Bill of Rights and Congressional Violations of the Constitution

If I had my way, people couldn't vote or even graduate from high school unless they could recite these words...

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution which were designed to protect our individual rights as citizens but which are at this very moment under very serious threat by the government that they are supposed to be limiting:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



*Following is an excerpt of the actual text of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" which specifies that any institution of higher learning that receives funding from this "stimulus" program CANNOT use the money for improvement of any facilities that are used for religious study, worship, or other religious "missions". This is obviously a violation of the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]."

GREEN SCHOOL REQUIREMENT.—An institution of higher education receiving a subgrant under this section shall use not less than 25 percent of such subgrant to carry out projects for modernization, renovation, or repair that are certified, verified, or consistent with the applicable provisions of—
(A) the LEED Green Building Rating System;
(B) Energy Star;
(C) the CHPS Criteria;
(D) Green Globes; or
(E) an equivalent program adopted by the State or the State higher education agency.

(3) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—No funds awarded under this section may be used for—
(A) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities, including maintenance associated with any permissible uses of funds described in paragraph (1);
(B) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public;
(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities
(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or
(D) construction of new facilities.

Pimp My Ride

Well.... I did end up getting car, but it isn't American and it cost only a fraction of a brand new American car....

It is a 2005 Scion (made by Toyota) xB:






Pimped grills.


Thumpin' pimped amps and speakers. (but I kind of like that, lol)


Isn't it cute? It's my first foreign car. The guy who had it before us did all the cool customizations.

The main reason we got it, though, is because it gets 30-35 mpg which is more than twice what the beastly Expedition gets (about 14 mpg). If one is so-inclined he can accuse us of "going green", but in my world green = $$$ saved and not "saving the planet." ;-) We still have the Expedition (the beast) and still need it for hauling around all the extra kids that seem to congregate here. The xB only seats 5 compared to 8 with the beast. And it is paid for too.

Buying a car these days is almost as much hassle as buying a house, even when you pay with cash instead of getting a loan. You'd think if someone came in with a stack of cash they'd skip all the crap, but no, they still have all those forms and formalities. Blame it on the government. And it's just too bad for all the UAW people and the US automakers that we didn't buy one of their over-priced products. As I mentioned previously, we've already paid them enough (in bailouts) for a new car without actually getting anything.

And I finally got to do something that I've been thinking about for a while. I decided that the next time I have to fill out any kind of form that asked for "race" or "ethnicity" I would check the "other" box and specify that I am a "White Native American." Well, how many generations and centuries does it take to be considered "native"? I figure my people have been here pretty much since the beginning of the white "colonization" so probably I'm genetically separated enough from most Europeans to be considered ethnically distinct.

My Business Plan For GM

Despite my evil ranting sometimes, I really can be pretty generous with nice things too. ;-)

Here's my free advice to GM, if only they would listen.

1. Do away with Buick. Seriously. Anything that sounds like vomiting is a bad idea. If the old people want "luxury" let them buy a Cadillac.

2. Do away with GMC. All of those cars are just the same as Chevys with different skin. Wasteful repetition.

3. Do away with Hummer. They were just a fad, a passing fancy, mostly for guys who were trying to compensate for lacking something.

4. Do away with Saab. Boring. Nothing special.

5. Do away with Pontiac. This is a little painful for me since I grew up in Pontiacs, and I still have my first car, a 1978 Firebird. But Pontiac has pretty much become more redundancy and nothing very exciting.

6. Keep Cadillac. There will always be some market for luxury, even in a bad economy. Hey, I'd buy an Escalade if I wanted to take on making car payments again, but my car is paid for and that's too good to change right now.

7. Keep Corvette. This is a no-brainer, but they really need to improve their marketing for it. These are consistently highly rated and good performers. But they are also pretty good with fuel mileage. GM should emphasize this fact. Advertise that getting good mileage will never look or feel better, or something like that. Mine can get 30 mpg on long trips and between 22-24 in the 'city', depending on how I drive. ;-)

8. Keep Saturn. Give it a chance. I'm not too familiar with them except the Sky, which is stunningly cute. The other Saturns I've seen on the road don't look so bad.

9. And of course, keep Chevrolet, at least most of them. Maybe eliminate the duds that just haven't moved. And keep the planned 2010 Camaro reintroduction. There is a nostalgia market for that.

Eliminating so many lines will of course result in lots of lay-offs, but that's just the way it will have to be. There is no market for so many cars and it just can't be sustainable for all those people to keep getting paid to make what isn't wanted or needed. As I suggested previously, if the UAW thinks it is so indispensable then let them buy out some of the lines that GM needs to shed.

Obviously, I don't like these bailouts in the guise of "loans" to companies that haven't operated profitably for a long time because of their own bad decisions and poor planning. I do feel a little sorry for the actual factory workers who will lose their jobs, but then again, how bad can you feel for people who have pretty much been babied and coddled in a world that isn't realistic? I've toured the Corvette assembly plant, and some of those people are paid $30+ an hour plus excessive benefits for steering a machine that tightens some nuts and bolts and that's about it.

Maybe the workers should file some class action lawsuits against their stupid bosses? That would be better than demanding money from the government.

Times are tough for all of us. But it can get better if everyone gets their heads out of their asses and accepts that they will have to adapt and adjust instead of expecting everything to always stay the same.

Healthcare: The Next Bursting Bubble

I am certain that the US economy is already in the beginning of a depression and not just a recession. Not that I'm saying we will see the same horrible life as in the Great Depression, but relatively speaking what is going on now is quite serious and is not going to improve for quite some time. As all the "experts" are saying, it will likely get worse before it gets better. That is about the only thing they're saying that I do agree with. (forgive my laziness about ending sentences with "with")

The intelligence of our "leaders" seems to have declined considerably in the last few decades. Maybe it is because of the birth control pill? Messing with Nature usually doesn't end well, but maybe no one ever reads Frankenstein anymore? Anyway, the whole lot of them* are total idiots, regardless of whatever degrees and so-called education they've had. Well, look at it this way. How intelligent is it to continue doing the things that consistently fail? That's exactly what they do.

Incidentally, and this is just my own insecurity and need for validation, whether it comes extrinsically or intrinsically, I have evidence that I really am smarter than about 95% of my peers. It's not an "IQ" score, but there are some other standardized test results that consistently place me in about the 95th percentile. If you don't believe me I can scan and post them, godddammit. So all the dumbfucks who try to call me stupid are only being dumbfucks. Okay? Thank you. I just had to get that out of my system. *sigh* :-)

Now back to the economy. And healthcare specifically. While everyone is hand-wringing over the mortgage meltdown that is the result of lots of people being really stupid and making really bad decisions, there is another bubble that will burst soon enough. Too many people are expecting the government to pay for their healthcare. But what they don't realize is that it is completely unrealistic and will be disastrous when/if that happens. Some people seem to think that free healthcare is a basic human right, but you know, nothing is really free, although recently it looks like 95% of the people have forgotten that, if they ever knew it in the first place.

Sure, access to healthcare is a "right" but how can anyone really think that any vital service can be free of cost? Someone has to pay for it, and until recently it wasn't common practice for the government to just make up billions of dollars to pay for every little thing that people asked for.

