Take a good look at this face and tell me what do you see? Take a good look at that sly little smile. And take a look into those sincere blue eyes and tell me what do you see? A writer for the N.Y. Times? Yes, he's that for sure. An intellectual? Isn't that how all major journalist see themselves? They take their intellectual ability and combine it with a marketable photo of themselves and they try to convery the idea that you can trust them.I mean, really, take a good look at the photo and tell me that's not what this guy is trying to do.
Now read his piece in the opinion of the N.Y. Times.
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama
For this post I'm going to pull one paragraph from this opinion he wrote about. It's not really about Mr. Obama...it's about Mr. McCain.
About 2/3 of the way down in this article you'll come across this paragraph.
"The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals."
__________________________________________________
Through all the intellectual twists of this piece we have this little gem where the "intellectual" really outsmarted himself.
That one little paragraph correctly points out that Mr. Obama and other Democratic leaders are legitimatley responsible for the economic crisis that is hitting America and the rest of the world. That, to me, is pretty big news. That, to me, is EARTHSHAKING NEWS! That, to me, is reason enough to bring these people to justice for manipulating our system to the point where we don't know if we're heading into another great depression. That's the kind of thing that should have people outraged and calling out for justice. But instead of outrage, this guy, Frank Rich, is accusing Mr. McCain of some superfical charge of...I just don't know what! Compared to this economic crisis what he's talking about or trying to point out seems like nonsense, to me.
American's have every right to be very very angry with Mr. Obama and the Democrats over this economic crisis. And this guy, Frank Rich, seems to think there's another issue at play here. My question to Mr. Rich is this: If you know that there's a legitimate connection between Mr. Obama, other Demorcratic leaders, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the economic crisis...then why aren't you angry at the deception of Mr. Obama's campaign? If you know the connection between Mr. Obama and the economic crisis is legit...then that would make everything Mr. Obama is saying about economic crisis a lie. Tell us, Mr. Rich, why aren't you angry about that?
Is this economic crisis not serious enough to break through partisan politics and "reporting" to make people angry enough to hold those responsible and to bring them to the "light" of the media? Isn't that what a journalist is supposed to do? Watch out for the American people by reporting on issues that would hurt the overall well being of the country?
I mean, here we are spinning out of economic control and everyone in the media knows it's because of the Community Reinvestment Act. And everyone in the media knows it's the Community Reinvestment Act that lead to the swindling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac applied to their corrupt business practices. That's common knowledge. But does Mr. Rich do an indepth report on that? Why not?
Read this man's article, and if it wasn't for his slip up in writing that one little paragraph, you would think Mr. McCain is playing the part of the devil or something. Where, pray tell, is the intergrity?
I mean is this guy doing his "white - forgive me - duty" to the black community by playing the race card for them in his article?
THERE'S AN ECONOMIC CRISIS GOING ON and this guy is playing the race card for Mr. Obama, who is legitimatley connected to the cause of the crisis! I mean how politically correct are these people trying to be? Are they so sensitive to the black plight that they willing to give a blind eye to the likes of Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership who are responsible for this economic crisis?
America needs to be angry at these people! And especially at the likes of Mr. Rich and the N.Y. Times for twisitng this economic issue around so bad that Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership, it seems, are going to get a free pass for this economic crisis. Mr. Obama, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Demorcratic leadership should be under investigation and not leading in the polls for the Presidential election.
So, with that, I say unto you, again. Take a good look at that photo of Mr. Rich, again.
Now tell me: What do you see? Behind the friendly eyes. Behind the friendly little smile. I'll tell you what it is you should see. It's called INTELLECTUAL CORRUPTION! That, my fellow Americans, this what Intellectual Corruption looks like. Tell me: Do you trust that guy? I don't know if you do or if you don't but I can tell you this for sure. I DO NOT!
He insults my intelligence.
mike t.
19 comments:
I doubt he insulted your intelligence. From the looks of your article there is none to insult.
anonymous,
Thank you for commenting.
I guess we disagee.
mike t.
In assigning so much blame to Fannie and Freddie, you are focusing on two bit players in creating this crisis. It has many fathers. I commend you thoughtful consideration of the role Phil Graham played in removing regulatory oversight of credit default swaps. Buy a more realistic approach is to recognize there are a multitude of dirty hands (sticky fingers, too).
