The 100-Day Assault on America

by Larry Elder

Has it really been 100 days?

Aided by an eagerly compliant Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media, and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.

Obama -- to use one of his favorite expressions -- doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses, and even deficit-running states. Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" -- whatever that means -- from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.

Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" -- whatever that means -- 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number. Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" -- whatever that means.

Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam -- that eminent, well-regarded banker.

Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight." Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.

As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages -- are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.

Did the President, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes. Will the President's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes. Will the President's budget really double the national debt within a few years and then increase still more beyond that? Yes. Do the President and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe that they can "modernize" health care, thus "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.

America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism -- or, at least, we used to.

Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders -- at least in America -- have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System? Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages? Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.

Now let's turn to Job No. 1 -- national security. We no longer call the War on Terror the "War on Terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The President embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour. To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the President flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing. What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.

The President offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclenched their fist." The President even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays. What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."

Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy. What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, attempted to launch a long-range missile. The President condemned the act. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.

On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.

At least he looks good.

Good idea, but I'd expect more from Ron Paul. The bonuses at AIG didn't go to the people that ruined the company - he's repeating the Obamination lie.

@keitholbermann: Well, what do you expect from someone with a username like KeithOlbermann?

Ron Paul isn't really "of" the Republican party - he had his own presidential convention and everything. And it's criminals like Barney Frank that got us into this mess as much as anything. Sleeping with an executive of Fannie Mae while being head of the committee to regulate it? Yeah, that's criminal conflict of interest. (Google Herb Moses.)

What would auditing the fed accomplish? Personally, I'm curious where our trillions of bailout dollars are going, and who is getting them. It's not like raiding the petty cash stores.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'james cagney, mae clark, grapefruit, public enemy' to 'james cagney, mae clark, grapefruit, public enemy, wishin stuff again' - edited by calvados

There's good regulation and bad, good deregulation and bad. Look at how much airline prices fell after deregulation as a moderately successful example of how dereg can work. Look at the mess of the energy industry in California as an example of how not to dereg stuff. She comes off as a blithering idiot by claiming that all deregulation is bad, and that we should huzzah for more regulation (when regulation often has a severe chilling effect on an economy.)

It may sound odd coming from a libertarian, but there are times when you need more laws, and times when you need less. As a libertarian, I think that less is usually more, but laws ARE necessary instruments - anarchy is bad - and laws are important tools for dealing with fraud. Of course, you'll end up with situations where the cure (Sarbanes-Oxley) causes even more problems than the fraud it was trying to prevent (Enron-like schemes), AND have a chilling effect on the economy as well. I'm very grateful my corporations are small and not public, or the overhead of having to deal with it would drive me insane and really hurt our bottom line.

Having a byline that the GOP is responsible for the current mess is nearly fraudulent. It was the GOP that was calling for MORE regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and criminal idiots like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters were responsible for blocking it. They were as responsible as anyone in the government for our current mess, but the press gives them a complete pass.

Like all of Sir Michael Moore's art, this is bound to be an objective, unbiased look at capitalism and Wall Street. Will there be any mention of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, or Barney's Frank and Friends' Congressional criminal incompetence? Perhaps in the Director's Cut...

DEMOCROOKS

$34,000: the amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at the International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra compensation and explanatory brochures that described his tax liabilities.

$75,000: the amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Costa Rican rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he didn't speak Spanish.

$93,000: the amount of petty cash each Congressional representative voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.

$133,900: the amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.

$140,000: the amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.

$356,000: the approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.

$800,000: the amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release details despite months of promises to do so. Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to Government-Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania, Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."

$1,000,000: the estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.

$12,000,000: the amount of TARP money provided to community bank OneUnited despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's ex-directors.

$23,500,000: The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."

$2,000,000,000: ($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. Craig Obey is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.

$3,700,000,000: ($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms ."

$4,190,000,000: ($4.19 billion) the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to fraudulent voter registration ACORN group under the auspices of "Community Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio.

$1,646,000,000,000: ($1.646 trillion): the approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms", which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act.

How DO Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac figure into this crisis? And ACORN? And the CRA?