There are some ways to make the healthcare system more "fair" and accessible to everyone, but they require some big, serious changes to the way that business has been done for the last few decades. Just like the auto industry. Nothing will improve until they drastically adjust their way of doing business. Sometimes successful evolution takes really big steps.

Well, let me ask some questions. Who is really making the most money from the healthcare system today without actually doing much? The doctors? Not really, though most do make plenty enough, they do work for it usually. The drug companies? Meh, they make a lot but they also contribute a lot with their research and development, as well as advertising that helps pay for our entertainment. The hospitals? Some make money and some lose money but they are vital to the system. What does that leave? Ah, yeah, the insurance companies. What do they really do anyway? They are just an extra, very costly and very profitable, step in the process of delivering healthcare. They are not really vital. Basically they are middlemen who get paid to negotiate between the medical services and the patients. Why can't the patients deal directly with the medical services themselves? Cut out the fat, the wastefulness, the unnecessary.

Anyone who promotes a "universal healthcare" that trusts those same insurance companies to administer it efficiently is a total idiot, or at least seriously deluded. Although the government isn't exactly good at efficient administration of services it would be preferable to make the medical service providers actual government employees instead of keeping a wasteful third party in the system. Make it more like the military if necessary, where the doctors are enlisted and trained by the government and rise through the ranks according to ability and accomplishment. Yeah, maybe this is a radical idea, but it has got to be better than what all the other dummies are suggesting. I'm just saying let's look at this thing from a new perspective instead of always trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

No, there are no perfect plans or ideas for solving the big, serious issues that our country is facing now. But come on, let's stop it with thinking that throwing money at ill-designed and poorly functioning things is actually going to change anything for the better. It won't. It never has. And it never will. Why is it so hard for people to understand this simple fact? I really don't believe it is so difficult that one has to be in the 95th percentile to get it.


*correction: My own Tennessee Senator Bob Corker was just giving hell to the stupid auto bosses, thank God. I guess he's one in the top 5%. ;-)

Slave Masters

One of the answers to the question ending the previous post - a question that no one could answer (whether they read it or not) ;-) - is of course, the labor unions, specifically UAW.

I urge anyone who wants to be truly informed about how the unions actually work, please do look at the UAW website, specifically their "auto contracts". One can see just by the "wages" of GM auto workers that the total pay and benefits for each employee is far above the national average, even though they "work" for a company that cannot really afford to pay them so much.

But the union does not seem to care that they are "bargaining" their employer to death. They don't seem to mind that they have expensed GM into bankruptcy. The union believes that GM exists solely for their own benefit. They don't understand that GM's existence and purpose is actually to produce and sell automobiles - not to employ a bunch of greedy, lazy people.

Well, I've decided that the absolute best solution for GM and UAW is to allow GM to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and then let the UAW buy it out. If they want to keep their jobs then let them buy the company and see how well they can ru(i)n it themselves. :-)

But most definitely they should not expect any government bailouts if they continue to run GM into the ground. If they think that the GM bosses have done so badly and wrongly at operating the company, then they should be happy to take over and prove that they can do it better. Hey, if the "evil capitalists" are doing it all wrong, then maybe the "communist/unionist workers" can fix it all for themselves? But without government money! (But if there is a auto bailout at some point, I want share in the company in exchange for my tax dollars. Or at least new car. ;-) What's fair is fair.)

With my brilliant ;-) solution, GM doesn't disappear, making the country's economy collapse in its wake as all the doomsayers are predicting. GM would go on, and all those people would keep their jobs. Being the ones under pressure to assure that the company does not fail should be a strong incentive for the union workers/company owners to do it right for their own benefit.

Well, honestly, I do think I'm giving people too much benefit and credit for being responsible for themselves. But it's a good, even if overly idealistic, solution to the problem of GM's continued existence. But just like all my other great ideas, no one is really listening. ;-)

Refried Stimulus

You know, it's just getting so ridiculous now that it's hard to see straight anymore. I tried to watch Paulson's news conference today, but man, he is a terrible communicator. And honestly, I don't think he's really any better at economics. Today he confirmed what I already knew - that the TARP is a total ruse and hoax. Sorry, Henry, but the "facts" haven't changed. Only the lies you all have told us have changed.

I understand that everyone who's "important" thinks that the US auto industry is vital and indispensable so that we cannot allow it to crumble. Fine. But isn't there a better way of helping it than to give even more money to a bunch of guys who have proven that they don't know how to manage it? I mean, good Lord, that's like telling a child with a mouth full of rotten teeth to just keep on eating all that candy they want. It just makes a vicious momma feel, well, really super-vicious. ;-)

I really wish that Obama or someone would hire me as an advisor and I could really straighten their asses out about some things. Or at least, I could dispense some long-overdue spankings to all those executives that haven't been properly disciplined. Yeah, appoint me to the Cabinet. Create a new position called Spanking Czar or Tsar or whatever it is. Or Secretary of Discipline. Oh, nevermind, that won't ever happen.

Anyway, we got our letter yesterday about the "Economic Stimulus" - it came this late because we had filed for an extension and just filed our income tax return in October. Well, I figure it's like a small refund of some of the thousands of dollars we've already paid in the last few years. I guess we'll use it for Christmas and do our part to "stimulate" the economy. Maybe everything will be real cheap since all the retailers are in trouble. We'll see.

Perhaps this taking advantage of desperately low prices sounds somewhat predatory or scavenger-like. Well, just look at nature and you'll find that it's a common adaptation to pick out the weakest to consume and to scavenge those that have fallen. I guess I'm a cruel socioeconomic darwinist to look at things this way. Fine. Whatever. But it seems to me that all those guys like Paulson and the other "experts" and "executives" have completely forgotten the laws of nature and the fact that oftentimes it's best to let the weak and non-adaptive things be consumed and/or scavenged by the stronger and healthier.

Okay, what about compassion and humanity? Have I none? Of course I do. And I frankly do think that it is more compassionate and responsible to assure the future well-being of our society by allowing the failures to fail. How will we ever learn to improve if we don't ever let ourselves fail? It's just not natural to prevent failure and death of things that are incapable of living. To quote Mammy from Gone With the Wind, "It ain't fittin'... it ain't fittin'. It jes' ain't fittin'... It ain't fittin'!" Believe it or not, Mammy has always been a kind of vicious momma role model for me:



I couldn't find a video of the "it ain't fittin'" scene, but the one above shows some of the aftermath of the Civil War. The streets of Atlanta were full of predators and scavengers (some called "carpetbaggers") who rightly (and sometimes wrongly) rebuilt the city from its ruins - all without big government bailouts for the formerly rich slave-owners or any kind of "economic parity" programs for the poor whites who didn't even own slaves but still had to suffer through the War and its consequences. Of course, all of that ingenuity and resourcefulness truly is gone with the wind, and now all we are offered is some refried stimulus borrowed from our grandchildren.

You know, the pre-Civil War cotton industry was considered vital and indispensable too, just like the auto industry today. Well, history has a way of repeating itself, especially when the same mistakes are made over again. Who do you think really is holding us as slaves to their ways today? (one hint to one answer: their names are akin to the ones who won the Civil War)

Here I Go Again

... spouting off about things I probably don't understand...

