Outraged over AIG bonus money? Come on. Get a life and get off the couch, turn off the TV and peer below the surface. This AIG business is peanuts. Read on.
The history of politics offers few opportunities for observers to say - "Yes, that was the trigger," or in this case, for the Democrats to say, "Yes, I am afraid we as a party are responsible." Aside from 1) a courageous congressman from Alabama and 2) ex-President Bill Clinton, Democrats have yet come to own their culpability in this mess. There was not, "plenty of blame to go around," as one friend from the left asserted the other day in his attempt at a defense.
It is ironic that the Republicans, saddled by the left with the mantra of "never regulate," tried repeatedly to regulate the twins (Fannie / Freddie) and every single time the Democrats blocked the legislation. We highlighted this early on; now it is common knowledge. Naturally from the viewpoint of the left, the sooner forgotten the better. And that we can understand. Witness the viewing below, Democrats in the flesh, cheering for (now disgraced) Raines, assuring Americans the twins are healthy. Two of these blithering idiots - Maxine Waters and Greg Meeks - are enough to stir any self respecting Democrat to wonder. The committee is the Financial Service Committee, or, subcommittees of that body: At the conclusion of the video, Bill Clinton joins us in putting this crisis right at his party’s doorstep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Throughout the video, one can witness Democratic members of Congress defending 1) the management of the twins and 2) the business practices of the twins. We know now that management cooked the books; we know that the twins dumbed down their underwriting standards and increased their leverage to hazardous levels, levels which several Republican officials (House & Senate) warned would prove disastrous.
I sat before this committee. I can attest that neither side, Rep nor Dem, are well posted in economics. But one need not be an economist to observe the obvious; it was the willfully blind, and the politically correct that put us in this mess. When the only qualification for a mortgage was a good jump shot, one would have thought most would have seen the warning signs. Why just the Republicans?
Robert Craven
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
OVERVIEW
We have pondered crowd behavior, past few weeks - how it is that the equivalent of a cult figure could end up as president of the United States? But that’s not it either. How did this individual, devoid of accomplishment, end up where he is? Because he’s half black? Because the economy tanked pre-election, implicating McCain’s party? That’s all part of it, yet......
We knew up front that Obama had no job qualifications. But so did his admirers. We knew up front that he demonstrated a lack of judgement in his past associations, with criminals and shake-down artists. But so did his admirers. We knew he was on the take from Fannie Mae, along with Frank, Dodd and Clinton. But so did his admirers. We knew his Ill. / Senate voting record. But so did his admirers.
Perhaps H.L. Mencken has the answer, in his Notes On Democracy (1926): "Public estimation of eminence runs in reverse ratio to its genuineness," writes Mencken, anticipating Obama, "the sort of eminence that the mob esteems most highly is precisely the sort that has least grounding in solid worth and honest accomplishment." Menken’s mob in this case is the Kool-Aid crowd, swooning coeds, the press, the Eastern establishment, the left right here in Marin County.
The masses think this guy is genuine because they "think" with their glands/hormones (female fantasies re Obama - ok, we won’t go there). But so does Obama consider himself the genuine article. It is a matter of relativity. He has always been surrounded by extremely liberal people. His background is one dimensional. What he considers center-of the-road is to most of us - far left. His whole idea of where the middle might be, is well to the left of where the average American might think it is. To a man like Obama, as he has let slip on too many occasions when away from his teleprompter, "Middle America" is not something to be compromised with, but rather, something that must be manipulated, because it is stupid.
Thus, BO stated two weeks ago that he is not in favor of "big government". He means that. To him big government is a pure socialist state, and not even he would go there. Instead he targets something less extreme - the socialist democracies of Europe, which is where he is intent on directing us. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. And he knows he has about a year before the masses wake up. "A good catchword," Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ‘can obscure analysis for 50 years." As one observer noted, "To pass a vast program changing the relationship of American government to its citizens, Obama only needs to obscure analysis for about a year."
Robert Craven
We knew up front that Obama had no job qualifications. But so did his admirers. We knew up front that he demonstrated a lack of judgement in his past associations, with criminals and shake-down artists. But so did his admirers. We knew he was on the take from Fannie Mae, along with Frank, Dodd and Clinton. But so did his admirers. We knew his Ill. / Senate voting record. But so did his admirers.
