Obama is an evil man

    By michael on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 1:38pm |

    For evil to succeed, good men should do nothing.

    Thanks, but no thanks. We won't give him a chance to ruin capitalism and democracy.

    Obama is an evil man. Or at least his agenda is evil. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Comments

    Platitudes, check.

    Lack of factual support for theory, check.

    Utter and complete idiocy, check, check.

    Well, boys, looks like we have our first troll. Who brought the champagne?


    by Orlando on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 8:01pm

    There goes the neighborhood. I knew that we shouldn't have let the baby post.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 8:25pm

    Whoo hoo, and I almost missed it!  Do you think it is a real troll?  I bet it got picked up from that other place - indescriminate posting will do it every time.   Someone should talk to managment about washing their hands after posting.


    by Bluesplashy on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 6:49am

    You are lemmings following their fearless leader into a bottomless abyss. Blind leading blinds. Socialism has never worked and never will.

    Got you?

    Rule #13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

    Rule #5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

    Before you start the usual routine of calling me a stupid uneducated redneck:

    Masters degree in Computer Science and Applied Math... 30 years of experience working for aerospace and financial industry... and my father WAS a rocket scientist.

    Now can we start discussing facts instead of insulting each other?


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 11:32am

    Congratulations on your accomplishments, sir. We are honored by your august participation at our humble site.

    For the record, you would find that many at dagblog are open to reasonable discussion with those who have opposing viewpoints, but if that were your object, "Obama is an evil man" would not be the wisest opening. We save the ridicule for those who earn it.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 11:40am

    "Obama is an evil man" was a ruse. Remember Rule #5? Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

    I presume that a person is good, unless I find out otherwise.

    It is OK that he is a communist. I would still respect him.

    What is not OK is that he deceived the voters and didn't tell his real agenda.

    I would respect him if he wasn't a liar, a fraud, and a snake oil salesman.

    Promise: "I will go through spending bills line by line and eliminate all earmarks". Reality: Stimulus bill had 9000 earmarks worth at leats 8 billion, and budget has 1000s of earmarks as well.

    Promise: "I will work in bi-partisan fashion". Reality: 0.00% of Republicans voted for his bills, because they were completely excluded from the process.

    Promise: "I will get rid of lobbyists influence in Washington, I will bring change". Reality: Name a single person in the Obama cabinet picks who wasn't a Clinton associate, a lobbyist friend, and a tax cheat. Same old, same old. No change here.

    Promise: "I will eliminate the budget deficit". Reality: His budget proposal has 1.5 TRILLION bigger deficit than GWB (even if you forget about all those stimulus bills).

    Promise: "I will operate in completely open fashion, everything will be published on the Internet for people to see". Reality: People complain that the White House has never been as secretive as now. For instance, the Stimulus bill, which has 11000 pages, was available to members of Congress to read for only an hour before they voted on it, and it had HAND-WRITTEN modifications after that.


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:56pm

    wow. you must have been writing this as i was writing my post. now this is more like it.

    first of all, let's just assume that all your broken promises were factually accurate, (which they are not). Would it really be that surprising that a politician in the heat of an election made promises that he realized he couldn't keep once he got into office?? That unfortunately is part of the game - always has been, always will be. Now obviously, one of Obama's selling points is that he wanted to change the nature of the game, so I do think it is fair to hold him to a higher standard.

    im hoping others who know more can address some of michael's points in a more compelling fashion, but i'll at least try to start.

    Earmarks - please source that statement please. I don't believe Obama ever said he wanted to end all earmarks. He believes some earmarks do good. He does want to reform the process, by increasing its transparency and accountability, a position he reiterated today, and he set some very specific goals about making that happen in the future. the spending bill he is signing was business that was supposed to be done last year and is merely designed to get through to the next budget. he does not believe now is the time to get Congress bogged down in work that should have been done long ago when there are much more important items on the agenda to discuss.

    Bipartisanship - It takes two partners to dance. Obama has repeatedly invited Republicans and conservative pundits to discuss his plans and their ideas - Larry Kudlow had a meeting with the president soon after the election and was impressed by the invitation as well as the substance of the meeting. Obama  nominated a couple of Republicans to his cabinet (the fact that one of them decided to withdraw his nomination is indicative of the intransigence of the other side, not of Obama being untrue to his promise to reach out across the aisle).

    besides, your statement is not factual. His budget in fact did get a couple of Republican votes in the Senate - it had to, or it would have been filibustered. Obama would LOVE to engage the Republicans and compromise SOMEWHAT on his agenda, as long as the other side doesn't obstruct every one of his plans and is willing to admit that the majority of voters decided last november to give Democrats the change to implement their agenda.