The law of diminishing returns and fractional-reserve banking

I've been trying to figure out how exactly our world has come to this global financial crisis. A lot of people are blaming Capitalism. A lot of people are blaming Greed. A lot of people are blaming Bush. And a lot of other people are blaming a lot of other things. I've done a bit of blaming too. ;-)

While it's pretty clear that greed, corruption, and irresponsibility are very big parts of this problem, I have to wonder why it was so easy for those things to take control. A lot of people blame "deregulation" and the "free market." Well, I guess you can try to regulate away some of the bad motives and poor choices of people, but after all these thousands of years of civilization it's apparent that man-made regulations and rules don't always work.

And in a truly free market the bad things would fail anyway because the benefits of the cheating, etc., always follow the law of diminishing returns, and also because people would eventually figure out who are the corrupt people and would not give them their business. Of course, we have to have some way of keeping all the bad guys from getting together and creating mafias and such, but in reality it probably could be argued that even mafias are better managed than many government entities. ;-)

Anyway, it is wrong to say that greed and corruption are inherent qualities of Capitalism. I think looking at history will show us that greed and corruption occur in all kinds of systems, probably in close-to-equal proportions. Greed is not the same thing as desiring a fair profit from hard work. On the other hand, greed could be defined as not wanting someone else to have a fair profit from his hard work, as is a motivation of communistic systems because all people expect the same profit regardless of how hard they work themselves. Greed and jealousy are often the motives for desiring everyone to have "economic parity" because some people just can't accept that others will have more than they.

Well, all of that isn't really the point I want to make. I want to discover the source of all the bad decisions that led to the collapse of the global banking system. What it all boils down to is that all of these banks were lending more money than they actually had. The official name of that is "fractional-reserve banking." (Please click the link above so I don't have to spend time explaining it.) As a principle this "fractional-reserve" is not really a bad thing. It has many benefits. However, as with any other principle it has to be properly applied.

Let me go off on a tangent here about the law of diminishing returns. This is a perfectly natural law that is consistent with the reality and the Laws of Nature that shape reality. All systems have some entropy. Economies are not so special that they can break this law. Some "intellectual" economists apparently think it's okay and fine to drop the assumption of diminishing returns, and one of them has even been awarded a Nobel Prize.

I guess I'm not "intellectual" enough to see how that is worthy of any prizes. It seems pretty dumb to me because it looks about the same as some physicists deciding to drop the second law of thermodynamics in order to make their calculations add up. Incidentally, there actually are some physicists who try to do this and even try to say that we can reverse the arrow of time. Will this be the next big idea in Economics?*

Okay, back to the fractional-reserve. Somehow someone decided that it was a good idea for banks to lend out 10 times as much as their capital. I suspect that they are using similar methods and calculations as the previously mentioned Nobelist, and honestly, I just don't think it takes a genius to see that extending an order of magnitude of credit will result is some serious, exponential problems down the line. It would be much more realistic and less problematic to select a much lower amount than "times 10."

I mean, Lord have mercy, what kind of retarded idiot is going to believe that the Universe is going to magically unfold so that he suffers no losses from being completely unrealistic? Who was the dumbass who said that it was a good idea for banks to lend so much more than they have? I really want to know. He needs to be spanked very hard and possibly even imprisoned for being so stupid and causing this global meltdown. It does not take a genius to figure out that if you lend $10 for every $1 you actually possess it won't take long for it all to catch up with you, even if you're charging interest. (Unless you are in a mafia which breaks the legs of people who don't pay back their loans.) ;-)

Again, I want to say that the problem is not with banks and capitalism, per se. It is with the bad ideas and bad policies and bad practices that they've operated under. Somebody decided that these things would make the economies grow and make everyone rich and happy, or at least themselves rich and happy. But you know what? It was all an illusion and alchemy based on some dummies deciding that they have the power to overcome the very Laws of Nature.

Surely it must be apparent enough to everyone in the world who is witnessing our global banking failures to see and agree that ignoring the law of diminishing returns is just begging for disaster. Come on. It just doesn't take a genius to see how that works out.


*Okay, so here's my Nobel-worthy Economics idea. ;-) Let's just say "hocus-pocus" and turn back the arrow of time and erase all debt. Then we can just start all over again. But next time let's not drop the assumption of diminishing returns and let's not lend (or borrow) 10 times more than what we can afford. :-)

Hot, Close, and Real

Mood swings, market swings.

Okay, here are my simple solutions.

1. The US automakers really should switch from making so many cars to making parts for new power plants. If we really want to get serious about "energy independence" then we can't really afford to pussy-foot around about it. Do it now. Like right now, not next month or next year. Duh!

2. Forget about "redistributing wealth". There isn't any wealth left to redistribute. Essentially, all the wealth was illusion anyway that has vanished now.

3. Stop lowering the interest rates. How many times do they have to fail to figure out that something isn't working? All those times that Greenspan lowered the rates over the last few years only increased the problems instead of helping anything. You know, in 1990 when I bought my first car the interest rate was 12.9%. As it should have been for someone just getting out of school and just beginning a new job and not having earned better rates with an established credit history. And guess what? I survived. Higher interest rates are a "natural" control over too much credit being extended.

4. Stop pushing people to keep borrowing. Didn't anyone ever listen to their grandparents' advice? Sure, credit is necessary for big purchases like cars and homes, but come on people, stop freaking living on credit! Make do. It's possible and it's necessary.

more to come...

Crazy Train

All aboard!
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I I I I I I I I
Crazy, but that's how it goes
Millions of people living as foes
Maybe, it's not too late
To learn how to love
And forget how to hate

Mental wounds not healing
Life's a bitter shame
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train

I've listened to preachers
I've listened to fools
I've watched all the dropouts
Who make their own rules
One person conditioned to rule and control
The media sells it and you live the role

Mental wounds still screaming
Driving me insane
I’m going off the rails on a crazy train
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train

I know that things are going wrong for me
You gotta listen to my words
Yeah yeah yeah

Heirs of the Cold War, that's what we've become
Inherited troubles, I'm mentally numb!
Crazy, I just cannot bear
I'm living with something that just isn't fair!

Mental wounds not healing
Who and what’s to blame
I’m going off the rails on a crazy train
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

All these 28 years since it was released this song still says so much.

Well, if it hasn't been apparent enough over the last several days, those of us who tend towards some mental fragility are being stressed to points of breaking due to the financial meltdown. Okay, so maybe the mental health pork added to the big bailout will actually be helpful. ;-)

I just don't get it. What is wrong with all these people who are panicking and creating an even worse mess than it has to be?

I'm worried too. But I'm not as worried about the stock market as I am about the movement towards so much government power over the economy. Now we hear that the US Treasury is wanting to buy shares in some big banks, but they are calling it "capital injection". Well, I might like an injection too. :-) But I don't see it happening any time soon, if ever.

And what really concerns me is that our next President will inherit this increased power. At this point neither candidate looks capable of handling it properly. McCain lost me during the last debate when he pandered to the "buy our troubled mortgages at taxpayer expense" crowd. Well, it looks like he's already lost the election anyway, but if we could put Sarah Palin in the top spot instead it would be an improvement. She might not be an "intellectual" but honestly how well are all the intellectuals handling these things? I don't see any Nobel Economics winners coming forward with brilliant solutions to anything. And sorry, Neil Cavuto, but the economics "nerds" don't really look too smart right now either. Sure, they might be in demand for commentary, but where are the real goods? ;-)

All Aboard! The Crazy Train is leaving the station.

