Personally, I find it unacceptable that middle-middle-class and lower-middle-class pay hardly any taxes. They’re middle class dammit, not poor. They should be called upon to help fund our military, CIA, FBI, etc…. Prior to the Bush tax cut, they paid 1/6 of the federal tax burden. When that tax cut expires in 2010, it will go back to the way it should be.

I’m tired of hearing middle class people complain about how hard it is, while they spend $200/mo on cellphone bills. Every Middle-schooler gets braces to fix their teeth. Wow! When I was a kid, kids didn’t want braces, because they got teased. They don’t have 3-5 kids each like when I was a kid. Two or three TV’s per house. Two or three cars. Kids have their own rooms. Electronic gadgets abound. I guess they learned the rule growing up: well-to-do people learn how to poor-mouth.

They were allowing folks to borrow money without ANY money down.(!!) And with little, if any, reassurance of secure employment on the part of the borrower.(!!) Insanity in the real world. But it makes sense if…well…if you’re a Dem. Because maybe there was a grander plan…

BO is talking on the stump today. Listen carefully to what he’s saying:
“We have to make sure these people don’t lose their homes.” Now how are they going to do that?

And did you see this? The other day a bunch of poor folks holding signs – protesting – getting all upset about losing their houses and getting ripped off. Gosh, it looked and sounded strangely familiar…like they’d been coached by some Alinsky ‘community organizers’ to me…

I thought I heard murmurings some time ago about reducing the amount these folks will have to pay on their homes in order for them to afford the mortgages. So will this mean we’ll be essentially giving, say, a $100K house to someone for maybe half its value? Wow. Not bad if you can get away with it. Would that mean that that Dem congresswoman who didn’t have one mortgage, but THREE, was worried about losing one of her houses; and correct me if I’m wrong, but was she using campaign money to pay off some mortages?

Back to BO on the stump. In the same breath, I heard BO moving on to his next project: college loans. This bailout has to move from WallStreet to Main Street, is what he’s saying. Yeah, somehow, I’m sure he and his pals will figure a way to have the taxpayer pay for the advanced educations of those he cares most about. But, you know what, I think this is where I’d like to draw the line.

I don’t even like the hard-earned money my kids’ dad has forked over to the liberal, creepy institutions of higher education they’ve attended. My kids have heard me tell them more than once: can you read? Can you think? Well, pick up a book and take care of your own education. They know I’ve about had it with these overrated halls of ivy.

Nope. I’m not too keen on my money paying for an Ayers-inspired education with the likes of Ward Churchill in the classroom. There’s no telling how mushy the mind might be that’ll receive it. And I won’t be around to tell them it’s a load.

A fascinating take on TAKING votes to STEAL elections
reposted from “barbara ny” (link at top of the following)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2087244/posts

_______________________

ALSO OF RELATED INTEREST:

Back to Square One
By Bruce Bartlett
Sunday, September 21, 2008; Washington Post, Page B07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903185.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

“If the events of recent days prove anything, it is that we cannot believe a word that John McCain or Barack Obama has said about what he will do as president. It’s not that they have lied. Simply put, the underlying premise of everything the candidates have proposed — that the economy is fundamentally sound — is no longer operational.

The writer was deputy assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy from 1988 to 1993. Before that, he was a senior policy analyst in the White House Office of Policy Development and worked as an economist on Capitol Hill.

Inside Obama’s ACORN by Stanley Kurtz (at National Review, I think). Very informative.

BO’s ties to this organization are more far-reaching than he would have us believe, and we get a look into this network of radicals. Like Alinsky, they employ intimidation, and this tactic: “in your face” — (sound familiar? BO’s supporters are now asked to do this to those who write/speak critically of him). Necessary now that his numbers are falling.

The treatment of Freddoso surely was intimidation – threat/attempt to sue him over his revelatory book. Disrupting his radio interviews. No way does BO want the broader public to know about his history of attachment to radicals.

To be fair, the gentle, peace-loving savior favors first political insider strategy. His ugly side isn’t so obvious. But if faced with losing, has no problem resorting to hardball intimidation. The man’s going to get his way. Just ask Hillary. Or Alice (Baker?). Or Jim (Ryan?). Political opponents all.

BO specifically worked on legislation on these ACORN pet issues: living wages and banking practices/bankruptcy. I perked up when I saw “living wages” since my son – college student – showed me this assigned book “Nickel and Dimed.” A NYT bestseller(natch) says on its jacket, “has fueled nationwide campaigns for a living wage.” With Ayers hard at work, the campaign is on in our schools.

