I figured I'd pass this on, since it's good reading.
From Ron Paul's Congressional Website:
This week the bailout of the Big Three automakers was under heavy consideration in Congress’s lame duck session. I have always opposed government bailouts of private organizations. Back in 1979 Congress had hearings about bailing out Chrysler and I was on record pointing out that these types of policies are foolish and very damaging to the long term economic health of our country. They still are.
There was also renewed pressure this week to bailout homeowners and send another round of stimulus checks to “Main Street” to balance out all the handouts to big business. It seems that eventually the entire economy is going to be blanketed over with Federal Reserve notes. Most in Washington are completely oblivious as to why this model of money creation and spending is so dangerous.
We must remember that governments do not produce anything. Their only resources come from producers in the economy through such means as inflation and taxation. The government has an obligation to be good stewards of these resources. In bailing out failing companies, they are confiscating money from productive members of the economy and giving it to failing ones. By sustaining companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models, the government prevents their resources from being liquidated and made available to other companies that can put them to better, more productive use. An essential element of a healthy free market, is that both success and failure must be permitted to happen when they are earned. But instead with a bailout, the rewards are reversed – the proceeds from successful entities are given to failing ones. How this is supposed to be good for our economy is beyond me.
With each bailout we hear rhetoric that this is the mother of all bailouts. This will fix the problem once and for all, and that this is absolutely necessary to avert disaster. This sense of panic squeezes astonishing amounts of dollars out of reluctant but hopeful legislators, who hate the position they are being put in, but are relieved that it will be the last time. It is never the last time, and again and again we are faced with the same scenarios and the same fears. We are already in the bailout business for such a staggering amount that admitting it was wrong in the first place would be too embarrassing. So the commitment to this course of action is only irrationally escalated, in the hopes that somehow, someway eventually it will work and those in power won’t have to admit they were wrong.
It won’t work. It can’t work. We need to cut our losses and get back on course. There is too much at stake for too many people to continue down this road. The bailouts thus far to AIG, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, and TARP funds amount to around $1.5 trillion. Considering our GDP is $14 trillion, and our Federal budget is already $3 trillion, this additional amount will significantly eat into our future lifestyles. That amounts to an extra $5,000 that every person in the country needs to somehow produce just to keep up. It is obvious to most Americans that we need to reject corporate cronyism, and allow the natural regulations and incentives of the free market to pick the winners and losers in our economy, not the whims of bureaucrats and politicians.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Economic Doom and Gloom
Peter Schiff who was Ron Paul's economic advisor has a pretty bleak outlook on where the economy is going:
Schiff predicted our current economic crisis back in early 2007 in his book "Crash Proof".
Schiff predicted our current economic crisis back in early 2007 in his book "Crash Proof".
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A Letter To Conservatives
I am sure many of you were disappointed last night as the election returns came in.
The American middle class decided to vote for their checkbooks instead of their children.
What we saw last night was a choice by middle america to foreclose on freedom.
The illusion that the government can tax the rich to solve all our problems proved to be stronger than the common sense belief that there are no free lunches.
So the Republicans find themselves out of power. There will be plenty of debate in the coming weeks and months about why we lost, and of course I have many thoughts on the matter.
Those are thoughts for another time though.
The important thought for today that I'd like to share with you is this:
The election, the government, and talking heads on television do not force you to live your life a certain way.
As a free citizen you have choices about how to live your life. Nobody forces you to buy a home with no down payment, nor to buy things you can not afford. They do not force you to constantly change jobs or invest in a stock market that is risky by nature.
Taking responsibility for how you live is the path to liberation, while relying on the government for a handout is slavery.
You might not have a president that represents the traditional American value of rugged individualism, but that does not mean you can't practice it personally and set an example for others.
The American middle class decided to vote for their checkbooks instead of their children.
What we saw last night was a choice by middle america to foreclose on freedom.
The illusion that the government can tax the rich to solve all our problems proved to be stronger than the common sense belief that there are no free lunches.
So the Republicans find themselves out of power. There will be plenty of debate in the coming weeks and months about why we lost, and of course I have many thoughts on the matter.
Those are thoughts for another time though.
The important thought for today that I'd like to share with you is this:
The election, the government, and talking heads on television do not force you to live your life a certain way.
As a free citizen you have choices about how to live your life. Nobody forces you to buy a home with no down payment, nor to buy things you can not afford. They do not force you to constantly change jobs or invest in a stock market that is risky by nature.
Taking responsibility for how you live is the path to liberation, while relying on the government for a handout is slavery.
You might not have a president that represents the traditional American value of rugged individualism, but that does not mean you can't practice it personally and set an example for others.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Don't Throw Away Your Vote!