Mr. Teniente, with all due respect your post misses the fine point of FR's thesis regarding the McCain's campaign subtle and not so subtle race baiting over the course of the campaign; the Raines issue is to the point—Obama, like many senators, including Sen. McCain, is 'linked' with Fannie and Freddie in a number of ways, some of which are arguably far worthier of criticism than others.
That said, why use a man who worked for F. Mac whose relationship with Obama is minimal at worst to make the case that Obama's 'too cozy' with the people who brought us this crisis? There are others far worthier to mention if one wants to make the case. The difference is Raines is black, the other Fannie and Freddie 'culprits' are not.
Lastly, the claim that the CRA is even slightly responsible for our present crisis is simply ludicrous on its face. Laughably so. The stark, well documented facts are clear: private, unregulated companies—not banks regulated by the CRA— are almost entirely responsible for the sub-prime mess.
Check out McClatchy's story today on this issue, among others, if you care to discover the facts.
jim hart,
Thank you for commenting.
I disagree with you. I posted my CRA post before the current post. To me that explains plenty. The regulation President Clinton put in the CRA in 1995 open the way for organization like ACORN to "pressure" banks into giving subprime loans.
The idea that Republicans would be giving out subprime loans is ludicrous. Giving out subprime loans is something the Democrats would do. It's their philosophy.
I mean you can be down on Republicans for being "heartless" but you can't blame them for the subprime loans because that just flies against what most Democrats accuse the Rupublican of being.
This subprime loan situation is all on the Democrats. And Fannie Mae along with Freddie Mac are guilty of creating this mess.
mike t.
pick,
Thank you for commenting.
Regarding Phil Graham I would normally agree with you. Except for one thing. John McCain and a many other Republicans were calling for regulations on Fannie and Freddie as far back as 2005. If it wasn't for that fact you would have a point.
There's a difference between asking for regulation for businesses like Big Oil, Insurance, Electricity, Telephone and other stuff we rely on and are made to pay for to survive in our everyday life. Yeah, they need regulation. But outside of those products we are almost 100 percent reliant on and are controlled by huge coroprations....regulation is not a good idea.
mike t.
Mike t,
You are an idiot.
enuf said.
anonymous,
Thank you for commenting.
No need to get insultive. It doesn't bode well for you understanding Democratic heart.
mike t.
This article was poorly written. It really was. You make all kinds of irrational leaps from one phrase that you chose to take the wrong way and in doing that - you pulled a classic McCain... you made yourself look desperate and silly, my goodness...
He was saying if that guy knew of a legitimate link between Obama, freddy, fannie and other democrats then he should have based his piece on the legitimate link - not some third party, twice removed, and listening behind a steel door - so to speak.
What amazes me is that you think one party is to blame for this. again - that your conservative willingness to blind yourself. You guys are classic suicide bombers man, cutting off your nose to spite your face. When are you going to realize that BOTH PARTIES are to blame for this?? did you not hear the Palin/Couric interview where someone on McCain's campaign was still getting checks from them even as Sarah was the guy had "recused himself from the deal and to my knowledge is not benefiting from them at all" - until Katie Couric informed her that the guys was STILL a shareholder. Your girl did not have much of a comeback for that - just repeated what she was told about the issue.
What I find condescending and perhaps incendiary is that you accuse this guy, just because he's defending not even Obama really, but McCain's tactical ploy of demonizing Obama instead of addressing the issues - you somehow characterize it as a WHITE guilt kind of pandering sympathy to the BLACKS. Are you kidding me?? Are you serious? So any white guy who talks supports anything Obama is a white apologist? And Obama is the racist one, right? But here you just said this guy (and I'm assuming you'd say any white person) voting for or even just discussing a tactical ploy is pandering to the blacks out of guilt? WOW. Okay - I get the picture now.
Now I see sir that you wouldn't vote for Barack anyway. And I really think you have delusions of equality when you said you'd vote for Colin Powell. Look how quickly and how easily you dismissed him. No... had he been running, you would have found a reason to be disgruntled with him. Have a nice life under the new socialism. I pray it's every bit as good to you as the majority people for vote for it if Obama wins. The difference between republicans and rest of us Americans is that, while we may take vacation trips there, we try not to actually LIVE in denial.