BO isn’t new to politics and the perversion of same. ACORN had a bigger hand in his entry to political office than is known.

He goes back at least to 1992, as a lawyer – ACORN’s “Project VOTE” – and the Motor Voter case. ACORN is not nonpartisan, but rather intensely radical and partisan. I think some 37 employees in Wisconsin alone (Milwaukee?) were recently charged with fraudulent voter registration. They’re not even careful about info – or lack of – on the forms they submit. Perhaps because they’re paid for each card they turn in. And if memory serves, one organization on which BO&Ayers were board members shoveled money (meant for other uses) instead to grants ($70K) to ACORN.

He was no more blind to their fraud then – and now – than he was blind to Wright’s hateful sermons.

For decades these radicals have inserted themselves in our society – destroying it bit by bit. Their former stealth tactics are now seeing the light of day. We can’t let them point the finger of blame on others. We have to fight back and expose them for who they are. And Americans have to know who BO is.

They wanna blame Republicans for the economic mess? They didn’t regulate enough? Sounds to me like the Dems are saying, “You didn’t know how stupid we are. Or how corrupt. It’s your fault you didn’t protect everybody from our stupidity and corruption.”

Well, I’ve got an answer: kick as many Dems as you can out of Congress in November, and get McCain/Palin in the White House.

She’s got a shotgun and her aim is pretty good.

It’ll be cocked and ready to hit the back sides of any Democrat – or Republican – that tries to turn tail and run from any mess created by their corruption. She doesn’t play favorites.

Just ask Alaskans.

Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 08:55:59 by dirtboy

In early June 2008, Americans learned of a VIP loan program provided to influential politicians by Countrywide Mortgage at the direction of its chairman Angelo Mozilo – and that one of the so-called ‘Friends of Angelo” was none other than Jim Johnson, a former CEO at Fannie Mae who had just been tapped to head Barack Obama’s vice presidential vetting committee.

Countrywide Friends Got Good Loans

Countrywide Financial Corp. makes mortgage loans through a vast network of offices, brokers and call centers. But a few customers have gotten their loans a special way: through Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo.

These borrowers, known internally as “friends of Angelo” or FoA, include two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, the biggest buyer of Countrywide’s mortgages, say people familiar with the matter.

One was James Johnson, a longtime Democratic Party power and an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign, who this past week was named to a panel that is vetting running-mate possibilities for the presumed nominee. Another was Franklin Raines, a onetime Clinton administration budget director, who left Fannie Mae amid an accounting scandal in 2004.

Initially, Obama did what he did best, namely, obfuscate: Obama Defends Jim Johnson’s Role as VP Selecter

At a press conference today, Sen. Barack Obama said he will not ask Jim Johnson to step down from his VP selection committee despite his ties to Countrywide Mortgage. Obama said he will not vet the vetters.

Obama: “These are not folks who are working for me.”

But that only lasted one day: JIM JOHNSON STEPS DOWN

Jim Johnson, who had been leading Barack Obama’s vice presidential search committee, has stepped down from the campaign.

“Jim did not want to distract in any way from the very important task of gathering information about my vice presidential nominee, so he has made a decision to step aside that I accept,” Obama said in a statement. “We have a very good selection process underway, and I am confident that it will produce a number of highly qualified candidates for me to choose from in the weeks ahead. I remain grateful to Jim for his service and his efforts in this process.”

Under the bus you go, Jim. Say hi to Reverend Wright for us.

So apparently Jim Johnson’s sweetheart Countrywide mortgages were grounds to disqualify him from vetting Obama’s veep candidates. But receiving similar favorable Countrywide mortgages were not sufficient from preventing another Friend of Angelo from drafting legislation that stood to benefit the new owner of Countrywide, Bank of America, at the expense of the American taxpayer. Namely, one Senator Chris Dodd, D-CT. Chair of the Senate Banking Committee. And at the time, busy crafting bailout legislation for the mortgage industry – legislation of considerable interest to Bank of America.

The story was initially broken by Conde-Nast Portfolio (link only) and picked up by other media outlets as well.

Two Senators Appear to be “Friends of Countrywide”

The Senator, a Democrat from Connecticut and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee which regulates mortgage lending, was named in an article by Julie Hirschfeld Davis of the Associated Press and earlier by Conde Nast Portfolio magazine, as one of two senators – the other being Senator Kent Conrad (D – ND) – as having received preferential treatment from Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo in obtaining mortgage loans. Dodd had earlier this year called Countrywide’s lending practices “abusive.”