California Should Rescue Itself

Most populous state in country, 11th in median income with $54,385, and the largest state economy in the USA, and The Arnold is asking the US Treasury for a $7,000,000,000 loan.

As of 2007, the gross state product (GSP) is about $1.812 trillion, the largest in the United States. California is responsible for 13 percent of the United States gross domestic product (GDP). As of 2006, California's GDP is larger than all but eight countries in the world (all but eleven countries by Purchasing Power Parity). California is facing a $16 billion budget deficit for the 2008-09 budget year.

Hollywood should have more of its $28,500 per plate fundraisers like the last one that raised $11,000,000 for Obama's campaign. Deomcrats have so far donated $87,684,794 to the campaigns. How about all those big shot, ultra-liberal stars put their money where their mouths are and start being more "patriotic" (as their second in command has suggested) by donating more taxes to rescue their own state? Oh, I guess they only believe in socialism when they don't have to pay for it.

All the loudmouth, hateful Hollywood liberals who are bashing Sarah Palin should really put their time, energy, and resources into actually doing some good for their own 'homeland'.

If they'd actually allow some oil drilling off their coast, they could be as rich and well-funded as Palin's Alaska. Do we need much more evidence that Hollywood has completely lost all credibility and influence? Yeah, and TV and film producers got some pork out of that big bailout too. I'm not ever going to pay to watch any of their stupid movies again. And if Matt Damon is such a sissy that Palin scares him, then his nuts would just shrivel up and fall off if he ever met me. ;-)

Dear Treasury Secretary Paulson,

I am writing from Main Street, so to speak, to let you know that our small business is in need of your assistance. While you've been so exceptionally generous in helping save the asses profits of the big guys, and I guess we will have to see how well that works out, we little guys are suffering too.

Instead of adding to the modest debt we have been working so hard to eliminate (and avoid), I am requesting that you send us a bailout grant of $50,000 $100,000 to recover the costs of all our outstanding accounts receivable. This amount comes from all the people who have not paid us for our products and services rendered, and frankly, I'm using the accounting tricks of the big guys to inflate that amount. What's fair is fair.

Without this expected income we are not able to pay our own bills from the suppliers and possibly won't be able to cover our payroll. It is very concerning that we might have to lay off our employee due to this problem, and that will hurt all of us.

As a small sole proprietorship, if we cannot pay our bills then those we owe can actually try to sue us for our home or other real assets. You surely realize these are much more serious consequence for us than any of the consequences for the CEOs of the failing financial services companies that you've already agreed to help. As far as I can tell, none of them will have their personal assets seized to cover their inability to keep their companies solvent, even if it is their own fault. Clearly, that is very unjust, don't you agree?

The amount we are requesting is such a tiny percentage of your previous "rescue" packages, and as such we believe that this very modest allocation will actually be very immediately effective in relieving our local economy.

However, out of our own benevolence and altruism, we are open to some negotiation. It might be acceptable to us to be absolved from all federal taxes for some period of time, measured in years not months. Please do consider this option. Although it is not really the most helpful for us, it is better than nothing.

I expect to hear from you or your representatives regarding our request as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rae Ann
Office Manager/Bookkeeper
[edited for privacy] Heating and Air Conditioning
Knoxville, TN

O'Reilly Got His Groove Back!

I'm impressed. Bill seems to have regained the power of his testicles. ;-) (Apparently the code from Fox doesn't work here, so I'll look on youtube later. But right now I have to take a child to the dentist.)

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html?playerId=oreillyhomeplayer&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3129030&referralPlaylistId=bbeb11095dff273e354ffbd0dfa4c070c9e8730b&maven_dartZone=undefined&maven_dartSite=undefined

From Youtube:

Dear Foreign Friends and Populist Comrades,

I do understand all of your concern about the current "crisis" in the US economy and that you are also very deeply concerned about how it will affect you and your own economies. Please don't assume that the American people don't care about you. We do. But we also would appreciate your understanding about our own reluctance to throw hundreds of billions of dollars into something that has not been adequately explained and justified. We Americans are generally pretty cautious and careful about demands for huge amounts of money without some assurance that it's not some exaggerated version of a Nigerian email scam.

I hope now that the Senate has passed its "rescue plan" (new name for "bailout" that's actually just their lipstick on the pig) and is sending it down to the House, all of you people around the world who have been throwing blame and hatred towards the "ordinary" Americans will finally begin to appreciate us and maybe even send us a little love for all the sacrifices we are going to make for the *global* economy's benefit.

I was thinking last night that perhaps, since it looks like the US economy is the cash cow that keeps the global economy fed, then perhaps we should just extend this socialism to everyone who depends on us. You know, if we fall, they all fall, so wouldn't it be fair to ask for all to contribute? If every man, woman, and child in America is going to have to be 2-3 thousand dollars more in debt to prop up the global economy, then why wouldn't it be fair to ask every man, woman, and child in the *world* to contribute about $50 which would cover about half of the original $700 billion. Well, what's fair is fair, right?

We "ordinary" Americans have had the weight of the world put on our shoulders and the strain is really too much. What we need right now, instead of blame and derision, is a little love and appreciation for our philosophical and practical sacrifices to join the populist socialist comrades around the world.

I'm willing to say that it isn't really the club that I wanted to join, and all of us "ordinary" and "populist" Americans have been involuntarily drafted into it. Generally, our true populism is not socialist nor communist in nature, and that is why America has been so different from the rest of the world. But now you might have some reason to celebrate our coerced conversion. Actually, it would be pretty nice to see some footage on the news of people around the world sending us praise and blessings, instead of all the previous scenes over the years of people cheering about our tragedies. Well, it's a nice but unrealistic thought.

So please, the next time you are thinking evil thoughts about all the selfish and stupid American masses, stop and try to remember that we are paying the largest price, philosophically and fiscally, to keep your world functioning. And while you're at it, the most helpful and constructive thing you can do is to write and send a $50 check to the US Treasury. That would be the best expression of appreciation possible, but I would personally be happy with a "thank you" or "bless you" or even "I love you." :-)

Sincerely,

Your Comrade (in name only), Rae Ann

PS Here is a video that I always thought had a socialist/communist look to it (but it's a great, fun song):

We can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance
Well they're, no friends of mine

Say, we can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind

...

We can dance if we want to
We've got all your life and mine
As long as we abuse it, never going to lose it
Everything will work out right

I say, we can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance, and if they don't dance
Well they're no friends of mine

I say, we can dance, we can dance
Everything's out of control
We can dance, we can dance
We're doing it from pole to pole

We can dance, we can dance
Everybody look at your hands
We can dance, we can dance
Everybody's taking the chance

...

"Emergency" Senate Pork

I've actually taken some time to read through the Senate version of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008". Every interested person who wants to express an "educated" opinion about it should actually read it.

