The Dirty Thirty

PDF 110th-congress

The Dirty Thirty

Will you help us expose the hidden big tax-and-spend records of 30 so called “Fiscal Conservative” freshmen members of Congress?

The National Tax Limitation Committee is exposing 30 so called “centrist” Democrats who ran as fiscal conservatives in 2006, but have since voted like tax-and-spend liberals!

These are the most important House seats in the country – the districts have a history of spending pro-taxpayer Representatives to Congress, but now they have some of the nation’s biggest taxers and spenders!

You may remember in 2006 when House Democrat campaign leader Congressman Rahm Emanuel, and others, campainged on the theme that the “new” Democrats were fiscally reliable moderates who could be counted on to control government spending and restore financial order in Washington.

Many fiscally conservative voters tired of special interest earmarks and reckless spending of the reigning GOP leadership, voted for what seemed like change.

Our Plan to Tell the True Story

  • We will buy ads exposing the Dirty 30 in their key districts!

  • We will educate Taxpayers on the true deceitful Dirty 30 and how they voted when they got to Washington!

  • We will identify, organize, and inform taxpayers through mail, phone and internet to help spread the TRUTH!

Thirty of these “Fiscal Conservative” Democrats replaced Republicans in 2006. They provided necessary votes to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker.

Now, after nearly two years in power, we decided to see if the votes of the Dirty Thirty matched their promises. It was a shocking eye-opener!

You and I must rip the lid off this scam and warn the fiscally conservative taxpayers in these key districts before they return the Dirty Thirty to Washington to squander billions more of your tax dollars!

The taxpayers in these districts are fiscally conservative. They have elected solid fiscal conservatives in the past. But today, these voters are being told their new Representatives are budget hawks when the Congressional Record proves this just isn’t true.

Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference

Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism

Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ’08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called “economic justice.” He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.


IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

 

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served,” he said at the group’s 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, “we’ll ensure that economic justice is served,” he asserted. “That’s what this election is about.” Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn’t have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It’s the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we’re launching this special educational series.

“Economic justice” simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It’s a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama’s positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he’d like to “recast” the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the “winner-take-all” market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about “restoring fairness to the economy,” code for soaking the “rich” — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It’s clear from a close reading of his two books that he’s a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He’s disguising the wealth transfers as “investments” — “to make America more competitive,” he says, or “that give us a fighting chance,” whatever that means.

Among his proposed “investments”:

• “Universal,” “guaranteed” health care.

• “Free” college tuition.

• “Universal national service” (a la Havana).

• “Universal 401(k)s” (in which the government would match contributions made by “low- and moderate-income families”).

• “Free” job training (even for criminals).

• “Wage insurance” (to supplement dislocated union workers’ old income levels).

• “Free” child care and “universal” preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for “working poor.”

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a “living wage,” with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and “fair trade” and “fair labor practices,” with breaks for “patriot employers” who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for “nonpatriot” companies that don’t.

That’s just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn’t stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he’s the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be “more left,” as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama’s voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

A careful reading of Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as “Frank” — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his “subversive,” “un-American activities.”

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis’ feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

“They’ll train you so good,” he said, “you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**.”

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences “for inspiration,” Obama followed in Davis’ footsteps, becoming a “community organizer” in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman’s a disciple of the late Saul “The Red” Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the “Rules for Radicals” and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama’s early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to “bring about real change” — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky’s “agitation” tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama’s Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words “Power Analysis” and “Relationships Built on Self Interest” — terms right out of Alinsky’s rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father’s communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses “owned by Asians and Europeans.”

His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn’t stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to “redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all.”

“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed,” Obama Sr. wrote. “I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development.”

Taxes and “investment” . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father’s communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya’s recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called “black liberation theology” and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Obama joined Wright’s militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of “black values” that demonizes white “middle classness” and other mainstream pursuits.

(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values “sensible.” There’s no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for “change” more effectively. “As an elected official,” he said, “I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer.”

He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for “economic justice.”

He’s been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as “liberal,” let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate “outsider” (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a “breath of fresh air” to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded “r” word.

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that’s made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

 

Subject: 7 & 1/2 years of George Bush

Subject: 7 & 1/2 years of George Bush
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.