Repubs - the sooner you embrace this hidden anger and hate and this misguided sense of entitlement and this internal, closeted, collective, hidden belief of "white supremacy" the sooner you can deal with it so we can move on as a nation. So we can grow towards that America the rest of us see and greatly desire to happen. Acknowledge, really own you inner bigotry and prejudice - please!! I'm serious. The sooner you confront it and deal with it - the sooner you can let it go. It has to hard to hold onto all the negativity, hatred, and fear all the time.
When did black people start getting all these government jobs? Very recently in American history. So that means whites have traditionally and historically held all the power. Barack didn't change any rules or do anything that whites having been doing in office since the offices were created in this country. In fact, someone had to teach him what he knows. If you see Barack as untrustworthy and dishonest, you must believe the rest of them are. And they have been untrustworthy and dishonest from the beginning then. Whatever they have accused Barack of doing - it's not been many days til we find out they have been doing the same thing. This is American politics. If you don't know that up front, you don't know anything. And again - this "outrage" hearkens back to this duplicity and arrogance of finding fault with others for doing what you have felt entitled to do all along.
When a black man tells the truth - he's a terrorist and unamerican. When a white man tells the truth he's a nigger lover. When a black man lies, has questionable (in YOUR eyes) ties, is kind of uppity, and gains a lil too much power for your comfort you call him a dangerous threat to democracy as we know it. When a white man lies (WMDs, Iraq, etc), has questionable friends (Bin Laden, Liddy, countless others), is kind of "superior" or at least reinforcing "superior" ideal, and gains way too much power - even abuses it, you're more than willing to call him Mr. President.
I think it's funny that 99% of you white people (or colored people trying to pass) always talk about the horrors of life under Barack Obama, but I have YET to see ONE conservative talk about life under McCain and Palin. NOT ONE. That says to me that at LEAST Obama's plan was worth your energy, time, effort, and brain power to comb through and really assess. Whereas - you all haven't even bothered to see what your lives would look like under the very man your voting for. At least - not beyond, well, at least it's not socialism. And even THAT is questionable.
Things that make you go....hmmmm.
Anonymous,
Thank you for commenting.
This post is based on Mr. Frank Rich's own words:
"The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals."
Mr. Rich says that the link between Fannie, Freddie and Mr. Obama is a legitimate link.
If you can't base your response to my post on that, then you're in denial.
You seem to want to ignore that Mr. McCain warned about the financical crisis in 2005. Why don't you say anything about that?
This whole economic crisis is based on the subprime loans. Good idea but not the way the Democrats went about it was just wrong. You don't give away money to people who can't pay it back and expect the economy not to be crippled.
Face the facts. The whole subprime lending was and still is a Democratic virtue.
In Mr. Rich's article he points to the legitimate link between Mr. Obama, Fannie and Freddie but somehow he gives it superficial attention in favor of a racial twist? That's intellectual corruption.
That is just unacceptable. The whole country is in trouble and now we're supposed to act like the Republicans are at fault here? Again, Mr. Rich knows where the legitimate links to this crisis are.
Please take your head out of the sand and accept that the Democrats did this and Mr. Rich pretty much says so in one paragraph.
mike t.
Mike! GRRRR!!!
You fail to see my point, sir. And you are failing to see that Republicans and Democrats BOTH are to blame for this. If the Democrats were the ones who initiated this "good" idea because they thought they were making the American dream available for the masses, but it really was a horrible thing - there's no dispute about that. I have no problems whatsoever with what you said - they had no business loaning champaign wishes and caviar dreams to people who only had a can of beer and some pork rinds as collateral.
It's one thing to watch a fire being set and say "that's not a good thing", it's another thing to see people rushing into that fire and whispering "you probably shouldn't do that."
Yes, if the Democrats authored this monstrosity, they screwed up bad for not having forethought that perhaps subprime lending - even for poor folx, ESPECIALLY for poor folx may not be the brightest move. No one, certainly not me, is saying that they shouldn't be fingered. But here you also say McCain cautioned against that because he could clearly see it wasn't a good thing - maybe other Republicans saw that as well. Maybe even some Democrats. Here's my thing that, for me, let's NONE of the people off the hook - if they KNEW it was a screwy idea, WHY DIDN'T THEY WARN THE PUBLIC?! Instead of letting them run HEAD FIRST into a blazing inferno?! That's completely irresponsible. It's just like the scenario with McCain and the Keating 5 bailout debacle - only this time, there's way more than five senators and way more than 4 billion dollars involved (or however many billions the first bailout was).
