion this year to invest in distressed assets. “We’re bargain hunters. And we have a long history in distress,” he said.

 

The investors knew after a few days of due diligence in mid-June that they weren’t interested in buying the bank, said Mr. Marks. He read from a June 22 email from Oak Tree managing director Skarden Baker, who was assessing IndyMac’s business. “I am taking the view of doing enough here to jump in if it goes to receivership,” wrote Mr. Baker.

 

Four days after the email was sent, Sen. Schumer released publicly letters he sent to bank regulators and to the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. “I am concerned that IndyMac’s financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers,” the senator wrote, warning that “the bank could face a failure if prescriptive measures are not taken quickly.”

 

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

The Rich Are NOT THE ENEMY!!

The Rich Are NOT THE ENEMY!!

The Essence of Senator Obama’s Tax Plan is to Take Money From the rich and give to the poor. Kind of like Robin Hood…or Karl Marx. But lets face it the “rich” are already holding their fair share of paying taxes. The Top 5% of American Tax Payers pay 60% of the taxes. The Bottom 33% pay Zero percent of federal taxes. Senator Government wants to take money from the tax payers and give to the non-tax payers. So Lets here it for the folks that keep this country running, supply jobs and do something that neither Senator Obama or Senator Biden choose to do with their large incomes…give to charity. Take a look at the numbers:

ELDER: In defense of ‘the rich’ Larry Elder COMMENTARY:

So what do “the rich” pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for “the rich” – known in some quarters as “job creators.”

A recent poll commissioned by Investor’s Business Daily asked, in effect, “What share do you think the rich pay?” Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about how much the rich actually do pay.

First, the data. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 – the group whose taxes Mr. Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (a k a the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the Internal Revenue Service, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent’s taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government’s revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 percent and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich’s share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less – far less – than they do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.

Let’s try this another way. A U.S.News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and did an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, “What should ‘the rich’ pay in income taxes?” Half the respondents said “25 percent”; 25 percent said “20 percent”; 12 percent said “30 percent”; and another 12 percent said “35 percent.” The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now – both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing – zero, zip, nada – in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes agree with Mr. Obama’s $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes oppose his health-care plan.

Non-taxpayers support Mr. Obama’s plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000.

Mr. Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of “neighborliness.” Vice presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of “patriotism.”

Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Mr. Obama (until recently) nor Mr. Biden feels neighborly or patriotic enough to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals – especially secular liberals.

In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity – or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity – or 5.5 percent of their income.

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Mr. Biden ran for president. Over the last 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity – or 0.1 percent of their income.

So let’s sum up. The “compassionate” liberals – at least based on charitable giving – show less compassion than “hardhearted” conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.

Monkeys

Once upon a time a man appeared in a village and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each.

The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest and started catching them.

The man bought thousands at $10 and, as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort. He next announced that he would now buy monkeys at $20 each. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again.

Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so scarce it was an effort to even find a monkey, let alone catch it!

The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at $50 each! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would buy on his behalf.  In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers:
“Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has already collected.

I will sell them to you at $35 and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each.”

The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys for 700 billion dollars.

They never saw the man or his assistant again, only lots and lots of monkeys!

Now you have a better understanding of how the


WALL STREET BAILOUT


PLAN WILL WORK !!!!