They couldn't be more wrong.
Due to the quirkiness of our political system, and current political history, odds are your vote only matters if you live in a battleground state.
If you are in Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, or Pennsylvania you should probably consider voting for a mainstream candidate because your vote might make a difference.
If you're anywhere else in the country, your vote is meaningless to the outcome of this election. Right before an election the media and the political parties play up the concept that more states are in play than they really are, to make sure people vote to give the current candidates a mandate.
So, if you aren't in Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, or Pennsylvania then your state is either solidly Democratic or Republican, and in the grand scheme of things the vote you cast means nothing compared to the avalanche of habitual mainstream voters that will overwhelmingly agree or disagree with it.
How To Make Your Vote Mean Something
If you live in a solid blue or solid red state the way to make the most out of your vote is to cast it for a third party candidate.
Why would you vote for a sure loser?
There are many reasons.
If a third party candidate can manage 5% of the vote, they will receive federal funding for the next election cycle. This makes it easier to gain ballot access, media interest, and television time. If you are sick of the two party system, a vote for a third party could possibly end the monopoly the Democrats and Republicans have in American politics. Now that would be a vote for real change™.
In addition, a vote for a third party can send a clear message to the major parties that you disagree with what they're doing.
For example, Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama supported the federal bailout of the banks. Yet the third parties all opposed the bailout either from a constitution perspective or a populist one. The banks are now using the money they were given to takeover other banks. If you ask me, this single issue is enough to cast a protest ballot over. In my opinion the US treasury should not be a slush fund for irresponsible bankers who's only good investments were made by supporting both Senator Obama and Senator McCain.
Finally, the mainstream parties pay attention what third parties are successful. If you think that the Republican party was wrong to endorse torture, big spending and big brother like activities in the war on terror then a vote for the libertarian party or constitution party will likely send them a wake up message. If you think the democrats were punks for not trying to impeach Bush or push for more investigations into the 9/11 attacks, then the green party candidate might be the right vote for you.
So who are the third party candidates?
Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney from the Green Party- Cynthia likes to hang around with the 9/11 truth movement, tried to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and most notably beat up a capital hill police officer. Head over to her wikipedia page for a background on one of the most colorful characters in American politics.
Former Congressman Bob Barr from the Libertarian Party - Bob Barr is a former Republican congressman turned libertarian and was also a federal prosecutor. He is running a smaller government, lower taxes and 'abundant personal freedom' platform. Head over to his wikipedia page to read his full background.
Charles "Chuck" Baldwin from the Constitution Party - Chuck supports putting a tariff on imports to protect American workers, wants to pull out of the UN, supports the gold standard, and wants to make it illegal for foreigners to own American infrastructure. If you'd like some good old protectionism mixed with anti-globalism, then Chuck is your guy. He's also won the endorsement of Ron Paul. Head over to his wikipedia page to read the story of Chuck the crusader.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
What Senator McCain Should Say Tonight.
McCain should bait Obama into the following exchange:
McCain- We can not raise taxes during an economic downturn.
Obama- That is the failed tax policy of George W. Bush. We've got to help those in the middle, I support a tax cut for 95% of the people.
McCain - You aren't running against George W Bush. My friends, many of you are familiar with the story of Robin Hood. He wanted to steal from the rich to give to the poor. I'm not sure stealing is ever noble, but some people see it that way. But Senator Obama isn't Robin Hood. What he's going to do if he gets in office is some "Robbin for the Hood". You see, senator Obama fought a lawsuit for a low income black man that a bank denied a loan. To him if a bank denies a black man a loan, it's racist regardless of if the man can pay off the loan. So Obama fought for these low income loans, as groups like Acorn did for years. So what was the outcome? Our current fiscal crisis. Who bailed out the banks? You. The middle class. So Obama with his "Robbin for the Hood" outlook on life stole from the middle class to give to the poor and was part of what gave us this economic crisis. I don't think that is noble. I don't think it's right. If you want more of that, vote Obama. If your sick of race baiting ruining our country, vote for me.
Now McCain would never have the courage to do this, hell he doesn't even have the guts to bring up reverend Wright, because it might be "racially insensitive". Of course, the democrats are comparing McCain to a segregationist all the time, ,so there is no point in pulling punches at this point.
McCain should call Obama out on his socialism and his race baiting when the debate starts in a few minutes. Anything less will not help him in the polls.
McCain- We can not raise taxes during an economic downturn.
Obama- That is the failed tax policy of George W. Bush. We've got to help those in the middle, I support a tax cut for 95% of the people.