    Lobbyists - Ethics reform has always been a clear focus of Obama, even back to his days as an Illinois senator, and the fact he restricted lobbyists from being a part of his transition team redemonstrated his commitment to that goal. Am I a bit disappointed that a dozen or so former lobbyists have made their way onto Obama's staff. Sure, but it's still an improvement over previous administrations.

    As far as his cabinet nominees, I'm also not wildly impressed with many of his choices. I too wish there weren't so many Clintonites, and the tax cheat trend is disturbing.

    Deficit- again, please source that statement. The fact of the matter is Obama is trying to restart an economy in crisis, and he feels it is necessary to spend government money to make that happen. I have a problem with the size of our deficits as well (and have been chided by others on this site for my concerns here - an example of how we do enjoy healthy debate), but again that is Obama's prescription for restoring confidence in our economy, creating new jobs, and getting us back on a growth path. The positive thing is that he is keenly aware of the need to reestablish fiscal discipline - he has already presented a budget designed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term, and he has held an economic summit (again, with leaders on both sides of the issue) to discuss some of the long-term structural issues that must be resolved to ensure the health of this country's balance sheet.

    Transparency - You must be kidding. What people are you referring to? The Obama presidency has been a model of openness, accountability and transparency. Have you even looked at the government's various new Web sites? The amount of  information there and the ease with which people can access it is truly impressive and transformative. Has he been perfect here? Probably not, (tho your particular example is a poor one considering the messiness involved with creating, negotiating and passing an $800 bln stimulus bill) but compared to the Bush White House????? Puh-leeze.


    by Deadman on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 1:33pm

    Someone's been reading their Alinsky!


    by DF on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:35pm

    Got to know your enemy.

    Btw, he had a pretty good description of you guys:

    "The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, 'Burn the system down!' They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world.”

    Told you: Lemmings following their leader into bottomless abyss of socialism.

    Been there. Spent first 35 years of my life in the Soviet Union. It ain't pretty.


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 1:02pm

    So, Alinksy is your enemy, but you're adherent to his methods?  How did you spend so long in the USSR without actually learning anything about what socialism is?  Maybe you should read your Marx also.


    by DF on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 3:01pm

    Glad you mentioned Karl Marx. I think a have read most all of his works and are kinda expert in Marxism.

    I've read a few other books as well, like Nitche, Schopengauer, Hegel, Lao Tsu, Aristotle, Plato, Lenin, Hofstadter, Hawkins, just to name a few favorites.

    Which period of Marx do you want to talk about?

    Early Marx believed that capitalism will be replaced by communism, money will disappear, and that the violent communist revolution is unavoidable.

    I have to disappoint you. Later in his life he came to realize that capitalism is the highest form of evolution of economy. It will NEVER be replaced by communism. There will be NO revolution. There will ALWAYS be private property, money, rich and poor. He was even called a traitor by more radical communists, I seem to remember.

    According to Marx, the capitalist society will PEACEFULLY evolve forever and ever. During that peaceful evolution, the control of people over private property will gradually increase until that private property will be in fact owned by workers, even if it will nominally remain private property.

    I am a Marxist, imagine that. I believe that is exactly what is happening in our society. Today's private property is not like your grand parents private property. We live in some kind of socialism already, just nobody calls it like that, and eventually we will live in some kind of communism. But money and private property will NEVER completely disappear.

    Unlike so-called "socialism" as it was implemented by idiots-revolutioners in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, capitalism in general is rewarding people according to their deeds. Those stupid revolutioners were bad pupils of Marxism, they didn't like his conclusions, they didn't want to wait for capitalism to peacefully evolve, and decided to build communism right away BY FORCE.

    Big, big mistake.

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 3:43pm

    According to Marx, the capitalist society will PEACEFULLY evolve forever and ever. During that peaceful evolution, the control of people over private property will gradually increase until that private property will be in fact owned by workers, even if it will nominally remain private property.

    Thank you.  This is the funniest thing I've read all week.


    by DF on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 4:18pm

    Oh, well... I just rephrased a quote from Karl Marx... I will find the exact quote and post a link.

    If that sounds funny to you, it is rather a problem with your understanding abilities.

    Some developmentally challenged people (or what is the politically-correct term for retards?) find funny many ordinar things. They can laugh if you display them a finger.

