If you haven’t heard, the 700 billion dollar bailout package failed to pass congress today. In response, the stock market fell over 700 points, the largest one day drop in history.
You want to know why it failed to pass? The answer is partisan politics, pure and simple. The so called “bi-partisan” effort that was supposed to be happening didn’t. I’m beginning to think that the whole notion of bi-partisanship is a myth. If the democrats and republicans can’t set politics aside and pull together in a crisis this serious, they NEVER will.
The bill may have had a chance to pass but then Nancy Pelosi, the head democratic nut job got up and made a caustic speech demonizing the Bush administration, blaming them for the whole situation, insulted and denigrating all republicans and then expected them to join her in the vote? If that’s her idea of bi-partisanship, of reaching across the isle, of being a leader and bringing people together, well quite frankly, she a nut job. It was absolutely the most outrageous behavior I have ever seen.
She didn’t even wait until after the vote to spew her liberal democratic rhetoric. All she wanted to do was what democrats always do, point fingers and blame others when they are the ones actually at fault. As I stated in my previous post, all the housing market and bad mortgage problems were started by the democrats forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to deal in the bad paper and even after repeated warnings by the Bush administration they did nothing to fix it. Democrats, as recently as a few months ago insisting there was nothing wrong with those two institutions. All the warnings went unheeded by congress.
They also immediately blamed the republicans for the bill not passing today. Well, guess what! 95 democrats voted against the bill. It failed by 12 votes so why didn’t these 95 democrats vote for it and pass it? They have a majority. There is no excuse for them not to pass it! If Ms. Pelosi was any kind of leader at all, she should have been able to get 12 more votes out of 95 in her own party.
I’ll tell you, I’m not too happy with ANY of these politicians at the moment, but these democrats are absolutely disgusting. If the test of a politician is how good a LIAR you are, they take the prize.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Who Really Caused the Current Economic Calamity
Well, even though John McCain said he wanted to put off the debate until the bailout legislation was passed, he showed up and they had the debate as scheduled. Both performed relatively well and neither made any major gaffes. After the debate, all the Obama supporters claimed he won while all the McCain supporters claimed their candidate won. Very predictable.
What happened after the debate? John McCain went back to Washington to continue working on the problem facing the country. Barack Obama went right back to campaigning, again putting himself first and country second. His primary message today is railing about how President Bush and John McCain are entirely to blame for our economic situation. He’s busy talking while McCain is taking action.
His actions and the rhetoric he is spewing today are not just irresponsible but downright despicable. Not only is he ignoring his responsibility as a United States Senator, the job he is getting paid for by the way, but he is spending his time pointing fingers and laying blame while not lifting a finger to help the situation. The worst part is, he is pointing at the wrong people and the wrong party.
Let’s take a look at some facts. Everybody wants to blame Wallstreet right now and while part of the blame might lie there, it isn’t the root cause. The real cause of the current problems originates in the housing market and irresponsible lending, primarily by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The subprime lending, the so called “bad paper” that all the greedy bad guys were dealing in, that’s the cause, right? Well, what caused that?
Let’s start at the beginning in the Clinton administration. The wonderful liberal democrats thought it was unfair that a larger percentage of minorities were being denied home loans. They decided to do something about it so they ventured into the area of social engineering to mandate that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lower the standards and make more loans available to minorities. Yes friends and neighbors, it was the democrats that forced the “bad paper” to be written in the first place.
While the spirit of this was admirable and was applauded at the time because it increased home ownership of “those less fortunate” it wasn’t a sound fiscal policy. Strictly from a business standpoint, it was unsound to grant more loans to people with questionable ability to repay. The government was interfering in the free market. The free market looks at ability to repay, credit rating, job status, and other factors ignoring race, creed or color. The federal government (remember – Clinton administration, democrats, early 1990’s) mandated that minority loans must be increased. This government meddling is the root cause of the problem. This was the initial rolling of the little snowball down the hill. The subprime lending increased, more and more companies (like Bear Stearns and Lehman) got involved in dealing in bad paper. The little snowball picked up more snow and grew into the avalanche we have today.