Perhaps H.L. Mencken has the answer, in his Notes On Democracy (1926): "Public estimation of eminence runs in reverse ratio to its genuineness," writes Mencken, anticipating Obama, "the sort of eminence that the mob esteems most highly is precisely the sort that has least grounding in solid worth and honest accomplishment." Menken’s mob in this case is the Kool-Aid crowd, swooning coeds, the press, the Eastern establishment, the left right here in Marin County.
The masses think this guy is genuine because they "think" with their glands/hormones (female fantasies re Obama - ok, we won’t go there). But so does Obama consider himself the genuine article. It is a matter of relativity. He has always been surrounded by extremely liberal people. His background is one dimensional. What he considers center-of the-road is to most of us - far left. His whole idea of where the middle might be, is well to the left of where the average American might think it is. To a man like Obama, as he has let slip on too many occasions when away from his teleprompter, "Middle America" is not something to be compromised with, but rather, something that must be manipulated, because it is stupid.
Thus, BO stated two weeks ago that he is not in favor of "big government". He means that. To him big government is a pure socialist state, and not even he would go there. Instead he targets something less extreme - the socialist democracies of Europe, which is where he is intent on directing us. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. And he knows he has about a year before the masses wake up. "A good catchword," Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ‘can obscure analysis for 50 years." As one observer noted, "To pass a vast program changing the relationship of American government to its citizens, Obama only needs to obscure analysis for about a year."
Robert Craven
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Ground Zero & Barney Frank
Could it be that just a handful of individuals, maybe just one or two are responsible for this crisis, or, if not the scope of destruction, at least the birth of the event? The left tells us that there’s plenty of blame to go around, things are just too complex to isolate a primary cause or a villain.
But of course. Complexity provides shelter. Seeking shelter in this case - the Democratic party, and, Barney Frank specifically.
We isolated ground zero, our Heart of Darkness, very early on - the Democrat’s refusal to reform the twins, with Frank as the paladin in that effort. Now, figuring an offense to be the best defense, Frank of all people is seeking prosecution for those responsible for the meltdown! Hah! Too much! And that was indeed too much for the Investor’s Business Daily which puts a great big fat cross hair on Frank’s backside. From today’s editorial: "From the early 1990s on, many people both inside and outside Washington were alarmed by what they saw at Fannie and Freddie. Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control. He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't needed because there was ‘no federal liability there whatsoever’. In 2002, Frank nixed reforms again. See a pattern here?"
Readers know the Bush administration pushed for major reform of the twins, reforms the NYT’s called, " the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." These were always blocked by the Dem’s, the last in ‘06, with Frank as one of the chief engineers in that effort.
Repeating what we have offered earlier, the IBD says that Frank, "perhaps more than any single individual in private or public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or historical exaggeration."
What was Frank thinking? We know the twins were a cash cow for him (and Dodd, and Clinton, and Obama). Could that have been it? The IBD guesses that it may have been his boyfriend at Fannie. Maybe that’s it. Whatever the motivation, those of our friends from the left who are a tad unhappy with their 401K need look no further.
Robert Craven
But of course. Complexity provides shelter. Seeking shelter in this case - the Democratic party, and, Barney Frank specifically.
We isolated ground zero, our Heart of Darkness, very early on - the Democrat’s refusal to reform the twins, with Frank as the paladin in that effort. Now, figuring an offense to be the best defense, Frank of all people is seeking prosecution for those responsible for the meltdown! Hah! Too much! And that was indeed too much for the Investor’s Business Daily which puts a great big fat cross hair on Frank’s backside. From today’s editorial: "From the early 1990s on, many people both inside and outside Washington were alarmed by what they saw at Fannie and Freddie. Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control. He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't needed because there was ‘no federal liability there whatsoever’. In 2002, Frank nixed reforms again. See a pattern here?"
Readers know the Bush administration pushed for major reform of the twins, reforms the NYT’s called, " the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." These were always blocked by the Dem’s, the last in ‘06, with Frank as one of the chief engineers in that effort.