    Of course if you are much smarter than all previous philosophers combined, you can come up with another theory, but that's what Marx figured out: In philosophical sense, the categories of "private property" and "common property" are disappearing in the future and become one. That's close to Karl Marx exact wording.

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 5:29pm

    we enjoy discussing facts. your post didn't have any as far as i could tell.

    we enjoy healthy, considerate debate. Your initial post did not set the stage for that to occur.

    don't get me wrong, I am not an innocent here - I have called cheney evil (and immediately regretted it because he does seem to have done a decent job as a father), and i certainly have name-called bush's agenda (i called it short-sided and repugnant in my video today) ... but in my defense, it took me years to reach those conclusions.

    you have decided after 50 days that obama is an evil man, or at least has an evil agenda. can you at least allow for the possibility that he is merely trying to fix an insanely difficult mess - the worst in 70+ years - that he had absolutely no part in creating?

    The economic mess that Obama inherited developed under one of the lowest-taxed, least-regulated, pro-'growth' administrations in our nation's recent history. Even if you don't assume a causal relationship between those policies and the economic disaster we are facing, you must at least admit that low taxes and increased deregulation alone aren't enough to prevent market failures and generate sustainable, widespread growth.

    I know they say not to engage trolls, but i'd rather give michael the benefit of the doubt that he is a reasonable man in addition to being an educated one. i'd really like to have diverse voices on this site (a sentiment we all share as we have repeatedly discussed our desire to bring aboard bloggers with alternative views).


    by Deadman on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:59pm

    You were fed a big lie.

    Remember Goebbels? If you want people to believe in your lie, it has to be big, and you have to repeat it all the time.

    Republicans, Bush and especially McCain didn't create this mess, and I have facts to prove.

    Obama, on the other hand, together with his pals, was a big part of the problem, not the savior as you were made to believe by their communist propaganda.

    I will use only respectable sources (respectable from your point of view, of course), no Rush Limbaugh and right-wing web sites. I don't listen to Rush too often, anyway, maybe once a month, I prefer to have multiple sources.

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 1:10pm

    If your purpose here is to advance your point of view in an open and honest dialogue, fantastic. As I'm sure you learned in graduate school, after saying something like, "I have the facts to prove it", it is generally acceptable to break out the charts and graphs, or at least the links. You say we've been fed a bunch of lies? I say prove it.

    P.S. Saying something is true doesn't make it true, despite what Karl Rove might say.


    by Orlando on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 2:21pm

    Who is Karl Rove? Never heard about him. Tongue out

    Anyway, here are some facts.

    Congressman Barney Frank, D, MA (he looks smarter than the rest of Democrats, at least he eventually realized something was wrong) http://www.house.gov/frank/fanfredarticletext101808.html

    Why was it so hard to make your case?

    Murphy: The bottom line is, Fannie and Freddie had a bumper sticker and FM Policy Focus had a white paper. They could say, "We are for homeownership," and FM Policy Focus had to explain mortgage-backed securities and why Fannie and Freddie weren't what they said they were. And we had to explain how it works when someone buys their house and mortgages are sold to Fannie and Freddie, and then they turn around and bundle them into mortgage-back securities and sell them to Wall Street, and on and on. And all they had to say is, "We are for homeownership. Are you against that?"

    Was anyone in Washington willing to listen?

    Griffith: In 2003, President Bush came out with a very bold proposal saying we have a problem here with Fannie and Freddie and we need to do something. And before that, you have to give some credit to people like [then-Rep.] Richard Baker [R-La.], who was chair of the House Financial Services Subcommittee [on Capital Markets Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises.] And then there was [House Financial Services Committee] Chairman [James] Leach [R-Iowa], who said, "Yes, you are right. We do have a big problem." That was probably 1999 or 2000. He left as chairman in 2000.

    Were any Democrats on the Hill willing to listen?

    Griffith: In 2002, Representative Chris Shays [R-Conn.] and Representative Ed Markey [D-Mass.] both pushed for SEC regulation of Fannie and Freddie, and that was a very courageous thing for them to do. At that point Fannie and Freddie were the only two companies that were publicly traded and didn't have to disclose all their financials to the public. At the last minute, Fannie and Freddie voluntarily agreed to register their securities with the SEC. It was a huge milestone in starting to understand their problems, because when, in quarter after quarter, Fannie and Freddie couldn't file financial statements and missed deadline after deadline, then it started to raise a lot of questions about there being something seriously wrong there.