McCain - You aren't running against George W Bush. My friends, many of you are familiar with the story of Robin Hood. He wanted to steal from the rich to give to the poor. I'm not sure stealing is ever noble, but some people see it that way. But Senator Obama isn't Robin Hood. What he's going to do if he gets in office is some "Robbin for the Hood". You see, senator Obama fought a lawsuit for a low income black man that a bank denied a loan. To him if a bank denies a black man a loan, it's racist regardless of if the man can pay off the loan. So Obama fought for these low income loans, as groups like Acorn did for years. So what was the outcome? Our current fiscal crisis. Who bailed out the banks? You. The middle class. So Obama with his "Robbin for the Hood" outlook on life stole from the middle class to give to the poor and was part of what gave us this economic crisis. I don't think that is noble. I don't think it's right. If you want more of that, vote Obama. If your sick of race baiting ruining our country, vote for me.
Now McCain would never have the courage to do this, hell he doesn't even have the guts to bring up reverend Wright, because it might be "racially insensitive". Of course, the democrats are comparing McCain to a segregationist all the time, ,so there is no point in pulling punches at this point.
McCain should call Obama out on his socialism and his race baiting when the debate starts in a few minutes. Anything less will not help him in the polls.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Obama Rewrites IT history.
In the second debate, the following question was asked:
Jackson: Sen. McCain, I want to know, we saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?
McCain gave his response, and the moderator threw the question to Senator Obama.
Obama: This is one of the biggest challenges of our times.
And it is absolutely critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it's an opportunity, because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily, here in the United States.
It can be an engine that drives us into the future the same way the computer was the engine for economic growth over the last couple of decades.
And we can do it, but we're going to have to make an investment. The same way the computer was originally invented by a bunch of government scientists who were trying to figure out, for defense purposes, how to communicate, we've got to understand that this is a national security issue, as well.
Can someone inform Senator Obama that the computer was not originally invented for communication. Instead the military sponsored the creation of the ENIAC computer to help them with artillery targeting.
Obama constantly makes these kinds of mistakes. If he doesn't know something, he just bullshits his way through it, like a 10 year old girl. If McCain made such mistakes the media would paint him as senile and out of touch. It's way past time someone in the media call Barack on this bullshit, but most in the media can not see past their Bush Derangement Syndrome to conduct honest journalism.
Jackson: Sen. McCain, I want to know, we saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?
McCain gave his response, and the moderator threw the question to Senator Obama.
Obama: This is one of the biggest challenges of our times.
And it is absolutely critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it's an opportunity, because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily, here in the United States.
It can be an engine that drives us into the future the same way the computer was the engine for economic growth over the last couple of decades.
And we can do it, but we're going to have to make an investment. The same way the computer was originally invented by a bunch of government scientists who were trying to figure out, for defense purposes, how to communicate, we've got to understand that this is a national security issue, as well.
Can someone inform Senator Obama that the computer was not originally invented for communication. Instead the military sponsored the creation of the ENIAC computer to help them with artillery targeting.
Obama constantly makes these kinds of mistakes. If he doesn't know something, he just bullshits his way through it, like a 10 year old girl. If McCain made such mistakes the media would paint him as senile and out of touch. It's way past time someone in the media call Barack on this bullshit, but most in the media can not see past their Bush Derangement Syndrome to conduct honest journalism.
Monday, October 6, 2008
A Quick Update
It's been awhile my loyal readers!
I haven't posted in about a week. I was busy following the economic news, and the fallout from the Palin/Biden debate. A few thoughts.
1. I thought the Palin/Biden debate was a draw. Biden did what he had to, appearing knowledgeable throughout the debate, and pinning everything on Bush. Palin outperformed expectations, and did a decent job of pointing out Biden's Bush Derangement Syndrome. She dropped the old Reagan line "There you go again". It worked well, but couldn't they have written something new for her rather than recycling Reagan?
2. I think Palin/Biden being a draw favors Obama, since he's up by an average of 6 points in the RCP average.
3. Sarah Palin should start trying to pin the community reinvestment act, and this economic downturn on Obama. She's the perfect messenger, and bringing up his past history of race baiting lawsuits could trigger a swing in the polls. She could simply say: "the democrats wanted to help poor people get houses, and now their sticking the middle class with the bill from the defaults."
4. On the economy, it is somewhat disheartening to watch the banker bailout bill get passed when the people were largely against it.
5. It's even more annoying to see people blame 'capitalism' for this problem, when the facts show that government manipulation and race baiting leftists led to this crisis.
6. The action in the market (Everything heading down, including gold while the dollar is heading up) is indicating deflation.