Unmentioned at the "Turning Point" in the video.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started buying sub prime loans. Previously there was a much smaller market for sub prime mortgages, but with Fannie and Freddie buying the paper the availability of sub prime loans skyrocketed. With time-tested lending practices out the window, these two institutions ended up controlling 90% of the secondary market for mortgages. Those within the organizations who raised objections to the irresponsible lending being encouraged by Fannie and Freddie were overruled and eased out.

"Fannie and Freddy began hiring Democratic operatives as CEO’s and upper management. At the same time, Fannie and Freddie began making huge contributors to Congress, spending millions to influence votes. While some Republicans also received financial contributions from the two institutions, most of the money went to Democrats. Top recipients of those campaign contributions were Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the Chairmen of the Committees that should have been providing over site of the two financial giants. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were also among the top receipts of Fannie and Freddy campaign contributions.

"Wall Street investors liked the new arrangement and the easy money. Democrats liked the votes they could garner by being the party that advanced homeownership and they liked the dependable source of campaign contributions. This was the “crony capitalism” that led to the crisis."

The "Community Reinvestment Act" was another Jimmeh Carter abortion, strengthened in the 1990s by Clinton. Poor people deserve to live in the same houses as their more well-off neighbors. It's only fair.

ACORN and the Clinton "Justice" Department did threaten banks to keep making bad loans. In a 1992 New York Times article, ACORN’s longtime housing leader, Michael Shea, admitted that banks would not have adopted ultimately harmful policies “if there was no community pressure and the law,” but that those factors made “a lot of bankers see it’s in their self-interest.”

The irony is that liberals claim to hate greed, yet their one-size-fits-all socialism created artificial market conditions that encouraged greed.

SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
French Accordion Tango

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Bumble Bee Blues

WHAT DO YOU LIKE IN A GUY/GIRL?
Walking Spanish

HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?
Everybody Needs Somebody to Love

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?
Rollin' And Tumblin'

WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
I'm An Asshole (fuck you denis leary)

WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
quando quando quando

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR PARENTS?
Subterranean Homesick Blues

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
Comme Un Garcon

WHAT IS 2+2?
Lombelico Del Mondo

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?
Goodnight Vienna

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Your Neighborhood Spaceman

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
Positively 4th Street

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
My Blue Heaven

WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
The Witch (Alternate Take)

WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
Knock On Wood

WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?
Raspryagayte khloptsy koni

WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
Passport

WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?
She's alright

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
John Henry

WHATS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN?
Je T'aime Moi Non Plus

HOW WILL YOU DIE?
Aa Dekhe Zara

WHAT IS THE ONE THING YOU REGRET?
Get an Ugly Woman to Marry You

WHAT MAKES YOU LAUGH?
We'll Meet Again

WHAT MAKES YOU CRY?
Burma Shave

WILL YOU EVER GET MARRIED?
You Never Even Call Me By My Name

WHAT SCARES YOU THE MOST?
Dies, Nox Et Omnia

DOES ANYONE LIKE YOU?
Vertigogo

IF YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME, WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE?
Grapefruit moon

WHAT HURTS RIGHT NOW?
willie mae

>>I don't get the whole 1 Trillion for killing Iraqis is fine, 1 Trillion for corrupt failing banks is fine, but 1 Trillion for rebuilding the infrastructure of the US or helping the National Parks is "Socialism"

Actually, the $1T for banks was socialism. As in state-run government, etc. Our government is now the biggest shareholder of Citibank, for example.

Don't confuse Bush and Paulson with standard conservative ideology.

The neo- part of neo-con meant they were big-government conservatives. I.e., liberal on expansion of government spending, conservative on things like defense.

In a weird twist of fate, it was the Republicans that tried to increase regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Democrats (including Barney Frank, who was literally in bed with their leadership while chairing the house finance committee) that blocked it.

Obama sued banks to get them to increase subprime loans.

But something tells me all this will be cleverly rebutted by liberals by having them stuff their fingers in their ears and yelling loudly...

Those are the facts, fellows, and I wonder just what the hell about them you find so unbelievable?