You know what it says to me of the people who knew it was a bad idea and warned their colleagues, but didn't have enough sense to warn the public? - that says to me that they didn't care about the people that were ultimately going to be hurt. They didn't care about them then - and they don't care about US now. They've got their money - and what's left for us? Just a lot of bitterness and, surprise surprise, more hatred and class division (which may have been the ultimate goal anyway). I've seen many conservative blogs of the vein "All those poor blacks and Mexicans are a fault for buying homes they knew they couldn't afford." And one wonders if it was really explained to people what they were getting into. One wonders what was the payoff for big companies by taking such extreme risk. Perhaps a 700 billion dollar bailout ten/fifteen years later was enough incentive. Your guy - he DID sign the legislature - to all of your chagrin.
And speaking of bailouts - AIG is currently partying pretty hard with the bailout money they got. And in spite of ALL his talk about using his sharpie to veto ANY and ALL pork - your guy signed a bailout packages with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pork perks! And you, I, and our kids and their kids have to foot the bill.
Don't you see - they are all to blame! 99.9% of politicians are corrupt and gain from our successes as a nation AND our failures. They've designed the system so EITHER WAY - they come out ahead. And you know who gets shafted - US. We. The people. That's why we need to stop seeing things so black and white. I don't put faith in any politician and no faith in any party - they are all corrupt. I put my faith in Jesus. And along with that - I put my faith and trust with the candidate who stirs the people who are longing to come together, but can't do it on their own. They need a catalyst - and Barack has been that catalyst.
I saw an interesting report on PBS the other day, one was Politically Incorrect with John Stossel which spoke about how governments don't drive industry, growth, innovation - people do. It's the creativity and ingenuity of the American people that drives this nation forward. And I ask myself - under which president can I see Americans being stirred up to create more, dream more, invent more, drive more, innovate more. I gotta be honest with you - it's a Barack presidency that I see when I think of excited Americans not only wanting to do better, but willing to do better. That means something to me. I also saw a program called The Real Economy with Bill Wattenberg. It was eye opening. Like 99% of Americans, I know NOTHING about economy period - let alone the American economy - and even that is limited to the quick soundbites I hear on the news. But this program told me some stuff that even I could grasp - if only rudimentary principles. I wish someone could look at that and THEN have a discussion on the economy. These economists said the media does us a grave disservice because they only paint HALF the economic picture - and usually only the half that draws ratings: the BAD half. In other words, they only focus on the debt side because that's what grabs people and increases viewership, but they never tell you the other half of the story - the ASSETS side. And they went on to talk about the sustainability of the American economy and what some of the challenges are ahead. It was amazing to watch. It talked about America's asset to debt ratio and said that in order to be successful any person, family, company, or country has an optimal debt to asset ratio that will ensure growth over the long haul. From what I understood, they said that America actually needs to take on MORE debt to be sustainable, not less! He used two examples (I can't remember so I'll just guess two) JP Morgan and Macy's or whatever. He said something like JP Morgan would have a debt to asset ration of 320% and Macy's of 519% and the USA is at like 83%. (again, I'm just guessing those numbers to illustrate the point). So he said we're well below our optimal ration of debt to assets. The program also said America has assets close to 120 trillion dollars (or something hideously large like that) and a what we owe amounts to maybe 50 trillion. And as long as our assets are growing we are okay, but we need our debt to get closer to that optimal range so that we can REALLy sustain ourselves. He also pointed out the fact that not ALL debt is bad. That when you go into debt for things like housing, education, etc - stuff that pays dividends in the future, it's a good thing. But he also talked about levering debt - he explained it like this, if you build roads today that you expect to be around for the next four generations, then it makes sense to spread the costs of the road building over the next four generations instead of making one generation pay for stuff that will benefit the next three. It all makes sense to me the way he says it and I wonder if that's how the accountants in government think!
One thing to think about - I think they said that Andrew Jackson was a very austere and conservative guy and when he was president he set out to balance everything and when it did, amazingly, American went into a recession or a depression (can't remember which). But the economists interviewed said that zeroing out is hardly ever a great thing.