If you haven't read my earlier posts on the CRA, watch this movie as it explains the situation pretty well:
I haven't posted in about a week. I was busy following the economic news, and the fallout from the Palin/Biden debate. A few thoughts.
1. I thought the Palin/Biden debate was a draw. Biden did what he had to, appearing knowledgeable throughout the debate, and pinning everything on Bush. Palin outperformed expectations, and did a decent job of pointing out Biden's Bush Derangement Syndrome. She dropped the old Reagan line "There you go again". It worked well, but couldn't they have written something new for her rather than recycling Reagan?
2. I think Palin/Biden being a draw favors Obama, since he's up by an average of 6 points in the RCP average.
3. Sarah Palin should start trying to pin the community reinvestment act, and this economic downturn on Obama. She's the perfect messenger, and bringing up his past history of race baiting lawsuits could trigger a swing in the polls. She could simply say: "the democrats wanted to help poor people get houses, and now their sticking the middle class with the bill from the defaults."
4. On the economy, it is somewhat disheartening to watch the banker bailout bill get passed when the people were largely against it.
5. It's even more annoying to see people blame 'capitalism' for this problem, when the facts show that government manipulation and race baiting leftists led to this crisis.
6. The action in the market (Everything heading down, including gold while the dollar is heading up) is indicating deflation.
If you haven't read my earlier posts on the CRA, watch this movie as it explains the situation pretty well:
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A Real Bailout Bill
Although I am typically against government intervention in free markets, I could favor a bailout package if the legislation actually fixed the problems that caused our current housing and banking crisis.
The government needs to pass good regulation rather than bad regulation. The community reinvestment act was part of what led to this housing bubble. The government forced banks to lend to unqualified low income people, and minorities.
Historically, home ownership had been steady around 64% from 1950 until the 1990's.
Home ownership was up from 64% to 69% from 1995-2005....The same time frame that Clinton expanded the Community Reinvestment Act and Bush went on his push for minority home ownership. But the CRA helps EVERYONE right? Even the poor white people, right? So they should have seen an equal boom from the housing market going up.
Well, not exactly:
Race change in home ownership since '94
White +8.28%
Asian American +17.15%
Native American +12.57%
African American +13.59%
Hispanic or Latino +20.14%
That said, I don't blame minorities for this, I blame the government officials who are more interested in getting campaign payoffs than doing things right. There are plenty of those in both parties.
If they wanted to increase low income home ownership it should have been done the right way, by making more blue collar jobs available along with better educational opportunities.
So what should we do?
If it were up to me I would:
Freeze foreclosures for six months. Keep people in their houses. This provides many benefits. Banks aren't stuck with depreciating assets on their books, people will maintain their homes instead of being thrown out on their butts, and it provides some stability.
Force banks to open up their balance sheets to one another. Banks aren't lending to one another because they're scared of what kind of garbage the other guy might have hidden on his balance sheet. This means the "Off balance sheet" type stuff needs to be brought into the daylight for everyone to see. The credit default swap market needs some sunlight and deregulation as well.
The federal government buying bad mortgages might not be a bad idea. They shouldn't have to buy them at their former market price though. Something like 75% would be fair.
Banks should be forced to use that cash to re-leverage themselves.
Paulson should be forced to step down. The conflict of interest he has is rather large.
Banks should not be allowed to wrap up and resell mortgages.
Consider a means tested bailout of consumers. By that I mean, if someone is too poor to every pay a mortgage, or too rich to need help, don't consider them. For the others, force banks to renegotiate mortgages with these people. Perhaps a direct refund check could be used to help these people as well.
I don't like the idea of helping people who made a mistake, but if we're going to have a bailout, I'd rather the money go to the middle/lower class people who are having trouble with mortgage payments than the banks who were part of this problem in the first place.
If the problem really is the US mortgage market, we could fix it pretty easily, much cheaper than handing a blank check to Paulson.
Long term stuff I'd do for the economy:
Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act, and the other 'Affirmative Action" housing programs. Require 10% down (at least) to buy a house.
Cut military commitments overseas. Make it known that we'll use the "Vir War Doctrine" from now on, which states:
"We're not going to invade you. We are no longer the policemen of the world. If your country attacks us, we'll simply drop large bombs on you until all your people are dead."
Make "Affirmative Action" programs for school based on family income rather than race.
Put a tax on exports. Other countries are cheating the "Free Trade" agreements by doing this, so why shouldn't we?
Start a national program to make blue collar jobs available to American workers again. Punish companies that produce overseas rather than at home. If need be, use a tariff. It is time America started making things again, instead of buying things from foreigners on credit.