Repeating what we have offered earlier, the IBD says that Frank, "perhaps more than any single individual in private or public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or historical exaggeration."
What was Frank thinking? We know the twins were a cash cow for him (and Dodd, and Clinton, and Obama). Could that have been it? The IBD guesses that it may have been his boyfriend at Fannie. Maybe that’s it. Whatever the motivation, those of our friends from the left who are a tad unhappy with their 401K need look no further.
Robert Craven
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Great Heist
We have outlined the priorities for a recovery in our accompanying economic blog, for the most part reserving judgement when adorning those pages. We are not writing from the cheap seats; we distill events for our readers, then offer a solution. So have many others; it is not a mystery now what needs to be done. But it suddenly dawned on us that we may have been taken in. This calls for a comment in this arena - politics - a response before Obama lays waste to what remains of our social and economic fabric.
Without a viable banking sector the stimulus package and the budget mean nothing. Simply noise. Everybody knows that. You don’t have to be an economist. But the Obama administration has shied away from embracing any bank solution. What? Under this administration, has a single toxic asset actually been seized, separated, sold, or de-toxified? Don’t think so.
We wondered why BO has done nothing to address the bank problem. (So has the equity market which is exactly why it is in the tank.) How silly of us. The recovery is secondary to BO and his pals. The goal - nothing more than to effect a shift in power to politicians and bureaucrats, to in fact weld a lock on American society. Ths crisis then is a gift to the far left. The stimulus package, as the IBD put it, "is nothing more than a down payment on a socialist economy. It raises taxes on the successful, brings back the welfare state....," hands out favors to friends of the Democrats and imposes controls on the free market in ways that just a year ago would have seemed unimaginable.
What is transpiring my friends is in fact the greatest political heist modern man has ever witnessed. When Emanuel laid out his "Rule One": "Never let a crisis go to waste," he was being brutally candid, exposing his and his boss’s agenda in crystal clear fashion, to all who may have been listening. This is a dream come true to this bunch.
It’s all about spending, taxing and - key - the deep insertion of gov’t in our daily lives that goes with it. A pal in the gym intoned the other day, "Hey, that Pelosi sure slapped Obama around, huh?". Well, not quite. That was a set up. As Rich Lowry put it, "By giving Pelosi running room and enduring a few embarrassments, he got what he wanted, which was as much new spending as quickly as the political system could bear." And by cheerleading for the economy the past few days (changing roles from pallbearer the previous week) he hopes to do the same for his budget plan.
Robert Craven
Without a viable banking sector the stimulus package and the budget mean nothing. Simply noise. Everybody knows that. You don’t have to be an economist. But the Obama administration has shied away from embracing any bank solution. What? Under this administration, has a single toxic asset actually been seized, separated, sold, or de-toxified? Don’t think so.
We wondered why BO has done nothing to address the bank problem. (So has the equity market which is exactly why it is in the tank.) How silly of us. The recovery is secondary to BO and his pals. The goal - nothing more than to effect a shift in power to politicians and bureaucrats, to in fact weld a lock on American society. Ths crisis then is a gift to the far left. The stimulus package, as the IBD put it, "is nothing more than a down payment on a socialist economy. It raises taxes on the successful, brings back the welfare state....," hands out favors to friends of the Democrats and imposes controls on the free market in ways that just a year ago would have seemed unimaginable.
What is transpiring my friends is in fact the greatest political heist modern man has ever witnessed. When Emanuel laid out his "Rule One": "Never let a crisis go to waste," he was being brutally candid, exposing his and his boss’s agenda in crystal clear fashion, to all who may have been listening. This is a dream come true to this bunch.
It’s all about spending, taxing and - key - the deep insertion of gov’t in our daily lives that goes with it. A pal in the gym intoned the other day, "Hey, that Pelosi sure slapped Obama around, huh?". Well, not quite. That was a set up. As Rich Lowry put it, "By giving Pelosi running room and enduring a few embarrassments, he got what he wanted, which was as much new spending as quickly as the political system could bear." And by cheerleading for the economy the past few days (changing roles from pallbearer the previous week) he hopes to do the same for his budget plan.
Robert Craven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