I guess I said that to say this - all of our elected officials are at fault for this debacle. Pointing fingers doesn't solve anything because in the end - they are all benefiting from this and they all are to blame and they all need to own up to it and apologize to the American people. But what I want from them rather than scapegoating is to FIX the problem so we can get back on the right track. I would love for some honest politicians (oxymoron???) to run and get elected. I like when being an American was seen as good and being an American politician meant you had a sense on integrity. I wonder when that all changed. I know we're all only human, but it bothers me that we accept failure of character and person (on both sides of the aisle) so regularly. I think it's because we the people have taken a back seat in our own country. We only ever react these days - we never act. We never do. Not anymore. *sigh*
apologies again for the long comments, but ah well - you make me think and want to discuss. If I keep this up I might run for office, but I don't wanna become corrupted - so, probably not.
Anonymous,
Thank you for commenting, again.
:) You really made me smile with your response. I see your points and I agree that both sides are corrupt.
But I disagree with you on this point:
___________________________
"I put my faith in Jesus. And along with that - I put my faith and trust with the candidate who stirs the people who are longing to come together, but can't do it on their own. They need a catalyst - and Barack has been that catalyst.
___________________________
I put my faith in Jesus, too. And it's plain to see that Mr. Obama is a catalyst...that's for sure. But that's why I'm blogging so much because he can get the people to follow him but his policies are just outright dangerous for this country.
___________________________
I saw an interesting report on PBS the other day, one was Politically Incorrect with John Stossel which spoke about how governments don't drive industry, growth, innovation - people do. It's the creativity and ingenuity of the American people that drives this nation forward. And I ask myself - under which president can I see Americans being stirred up to create more, dream more, invent more, drive more, innovate more. I gotta be honest with you - it's a Barack presidency that I see when I think of excited Americans not only wanting to do better, but willing to do better.
___________________________
This is where I think you don't "get it". Taxing the rich starting at 250,000 isn't the way you create jobs. That only cuts jobs. I've said this too many times but I'm going to repeat it again. But instead or retyping my point of view, I'm just going to cut and paste what I already said to make my point.
When you tax the rich you tax yourself!
The rich are not rich because they're stupid. When you tax the rich they will increase the price of their products and services. So you will be "taxed" with that price increase. Technically, you aren't being taxed by the Government but you'll be paying in the supermartket, gasline and everything else that makes over 250,000 dollars per year.
250, 000 dollars per year isn't really where the price of product and services go up. That's the place where jobs are created. The price of products and sevices for big cooporations is where you'll see the increase. And when they increase the price for those products and services that's where "95%" of the people getting those "tax breaks" will be getting TAXED!
So, we put these two ideas together and what do we get? For 250,000 small business we get job cuts. For big cooporation we get a price increase for products and services. Put together that's called inflation.
___________________________
Don't you "get it"? When you tax the rich starting at 250,000 you take away this idea: "It's the creativity and ingenuity of the American people that drives this nation forward."
Now I'm going to cut and paste, again, this time from Gen. Colin Powell's speech to Republican delegates:
___________________________
"We were taught that hard work and education were the keys to success.
My sister and I were taught to believe in ourselves."
And:
"We Republicans believe that a good job, needed to sustain families, come from a faster growing economy where the free enterprise system is unleashed to create wealth, wealth which produces more good jobs."
___________________________
This is where we differ in philosophy. You seem to think the government is responsible for creating those jobs. Taxing the rich, in the context of our discussion will only cut jobs.
Listen, your concerns are valid but my biggest point is this: ONLY EDUCATION CAN ADDRESS THE JOB MARKET.
People struggle because they don't take their education seriously. And now they cry to the government for their lot in life?
I know that sounds cruel but we need to get back to being held responsible for our own fate due to an education or lack of it.
So with that statement I will say this: You're right...the press is doing a great disservice to Americans by taking advantage of the people's lack of knowledge on the economy.
Again, the only cure to this whole corrupt political situation is an EDUCATION.
Again, thank you for commenting. Your passion would make you a good candidate to run for some type of office.
God Bless,
mike t.
P.S. GRRRR...Don't get frustrated! LOL!
Anonymous,
One more thing:
"You know what it says to me of the people who knew it was a bad idea and warned their colleagues, but didn't have enough sense to warn the public?"
Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
That is your public warning. You can catch all this stuff on CSPAN when it happens, but we rarely do because we wait until the last few months of the Presidental election to gather facts.