TO ALL MY FRIENDS….LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE……..FYI  only.
 
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years.  The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
           1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
           2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
           3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%. 
           4) the DOW JONES hit a record high–14,000 + 
           5) American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!…
 
  But American’s wanted ‘CHANGE’!  So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes–we got ‘CHANGE’ all right. In the PAST YEAR: 
            1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
            2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
            3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
            4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION
                 DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
            5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
            6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another  low~~
                $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR  

                STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT  
                PORTFOLIOS!

              

  YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE…AND WE SURE GOT IT!  ….
 
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
 
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
 
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
 
JUST HOW MUCH MORE ‘CHANGE’ DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

HOW ACORN GOT ME INTO VOTE SCAM

NUTS!

HOW ACORN GOT ME INTO VOTE SCAM

  •  JEANE MacINTOSH, Post Correspondent
Christopher Barkley
Christopher Barkley
PreviousPauseNext

 

Last updated: 8:01 am
October 9, 2008
Posted: 4:31 am
October 9, 2008

CLEVELAND – Two Ohio voters, including Domino’s pizza worker Christopher Barkley , claimed yesterday that they were hounded by the community-activist group ACORN to register to vote several times, even though they made it clear they’d already signed up.

MORE: E-Thief In Chains

MORE: Right: It’s Loan-acy

WILL: RX For A Blowout

Barkley estimated he’d registered to vote “10 to 15″ times after canvassers for ACORN, whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, relentlessly pursued him and others.

Claims such as his have sparked election officials to probe ACORN.

“I kept getting approached by folks who asked me to register,” Barkley said. “They’d ask me if I was registered. I’d say yes, and they’d ask me to do it [register] again.

 

“Some of them were getting paid to collect names. That was their sob story, and I bought it,” he said.

Barkley is one of at least three people who have been subpoenaed by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections as part of a wider inquiry into possible voter fraud by ACORN. The group seeks to register low-income voters, who skew overwhelmingly Democratic.

“You can tell them you’re registered as many times as you want – they do not care,” said Lateala Goins, 21, who was subpoenaed.

“They will follow you to the buses, they will follow you home, it does not matter,” she told The Post.

She added that she never put down an address on any of the registration forms, just her name.

A third subpoenaed voter, Freddie Johnson, 19, filled out registration cards 72 times over 18 months, officials said.

“It feeds the public perception that there could be [fraud], and that makes the pillars fall down,” said local Board of Elections President Jeff Hastings.

Registering under a fake name is illegal. But officials usually catch multiple registrations and toss them.

The major risk of fraud growing out of mass canvassing involves the possibility of ineligible voters filing absentee ballots, and thus avoiding checks at polling places, said Republican National Committee chief counsel Sean Cairncross.

The subpoenas come as Republicans have ramped up criticism of ACORN. Officials in Nevada raided ACORN’s Las Vegas office Tuesday, accusing the group of signing people up multiple times – in some cases under phony names, like those of Dallas Cowboys.

ACORN’s Cleveland spokesman, Kris Harsh, said his group collected 100,000 voter-registration cards; only about 50 were questionable, he claimed.

As for workers, “We watch them like a hawk,” he said.

Bailout Saga Proves that Elites Don’t Care What We Think

Bailout Saga Proves that Elites Don’t Care What We Think

October 4, 2008 – by Tom Blumer

In mid-September, when it became clear to Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and George Bush that extraordinary measures were needed to address the mess that had built up in the financial markets during the past decade or so, their first instincts should have been to say:

  • “We need to have a complete plan to deal with this.”
  • “We need to make a case to Congress and the American people that our plan will work.”

They did neither of these things; nor did they even seem to consider whether what they wanted was even constitutional.

Instead, they in essence demanded that Congress and the American people give them a blank check, saying, “Do this, or else.” Last Sunday, I [1] called it blackmail. I stand by that.

Of course, a large plurality of Congressmen and Senators, along with a majority of the American people, were repulsed. The wonder is that everyone wasn’t.

Among the repulsed were well over 150 economists from across the political spectrum, including three Nobel laureates, [2] who signed a letter of protest (also [3] carried here; bolds are mine):

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayersÕ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America’s dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.

The monstrosity that became law yesterday (PDF-formatted first 250 pages [4] here) does not begin to adequately address the group’s three key concerns.