So why didn’t anybody notice this avalanche coming before it hit the ski lodge? Well, actually someone did. It seems that the George Bush administration started warning of problems with Fannie and Freddie specifically and urging congress to take action starting back in 2001. The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." Then another unheeded warning in 2002. In 2003, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight warned that problems “could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market” Warnings continued from the President and his administration urging congress to take action and they all went unheeded. Congress did NOTHING.
So you tell me. Who’s to blame for this mess? Who rolled the snowball? Who repeatedly warned of problems and called for action? And who did nothing?
Barack Obama and his liberal democrat cronies have the gall to say it’s Bush’s fault? It’s John McCain’s fault?
Give me a break…
What happened after the debate? John McCain went back to Washington to continue working on the problem facing the country. Barack Obama went right back to campaigning, again putting himself first and country second. His primary message today is railing about how President Bush and John McCain are entirely to blame for our economic situation. He’s busy talking while McCain is taking action.
His actions and the rhetoric he is spewing today are not just irresponsible but downright despicable. Not only is he ignoring his responsibility as a United States Senator, the job he is getting paid for by the way, but he is spending his time pointing fingers and laying blame while not lifting a finger to help the situation. The worst part is, he is pointing at the wrong people and the wrong party.
Let’s take a look at some facts. Everybody wants to blame Wallstreet right now and while part of the blame might lie there, it isn’t the root cause. The real cause of the current problems originates in the housing market and irresponsible lending, primarily by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The subprime lending, the so called “bad paper” that all the greedy bad guys were dealing in, that’s the cause, right? Well, what caused that?
Let’s start at the beginning in the Clinton administration. The wonderful liberal democrats thought it was unfair that a larger percentage of minorities were being denied home loans. They decided to do something about it so they ventured into the area of social engineering to mandate that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lower the standards and make more loans available to minorities. Yes friends and neighbors, it was the democrats that forced the “bad paper” to be written in the first place.
While the spirit of this was admirable and was applauded at the time because it increased home ownership of “those less fortunate” it wasn’t a sound fiscal policy. Strictly from a business standpoint, it was unsound to grant more loans to people with questionable ability to repay. The government was interfering in the free market. The free market looks at ability to repay, credit rating, job status, and other factors ignoring race, creed or color. The federal government (remember – Clinton administration, democrats, early 1990’s) mandated that minority loans must be increased. This government meddling is the root cause of the problem. This was the initial rolling of the little snowball down the hill. The subprime lending increased, more and more companies (like Bear Stearns and Lehman) got involved in dealing in bad paper. The little snowball picked up more snow and grew into the avalanche we have today.
So why didn’t anybody notice this avalanche coming before it hit the ski lodge? Well, actually someone did. It seems that the George Bush administration started warning of problems with Fannie and Freddie specifically and urging congress to take action starting back in 2001. The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." Then another unheeded warning in 2002. In 2003, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight warned that problems “could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market” Warnings continued from the President and his administration urging congress to take action and they all went unheeded. Congress did NOTHING.
So you tell me. Who’s to blame for this mess? Who rolled the snowball? Who repeatedly warned of problems and called for action? And who did nothing?
Barack Obama and his liberal democrat cronies have the gall to say it’s Bush’s fault? It’s John McCain’s fault?
Give me a break…
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
John McCain Puts Country First Again
Today Senator McCain announced he would suspend his Presidential campaign and asked that Friday’s debate be postponed because he is going to Washington to work on the grave problem facing the country, our failing economy.
The bail out legislation put forth by President Bush has little chance of passing in its present form and congress needs to come together in a by-partisan effort to expedite the changes needed and get it passed.
This is something that needs urgent attention and action and John McCain is putting the welfare of our country first. He is going back to the senate to DO HIS JOB as a Senator and actually do something about this problem.
He communicated his intentions to Senator Obama and asked him to join him in this effort. Senator Obama’s opinion was that congress could handle the problem without him and that the candidates should continue their campaigns and do the debate as scheduled. Barack Obama put himself first and country second.
Now, I ask you, which response to a serious threat to the welfare of this country is the appropriate one?