    Murphy: I think the early heroes in this were Richard Baker and [Clinton administration Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets] Gary Gensler, who sounded the alarm and was quickly knocked down. You also have to give a lot of credit to Republican Senators Elizabeth Dole [North Carolina], Chuck Hagel [Nebraska], John Sununu [New Hampshire], and Mel Martinez [Florida].

    Any other Democrats?

    Griffith: Well, [Rep.] Barney Frank [of Massachusetts]. The Senate Banking Committee produced a very good bill in 2004. It was S. 190 and never got to the Senate floor. Then the House introduced a bill, which it passed, but we couldn't get a bill to the floor of the Senate. Then after the 2006 election when everyone thought FM Policy Focus's issues would be tough sledding with Democrats in the majority, Barney Frank, as the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, stepped up and said, "I am convinced we need to do something."

    ---------

    Yes, he was convinced. Finally. By McCain and others. Too bad nobody else among stupid Senators did anything, and here we are today: housing crisis.

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 3:03pm

    Of course, people in the reality-based community know that Fannie and Freddie were only a  small fraction of the subprime explosion.  Have any other acontextual "facts" for us?


    by DF on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 3:12pm

    I will dismiss your link as a part of BIG LIE right away.

    "Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages."

    Is Representative Barney Frank (D, MA) a conservative critic? Is Clinton administration Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets Gary Gensler a conservative critic? Is Representative Ed Markey (D, MA) a conservative critic?

    Who was by far the biggest player in housing market? Who created the housing bubble? Who encouraged low-income and minority UNQUALIFIED buyers to buy houses?

    Here you go (you forgot Federal Home Loan Bank, which was also a huge player, and a government-sponsored enterprise as well):

    http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=9016

    Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Bank Mission, Regulation, and GSE Status

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks), are government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that were created by Congress to reduce the cost of housing credit and improve affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities. Through their Congressional charters, the GSEs receive federal privileges and legal exemptions that support the perception of an implicit federal guarantee of their obligations, which lowers GSE funding costs, allowing them to fulfill their charge by reducing the cost and increasing and ensuring the availability of financing for housing. Studies have shown that the GSEs lower mortgage rates by as much as 50 basis points, which NAHB estimates increases homeownership opportunities for approximately 2.2 million households.

    --------

    That's 2.2 millions unqualified buyers right here. People who should not buy a house they couldn't afford. 

    Fannie, Freddie and FHLB created a bubble, and then smaller private banks happily joined the gold rush. Remember the perception of an implicit federal guarantee of their obligations?

    How many foreclosures do we have right now? 2.2 milllions sound about right.

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 4:06pm

    Again, your argument is fundamentally flawed and the salient facts show that definitively.  The "big lie" is yours.  "Smaller private banks" is no way to describe the giant, unregulated investment banks that have gone the way of the dodo.  Enjoy your parallel universe and talk radio.


    by DF on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 4:14pm

    Don't have time to listen to talk radio. Take subway to work.

    Interesting discussion we have. I readily admit that your points make some sense (of course private banks who joined the housing bubble were stupid), but you just dismiss whatever I say outright.

    Some anecdotal evidence. I have quite a few friends and friends of my friends who are/were mortgage brokers, and they were told by the management: We must give sub-prime mortgages to any minority person. No credit history, no checks, no nothing. It was an offer they couldn't refuse. Pressure from regulators, pressure from minority activists, pressure from ACORN.

    You do realize that ACORN used to boycott banks and to send thousands of protesters every time they refused to give a mortgage to a minority person?

    Btw, who controlled the Senate and Congress since 2006? Who gave regular savings banks permissions to participate in housing market? Who let them to increase their leverage from 1 : 12 to 1 : 30? Who refused to create any kind of oversight despite cries from some Republicans and Barney Frank? And who received a lot of kickbacks from Fannie and Freddie? Why, your favorite people, Barack Obama and his pals.

    Btw, 52% of sub-prime mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie looks like a controlling share to me. All the other giant unregulated banks had only a few percents each.

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 4:52pm

    I dismiss what you've said because it's been largely unfounded and ridiculous.  The facts that you've tried to offer have been offered without meaningful context, not to mention being part of a discussion that was put to bed last fall.  52% when?  Where are your sources?

    You said:

    I will dismiss your link as a part of BIG LIE right away.

    Who's dismissing who?