The basic bill is not very different from the original House bill, but it's still full of porcine garbage. For example:

SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of study authorized under this section.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

Now seriously, this is supposed to be the 'biggest national crisis' since the Great Depression, and they're wasting time talking about a "carbon audit" of the tax code? But that's not all of it. There's so much more, including funding for race tracks! (look it up!) Well, how about a carbon audit of the race tracks too? ;-)

On the more reasonable side, there are some extensions of some current but about to expire tax credits and other incentives meant to stimulate business. Those are supposed to make the socialism a little more palatable to the conservatives, but I think it still looks like lipstick on a pig that still stinks really bad. ;-)

As for that carbon audit at a cost of $1.5 million, I guess that's supposed to look like pocket change compared to hundreds of billions. Great. So some climate scientists will get more funding to waste time studying something that is completely irrelevant and unimportant.

My prediction is that this bill with pass the Senate tonight, and then it will go back to the House to have even more "emergency" pork added to it, and then back to the Senate again. But honestly, the way that everyone has chastised the "ordinary" Americans for not supporting the bailout is just scapegoating us because it's easy. But the real villains here are those Congress members who are delaying this "urgent" legislation to avert "catastrophe" by squabbling over carbon audits, wooden toy arrows, race tracks, "substance use disorder" benefits, TV and film production tax breaks, and lots of other non-emergency nonsense.

The Credit "Crisis" and Zombies

I read an article with a somewhat hyperbolic title, Main Street America angry over credit crisis. Here is an example of how the credit market has tightened in response to the over-extension of credit that has led to our current financial troubles:

David Zugheri, co-founder of Envoy Mortgage Ltd, which has 475 employees in 20 states, has also seen a big slowdown. He said 30 percent to 40 percent of prospective buyers who could have qualified for mortgages two or three years ago are being shut out.

"There has been a mad rush back to the basics and if you don't have the necessary documentation you cannot get a loan," Zugheri said. But he noted that not all credit is dead.

"If you have decent credit, a verifiable income and want a loan for under $400,000 it's business as usual."

Well, I think it's pure scare tactics and exaggeration when the President and the media are telling us that we won't be able to get any credit at all. What is happening now is exactly what needs to happen. The banks need use more discretion and tougher requirements for credit than the free-for-all orgy of credit that has been going on for about the last decade. People will have to learn to live within their means and to stop expecting to get credit that they don't really deserve. What ever happened to the wisdom that credit has to be earned?

The article opened with a story of a guy wanting to buy a new truck with a $3000 down payment. The trouble was that he owed more on the old truck than its trade-in value, and he couldn't get approved for a loan without more down payment. That always happens when you buy brand new vehicles. They are already overpriced, and as soon as you drive off the car lot they automatically lose at least 25-30% of their resale value. This is one of the problems with the auto industry. It costs so much to build the cars because the auto unions demand that the employees are paid $30/hr to make the vehicles. But in the real "free market" of used cars the actual value is much lower than the new ones, and so people always end up owing more than they are worth for several years. The lender knew that the guy with the $3000 down payment would still end up driving off the lot owing much more than what the truck was worth. The bank knew that if they had to repossess the truck then they would be stuck with a loss because they couldn't resell it for enough to cover the loan amount. That is the proper decision of a lender. But people have gotten so spoiled with all the too-easy credit that the banks, for whatever reasons, foolishly extended.

Harsh as it might seem today, I have to say that this whole push by Bush, Congress, and so many supposed capitalists for keeping that kind of credit orgy going is absolutely insane. And as Neil Cavuto described it, they've all been turned into some kind of government bailout zombies:



Neil, you're not all alone in feeling like you've entered into some kind of "Night of the Living Dead" Zombie-land. I feel it too. But there are still others like us, who haven't yet been infected by the zombie virus which apparently morphed from the toxic loans and became contagious.

Well, I guess we are on some kind of precipice to disaster either way. But must we have to choose between two evils? Do we really have to protect all the spoiled rotten people who can't bear to face the consequences of their irresponsibility and orgy of credit spending?

I'm a vicious momma, and that means tough love sometimes. I don't coddle my children and try to protect their feelings too much when they've made really bad decisions. I want them to learn to face the consequences of their freedom. Freedom means being allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. A good parent can't prevent every bad decision a kid makes, and a good parent can't really pay the price for them. If they do, the kids become spoiled and entitled and irresponsible. I love my children more than life, and they love me. We are very affectionate, but they know that I won't excuse a bad decision or bad behavior. They know that they must take responsibility and face the consequences. I don't want them to think that the government will do more for them than I will.

Part of America has become some kind of sub-nation of entitlement zombies. They think that are entitled to as much credit as they want, without having to earn it. They think that they are entitled to college educations, paid for by their parents and/or the govenment at huge expense. They think they are entitled to get a house and cars that they can't really afford. This is not a good economic strategy.

What is wrong with all the so-called free market conservatives who are trying so hard to preserve a totally unsustainable economic status quo by injecting some ungodly amount of money into it? It will only calm the credit junkies for a very short time. I remember when interest rates were in the double digits and when getting a mortgage required jumping through all kinds of hoops. We survived that just fine. We worked hard and earned what we got.

I'm so disappointed in how the world is turning out for my kids who will be saddled with this for the rest of their lives. Some of us are more prepared than others for hard times, but in today's world somehow we are seen as the bad guys or the selfish ones for expecting others to be responsible and prepared too. It's just not right. I have plenty of compassion and empathy for people in truly desperate places, but cruel as it might sound, there's not so much for those who've been reckless and foolish and have expected so many entitlements without earning them.

Whatever happens, it won't be painless. But by God, I'm not letting the zombies eat my brain.

Assorted Thoughts on the "Crisis"

For a nice time-line explanation of the events leading up to the current "crisis" click here. It's interesting how they kept denying that there were problems and then all of a sudden it was impending catastrophe. And we're supposed to believe what they are telling us now?

Show Me the Money

I really want to see some actual numbers and figures about the supposed financial catastrophe and "credit crisis." No one seems to want to give us, the taxpayers, any kind of details about who, where, what, when and how all of this money 'disappeared'. I pretty much understand a lot of that just from the bits of research I've done about it, but I can't find any actual numbers anywhere. Somebody needs to show me exactly how many and which banks and where they are that are on the verge of collapse and closing up credit. So far, we've just been told that they need this huge amount of money but they don't give us any real examples of where that amount comes from. I don't like all that secrecy and predictions of disaster without much evidence. It's too much like the climate change alarmism. I'm a skeptic.

All these places have been "cooking their books" apparently. Well, show me the money trail and where it disappeared. Don't just try to coerce and scare me into complying with this insane bailout without proving exactly why it's needed.

The Mexican Connection

I don't have anything against Mexicans, just illegal immigrants who exploit our system without really contributing to it. I've noticed that there aren't so many Mexicans around anymore. Gee, I wonder why. Well, let me tell you. The construction jobs dried up so they just packed up and left, often leaving houses that they were able to "buy" with money from banks who didn't seem to care that they weren't legal citizens. There is a house down the road from us that was abandoned by the Mexicans who "bought" it. There was always a Mexican flag flying from their porch, so that's how we know they were Mexicans. Okay, I don't know who financed their house, but now it's been sitting empty ever since the housing bubble burst and the construction jobs disappeared. The Mexicans were only here to make a quick dollar, and when those quick dollars stopped they left. How many other houses and mortgages have been abandoned all over the country in this same way? So much for Bank of America's courting the illegals with credit cards and whatever other credit they gave them. Why should I have to pay for that?