Fairness? Let’s talk about fairness to taxpayers and future generations. What assurances do we have, if any, that monies recovered when purchased assets are resold will go towards reducing the just-increased national debt? I fear it will instead be diverted to Uncle Sam’s day-to-day operations, enabling Congress and future presidents to further cover up an already over-the-top annual structural deficit. If you don’t think this can happen, just remember how Social Security has been [5] stripped bare for four decades.

Ambiguity? You can’t get much more ambiguous than what a Treasury official [6] told Forbes Magazine on September 23 (bolds are mine):

….. some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

Again: Blackmail.

Oh, and do you think that even the made-up $700 billion now enshrined into law is any kind of real limit? Think again.

The supposedly limiting language in Section 115 of the bill has to do with “the authority of the Secretary to purchase troubled assets” to certain amounts “outstanding at any one time.” Treasury’s authority starts at $250 billion; Congress can increase that authorization to as much as $700 billion.

With this language, under its “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (TARP) authorization, Treasury can initially purchase $250 billion in “troubled” loans. If it auctions off $50 billion of that amount, there will then be only $200 billion “outstanding.” Treasury can then go out and purchase another $50 billion. This can go on and on and on.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing that would prevent Treasury from continually buying, reselling, and replacing loans, thereby busting the supposed “limits” by hundreds of billions, if not trillions.

Given the billions that financial firms [7] appear poised to make in managing the largely outsourced program, Wall Street has the ability, and every incentive, to turn TARP into a fee-generating perpetual-motion machine while it is in place (theoretically, until the end of 2009).

Long-term effects? Heck, we’re already seeing proof of the long-term effects in the short-term. California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose state has a welfare dependency rate that [8] is 2-1/2 times that of the rest of the nation, is making noises about getting [9] his own $7 billion bailout. The auto industry [10] is getting what was unthinkable even two years ago: $25 billion in loan guarantees, and with barely a whimper of objection.

[11] As I wrote yesterday:

….. what possible response, other than “okey-dokey,” is there to anyone who says, “Well, if you could handle $700 billion for the financial-services industry, how can you not provide $_____ (fill in the blank) for _________ (fill in the blank)?”

When the problem became clear, a mature Washington political culture would have done something close to the following:

  • Bush, Bernanke, and Paulson would have consulted with some of the aforementioned economists to craft a plan that would meet the three concerns they were forced to raise after the fact.
  • Bush would have called a joint session of the Senate and House to give Bernanke, Paulson and economists the chance to make their case to Congress and the nation.
  • Bush would have insisted that any changes to what they proposed would have to be germane to the plan (i.e., no pork, and nothing else extraneous).

Instead, what was three pages turned into 451. What was a bill with a made-up $700 billion price tag became a pork-laden bill with a made-up $850 billion price tag chock full of unrelated and dangerous provisions too numerous to mention here.

The just-enacted legislation will likely haunt the economy, and the nation, for years.

That we have a nearly incorrigible and immature Washington political culture has never been more clear.


Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

INTERESTING…………….. You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

Interesting…

 

AN EDUCATION TO ALL WHO ARE AMERICANS…

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?  Read this:

Boy am I confused.  I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.  I have included the URL’s for verification of all the following facts.

1.  $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.
     Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2.  $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school  

     Lunches for illegal aliens.
     Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3.  $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
     Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4.  $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they

     Cannot speak a word of English!
     Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5.  $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor

     Babies.
     Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6.  $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
     Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
     Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
     Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9.  $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
     Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.  

      In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
      Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as  

      19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.  Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed  

      Into the U. S from the Southern border.
      Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion

      Or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
      Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
      Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United

        States ‘
        Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.  Are we THAT stupid?

If this doesn’t bother you then just delete the message.  If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. – five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof. 

 

 


Semper If,

 

 

Worth re-cycling every Election Year!

 

AGELESS OBSERVATIONS

 

“If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”

-Mark Twain

 

Suppose you were an idiot.

And suppose you were a member of Congress….

But then I repeat myself.

-Mark Twain

 

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

-Winston Churchill

 

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

- George Bernard Shaw

 

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.

-G Gordon Liddy

 

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

-James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

 

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

-Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University

 

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

-P.J. O’Rourke, Civil Libertarian

 

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

-Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

 

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

-Ronald Reagan (1986)

 

I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

-Will Rogers

 

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free!