We really didn't understand the depths of this problem as you can see how the Democrats present themselves in this video.
We do we do? We argue back and forth at the time. But now that we're in this situation we look back and see the evidence is clear. The Democrats blocked regulation on Fannie and Freddie and the whole sub prime lending industry.
The only thing we can do now is hold the Democrats responsible for this economic crisis. That brings us back to Mr. Rich's one paragraph that I based this post on.
"The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals."
I'll break that down to one simple statement..."Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders),...
Mr. Rich knows who's responsible and that video is proof of it. So why then does he play the race card when this serious situation is upon us?
That's Intellectual Corruption!
mike t.
Thanks for the link in your comment. I watched that and several others - VERY eye opening. I don't own a home, but I do recall lots of times at the library or community groups in my area where I would see flyers about how to get a home. My question still remains - I don't have cable or anything like that, I want to know how come MORE wasn't done to WARN people NOT to TAKE those loans - that would have solved the problem right there.
It's kinda like having a lemonade stand that sells great lemonade but someone comes along and tells you - "Well, lemonade is so good, but it's unfair that only certain people get to enjoy the lemonade because they can afford it. Maybe you should think about offering lemonade to those less fortunate, but you can use cheap ingredients. In fact, you HAVE to offer it to be fair." And someone whispers in your ear - "Whoa, those cheap ingredients are horrible! They'll only cause cancer and create a huge cancerous problem that we don't need. I'm gonna complain about this in out specialty newsletter that goes out to people who think lemonade should be for people who can afford. We'll just end up having to take care of these people who can't afford it and that's a disaster!"
That's a silly example, but do you see what I mean. They told each other and maybe there was some news coverage, but I never heard about subprime lending and the wrongness of it til now. I live in a "ghetto" - imagine these people being let loose on poor neighborhoods, luring them into something bad and holding the promise of something good as the carrot. I bet there was never a counterpart there where all these people who knew this was a horrible thing saying "DO NOT DO THIS THING! This will only be bad for you in the end. If you earn less than $10,000 a year - owning your own home sounds wonderful, but it's just NOT possible with that kind of salary. Don't be fooled!" With my lemonade example - it would be like everytime a poor person came up to try to buy a lemonade that they couldn't afford - someone should have been there saying, "Look, I know you want lemonade, but don't buy this - seriously, it's made with cheap ingredients and some are shown to be harmful, even poisonous! This lemonade could kill you. Drink it at your own risk, but realize this - it looks like the real lemonade, imitates the real lemonade, and almost tastes like the real lemonade, but it's not."
I wonder if there was any community outreach to combat the subprime lure that was bled into these poor communities. No one is innocent. This stuff all seems so politically motivated and politically expedient. The United States government is corrupt. Unlike you, I will not defend any side of the aisle because both sides are gaining from this rape and pillage of the American people. Some people could care less that the majority of people taken advantage of are lower class blacks and latinos, but I don't care - setting them up like this is pretty bad. And now there's just another reason to scapegoat these people. Blacks and latinos aren't the only ones who got these subprime loans but they're certainly the majority of the people you see on TV when they talk about those behind the reason for the crisis.
In that same PBS special on the economy - the economists interviewed said there's nothing inherently wrong with a bubble. They used the dot.com industry as an example of another bubble that burst. They said - THAT'S what bubbles do - they BURST. No need to panic, when they burst - some people get clobbered and some people don't, the debris from a bubble isn't all the same. Their consensus with the housing and subprime thing is that - we shouldn't have bailed anyone out. They argue that now that the bubble has burst - we should just let it correct itself. As with the dot.com bubble - some people who got clobberd when the bubble burst had to close shop, while some companies took a big hit, but afterwards went on to become successful. And those that weren't successful - either waited for the market correction and started again or gave up and went into some other kind of job. So, I wonder why we did a bailout so fast instead of wait for the market to adjust and correct itself.
And yes, you echo my sentiment - my whole point with quoting the John Stossel piece is that he said politicians like to claim that they can do anything and that they can save everything, but they can't. They don't control America in the way they would like us to think. I wasn't talking about the tax plans per se, just saying that Mr. Stossel's point was that what really drives a country is something called "intangible wealth" - more than debts and assets. Intangible wealth is the optimism and creativity inherent in a people not a government. And when it comes to intangible wealth - America is the richest nation on earth and has no shortage in sight of that kind of capital. That I found particularly exciting.