So, what was Dodd’s reaction to this revelation of preferential treatment? Why, to pull out the Dem scandal management playbook. First, he denied that he got preferential treatment. When it was revealed that he knew he was getting a special deal, he claimed he thought it was for his being a longtime customer. When a former Countrywide loan officer said that Mozilo demanded of his employees that they inform the recipients of VIP loans of their special treatment, and that Dodd had received FOUR sweetheart mortgages instead of just the two initially reported by Conde Nast (saving him a total of $70,000), Dodd just simply clammed up and stonewalled.

Some called on Dodd to halt his work on crafting the mortgage bailout bill, given the allegations. But Dodd refused. After all, there was vital legislation to draft for his new patron, Bank of America.:

WASHINGTON (Map, News) – “We call it the ‘Bank of America bill on steroids.’” A House staffer told me that, demanding anonymity, but speaking on behalf of aides to GOP members of the House Financial Services Committee.

He was talking about the bill whose Senate version has been brought to the floor this week by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL. Dodd-Shelby would let mortgage lenders off the hook for bad loans, shifting the burden ultimately to taxpayers. Dodd has received approximately $70,000 in campaign contributions from Bank of America in the last year-and-a-half.

Dodd-Shelby hit the Senate floor this week amid controversy over sweetheart loan deals Dodd and other powerful politicians received from Countrywide Financial, the lender with the most exposure to subprime mortgages at risk of default.

Some journalists and Republican lawmakers are asking if Countrywide bought a bailout bill with its VIP loans to Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee

And it appeared that Bank of America was pleased with what their money bought:

NRO Doc Drop: BofA-Scripted Bank Bailout Looks Awfully Similar to Dodd-Drafted Housing Bill [Stephen Spruiell]

National Review Online has obtained an internal Bank of America “discussion document” (pdf here) on the subject of the FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008, a.k.a. the Dodd-Shelby mortgage-lender bailout bill.

Yesterday, Tim Carney reported that the prevailing sentiment on Capitol Hill is that the Dodd-Shelby bill “is exactly what Bank of America and Countrywide wanted.” BofA is in the process of acquiring Countrywide. Countrywide is currently embroiled in a scandal over its V.I.P. program, under which several powerful politicians, including Sen. Chris Dodd, got preferential loan rates.

This discussion document (dated March 11, 2008) would appear to support the contention that BofA essentially wrote the bailout section of the bill. Almost all of BofA’s preferences are mirrored in the Dodd-Shelby legislation. The BofA document even offers PR tips, such as “We believe that any intervention by the federal government will be acceptable only if it is not perceived as a bail-out of the bond market.”

And the estimated cost to taxpayers for that bailout of BofA and other mortgage lenders? Estimates range from $300 to $500 billion. So for $70,000 in campaign cash and $70,000 in mortgage discounts … well, you do your own math as to what that costs each taxpayer.

And the sorriest part of this affair? After all these revelations, Dodd was still on Obama’s short list of veep candidates. Which goes to show just what Obama thinks of the Politics of Personal Enrichment – that it is business as usual for the Democratic Party. Change? Try chump change. As in, Obama and Dodd thinks we are the chumps because they stick us with the costs. There’s only one way to prove them wrong. Make their corruption cost them their jobs.

As an investment professional I can attest to the veracity of what Mr. Poole has written here. Doubling the capital gains tax is incredibly foolish, since most Americans who have retirement funds are exposed to the negative effects of this idiocy. Young people will find fewer jobs and economic stagnation awaiting them after graduation. I remember what the 1970’s were like. I was a teenager and young adult during that time. Jobs were hard to find, and unemployment was higher than it is today. Inflation (take a look at Obama’s energy proposals and think of how higher energy costs will harm the economy further)was trending higher, eventually forcing the Fed to put on the brakes real hard. It was not a fun time to be young and trying to get started.

However, I fear that the only way to get socialism out of our system here in the U.S. is to endure its painful consequences again and learn the lesson we learned thirty years ago (I am a former Leftist who left the Left in 1987). Most of Obama’s support is from the under-40 crowd, the education unions, and the last-hurrah Older Boomer Cohort (I’m one of the Younger Boomers). And it is primarily female. Well, ladies, how are you going to be able to hitch up with young guys and start families if yours and your men’s economic prospects are considerably more dim than they now are?

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 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 industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

”The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,” Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ”We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,” the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

”These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,” he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration’s package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company’s mission.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ”responsible proposal.”

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

”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 administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”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.
—

Ed, you should have done a bit more research into the linked article as it is not represented in its entirety and fails to disclose that the legislation was supported by Freddie and Fannie.

Got anything else?