Which person would you rather have as President of the United States, a man that takes charge and confronts problems without hesitation or someone that would rather let others handle it?
If this situation is a test of these two men, only one passed.
The bail out legislation put forth by President Bush has little chance of passing in its present form and congress needs to come together in a by-partisan effort to expedite the changes needed and get it passed.
This is something that needs urgent attention and action and John McCain is putting the welfare of our country first. He is going back to the senate to DO HIS JOB as a Senator and actually do something about this problem.
He communicated his intentions to Senator Obama and asked him to join him in this effort. Senator Obama’s opinion was that congress could handle the problem without him and that the candidates should continue their campaigns and do the debate as scheduled. Barack Obama put himself first and country second.
Now, I ask you, which response to a serious threat to the welfare of this country is the appropriate one?
Which person would you rather have as President of the United States, a man that takes charge and confronts problems without hesitation or someone that would rather let others handle it?
If this situation is a test of these two men, only one passed.
Friday, September 19, 2008
More On Gas Prices
Well, if you have read any of my previous posts about the state of our economy and the price of gas, here’s another tidbit of information that will get your blood pressure up.
I’ve maintained for quite some time that the oil companies are manipulating the price of crude and the price of gas at the pump and here is more evidence.
Let’s take a look at the barrel price of crude vs. the price of gas at the pump 1 year ago and compare it to the respective prices today.
1 year ago, the price of a barrel of oil was about $82 and we were paying about $2.75 for a gallon of gas at the pump.
When they decided to start hiking up the price, it rose to a record high of about $147 a barrel and the price at the pump peaked out around $4.11 a gallon.
That’s about an 80% increase for the barrel price and a 50% increase at the pump.
Just before the recent artificial hike that they blamed on hurricane Ike, (the hurricane didn’t cause any actual damage to supply or production mind you, so the recent price hike was artificial yet again.) the price of crude had dropped back to about $92 a barrel and the price of a gallon of gas at the pump had only dropped back to about $3.85.
That’s a 37% drop for crude but only a 6 or 7% drop at the pump.
If you want to look at it another way, the net increase over the year for the price of crude is only about 12 – 13% while the price at the pump has gone up 40%.
NOW tell me they’re not ripping us off.
I’ve maintained for quite some time that the oil companies are manipulating the price of crude and the price of gas at the pump and here is more evidence.
Let’s take a look at the barrel price of crude vs. the price of gas at the pump 1 year ago and compare it to the respective prices today.
1 year ago, the price of a barrel of oil was about $82 and we were paying about $2.75 for a gallon of gas at the pump.
When they decided to start hiking up the price, it rose to a record high of about $147 a barrel and the price at the pump peaked out around $4.11 a gallon.
That’s about an 80% increase for the barrel price and a 50% increase at the pump.
Just before the recent artificial hike that they blamed on hurricane Ike, (the hurricane didn’t cause any actual damage to supply or production mind you, so the recent price hike was artificial yet again.) the price of crude had dropped back to about $92 a barrel and the price of a gallon of gas at the pump had only dropped back to about $3.85.
That’s a 37% drop for crude but only a 6 or 7% drop at the pump.
If you want to look at it another way, the net increase over the year for the price of crude is only about 12 – 13% while the price at the pump has gone up 40%.
NOW tell me they’re not ripping us off.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Ever heard of Dick Fuld?
Ok, it’s starting to get a little ridiculous now. What the heck is going on with the economy? It’s bad enough that we have skyrocketing gas prices driving inflation, now we have businesses failing left and right, the latest being Lehman Brothers, a company that’s been around for over 150 years.
What does it take to run a business into the ground that’s been around since 1850 and survived the stock market crash and the great depression?
Well, it seems all it took was the reckless leadership of one Richard Severin Fuld, Jr. who ran the company for the last 14 years. Gee, there’s something that won’t look to good on his resume, huh? He took a 158 year old company and left it in ruins after a mere 14 years. What an accomplishment.
His efforts didn’t go unrewarded though. He drew a pay package of around $466 MILLION from 1993 – 2007. He also stands to draw around $60 million from the company now for his “retirement”. I understand he has been selling off his company stock over the course of 2008 all the while encouraging his employees to invest heavily. Can you say “insider trading”?