Explain to me this as well though - I've heard that people are railing against a tax increase, but they say that the increase people are crying about is at a threshold above 250k the tax will go from 36% to 39%. An increase of 3%. I wish I had a business making 250k so I could grasp what the real impact would be. I've seen comments on both sides of the aisle - small business owners that said it would hurt them and small business owners who said it's not a big deal. So, I can't speak on the tax thing as it wouldn't immediately effect me. I'll let small business owners make that case for themselves since they know how it will really effect them. You're right - when it comes to that bit I don't "get" it. I would like to be in a position to get it though - one day soon, I hope.
I would also like for them to close these tax loopholes. I heard McCain say that on the books our companies pay like some of the highest taxes in the world - something like 39% to Ireland's 11%. And Barack said that's true - but only on the books. In reality - companies find so many tax loopholes that they end up paying significantly less that what they are expected to pay. I want those loopholes closed. If they're going to ship our jobs away - it better be because they can't afford us for real! I don't want to hear that, for example, because of all the loopholes they actually pay 12% or even 25% in actual taxes and they're still selling US labor out because they are hungry for for those cheap labor profits. I got Indian friends complaining that US is taking advantage of cheap labor and abusing the workers having them work extremely long hours for 3 or 4 dollars a day and stuff. Wages NO ONE here would ever agree to and could never work for. So if they're gonna sell us out - they better at least be made to pay the full share of their taxes - the whole 39%. Not just in theory, but in absolute fact.
I do believe in working hard to make your way in the world. But I also believe sometimes you need a boost. Where would minorities and women be without affirmative action? Where would a lot students be without gov. pell grants and gov. student loans? Where would some sick kids and families be without medicaid? Where would some poor families be without welfare? Sometimes people CAN'T realize the American dream without help. And I want a government that CAN and DOES want to help. Like everyone else - I want that help to be responsible and accountable and actually necessary. I like the report in one aspect - it said this help getting homes for poor people was a good idea and it could have been done well if done differently. I want THAT kind of thinking and action in government.
I just think these people were set up to fail and to take the fall - not only colored folx live beyond their means and not only colored folx got these subprime loans. They have been made fools of by this system because they dared to believe. I cannot believe that when they signed these people up for these loans they told them "Take at your own risk." I bet they probably said something more like - "Oh, don't worry about it - you deserve your own home. The government wants you to have your own home - and if you mess up or fall behind, don't sweat it - they got you covered." I read this one comment from this white lady who said that she'd gone to a bank and they turned her down for the loan saying that they were "doing them a favor" and she and her husband were so upset that they took all their money 30k outta the bank. I guess they didn't realize either what a bad idea it was. But the bank did. She said she's glad she didn't get caught in a bad situation.
I wonder how many other people got that same kind of "favor" from the banks they went to. And I kid you not - I DID see that comment, in case you think I'm making it racist. But these things exist. If the banks didn't want these loans because they were such a bad risk - you'd think they'd slip an information pamphlet or something to the people called "The Truth of Subprime Lending."
I dunno. I just can't understand why there were no press conferences, no community outreach, no nothing to warn people who don't watch cable news or something. As many flyers as were printed to entice people to sign up for these - there should have been an equal effort to tell people the truth. I just don't get it. I don't get it. It shows a huge disdain for people in poverty in this country. How many poor folk are expected to understand this stuff - especially if it's written or talked about in the language some people use.
What a shame. And a cold, calculating, heartless place this is becoming when we don't even warn our fellow man of impending danger. No more good samaritans out there *sigh* - I feel quite saddened and disheartened. Trying to hold on to my love for and faith in this nation - but it's getting harder and harder everyday.
Anonymous,
Thank you for commenting, again.
I thought I lost your comment but I see it's in this post. Give me a day or so to read it and then I'll respond to you.
Again, thank your taking the time to respond.
mike t.
Anonymous,
Thank you for commenting, again.
"Thanks for the link in your comment. I watched that and several others - VERY eye opening. I don't own a home, but I do recall lots of times at the library or community groups in my area where I would see flyers about how to get a home. My question still remains - I don't have cable or anything like that, I want to know how come MORE wasn't done to WARN people NOT to TAKE those loans - that would have solved the problem right there."