Did you also know Fannie and Freddie gave money to the Democrats--which is like the Pentagon giving money to Congressfolks who promise to increase their budget--and the Democrats blocked every attempt to tighten up the lending rules?

Look to Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, the two main culprits who denied Fannie and Freddie were taking huge, dangerous risks.

Which reminds me, OBAMA was the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd!

What an amazing coincidence!

But relax, except for me and a few others who get news from sources outside the worthless mainstream media, no one knows the truth!

Oh, and while we're on the subject: no one's denying that banks and other lending institutions want to make money. But they wouldn't take excessively stupid risks unless the government was holding a gun to their head or conversely promising to bail them out.

You want a big government to "protect" you from free market abuses? Who's going to protect you from big government?

This sounds like a very old video from before the bailouts.

Wiki the Community Reinvestment Act, a gift from that loser Jimmy Carter and a 70s democrap congress.

Democrats bullied lending institutions in the mid-90s, forcing them to give bad mortgage loans to people that couldn't afford them.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac involved themselves and were ordered by Blarney Frank and friends to make 40% of their loans to the same poor folks. Fannie and Freddie are government-controlled and therefore not subject to the scrutiny of the Security Exchange Commission.

AIG and Friends sold "derivatives" which are insurance on these bad loans. When the bubble burst, they couldn't pay.

Republicans tried to warn what would happen but obviously failed.

The moral is: big government sucks. Anything they touch outside of their prescribed constitutional powers turns to dung.

The moral wasn't learned as the American people just elected another Carter.

>> ^volumptuous:
I've watched every video clip of Schiff, and listened to Ron Paul in the senate hearings with the banks.
I have yet to hear either one of them to tell the rest of us what they think can help us get out of this mess. Neither of them, as far as I can find, have said anything productive.


I sincerely hope you're joking, because they constantly state that withdrawal symptoms after the inflationary high are unavoidable and can't be fixed, but that the best thing the government can do is see the hangover as the solution and stop administering more drugs and shock therapy. The recovery to a viable economy can happen a lot sooner if the government stops trying to inflate and redistribute its way out. We need to immediately start cutting Federal government excess to reduce the financial burden on our citizens. Their retirement schemes are unsustainable no matter what and need to be phased out over many years. Entire departments like FEMA, Homeland Security, and the Department of Education have to go, along with our military empire, so that we can abolish the 40% of Federal revenue attributed to Federal Income Tax. With a flat tax or no income tax, the IRS is then superfluous and can be abolished. GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have to be outlawed, subsidies and marriage debates will be resolved because without an income tax, it will be impossible for government to issue tax differences on particular types of marriage, families, incomes, or investments based on social engineering concepts.

The constitution will then need to be clarified to abolish the central bank, because congress has no constitutional authority to create a fiat money or delegate such powers to the private industry. This will require some new judicial appointments. I'm also quite certain a Paul presidency would look at every piece of legislature and ask "was this a lobby bill? does it prevent a cheaper product or service from being chosen?" I hear these are prevalent in the medical industry where he was an OBGYN. For example, there are regulations that bar nurses from performing services doctors can. Lots of licensure and red tape protects that industry. And I'm 100% sure he would immediately end the Federal ban on marijuana bought by the drug industry, that would consequently save billions wasted by the FBI and our prison system trying to fight something 10x less harmful than legal drugs.

"This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

"It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

"What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

"The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

"This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

"Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

"Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

"I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

"Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed."

--Orson Scott Card

http://www.linearpublishing.com/orsonscottcard.html

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bush, recovery, speech, fannie, mae, freddie, bailout, economy, iraq, impeach' to 'bush, wiretapping, impeach' - edited by thinker247

Like imstellar says, Socialism's primary feature is state-run enterprises. Like, say, Fannie Mae.

"Socialism is supposed to shift power from capitalists back in to the hands of the people"

Riiiight. Socialism is actually about consolidating power in the hands of the few. If you look at the failure rates of corporations since the 1950s, in America nearly all the major corporations back then are out of business now, but in Socialist countries (like France in the 60s and 70s) 80% of them are still around, since the government protects them from competition and failure.

Sounds very familiar to what's going on now, doesn't it?