Also, two illegal immigrants are in custody suspected in the slaying of a 21 year old Alabama woman who was here on business and disappeared last week.

Lots of "Told You So"s

I know that of which I speak, and I've been saying it all along. It's just that no one was listening because they always think, "What can some dumb redneck housewife in Tennessee know about anything?" Okay, well, I've been predicting this mess for a while and even have offered up some great free advice to any interested, serious journalists on a big expose that probably would have won them a freakin' Pulitzer Prize or something if they recognized it and pursued it. Hey, I think I should get some kind of prize for seeing this coming even though most people weren't paying attention. So much for all the supposedly smart people who are screaming, "Why didn't anyone tell us?" Duh!! If a stupid redneck housewife in Tennessee can figure it out, then why couldn't they? Stupid is as stupid does, and I hope that all those supposedly superior people are figuring out just how stupid they really are.

September 2008

January 2008

February 2, 2007


February 19, 2007

The House Defies Pelosi

Apparently many Democrats, as well as Republicans, chose to listen to their constituents and vote no on the current bailout plan. Looks like all of Pelosi's, Dodd's, Reid's, and Frank's yelling and threatening didn't work after all. Maybe the House Republicans' plan should be the one that is pushed. Instead of a bailout at taxpayer expense, it is an insurance set-up like the FDIC which protects our bank deposits from bank failures. The House Republicans want the financial institutions to pay premiums into this new insurance that will protect people's other types of assets that are used by banks as their "currency" between themselves.

Stock Market Crash

Well, yeah, it's gonna hurt a bunch of people. But sometimes it takes really hard lessons to learn what's right and wrong. I'm not happy that the small amount of money I have invested in what was explained to me as "conservative, low-risk" funds is probably going to disappear. Well, it would be nice to at least be able to recover my initial deposits, but I knew full-well that these funds were not insured and that they might disappear someday. And that's why the money I put in them is small enough that losing it isn't going to ruin my life. I feel a little sorry for those who invested all their savings in the stock market, but then again, they should have known better.

One of my best, against-the-experts-advice decisions was to purchase a "whole-life" insurance policy in 1993. Every month since then I've sent in my little premium, and slowly but surely it has been growing at an interest rate that is better than most other savings since then. I'm pretty sure that my rate can't fall below prime - it never has although the rates have been up and down a lot over the years. Now I have to wonder how many of those "experts" who advised against whole life insurance have lost all their money in other types of savings? Well, this is an example of being conservative really paying off. I just don't want to gamble with so much money, and that is exactly what the stock market seems to have become. An institutionalized casino with all the house advantages of any other casino. Sorry, but even an adorable little baby can't convince me to waste my money on investing in things that don't look too secure:

Passing the Buck

I think that McCain's dropping the campaign to go to Washington for the bailout negotiations was an honest and sincere gesture, putting the country's concerns above his own. If it helped or hurt him wasn't his main concern. Obama says otherwise, but that's to his advantage to be cynical and disparaging of his 'opponent'.

I think McCain was thinking that whoever is going to be the next President and will have to inherit the mess and its fallout really should at least be there to know first hand what exactly the Congress and White House are doing about it. Also, as a Senator *it's his job* to be there. Yeah, it's Obama's job too, but he's more interested in playing politics than actually doing something.

Obama blowing it off and saying "they can call me if they need me" sounded extremely selfish and arrogant as well as unconcerned about what his future job might involve. It is that casual disinterest in "regulating" the process that makes him look pretty hypocritical for blaming Bush and Co. for not keeping a good enough eye on things years ago. He's trying to pass the buck.

Passing the buck like that is the very reason why this thing has grown so out of proportion. All those people were passing the responsibility on to others while packing even more onto it as it goes, until now, and they're trying to pass it on to the responsible taxpayers.

And it really irks me that Bill O'Reilly has been harping on Bush and Co. about not warning everyone vigorously enough about this financial mess coming. Well, I think he's passing the buck too because he should be feeling some responsibility for not paying enough attention to the news over the years that suggested that this problem was on its way. And really, if he will be completely honest he will admit that if Bush came out and forcefully warned everyone about this back then, the Democrats would have crucified him and there probably would have been widespread financial panic and chaos. Then they would have totally blamed it on Bush, saying his alarmism caused it to crash and so on. Bill really needs to stop it with the Botox because it's not only seeping into his nuts, it's seeping into his brain too.

And another thing, what exactly is Bill's job as a highly paid media figure? Doesn't he realize that part of HIS responsibility, as such a prominent media presence (as he's always reminding everyone about his ratings), is to keep up with the news and spot the big, important stories developing? Stop passing the buck to the government. What was he paying attention to in 2003-2007? Why wasn't he reading the NYTimes and their stories about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and trying to look deeper into the issue? Isn't that the job of a journalist and/or commentator (especially one with lots of resources and assistants to do the grunt work)?

Apparently, he wants all the glory but none of the responsibility. Just like all those crooked hogs who kept feeding at the teats, even as they were drying up. Bill said nobody told him that his Merrill Lynch stock was worthless. Well, poor little baby. First of all, I don't think anyone should invest a lot of money in something that they don't really know that much about. But anyway, can't he see that the reason why his broker and the employees of Merrill Lynch and everyone else, including the government, didn't know is because the Congressional committees that were supposed to "regulate" this stuff were all caught up in the corruption themselves. They did everything they could to keep everyone ignorant about what they were doing. It wasn't just the CEOs but the Congress members too who were hiding things. They were almost caught when the "accounting scandals" were discovered, but they were sneaky enough to get past that. And that's why, when the President tried to address this issue, one of the main guys who should have been concerned - Barney Frank - sat there and denied that there was a problem at all and said that suggesting that there was one would actually cause problems. Fannie and Freddie should have been properly dealt with back then, but in trying to avoid a big financial crisis at that time they just passed it on to now. How hard is it to see how that worked out?

Why wasn't there good enough regulation already? Well, in 1999 President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which loosened some rules about banking and also contained new laws regarding privacy of personal information. By passing that bill no one was advocating corruption or abuse within the financial industry in cahoots with the Congressional committees on banking and finance. The bill was intended to increase competition among banks so that people would have more choice, etc. There were mostly Democrats at the helms of both the Congressional committees as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's completely disingenuous to blame Bush for inheriting this whole setup. And let's try to remember that just after he was inaugurated our country was attacked in the most serious way by terrorists, so all the crooks were able go to work 'under the radar' since the responsible people in government were pretty distracted by dealing with national security.

So I hope that explains somewhat where that toxic buck came from and who started passing it in the first place. This isn't some fairy tale version of history. It's the real thing.

No, McCain hasn't been perfect, but I think he's been very honest and selfless in his work. And those who suggest otherwise should really stop because they can't offer any real evidence to the contrary or any justification of their own behavior.

PS To Bill O'Reilly, please stop blaming Bush for not warning the "people" about Fannie and Freddie. He even mentioned the need for reform in his 2008 State of the Union address:

On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market. My Administration brought together the HOPE NOW alliance, which is helping many struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. The Congress can help even more. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. These are difficult times for many American families, and by taking these steps, we can help more of them keep their homes.

