I used to be a professional project manager. It seems we were the first people to go in the great recession/depression of 2008-?. Now I am back to basic research using my (previously unmarketable) training as a physicist. However, I have been fielding calls from several of my former writers/editors who have been saddled with project management responsibilities. It seems that the world is quick to judge who is unnecessary, while equally quick suffer the need for particular services.

It is from this place that I beseech all of you who supplement/forgo cable and/or satellite TV because of the bounty of Videosift: For gods' sakes, think of the sift as the professional service that it actually is!

Think of this as an opportunity, as a community, to make a statement about the viability of niche media services. Do we really want to to be slaves of Network TV in perpetuity, so that our children inherit a media ecosystem that rewards programing with 1-5 million weekly viewers with immediate cancellation? In the age of the internet, thousands, or even hundreds, of individuals should be capable of supporting professional services/programing (without corporate overhead).

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have NOT made a financial contribution to the sift, nor am I a charter member. This is due to two factors: (1) I am losing my current position on July 31st (corporate cowards backing off from basic research), and (2) because I am already actively donating to the Rebel FM and CO-OP podcasts. Forgive me for prioritizing content creators over contend aggregators, but the sentiment is the same: I want niche media to succeed.

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.

Really smart. About as smart as pissing away 49 billion dollars on the US/Mexico border fence.

“Building a fence is like putting a band-aid on a shark bite,” UCSC Republicans President Kelly Hayes said via email. “A more comprehensive solution is needed.”

Hayes says that greater accountability in the form of increased documentation for immigrants, with the possibility of attaining citizenship, would benefit both sides. She argued that it is unfair to U.S. citizens if they were to allow this large group of people to receive the benefits of our society while they do not financially contribute to the country as other citizens do. On the other hand, she acknowledged that it is unfair to undocumented immigrants that they must receive significantly lower wages due to their lack of citizenship.

Both Frank and Ruiz emphasized the notion that President Bush’s stalled proposal underscores the importance of undocumented immigrants to the U.S. economy.

“The U.S. economy would collapse without them,” Ruiz said. He also stated that the same effect would visit the local Santa Cruz economy if this undocumented labor force was suddenly removed.

Frank echoed those sentiments.

“This country runs on immigrant labor, and we should value their work and what they bring to our culture,” Frank said.

http://cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=139

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?

I'm not arguing against financial contributions to the Sift. I'm just curious as to where the money goes.