Anybody see a pattern here? The CEO and upper management bail out with their golden parachutes and they leave the stockholders and employees whistling in the wind.
Capitalism at it’s worst. Companies that are being run by people who have no regard for anybody or anything that gets in the way of profit. That means sound business theory goes right out the window and the company gets run by the “shooting craps in Vegas” theory.
Nice job DICK.
Hey, I wonder if I could get a job like that. I bet I could do just as good a job running a venerable company into the ground in a handful of years. Anybody want to pay me $466 million?
What does it take to run a business into the ground that’s been around since 1850 and survived the stock market crash and the great depression?
Well, it seems all it took was the reckless leadership of one Richard Severin Fuld, Jr. who ran the company for the last 14 years. Gee, there’s something that won’t look to good on his resume, huh? He took a 158 year old company and left it in ruins after a mere 14 years. What an accomplishment.
His efforts didn’t go unrewarded though. He drew a pay package of around $466 MILLION from 1993 – 2007. He also stands to draw around $60 million from the company now for his “retirement”. I understand he has been selling off his company stock over the course of 2008 all the while encouraging his employees to invest heavily. Can you say “insider trading”?
Anybody see a pattern here? The CEO and upper management bail out with their golden parachutes and they leave the stockholders and employees whistling in the wind.
Capitalism at it’s worst. Companies that are being run by people who have no regard for anybody or anything that gets in the way of profit. That means sound business theory goes right out the window and the company gets run by the “shooting craps in Vegas” theory.
Nice job DICK.
Hey, I wonder if I could get a job like that. I bet I could do just as good a job running a venerable company into the ground in a handful of years. Anybody want to pay me $466 million?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Conspiracy Theory
I’ve never been one prone to conspiracy theories but sometimes I just start to wonder. I can’t help but wonder if we are all being manipulated at times. Certain events seem to lead me in that direction.
For instance, I noticed that whenever we have a major increase in the price of gas, they jack the price up and up by a large margin all at once until people start to scream. Then it levels out for a bit and then they drop it back some.
This has the psychological effect of making you think that you are getting a little relief when in fact the price is still much higher than it was to begin with. Think about it. We feel the pain in the pocket when we have to keep shelling out more and more for a fill-up and then we are a little relieved when the price stops going up. Then after the price drops back 20 or 30 cents a gallon, you think you are getting a deal.
Isn’t that what you are feeling now? Your frustration level was very high when the price hit above $4 a gallon but now that it’s dropped back, you’re feeling a little better.
In fact we are all paying about a dollar more per gallon than we were just a year or so ago.
Interesting psychological effect isn’t it? Jump the price way up until people’s budgets are about to bust and the economy is ready to crash and let people feel the pain of the high cost for a bit, then drop it back just enough to bring the economy back from the brink and placate the masses by letting them have a few cents a gallon back in their wallets.
How relieved we feel now to be paying only $1 more per gallon…
Ever feel like you’re being played?
For instance, I noticed that whenever we have a major increase in the price of gas, they jack the price up and up by a large margin all at once until people start to scream. Then it levels out for a bit and then they drop it back some.
This has the psychological effect of making you think that you are getting a little relief when in fact the price is still much higher than it was to begin with. Think about it. We feel the pain in the pocket when we have to keep shelling out more and more for a fill-up and then we are a little relieved when the price stops going up. Then after the price drops back 20 or 30 cents a gallon, you think you are getting a deal.
Isn’t that what you are feeling now? Your frustration level was very high when the price hit above $4 a gallon but now that it’s dropped back, you’re feeling a little better.
In fact we are all paying about a dollar more per gallon than we were just a year or so ago.
Interesting psychological effect isn’t it? Jump the price way up until people’s budgets are about to bust and the economy is ready to crash and let people feel the pain of the high cost for a bit, then drop it back just enough to bring the economy back from the brink and placate the masses by letting them have a few cents a gallon back in their wallets.
How relieved we feel now to be paying only $1 more per gallon…
Ever feel like you’re being played?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)