Finally, many of the politicians pushing a bailout bill are bankrolled by the financial institutions. other politicians pushed the opinion that there were 'no problems' at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004 when others were asking for stricter regulations.
When is America going to wake up to all of this? Will people have to lose everything to start caring about how their government is run?
The government needs to pass good regulation rather than bad regulation. The community reinvestment act was part of what led to this housing bubble. The government forced banks to lend to unqualified low income people, and minorities.
Historically, home ownership had been steady around 64% from 1950 until the 1990's.
Home ownership was up from 64% to 69% from 1995-2005....The same time frame that Clinton expanded the Community Reinvestment Act and Bush went on his push for minority home ownership. But the CRA helps EVERYONE right? Even the poor white people, right? So they should have seen an equal boom from the housing market going up.
Well, not exactly:
Race change in home ownership since '94
White +8.28%
Asian American +17.15%
Native American +12.57%
African American +13.59%
Hispanic or Latino +20.14%
That said, I don't blame minorities for this, I blame the government officials who are more interested in getting campaign payoffs than doing things right. There are plenty of those in both parties.
If they wanted to increase low income home ownership it should have been done the right way, by making more blue collar jobs available along with better educational opportunities.
So what should we do?
If it were up to me I would:
Freeze foreclosures for six months. Keep people in their houses. This provides many benefits. Banks aren't stuck with depreciating assets on their books, people will maintain their homes instead of being thrown out on their butts, and it provides some stability.
Force banks to open up their balance sheets to one another. Banks aren't lending to one another because they're scared of what kind of garbage the other guy might have hidden on his balance sheet. This means the "Off balance sheet" type stuff needs to be brought into the daylight for everyone to see. The credit default swap market needs some sunlight and deregulation as well.
The federal government buying bad mortgages might not be a bad idea. They shouldn't have to buy them at their former market price though. Something like 75% would be fair.
Banks should be forced to use that cash to re-leverage themselves.
Paulson should be forced to step down. The conflict of interest he has is rather large.
Banks should not be allowed to wrap up and resell mortgages.
Consider a means tested bailout of consumers. By that I mean, if someone is too poor to every pay a mortgage, or too rich to need help, don't consider them. For the others, force banks to renegotiate mortgages with these people. Perhaps a direct refund check could be used to help these people as well.
I don't like the idea of helping people who made a mistake, but if we're going to have a bailout, I'd rather the money go to the middle/lower class people who are having trouble with mortgage payments than the banks who were part of this problem in the first place.
If the problem really is the US mortgage market, we could fix it pretty easily, much cheaper than handing a blank check to Paulson.
Long term stuff I'd do for the economy:
Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act, and the other 'Affirmative Action" housing programs. Require 10% down (at least) to buy a house.
Cut military commitments overseas. Make it known that we'll use the "Vir War Doctrine" from now on, which states:
"We're not going to invade you. We are no longer the policemen of the world. If your country attacks us, we'll simply drop large bombs on you until all your people are dead."
Make "Affirmative Action" programs for school based on family income rather than race.
Put a tax on exports. Other countries are cheating the "Free Trade" agreements by doing this, so why shouldn't we?
Start a national program to make blue collar jobs available to American workers again. Punish companies that produce overseas rather than at home. If need be, use a tariff. It is time America started making things again, instead of buying things from foreigners on credit.
Finally, many of the politicians pushing a bailout bill are bankrolled by the financial institutions. other politicians pushed the opinion that there were 'no problems' at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004 when others were asking for stricter regulations.
When is America going to wake up to all of this? Will people have to lose everything to start caring about how their government is run?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tinfoil Thursday: Prepare for Martial Law!
The president was on television last night, informing the people who don't pay attention that their banks could fail. Fortunately the market is up today, but I'm sure the president succeeded in scaring the "average" people enough that a large down day in the markets will scare the shit out of people.
I was surprised Bush went on the air and mentioned the possibility of more bank failures. While I realize he wanted the "No Banker Left Behind" bailout to go through, he might have cause more harm by waking up the masses to how big our economic problems are.
The people who don't pay attention who scare me, because they are the ones most likely to panic and cause a bank run, or food shortage. They are also easily spooked by stupid things (IE if the Dow dropped by 500 today) rather than stuff that should ring the alarm bells (HELLO, FANNIE AND FREDDIE WERE NATIONALIZED).
Stupid people are typicaly just an annoyance, but stupid people in a panic are downright dangerous. I hope this doesn't sound elitist, because that isn't my intention. It's simply that uninformed and scared is a bad combination to have, especially in large numbers.
Which brings me to the topic for the first edition of Tinfoil Thursday: Martial Law!
The US military is starting domestic tours of duty soon, to act
Well there is nothing wrong with that right? We can have our soldiers helping us out if there is some 'man made emergency" or whatever the fuck they said.
I suppose one setback to this operation would be that domestic military operations are prohibited by the constitution. From Wikipedia:
Maybe someone should send them an email or something? Oh wait, the constiution doesn't matter anymore on this issue because of Executive Directive 51. From wikipedia:
So what do you guys think, is having our military here to perform police duties an evil plot to overthrow our Republic, or just a response to chaos that occured during Katrina?
I was surprised Bush went on the air and mentioned the possibility of more bank failures. While I realize he wanted the "No Banker Left Behind" bailout to go through, he might have cause more harm by waking up the masses to how big our economic problems are.
The people who don't pay attention who scare me, because they are the ones most likely to panic and cause a bank run, or food shortage. They are also easily spooked by stupid things (IE if the Dow dropped by 500 today) rather than stuff that should ring the alarm bells (HELLO, FANNIE AND FREDDIE WERE NATIONALIZED).
Stupid people are typicaly just an annoyance, but stupid people in a panic are downright dangerous. I hope this doesn't sound elitist, because that isn't my intention. It's simply that uninformed and scared is a bad combination to have, especially in large numbers.
Which brings me to the topic for the first edition of Tinfoil Thursday: Martial Law!
The US military is starting domestic tours of duty soon, to act
as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks
Well there is nothing wrong with that right? We can have our soldiers helping us out if there is some 'man made emergency" or whatever the fuck they said.
I suppose one setback to this operation would be that domestic military operations are prohibited by the constitution. From Wikipedia:
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.
The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.
Maybe someone should send them an email or something? Oh wait, the constiution doesn't matter anymore on this issue because of Executive Directive 51. From wikipedia:
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." [1]
The unclassified portion of the directive was posted on the White House website on May 9, 2007, without any further announcement or press briefings,[2] although Special Assistant to George W. Bush Gordon Johndroe answered several questions on the matter when asked about it by members of the press in early June 2007
So what do you guys think, is having our military here to perform police duties an evil plot to overthrow our Republic, or just a response to chaos that occured during Katrina?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The "No Banker Left Behind" Act of 2008
As soon as tomorrow, congress could vote on emergency action to rescue the investment banks from the bad mortgages they committed to.
For the sake of argument, we'll call the legislation the "No Banker Left Behind" act.
What the media and government are telling us is "this bill must be passed to avoid an economic catastrophe."
The calls for swift action are led by Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who also happens to be the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Well, avoiding another depression sounds like a good deal for the taxpayer, right?
The governments plan is to allow the secretary of the treasury to buy these bad mortgages from banks, which would make the banks and markets more stable.
The government would then be on the hook for these mortgages, which means in the end that YOU the taxpayer will be on the hook for the mistakes of the bad lenders and defaulting borrowers.
You can find the full text of the proposed legislation here.
The media is calling this a 700 billion dollar bailout. I would say it's safe to assume the total cost will easily eclipse one trillion dollars.
So lets take some time to look at this legislation the government is rushing to pass.
Notice that "protecting the taxpayer" comes after providing stability for the bankers. At least they were honest with the order of the list. With this legislation Paulson will have the power to buy back whatever he wants from banks, and to nationalize or force banks to do whatever he sees fit to 'fix the problem'.
This is the de-facto nationalization of the banking and insurance industry.
The part about only buying mortgages from institutions headquartered in the US is worth noting. Would this prevent China (Who Paulson has close ties with) from selling a bad mortgage back to Goldman Sachs for 60 cents on the dollar, and then the US government buying it from Goldman at 70 and sticking the taxpayer with the bill?
In addition, Paulson later talked about expanding the program so US taxpayers bail out foreigners without the tinfoil laundering scheme I mentioned above.
Notice that this isn't the total amount they can ever have, it's just the amount that can be on the books at one time. So it sounds as if they were to buy a mortgage at $300,000 from Goldman Sachs, they could then turn around and sell it elsewhere for $200,000. The taxpayers basically foot the bill for the loss, and then there is more room to buy more assets.
The worst part is section 8:
There is no oversight.
Paulson would be untouchable by the law.
So what do the presidential candidates think about this legislation?
John McCain has not come out against this legislation. In fact, he supports the idea of bailing out the bankers. I suppose it shouldn't be a suprise when you look at the top 10 companies his donations have come from. (Credit: OpenSecrets.org)
Merrill Lynch $298,413
Citigroup Inc $269,251
Morgan Stanley $233,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
AT&T Inc $174,487
Blank Rome LLP $150,426
Credit Suisse Group $150,025
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787
UBS AG $140,165
Surely, Barack Obama must be against this! After all, he's the candidate of Change™!
Actually Obama has come out in favor of bailing out the banks. A look at his top 10 campaign contribution list might shed some light on his position.
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
SHIT! It can't really be that simple can it? Does the banking industry give enough in political donations, and simply have so many lobbyists that they can get candidates to agree to have taxpayers bail them out in an election year?
Probably.
In addition I'll note that John McCain has Phil Gramm on his campaign, who basically allowed banking lobbyists to write the Gramm Leach Bliley Act which was part of the cause of this crap.
And Obama, his VP vetting team was headed up by the former Chairman of Fannie Mae, Jim Johnson...who had to resign in disgrace after getting a sweetheart loans for himself and friends.
The banking industry fought tooth and nail to get that law passed in 1999 to allow them to leverage themselves (hold less money) more than was previously allowable by law.
Making money by giving out mortgages isn't hard. You require 20% down, and then you charge interest. The problem is the bankers wanted more. They wanted to be able to then package mortgages up and sell them to other people. They wanted to be able to invest and leverage themselves in 'exotic' ways to maximize profit.
So they hired some lobbyists, and with enough time, effort, and distraction they got what they wanted.
Now that they've leeched their millions off the backs of the uninformed people, they once again want more. The bloodsuckers have not yet had their fill.
They don't want to pay the piper. They don't want to pay for their mistakes. They don't want to face the ultimate regulators in capitalism: Bankruptcy and failure.
Additionally, there is no guarantee this will work.
Taxpayers taking on this kind of potential debt may temporarily settle the financial markets, and make the investment bankers happy....
Or it could dampen the desire of foreigners to invest in the dollar, as the US approaches insolvency and threatens to repudiate its debts.
Or we could just end up with a deflationary depression anyway. We've seen amazing wealth destruction in the past few months, and we've had the telltale signs of deflation...the monster that feeds upon wealth destruction to become stronger...and destroy more wealth.
I don't know what is worse, the situation America is in, the media's reporting of it, or the fact that nobody is really paying attention.
Doesn't anyone ever stop and ask themselves, why doesn't the democrat Obama, the champion of the "people" propose that we bailout the actual homeowners rather than the billionaire bankers?
Doesn't anyone ever stop and ask themselves, why doesn't the republican McCain, the champion of free market capitalism propose that we let these banks fail, and suffer the hard consequences of economic downturn rather than socialize our banking and insurance industries at the expense of the taxpayer?
Nobody ever wonders these things, because the media never bothers to ask. People don't have the time to dig for the truth, or even at least read the proposed legislation and come to their own conclusions.
Our fellow citizens, with their chronic inattentiveness have turned our democracy into an idiocracy.
It's a pure farce, I feel as if I'm watching a bad movie.
Both candidates are in bed with the banking industry that wrote the 1999 law that caused this mess. Now they're going to get the taxpayers to bail them out! And the media for the most part is silent, other than to tell us about how BAD things could turn out if action is not taken.
It's a legislative gang rape. The collective citizens are the rape victim, with the bankers and politicians perpetrating the rape. The media stands on the sidelines recording it for prosperity, while they remind us it's for our own good so we should enjoy it.
So once the democrats are appeased with something they can champion during the election, look for this legislation to pass. If it goes through congress, the only comfort I will have will be when I read the vote count which will likely be:
434 to 1.
For the sake of argument, we'll call the legislation the "No Banker Left Behind" act.
What the media and government are telling us is "this bill must be passed to avoid an economic catastrophe."
The calls for swift action are led by Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who also happens to be the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Well, avoiding another depression sounds like a good deal for the taxpayer, right?
The governments plan is to allow the secretary of the treasury to buy these bad mortgages from banks, which would make the banks and markets more stable.
The government would then be on the hook for these mortgages, which means in the end that YOU the taxpayer will be on the hook for the mistakes of the bad lenders and defaulting borrowers.
You can find the full text of the proposed legislation here.
The media is calling this a 700 billion dollar bailout. I would say it's safe to assume the total cost will easily eclipse one trillion dollars.
So lets take some time to look at this legislation the government is rushing to pass.
Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Authority to Purchase.—The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.
(b) Necessary Actions.—The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:
(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;
(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;
(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;
(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and
(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for—
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer.
Notice that "protecting the taxpayer" comes after providing stability for the bankers. At least they were honest with the order of the list. With this legislation Paulson will have the power to buy back whatever he wants from banks, and to nationalize or force banks to do whatever he sees fit to 'fix the problem'.
This is the de-facto nationalization of the banking and insurance industry.
The part about only buying mortgages from institutions headquartered in the US is worth noting. Would this prevent China (Who Paulson has close ties with) from selling a bad mortgage back to Goldman Sachs for 60 cents on the dollar, and then the US government buying it from Goldman at 70 and sticking the taxpayer with the bill?
In addition, Paulson later talked about expanding the program so US taxpayers bail out foreigners without the tinfoil laundering scheme I mentioned above.
Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.
The Secretarys authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time
Notice that this isn't the total amount they can ever have, it's just the amount that can be on the books at one time. So it sounds as if they were to buy a mortgage at $300,000 from Goldman Sachs, they could then turn around and sell it elsewhere for $200,000. The taxpayers basically foot the bill for the loss, and then there is more room to buy more assets.
The worst part is section 8:
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
There is no oversight.
Paulson would be untouchable by the law.
So what do the presidential candidates think about this legislation?
John McCain has not come out against this legislation. In fact, he supports the idea of bailing out the bankers. I suppose it shouldn't be a suprise when you look at the top 10 companies his donations have come from. (Credit: OpenSecrets.org)
Merrill Lynch $298,413
Citigroup Inc $269,251
Morgan Stanley $233,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
AT&T Inc $174,487
Blank Rome LLP $150,426
Credit Suisse Group $150,025
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787
UBS AG $140,165
Surely, Barack Obama must be against this! After all, he's the candidate of Change™!
Actually Obama has come out in favor of bailing out the banks. A look at his top 10 campaign contribution list might shed some light on his position.
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
SHIT! It can't really be that simple can it? Does the banking industry give enough in political donations, and simply have so many lobbyists that they can get candidates to agree to have taxpayers bail them out in an election year?
Probably.
In addition I'll note that John McCain has Phil Gramm on his campaign, who basically allowed banking lobbyists to write the Gramm Leach Bliley Act which was part of the cause of this crap.
And Obama, his VP vetting team was headed up by the former Chairman of Fannie Mae, Jim Johnson...who had to resign in disgrace after getting a sweetheart loans for himself and friends.
The banking industry fought tooth and nail to get that law passed in 1999 to allow them to leverage themselves (hold less money) more than was previously allowable by law.
Making money by giving out mortgages isn't hard. You require 20% down, and then you charge interest. The problem is the bankers wanted more. They wanted to be able to then package mortgages up and sell them to other people. They wanted to be able to invest and leverage themselves in 'exotic' ways to maximize profit.
So they hired some lobbyists, and with enough time, effort, and distraction they got what they wanted.
Now that they've leeched their millions off the backs of the uninformed people, they once again want more. The bloodsuckers have not yet had their fill.
They don't want to pay the piper. They don't want to pay for their mistakes. They don't want to face the ultimate regulators in capitalism: Bankruptcy and failure.
Additionally, there is no guarantee this will work.
Taxpayers taking on this kind of potential debt may temporarily settle the financial markets, and make the investment bankers happy....
Or it could dampen the desire of foreigners to invest in the dollar, as the US approaches insolvency and threatens to repudiate its debts.
Or we could just end up with a deflationary depression anyway. We've seen amazing wealth destruction in the past few months, and we've had the telltale signs of deflation...the monster that feeds upon wealth destruction to become stronger...and destroy more wealth.
I don't know what is worse, the situation America is in, the media's reporting of it, or the fact that nobody is really paying attention.
Doesn't anyone ever stop and ask themselves, why doesn't the democrat Obama, the champion of the "people" propose that we bailout the actual homeowners rather than the billionaire bankers?
Doesn't anyone ever stop and ask themselves, why doesn't the republican McCain, the champion of free market capitalism propose that we let these banks fail, and suffer the hard consequences of economic downturn rather than socialize our banking and insurance industries at the expense of the taxpayer?
Nobody ever wonders these things, because the media never bothers to ask. People don't have the time to dig for the truth, or even at least read the proposed legislation and come to their own conclusions.
Our fellow citizens, with their chronic inattentiveness have turned our democracy into an idiocracy.
It's a pure farce, I feel as if I'm watching a bad movie.
Both candidates are in bed with the banking industry that wrote the 1999 law that caused this mess. Now they're going to get the taxpayers to bail them out! And the media for the most part is silent, other than to tell us about how BAD things could turn out if action is not taken.
It's a legislative gang rape. The collective citizens are the rape victim, with the bankers and politicians perpetrating the rape. The media stands on the sidelines recording it for prosperity, while they remind us it's for our own good so we should enjoy it.
So once the democrats are appeased with something they can champion during the election, look for this legislation to pass. If it goes through congress, the only comfort I will have will be when I read the vote count which will likely be:
434 to 1.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)