Whose fault is it that they weren't watching his speech? Or if they were watching, why weren't they paying attention to these things? As citizens of this country it is our responsibility to be informed, and Bush was trying to inform us in the one most important speech of the year.

Another quote from that speech:

The strength -- the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. (Applause.) When the Federal Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation, which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." When Governor Morris was asked to draft a preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."

Okay, so like I said before, we the people are really the bosses, so let's start acting like it and finally vote out all the corruption and crooks instead of letting them hold us hostage and demanding from us some hundreds of billions of dollars ransom. That's just is not the American Way.

Transcend the Poison and Boot the Bastards

This whole financial scandal is full of poison, and it's making many of us very sick. On top of that I've been dealing with my own monthly possession by some kind of evil, satirical demon, as well as going through a battery of tests to make sure there isn't any more cancer trying poison my body. I am working on transcending all of this poison. Here is a dose of reality to try to help others transcend it too.

Let's look at the reality of who said what in recent years about the problems surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:


The NYTimes reported this Sept. 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending.

However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

What Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said (page 2 of article linked above):

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

Well, so much for the Democrats' argument that the Bush Administration ignored the building problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is responsible for it. Obama, read it and weep, or at least quit falsely blaming Bush and McCain for all of this mess which is rooted much more in the corruption of the Congressional Democrats on the committees involved in finances and banking.

May 25, 2005, John McCain, speaking to the Senate:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

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

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

The legislation was blocked by Democrats, with the assistance of a few Republicans.

October 27, 2005, NY Times reports:

Responding to the accounting scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday overhauling the regulatory oversight of the two huge mortgage financing companies.

...

The White House issued a statement on Wednesday criticizing the legislation adopted by the House, saying it envisioned a regulatory regime that "is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions."

The legislation "fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large," the White House statement said.

That legislation died in the Senate. Did you catch that part about the Bush Administration wanting stronger regulation? Yeah, that's right. Whatever tripe Obama is pushing is spoiled rotten and full of toxins. We all know why this legislation failed. It was purely political games by the Democrat-dominated Congress because they hate Bush so much they were willing to sacrifice all of our future financial security just because they didn't want him to "win" anything. That, and they used the excuse that they thought he was seeking too much power. blah, blah, blah

All of that being said, can we please put to rest the wrong ideas that the Republicans are at fault for our "financial crisis"? How can Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank sleep at night knowing that they were actually big players in preventing the problems from being fixed before it became such a huge "crisis"? Pelosi has said that the Republicans and the Bush Administration failed to properly regulate things so that they got out of control. Well, Nancy, why can't you properly regulate the corruption right under your nose (Charlie Rangel, et al)?

Let's just stop it and do what Obama won't do: transcend the poison of the old political games. Yes, it's difficult and I'm having trouble doing that myself, but Jesus Christ, they (and we) are going to have to put all of that political nonsense aside and actually try to solve some problems. Will the Democrats please just stop demanding all these extra things that only complicate the problems? In Sunday's New York Times:

Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would also insist on “enacting an economic recovery package that creates jobs and returns growth to our economy.”

Jesus F. Johnson, is she a complete idiot or what? Oh, sorry, I'm still dealing with some residual poison. ;-) How about we just try to solve this one huge problem first before we start adding all these conditions and extras that will only complicate and impede progress? Growing jobs is important, but let's get this mortgage situation under control first. And as soon as the government-secured mortgages can get properly straightened out and distributed/sold to financial institutions that can actually handle them, then the broader "economic recovery" can be addressed. Sometimes it's necessary to prioritize and handle one thing at a time, instead of trying to kill fifty birds with one stone.

Truth be told, I tend to agree that there needs to be a serious restructuring of how corporations and financial institutions do business. In my utopian ideas it wouldn't be necessary for the government to regulate so much because all the businesses would naturally want to be ethical, fair, and responsible for their own behavior and the consequences of that behavior. But I know that is only an idealistic fantasy and that a lot of people won't regulate themselves without force or fear of severe penalties.

My own ideas are fairly radical, and maybe even "liberal" depending on how you define it. ;-) I've never believed that the corporate business model is really that good because it inherently encourages too-risky behavior without tough enough consequences. Inevitably when a corporation fails, especially the very large ones, it becomes a private profit-public loss situation because the "owners" aren't held accountable for the losses. The value of their ownership in the company is often not at all related to any real, physical assets. Their wealth is just an illusion based on an assumption of future performance. It's just a bad model to begin with, although I do know and somewhat appreciate some of the "pro" arguments for it. But any other purely private business just can't survive or function by doing things in the same way as corporations, and they can't rely on public money for bailing them out when they screw up.

Let's look at this $700,000,000,000 that the government wants to "liquidate" the whole mess, which apparently accounts for only about 10% of all mortgages in the US (though I haven't found any solid numbers on that so it could be inaccurate). Well, I'd say 10% isn't really that much, but because of the fucked up ways that the banks overinflated the values of them and lent much more money than what the actual collateral was worth, the problem seemed to exponentially grow somehow. Anyway, if I've done my math right, which I probably didn't because every time I try to use real numbers I mess up for whatever reasons ;-), every single man, woman, and child in the US either owes the government over $2000, or you might could say they each will own $2000 worth of other people's houses until the mortgages are paid off.

Okay, I suppose the socialists might be cheering about this movement into that direction. But frankly, I don't like it, although logically and rationally and morally speaking no one can place any claims, or liens as they call them, on our mortgage because ours isn't in any kind of trouble. It's just between us and our credit union. I just hope that all those other supposedly 90% of people like us will actually see some "return" on our investments in other people's properties. I'd say it would be fair for the government, as soon as they are able (if ever?), to send us a dividend of that $2000+ per person plus interest (but definitely not at a "sub-prime" rate). ;-) What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. Or to be a little more "charitable" they could just give us future tax credits for those amounts, including some percentage of interest.

Does anyone really think it's a good idea to trust the current Congress to improve anything? Regardless of your political leanings it should be very clear that these people who are supposed to be "public servants" paid with our money have done a piss-poor job. In fact, I think we should have many of them charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" and bribery (in the guise of lobbyists' payments). A good explanation of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means in this context is found in an article by Jon Roland:

... the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Our Congress is sworn in and under the obligation to uphold their Oath of Office. This puts the responsibility on them to act on our behalf. I would lead an insurrection if that's what it would take to get all those corrupt bozos out of office. I am a conservative, but I'm a rebel too. Perhaps a revolutionary conservative is a paradox, but here I am anyway. ;-)

As for all those "executives" of these failed and brink-of-failing financial services companies, I think they should be charged with several serious crimes. Stop it with this namby-pamby fiddle-farting around with some big bailout that we can't really afford. Throw the bastards in jail for practically treasonous fraud. Yes, treasonous is a very strong word, but if you believe that the failings of these companies without (and possibly even with) a bailout will actually lead to the complete collapse of the US, and possibly global, economy, then okay, that looks awfully serious to me. They've essentially weakened our country's security in every way.

At least treat them like drug-dealers and seize all their property that they gained from their criminal activities. Make them pay for the mess they created. Of course, that wouldn't be enough to cover it all, but at least it would be something coming from the criminals who caused it. Back in the good old days, people like that would have been dealt with quickly. They certainly wouldn't be rewarded for their betrayals and treachery.

I hope that everyone who reads this will see the truth. And spread the word. I mean really. We're actually the bosses here. So let's act like it.

Amen, go in peace. :-)

Update: Shortly after finishing this and posting it, I heard on the news that the FBI is investigating Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros., and AIG. Praise the lord! I hope they are investigating some Congress members too. (of both parties, whoever has been instrumental in allowing the banking fraud to continue)

Throwing in the Towel

The way things are going these days with the crooks on Wall Street and all the other dummies getting bailed out with taxpayer money, we are seriously considering throwing in the towel and closing up shop. It's just not worth it anymore when my husband works 60-70 hour weeks crawling under nasty houses, getting his hands all cut up and burned, and dealing with all the other very difficult jobs required in the HVAC business when we pay our bills, pay our outrageous taxes, and all the benefits seem to be going to everyone else.

Sure, we have been able to build a nice house and have some nice cars, but that is ONLY because HE HAS WORKED HIS ASS OFF AND HAS REALLY PAID FOR THOSE THINGS WITH HIS OWN EFFORT, instead of relying on government help and bailouts or by taking advantage of other people or taking stupid risks and so on. IF he had ever taken advantage of anyone we would sure as hell be a whole lot richer today than we are because truth be told, most people are pretty stupid idiots who are pretty easy to take advantage of anyway. But we're not really "rich", but just part of that shrinking middle class who is shrinking because we are finally figuring out that we are the ones being exploited by everyone else.

Yes, I'm so angry about these things that I could be spitting venom. We SHOULD NOT have to pay for all the stupid, bad decision and laziness of other people. It is NOT our responsibility or moral obligation to rescue everyone else who has acted in irresponsible ways.

Maybe I should be looking forward to owning part of the big financial giants who are now going to rely on our tax money to survive. But of course, I know not to hold my breath waiting for any dividends on our FORCED investment.

What all the stupid people never consider is that when people like us, who have made honest livings and have supported so many other people through our efforts, decide to give up, that wellspring that they've sucked dry is going to stay fucking dry. Then what are they going to do?

When the system has made it so unprofitable for people to actually work very hard to support themselves, then they aren't going to do it.

I feel like just saying, "Fuck it all!" Let's just do like everyone else and stop paying our house payments, taxes, and all the other things that so many people aren't doing.

If the bank calls and says, "Where is your house payment?" I will answer, "Call AIG or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. They have it."

Hogs In Suits

The full content of John Gibson's commentary yesterday:

Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago.

Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.

A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.

Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.

Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.

Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.

Also according to the Center for Responsive Politics:

Lehman Brothers has given $9.2 million through employees and its PAC since 1989, with 54 percent of that going to Democrats. Clinton and Barack Obama top the list of all-time recipients for the company, collecting $410,000 and $395,600 respectively.

I think it needs to be said many times that when Obama blames the Republicans for the current "financial crisis" he is being a bit more than disingenuous. I would go as far as to call him a liar. So much for his promise to transcend the old political games. I'm pretty disappointed in how he's come around to that.

I do recall back around 2004, or thereabouts, maybe in one of his State of the Union addresses, President Bush spoke about his wish that more people could become homeowners because he thought it would make them more financially secure. Unfortunately, the greedy Bastard-Pigs-In-Suits who controlled the big financial services companies, who apparently were very invested in the Democrats, took that as some kind of free pass for taking advantage of the people's desires to become homeowners.

I watch a fair amount of TV, mostly news, nature/science documentaries, and a few "reality shows" sometimes. Well, I think it's a good way to gauge the trends of our society to see what is foremost in the popular culture. Commercials are one big source of these trends. Before the housing bubble burst, there were always very many commercials for mortgage and lending companies who were pushing these ridiculous, but superficially attractive, offers for people to get loans, e.g. for 125% of the value of their homes, and those very low "introductory rates" that would allow payments of only, for example, $900 on a loan of $200,000. Also, many of the offers told us that "everyone is approved" or some such encouragement for people to apply who really had no business getting big loans in the first place. Of course, many people are ignorant about these gimmicks and/or the lenders were pretty sneaky about the actual terms of those loans.

Let me explain why those lenders foolishly threw money at so many people. They were thinking that when the low introductory rates ended and people could no longer afford their payments, then they could foreclose on the loans and resell those homes for at least the value of the loan because housing values were climbing so much. They either didn't see that it was a bubble that was going to burst, or they knew and didn't care. And yes, I do blame the lenders more than the borrowers because any reputable and responsible lender is not going engage in trickery and very risky practices in hopes of getting some big pay-off from overly inflated collateral.

A big factor in the housing bubble bursting was when the construction industry responded to the higher demand for new homes, that people wanted to buy with those over-valued mortgages so that they could get more house for less money. They pretty much started a home-building boom because they thought that they would be able to sell all these new houses. It made the economy look pretty good for a while because more people were working and because the increased construction required more materials, supplies, and all the other stuff that is needed when there is a lot of building. It looked like great economic growth.

But it was just an illusion because it was ultimately based on some worthless paper and money games with no real collateral backing it up, not even all those houses out there with no one able to buy or sell them. It was not that capitalism failed. It was that some crooks pretending to be capitalists built their 'house of cards' out of speculation and greed without any solid foundation. You know, most actual functioning businesses just cannot and will not survive by trying to sell something that doesn't really exist. Didn't anyone learn anything from that DotCom bubble bursting?

If someone really wants to place some sort of final blame for these troubles we're in now, they should really look to the people at the top of the chain and who they support and who supports them and their actions. And if you really look you will see that it was not the "evil" capitalist Republicans who exploited the people's hopes and dreams for a better life. It was the Deomcrats who raked in millions at the expense of us all. Do the research. Look it up. Learn the reality and truth of the matter. And stop blaming the wrong guys. Blame the real Hogs in Suits who are pretending to be something else.

Amen, go in peace. ;-)

PS I love Neil Cavuto. He has some seriously big balls because he is the only person I've seen really stand up to Bill O'Reilly and put him in his place. Last night Cavuto was on the Factor and called Bill out on his wanting to blame the wrong guys for all of our troubles:



Bill wants the government to "watch" the big corporations in order to let us know when they are doing bad business. Well, that's a pretty naive view because it trusts the same guys who are the source of the trouble to self-regulate. It won't work. That approach never has worked. Besides, it sounds like he wants the government to be 'fortune tellers' (literally and figuratively) who can predict what companies will succeed or fail. Fortune-telling isn't a very solid business venture either, privately or publicly. ;-)

The real solution is to level the playing field by requiring all those big corporations to play by the same rules as the small businesses that can't and won't survive if they engage in ridiculous pretend capitalism and they aren't protected and bailed out by the government when it all fails for them. Cavuto is right that you can't blame the oil companies for having real profits because the oil companies are actually making money from real products and services and not some worthless paper. Don't penalize the successful capitalists for being successful. Bill O'Reilly should know that because he's always preaching that when it comes to his own money. ;-)