-P.J. O’Rourke

 

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.

-Voltaire (1764)

 

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you!

-Pericles (430 B.C.)

 

No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

-Mark Twain (1866 )

 

Talk is cheap…except when Congress does it.

-Unknown

 

The government is like a baby’s alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

-Ronald Reagan

 

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

-Winston Churchill

 

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.

-Mark Twain

 

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.

-Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

 

There is no distinctly Native American criminal class…save Congress.

-Mark Twain

 

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.

-Edward Langley, Artist (1928 – 1995)

 

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

.all others are suspect

 

VIDEO SHOCK: O’Reilly Blasts Barney Frank On FANNIE Mess…

Bailout bill fails

Bailout bill fails

Thomas Lifson
The House of Representative has rejected the bailout bill pushed by Secretary of the Treasury (and former Goldman Sachs chief) Henry Paulson, the House Democratic leadership, and President Bush. The Dow “plunged” 400 points — not a catastrophic drop by any means.

GOP leaders are reportedly outraged by a speech Pelosi gave before the vote:
It is time to consider alternative approaches to the credit market problems, including changes to an accounting rule adopted in reaction to Enron, the “mark-to-market” rule. More on this tomorrow in an AT article.

 

Here is the roll call vote:
  H R 3997      RECORDED VOTE      29-Sep-2008      2:07 PM
      QUESTION:  On Concurring in Senate Amendment With An Amendment
      BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes

 

PRES
Democratic
140
95
Republican
65
133
1
Independent
TOTALS
205
228
 
1

 

—- AYES    205 —
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castle
Clarke
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf

 

—- NOES    228 —
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Baca
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Capito
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Conaway
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kaptur
Keller
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Ortiz
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salazar
Sali
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Watson
Welch (VT)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wittman (VA)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

 

—- NOT VOTING    1 —
Weller

No, We didn’t Cause This Wall Street Mess

No, We didn’t Cause This Wall Street Mess

September 28, 2008 – by Richard Miniter

You must be as tired of hearing it as I am. Somehow, we are all at fault for Wall Street’s meltdown. We demanded cheap loans for houses we couldn’t afford and voted in corrupt dolts, who took from Fannie Mae and told us what we wanted to hear. Now, we are getting what we deserve.

Take Rod Dreher’s [1] otherwise excellent column in the Dallas Morning News:

After all, these scoundrels did not elect themselves, nor was there an outcry heard in the land against Wall Street rapacity and recklessness when our 401(k)s were rising, and all but the lowliest plebeian was moving into his very own McMansion.

Along those lines, there’s one proverb that we will all become painfully acquainted with in the years to come: You reap what you sow.

There are two essential problems with this analysis: it is factually false and morally unwise.

Rep. Barney Frank was elected by a majority of the people of  his district in Massachusetts. Senator Chris Dodd is brought to us by many but not all of the voters of Connecticut. And so on. Most of us never had the chance to vote for or against these solons. So why should we be blamed?

The regulatory changes that led us to this point were the work of lobbyists, bureaucrats and lawmakers including Dodd and Frank and corrupt executives, like Raines and Johnson. We know or can know their names.

The idea of blaming “all of us” is a way to avoid blaming those who did the deeds and reaped their ill-gotten gains.

What about cheap mortgages? Sure, some of us took them when they were offered. But who offered them and why? Yes, it is the Clinton-era changes to the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to lend more for “affordable housing.” Law firms, including ones connected to Obama, sued banks that failed to meet their low-income quotas for mortgages. Bankers were not driven by greed, as everyone says, but by fear. Fear of the baying hounds of regulators and lawyers would call them racist and ruin their careers. But who unleashed the hounds on the bankers?

Particular policies and people made this mess. The public’s only role will be to pay the tab, a cruel addition that will equal more than $2,500 per person. Can’t the talking class at least have the decency to stop blaming the one group generous enough to pay for the party they didn’t attend?


Article printed from Richard Miniter.com: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardminiter

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardminiter/2008/09/28/no-we-didnt-cause-this-wall-street-mess/

URLs in this post:
[1] otherwise excellent column: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/and_it_was_written_our_blame.html

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers