I just couldn't resist pointing somthing out to those who are still wavering as to their allegiance in this election. As millions of college professors and students, hollywood actors, and the undereducated masses dream of the socialist utopia coming from what they see as an inevitable Obama victory, those who actually keep this nation's economy on track - the evil rich business leaders - are running for the hills.
There is no question that Obama's economic policies will take money from those who achieve and give it to those who don't. Even Joe the Plumber can see through the insulting platitudes. What so many don't realize, is that those who achieve are also those who provide jobs. Punish them, and you punish everyone else. Are we really going to welcome Jimmy Carter's policies back to the White House? Because that turned out so well the first time...
So, undecideds: who are you gonna listen to? If you think the people who have made something of themselves deserve to be punished for their success, then I can't help you. But if you've worked hard to achieve something, or plan to any time in the next few years, then I suggest you listen to those of us in the real world. Obama's plans will provide success and power for no one save his own political party, at the expense of everyone - not just the achievers.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Kids Vote Obama...Shocker
What a surprise...Nickelodeon's Kids Pick the President results are in, and Barack Obama is the winner. My daughter will be irate. So, is there anything useful we can learn from this?
Well, for one thing, we now know that if pre-teens were allowed to choose our president, they'd go with Obama. Shocker.
But the margin of Obama's mock victory actually is a bit surprising, especially considering that Barry is supposed to be the "kewl" candidate this election season. Supporting BO is all the rage, don't you know. So you'd think that the hip hero of HopeChangeHope would've won by a landslide...well, not so much. 51%-49% isn't exactly convincing.
Let's all remind ourselves that John Kerry - the antithesis of cool - was the Kid's choice for prez back in 2004, winning 57% of the teeny-bopper vote. That was the first time Nick's mock election failed to accurately predict the winner since its first poll in 1988.
Well, for one thing, we now know that if pre-teens were allowed to choose our president, they'd go with Obama. Shocker.
But the margin of Obama's mock victory actually is a bit surprising, especially considering that Barry is supposed to be the "kewl" candidate this election season. Supporting BO is all the rage, don't you know. So you'd think that the hip hero of HopeChangeHope would've won by a landslide...well, not so much. 51%-49% isn't exactly convincing.
Let's all remind ourselves that John Kerry - the antithesis of cool - was the Kid's choice for prez back in 2004, winning 57% of the teeny-bopper vote. That was the first time Nick's mock election failed to accurately predict the winner since its first poll in 1988.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Let's Stop Kidding Ourselves
Over the past few days I've been trying to convince myself that things will be fine if Obama is elected president. I've tried to tell myself that his disasterous policies will awaken the sleeping masses of ordinary Americans, who I believe are still moderately conservative overall, much like the Carter administration helped to sweep Reagan into office. I told myself that the damage Obama, and an overwhelming Democrat majority in congress, will undoubtedly cause can be reversed in the years following his time in office.
Then I read Michael Medved's column in Townhall. Talk about a wake-up call. Those of us who are already trying to rationalize away the potential ramifications of an Obama presidency would do well to listen to these warnings. There is no question that a likely 8 years of this kind of leadership would have dramatic effects on the future of this nation. My daughter will be leaving for college at the end of this hypothetical Obama presidency, and the picture I see for her future is not bright.
Under Obama's promised policies we will no longer live in a nation that rewards hard work with success, but will see those who achieve success duly punished by having to pay for those who don't. We will see even larger groups of people bought and paid for by the Democrat Party - "free" health care, unlimited access to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and an unprecedented expansion of every failed government program in existence, all in exchange for thousands of new welfare addicts - aka, loyal Democrat voters.
I believe this is why it's so difficult for the conservative movement to maintain power for long periods of time. The New Deal laid the ground work for a powerful political strategy: secure power for the Democrat Party by using government to buy people off. Let the government pay for its citizens' healthcare, housing, education, retirement, etc. Give the ignorant, short-sighted, lazy masses what they want, and you have a strong base of loyal voters for life.
The conservative philosophy, however, encourages a strong sense of personal responsibility, hard work, and individual freedom. Get the government out of the way, and the American people will prosper as a result. There is a reason socialism has failed every time it has been tried - it removes any incentive for success. And as Michael points out, once a government entitlement program is created, the likelihood of it ever being dismantled is very small.
I'm just now starting to appreciate the true significance of this election. Barack Obama's policies, easily implemented by a huge Democrat majority in congress, could not only run this country into the ground, but could create millions of new loyal Democrat voters at the expense of our economy. Yes, it may awaken the silent majority of honest, hardworking Americans to usher in the next Ronald Reagan; but at that point it will likely be too late.
I don't honestly believe that the American people, on the whole, want our nation to move more towards socialism. But I also doubt that too many people are thinking about the direction of our nation right now. Most people are more concerned about their own problems, and at this point want someone to "pay" for them. People want change. They want someone else to make their oversized mortgage payments, pay for their healthcare, and provide free daycare in the form of government "preschool" programs. That all sounds great to the cash-strapped masses.
These are frightening times for those who worry about the direction of our nation. We need to remember to trust in God's sovereignty, and in His ability to work out His will, even in the face of leaders who are likely to oppose it. It's time to stop worrying, and start praying.
Then I read Michael Medved's column in Townhall. Talk about a wake-up call. Those of us who are already trying to rationalize away the potential ramifications of an Obama presidency would do well to listen to these warnings. There is no question that a likely 8 years of this kind of leadership would have dramatic effects on the future of this nation. My daughter will be leaving for college at the end of this hypothetical Obama presidency, and the picture I see for her future is not bright.
Under Obama's promised policies we will no longer live in a nation that rewards hard work with success, but will see those who achieve success duly punished by having to pay for those who don't. We will see even larger groups of people bought and paid for by the Democrat Party - "free" health care, unlimited access to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and an unprecedented expansion of every failed government program in existence, all in exchange for thousands of new welfare addicts - aka, loyal Democrat voters.
I believe this is why it's so difficult for the conservative movement to maintain power for long periods of time. The New Deal laid the ground work for a powerful political strategy: secure power for the Democrat Party by using government to buy people off. Let the government pay for its citizens' healthcare, housing, education, retirement, etc. Give the ignorant, short-sighted, lazy masses what they want, and you have a strong base of loyal voters for life.
The conservative philosophy, however, encourages a strong sense of personal responsibility, hard work, and individual freedom. Get the government out of the way, and the American people will prosper as a result. There is a reason socialism has failed every time it has been tried - it removes any incentive for success. And as Michael points out, once a government entitlement program is created, the likelihood of it ever being dismantled is very small.
I'm just now starting to appreciate the true significance of this election. Barack Obama's policies, easily implemented by a huge Democrat majority in congress, could not only run this country into the ground, but could create millions of new loyal Democrat voters at the expense of our economy. Yes, it may awaken the silent majority of honest, hardworking Americans to usher in the next Ronald Reagan; but at that point it will likely be too late.
I don't honestly believe that the American people, on the whole, want our nation to move more towards socialism. But I also doubt that too many people are thinking about the direction of our nation right now. Most people are more concerned about their own problems, and at this point want someone to "pay" for them. People want change. They want someone else to make their oversized mortgage payments, pay for their healthcare, and provide free daycare in the form of government "preschool" programs. That all sounds great to the cash-strapped masses.
These are frightening times for those who worry about the direction of our nation. We need to remember to trust in God's sovereignty, and in His ability to work out His will, even in the face of leaders who are likely to oppose it. It's time to stop worrying, and start praying.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Jim Marshall, Democrublican
My congressman, Jim Marshall, has always been a pretty bright guy. He realizes that the district he represents is extremely conservative. He managed to get elected to congress due to his popularity in Bibb County and Macon, where he also served as mayor, and has survived the republican ascendancy of the last decade mainly by distancing himself from his own party.
His last win, however, was by a very narrow margin, despite the GOP bloodbath of 2006. As Erick pointed out last week, his district has now been redrawn to pretty much mirror what it looked like when Saxby represented it. I believe Saxby, despite polls that show his current campaign relatively close, is still fairly popular in this district. Whether that will help Marshall's opponent, Rick Goddard, remains to be seen, but as I pointed out several months ago, it wouldn't take much to bring Marshall down.
The ad is basically claiming that Marshall is just as conservative as Rick Goddard, and is clearly aimed at the conservative talk radio market. The problem is that Jim Marshall is no conservative. His sponsorship of the biggest gift to union thugs in history alone proves that. The bottom line is that he knows he has to pretend to be conservative to keep his job, voting with the GOP on Democrat initiatives that he knows will pass anyway, and hiding behind the liberal leadership that HE helps put in place.
Wake up conservatives! He may vote with the GOP sometimes, but he puts people like Pelosi in charge of the House, and indirectly advances his party's liberal policy agenda no matter how he votes. I feel a letter to the editor coming on...
His last win, however, was by a very narrow margin, despite the GOP bloodbath of 2006. As Erick pointed out last week, his district has now been redrawn to pretty much mirror what it looked like when Saxby represented it. I believe Saxby, despite polls that show his current campaign relatively close, is still fairly popular in this district. Whether that will help Marshall's opponent, Rick Goddard, remains to be seen, but as I pointed out several months ago, it wouldn't take much to bring Marshall down.
Even in the 2006 election - a disaster for the GOP nationally- Collins [Marshall's 2006 opponent] only fell short by 1752 votes, or one percentage point, after running a fairly lackluster campaign. The problem is that Goddard, or any candidate for this seat, needs to make significant gains in Bibb county, where Marshall received nearly 60% of the vote, in order to win the seat. So far, Marshall has too much support from voters in this area who otherwise tend to support conservatives. Proof of this can be seen in the results for Governor in this same election. Sonny Perdue won over Democrat Mark Taylor by 1881 votes in Bibb County. Overall, 18,954 Bibb County voters chose Perdue, while only 13,893 voted for Collins.Jim Marshall has been running ads all over television and radio - something he has not really done in the past. This suggests that he is at least somewhat concerned about his chances this year. His latest ad is, quite frankly, hilarious. It's been airing on the local radio station, which broadcasts conservative talk shows like Boortz, Limbaugh, and Hannity all day long. In the ad, Marshall brags about his endorsement from the NRA (a poor decision by the NRA, despite his support for gun rights), and even claims that "conservatives Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh have praised" his record as a congressman.
The ad is basically claiming that Marshall is just as conservative as Rick Goddard, and is clearly aimed at the conservative talk radio market. The problem is that Jim Marshall is no conservative. His sponsorship of the biggest gift to union thugs in history alone proves that. The bottom line is that he knows he has to pretend to be conservative to keep his job, voting with the GOP on Democrat initiatives that he knows will pass anyway, and hiding behind the liberal leadership that HE helps put in place.
Wake up conservatives! He may vote with the GOP sometimes, but he puts people like Pelosi in charge of the House, and indirectly advances his party's liberal policy agenda no matter how he votes. I feel a letter to the editor coming on...
100
Apparently, this is my 100th post since stepping into the blogging realm. I hate to be so gloomy at such a milestone, but things are not looking good for conservatives. Most of the folks "in the know" within conservative circles are preparing for a very bad day on November 4. John McCain remains the only hope for salvaging something from what looks more and more like an impending electoral slaughter. And even his chances have been severely hindered by the current economic mess.
I was pretty optimistic a month ago, with the race virtually tied in a political climate that should have provided any competent Democrat with an easy victory. The economic crisis has changed all that. Never mind that it was Democrats who got us into this mess in the first place. Americans are too apathetic and ignorant to bother finding out the real causes for this crisis. The GOP was in charge, so it must be their fault. Unfortunately, it looks like this ignorance may help to put those people in place who can do the most harm in such a situation.
Some are now talking about a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Even Saxby may now be in trouble. If this does occur, we're in deep horse manure - especially with Barry McSocialism in the White House, ready to sign whatever take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor plan Reid and Pelosi can come up with. It's all very depressing to be honest. Thankfully, we have some assurance that we're not really at the mercy of the ignorant masses:
Besides, Rush was at his most entertaining when America had its last bad president. If nothing else, the inevitable resurgence of conservatism after the Carter-like performance we are sure to get from Obama shows, once again, the idiocy of liberalism, will make it all worth while.
I was pretty optimistic a month ago, with the race virtually tied in a political climate that should have provided any competent Democrat with an easy victory. The economic crisis has changed all that. Never mind that it was Democrats who got us into this mess in the first place. Americans are too apathetic and ignorant to bother finding out the real causes for this crisis. The GOP was in charge, so it must be their fault. Unfortunately, it looks like this ignorance may help to put those people in place who can do the most harm in such a situation.
Some are now talking about a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Even Saxby may now be in trouble. If this does occur, we're in deep horse manure - especially with Barry McSocialism in the White House, ready to sign whatever take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor plan Reid and Pelosi can come up with. It's all very depressing to be honest. Thankfully, we have some assurance that we're not really at the mercy of the ignorant masses:
"Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him. It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men, and knowledge to men of understanding." Daniel 2:20,21Who knows...a lot can happen in 3 weeks time. If John McCain can come out swinging in this last debate, challenging Obama on all of his lies and distortions, he can go a long way towards energizing his base, if nothing else. But if not, we can rest in the fact that God has proven in the past that His will can be accomplished by, or in spite of, even the worst of leaders.
Besides, Rush was at his most entertaining when America had its last bad president. If nothing else, the inevitable resurgence of conservatism after the Carter-like performance we are sure to get from Obama shows, once again, the idiocy of liberalism, will make it all worth while.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Bailout Bust
Well, it looks like our good friends in Washington have managed to once again take a bad idea and make it much worse. I admit that the bailout bill was probably necessary, and that after having looked at the actual details of the plan, the charges of socialism are a wee bit exagerated. The populist rhetoric about taking money from the taxpayers and giving it to the Wall Street fat-cats is not exactly true.
The plan was necessary to avoid a total collapse of our financial system, or so we were told, and I was okay with it in the end. I didn't like it, but would rather be able to cash my paycheck next week, even if it meant moving wildly to the brink of socialism. Unfortunately, congress couldn't even get that right. From what a lot of folks are now saying, the bill has been passed too late to have its full effect. If that's true, we've just flushed $700 billion down the toilet, and will suffer anyway.
The biggest issue with all of this, however, is that we need leadership in place which will take us back from the edge of socialist policy once this crisis is over. I believe it was necessary for the government to step in and help avert a disaster, but the government must be made to step back once all of this blows over. Folks are now talking about the Fed nationalizing the major financial institutions in the U.S. If this happens, things are even more critical.
Barack Obama is not a free market kind of guy. His instinct is to use government to solve everyone's problems, and he cannot be trusted to lead our nation back to its proven system of captitalism. Combine that with the fact that he plans to increase government spending in virtually every area (besides defense), and this crisis will look like a tea party after 4 to 8 years of his leadership.
Do we really want to put a glorified political activist, with the arrogance and common sense of a college professor, in charge of all of this? Seriously?
The plan was necessary to avoid a total collapse of our financial system, or so we were told, and I was okay with it in the end. I didn't like it, but would rather be able to cash my paycheck next week, even if it meant moving wildly to the brink of socialism. Unfortunately, congress couldn't even get that right. From what a lot of folks are now saying, the bill has been passed too late to have its full effect. If that's true, we've just flushed $700 billion down the toilet, and will suffer anyway.
The biggest issue with all of this, however, is that we need leadership in place which will take us back from the edge of socialist policy once this crisis is over. I believe it was necessary for the government to step in and help avert a disaster, but the government must be made to step back once all of this blows over. Folks are now talking about the Fed nationalizing the major financial institutions in the U.S. If this happens, things are even more critical.
Barack Obama is not a free market kind of guy. His instinct is to use government to solve everyone's problems, and he cannot be trusted to lead our nation back to its proven system of captitalism. Combine that with the fact that he plans to increase government spending in virtually every area (besides defense), and this crisis will look like a tea party after 4 to 8 years of his leadership.
Do we really want to put a glorified political activist, with the arrogance and common sense of a college professor, in charge of all of this? Seriously?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
SNL Gets it Right
This is just brilliant. I also find it astonishing that NBC, basically a mouthpiece for Democrats in this election season, decided to air something so...truthful.
Let's put a socialist in charge!
It's been difficult to find time to blog lately, but I feel the need to vent. I'm starting to believe that this financial crisis could be the end of McCain's chances for the presidency. The problem, of course, is that we're about to put an avowed socialist in charge of our nation. This socialist will have the responsibility of charting a course out of this economic mess, and I have little faith that such a course will lead anywhere but down the path of more government control and less freedom.
Obama's charge that it was a lack of regulation that led to the current crisis is not only silly, it's insulting to those of us who actually bother to educate ourselves concerning such things. Even Saturday Night Live has a better grasp on the cause of this crisis. Obama's buddies over at ACORN and Fannie/Freddie have run our economy into the ground. Sure, we can say that republicans did too little to stop shady lending practices encouraged by the government, but they at least acknowledged the problem years ago, and made an attempt at regulation.
The simple fact is that this crisis can be laid at the feet of liberal democrat policy, pushed by Clinton, Barney Frank (at the behest of his lover at Fannie Mae), Obama, and every other Democrat who wanted to give everyone a home - regardless of their ability to pay for it. Liberal policy and government regulation created this problem - it is not the solution.
Government is never the antedote to anything...other than prosperity.
Obama's charge that it was a lack of regulation that led to the current crisis is not only silly, it's insulting to those of us who actually bother to educate ourselves concerning such things. Even Saturday Night Live has a better grasp on the cause of this crisis. Obama's buddies over at ACORN and Fannie/Freddie have run our economy into the ground. Sure, we can say that republicans did too little to stop shady lending practices encouraged by the government, but they at least acknowledged the problem years ago, and made an attempt at regulation.
The simple fact is that this crisis can be laid at the feet of liberal democrat policy, pushed by Clinton, Barney Frank (at the behest of his lover at Fannie Mae), Obama, and every other Democrat who wanted to give everyone a home - regardless of their ability to pay for it. Liberal policy and government regulation created this problem - it is not the solution.
Government is never the antedote to anything...other than prosperity.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Bailout
According to Blackhedd, the TARP plan being pushed by Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke is, in fact, a bailout. He goes into the details here, but the gist of it, as I understand it, is as follows:
The government will set up a new entity (the First National "Bad Bank") that will purchase all of Wall Street's investments in bad loans. This will allow the banks to get their bad debts off of their balance sheets, and hopefully let them start pumping money back into our economy through making loans, etc. The word is that if this doesn't happen, many banks will fail, and others will stop making loans altogether, shaking the foundations of our economy, leading to deflation, loss of jobs, bad things in general...
The problem, and where this plan becomes either a bailout of Wall Street, or a necessary intervention by the government for stability, is in the actual valuation of the mortgage-based assets being purchased. According to Blackhedd, if the government purchases these assets at too low a price, the banks (at least those who made bad loans) will lose too much money, and collapse anyway. If the valuation is too high, the banks make out like bandits, basically being rewarded for bad behavior, and inflation will occur in the general economy.
From the testimony to congress yesterday, it sounds like the current plan is to err on the side of inflation, and overvalue the assets. This is not sitting well with conservatives (myself included) as it is basically proof that the administration wants to "bail out" the Wall Street executives. I don't think that's their underlying motive - as Blackhedd points out, Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and knows all about the dangers of deflation - they are most likely ensuring that the economy stays strong overall. But this looks very bad in the eyes of the general public. The Republicans are helping out their rich, evil CEO buddies on Wall Street, at the expense of us poor folks.
Politically, this is very bad for the GOP. If we oppose the plan on principle, we risk a serious depression in the economy, for which Republicans will take the blame. If we support it, we play in to the left's stereotypes of handouts for the rich. Overall, I think this dangerous step towards socialism is going to be a necessary evil. The capitalist in me wants the government to take a hands-off approach to this - allowing those who take foolish risks to reap their just rewards. But the father/husband/employee in me doesn't want to see the overall economy spiral into a depression, with banks unable to make loans, companies unable to expand and grow, and people losing their jobs left and right.
The scariest part of this is that we are delving into the world of socialism, while teetering dangerously close to electing a socialist in Obama, who will have to deal with this in the immediate future. A government with this much influence in the "free market" needs a leader who will work to get us back to where we started before all this happened, not someone whose instincts are to take us further down the road to socialism.
The government will set up a new entity (the First National "Bad Bank") that will purchase all of Wall Street's investments in bad loans. This will allow the banks to get their bad debts off of their balance sheets, and hopefully let them start pumping money back into our economy through making loans, etc. The word is that if this doesn't happen, many banks will fail, and others will stop making loans altogether, shaking the foundations of our economy, leading to deflation, loss of jobs, bad things in general...
The problem, and where this plan becomes either a bailout of Wall Street, or a necessary intervention by the government for stability, is in the actual valuation of the mortgage-based assets being purchased. According to Blackhedd, if the government purchases these assets at too low a price, the banks (at least those who made bad loans) will lose too much money, and collapse anyway. If the valuation is too high, the banks make out like bandits, basically being rewarded for bad behavior, and inflation will occur in the general economy.
From the testimony to congress yesterday, it sounds like the current plan is to err on the side of inflation, and overvalue the assets. This is not sitting well with conservatives (myself included) as it is basically proof that the administration wants to "bail out" the Wall Street executives. I don't think that's their underlying motive - as Blackhedd points out, Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and knows all about the dangers of deflation - they are most likely ensuring that the economy stays strong overall. But this looks very bad in the eyes of the general public. The Republicans are helping out their rich, evil CEO buddies on Wall Street, at the expense of us poor folks.
Politically, this is very bad for the GOP. If we oppose the plan on principle, we risk a serious depression in the economy, for which Republicans will take the blame. If we support it, we play in to the left's stereotypes of handouts for the rich. Overall, I think this dangerous step towards socialism is going to be a necessary evil. The capitalist in me wants the government to take a hands-off approach to this - allowing those who take foolish risks to reap their just rewards. But the father/husband/employee in me doesn't want to see the overall economy spiral into a depression, with banks unable to make loans, companies unable to expand and grow, and people losing their jobs left and right.
The scariest part of this is that we are delving into the world of socialism, while teetering dangerously close to electing a socialist in Obama, who will have to deal with this in the immediate future. A government with this much influence in the "free market" needs a leader who will work to get us back to where we started before all this happened, not someone whose instincts are to take us further down the road to socialism.
Pointing the Finger
Well, everyone's doing it these days, so I thought I'd dig into some facts and see who really is to blame for this mess in the financial world. CNN is out with a poll showing that most people (a 2-to-1 margin) are blaming Republicans for the current crisis. That doesn't surprise me in the least, as most people don't bother to look for facts when it comes to this kind of thing. It's much easier to look at who's been in charge over the last few years, and lazily assume it's their fault.
And to a certain degree, a great deal of blame can be laid at the feet of the GOP for not working harder to make changes to a system that was sending out clear signs of warning for quite some time. But what exactly is at the heart of this current crisis? What is the underlying cause for so much bloodshed on Wall Street?
Blackhedd, at Redstate, has been a source of reliable inside information on this issue for the last few weeks, and thanks to him I think I've gotten a pretty good idea of what's happened. I'm no financial wizard by any means, but I do know that most people will agree that mortgage back securities are at the root of the current mess. When lots of people default on their mortgages, the companies who have invested in the associated securities lose their arses. So who's fault is it that these mortgage companies gave loans to people who couldn't afford them?
It was Democrat policy that started pressuring banks into "providing affordable housing" to any and everyone. It was Democrat policy that implemented Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA. It was left-wing special interest groups like ACORN who threatened mortgage companies and banks with shutting down their operations if they refused to give risky loans. And it was Democrats in congress who blocked a bill, sponsored by John McCain, that would have reformed Fannie and Freddie back in 2005.
So, considering that the average person is either too apathetic or dimwitted to understand these facts, and the news media is all too willing to ignore them in pursuit of their own agenda, I suppose it makes perfect sense that the GOP is getting the blame. After all, we are all evil rich white guys who care about nothing but making money at the expense of poor people, right?
And to a certain degree, a great deal of blame can be laid at the feet of the GOP for not working harder to make changes to a system that was sending out clear signs of warning for quite some time. But what exactly is at the heart of this current crisis? What is the underlying cause for so much bloodshed on Wall Street?
Blackhedd, at Redstate, has been a source of reliable inside information on this issue for the last few weeks, and thanks to him I think I've gotten a pretty good idea of what's happened. I'm no financial wizard by any means, but I do know that most people will agree that mortgage back securities are at the root of the current mess. When lots of people default on their mortgages, the companies who have invested in the associated securities lose their arses. So who's fault is it that these mortgage companies gave loans to people who couldn't afford them?
It was Democrat policy that started pressuring banks into "providing affordable housing" to any and everyone. It was Democrat policy that implemented Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA. It was left-wing special interest groups like ACORN who threatened mortgage companies and banks with shutting down their operations if they refused to give risky loans. And it was Democrats in congress who blocked a bill, sponsored by John McCain, that would have reformed Fannie and Freddie back in 2005.
So, considering that the average person is either too apathetic or dimwitted to understand these facts, and the news media is all too willing to ignore them in pursuit of their own agenda, I suppose it makes perfect sense that the GOP is getting the blame. After all, we are all evil rich white guys who care about nothing but making money at the expense of poor people, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)