    "Kickbacks" meaning what?  Legal campaign contributions?  Illegal bribes?  Again: Sources?


    by DF on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 5:08pm

    Your article:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

    Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

    During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

    In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

    Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

    --------

    Does it contradict any of my points?

    Housing bubble was created by the government (using Fannie, Freddie, FHLB, low interest rates, and cheap credit) from 1992 to 2006. Starting in 2004, private banks, reassured by huge reserves of the aforementioned Fannie and Freddy (remember "implicit federal guarantee of their obligations"?), joined the fray and even overcome them by 2006.

    Stupid politicians did nothing to prevent the looming disaster. Some Republicans and Barney Frank tried to stop the madness and create some oversight, but the rest, lobbied by Fannie, Freddie and private banks, just ignored it.

    Question again: Who was in control of both Congress and Senate since 2006? And why they did exactly nothing?

     

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 6:05pm

    This is going to be my last comment on this thread:

    One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

    Did you read that?  Here's the bottom line: While there certainly may have been arguments to have increased regulation or oversight with respect for Fannie and Freddie, they were better regulated than the rest of the industry.  Their existence did not cause the housing bubble.  The very term "subprime" refers precisely to the fact that the borrower did not qualify for a prime loan, which was defined by the very regulations governed by Fannie and Freddie.  To wit: Fannie and Freddie were not allowed to make subprime loans; such a loan was outside of their purview by definition.

    Now, for your other intimations.  Let's review some facts.  The Democratic Party gained majorities in Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, which took place in November of 2006.  This means that the Democratic majority wasn't seated until the beginning of 2007.  Do you mean to imply that the housing crisis is somehow the fault of the Democratically controlled Congress?  Because that would seem to mean that none of the trouble started until the beginning of 2007 at the earliest.  You yourself have given a timeline of 1992-2006 for the housing crisis.  If that's true, how is the Democratic majority relevant?

    Finally, you say that Obama received "kickbacks".  Where's your proof of this?  How is it relevant for a junior Senator who didn't take his seat until the beginning of 2005?  Is Barack Obama also somehow responsible for the housing crisis?

    I've read multiple translations of the Tao te Ching.  I don't recall Lao Tsu ever equating incomprehensibility with wisdom, but I bet you're pretty fond of that gem.  It's really all you've got.  Barack Obama is a socialist, but why should that bother you, a self-avowed neo-Marxist, who was really a neo-capitalist, in the slightest?  I must have also missed where Marx renounced his theory of surplus value.  I'm sure you'll find me the quote, just like you've referenced everything else so well.

    Up is down, black is white, 2 + 2 = 5.. and if people don't seem to understand all of this, that's because they can't keep up with your hyper-wisdom.  Did I get that about right?


    by DF on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 6:27pm

    Fannie and Freddie were not allowed to make subprime loans? Where did you get that????

    Your own article:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

    Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication.

    Did YOU read that???

    The bottom line: Not a single Democrat except maybe Barney Frank lifted a finger to regulate the running away housing market, from 2000 until 2008. The hindsight is 20-20 of course, but many Republicans including McCain at least tried.

    I will post Karl Marx quote when I find it. Convergence of private and common properties (in PHILOSOPHICAL sense) has nothing to do with surplus value and the rest of political economy which I am familiar with as well.

    My words are easy to understand
    And my actions are easy to perform
    Yet no other can understand or perform them.
    My words have meaning; my actions have reason;
    Yet these cannot be known and I cannot be known.

    Who understands the Way seems foolish
    Great truth seems contradictory
    Great cleverness seems stupid

    Honest people use no rhetoric;
    Rhetoric is not honesty.
    Enlightened people are not cultured;
    Culture is not enlightenment.

    Who understands does not preach
    Who preaches does not understand

    --- Guilty, I like to preach sometimes. Nobody is perfect.

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 7:14pm

    More facts for you.

    New York Times, September 11, 2003
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

    "The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied," said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the [President Bush] administration proposal.

    "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
    "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said.

    ---------

    Outlobbied? Here you go, since you seem to hate lobbyists:

    Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

    1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
    2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
    3. OBAMA, BARACK S D-IL $105,849
    4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
    5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 3:00pm

    If you need alternative views, I got those aplenty on any subject.

    Usually I even have multiple alternative views on every subject. Some people call it bi-polar disorder, some people call it wisdom.

    Little Lao Tsu for you:

    1. If you believe in anything without doubts, you are not wise.

    2. If you are not easily understood, maybe you are wise.

     


    by michael on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 1:35pm

    Latest Comments