To me it was just a greedy play that was put into play by a regulation President Clinton put into the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995. That opened the door for pressuring banks to make the subprime loans.
"It's kinda like having a lemonade stand that sells great lemonade but someone comes along and tells you - "Well, lemonade is so good, but it's unfair that only certain people get to enjoy the lemonade because they can afford it. Maybe you should think about offering lemonade to those less fortunate, but you can use cheap ingredients. In fact, you HAVE to offer it to be fair." And someone whispers in your ear - "Whoa, those cheap ingredients are horrible! They'll only cause cancer and create a huge cancerous problem that we don't need. I'm gonna complain about this in out specialty newsletter that goes out to people who think lemonade should be for people who can afford. We'll just end up having to take care of these people who can't afford it and that's a disaster!"
What's done is done but if we're going to apply knowledge to the situation then we've got to question Mr. Obama's whole campaign. He continually says it was the Bush economic policies that led to this situation. When, in fact, it was a the Democrats who put all this stuff in play way back in 1995.
In some circles President Clinton was referred to as the 1st Black President. And that label was given to him by his Black supporters.
Why do you think that is? The Community Reinvestment Act regulation of 1995, which allowed a lot of subprime loan people get a house.
That's a silly example, but do you see what I mean. They told each other and maybe there was some news coverage, but I never heard about subprime lending and the wrongness of it til now. I live in a "ghetto" - imagine these people being let loose on poor neighborhoods, luring them into something bad and holding the promise of something good as the carrot. I bet there was never a counterpart there where all these people who knew this was a horrible thing saying "DO NOT DO THIS THING! This will only be bad for you in the end. If you earn less than $10,000 a year - owning your own home sounds wonderful, but it's just NOT possible with that kind of salary. Don't be fooled!" With my lemonade example - it would be like everytime a poor person came up to try to buy a lemonade that they couldn't afford - someone should have been there saying, "Look, I know you want lemonade, but don't buy this - seriously, it's made with cheap ingredients and some are shown to be harmful, even poisonous! This lemonade could kill you. Drink it at your own risk, but realize this - it looks like the real lemonade, imitates the real lemonade, and almost tastes like the real lemonade, but it's not."
Again, I see your point but you can't blame the Republicans on this one. And the way Mr. Obama is talking it's as if his party is innocent. Well, I'm going to tell you right now. That's the biggest lie in this whole Presidential campaign.
"I wonder if there was any community outreach to combat the subprime lure that was bled into these poor communities. No one is innocent. This stuff all seems so politically motivated and politically expedient. The United States government is corrupt. Unlike you, I will not defend any side of the aisle because both sides are gaining from this rape and pillage of the American people. Some people could care less that the majority of people taken advantage of are lower class blacks and latinos, but I don't care - setting them up like this is pretty bad. And now there's just another reason to scapegoat these people. Blacks and latinos aren't the only ones who got these subprime loans but they're certainly the majority of the people you see on TV when they talk about those behind the reason for the crisis.
I don't think anyone, except for the far right is scrapegoating Blacks or Latinos. It's obvious to me that the politicians are pointing fingers at each other over this. No one blames the Blacks or Latinos. Heck, who would take a house if it's given to them?
But it's not just lower income Blacks or Latinos who over spent themselves in this situation. People who could afford 250,000 dollar homes were buying 500,000 dollar homes. So, there's a lot of guilty people involved in this situation.
But, again, it was President Clinton's 1995 regulation to the CRA that put all this into play.
In that same PBS special on the economy - the economists interviewed said there's nothing inherently wrong with a bubble. They used the dot.com industry as an example of another bubble that burst. They said - THAT'S what bubbles do - they BURST. No need to panic, when they burst - some people get clobbered and some people don't, the debris from a bubble isn't all the same. Their consensus with the housing and subprime thing is that - we shouldn't have bailed anyone out. They argue that now that the bubble has burst - we should just let it correct itself. As with the dot.com bubble - some people who got clobberd when the bubble burst had to close shop, while some companies took a big hit, but afterwards went on to become successful. And those that weren't successful - either waited for the market correction and started again or gave up and went into some other kind of job. So, I wonder why we did a bailout so fast instead of wait for the market to adjust and correct itself.
A bubble is not a good thing. Here's why. Usually a company has "steady" growth that allows it to become valuable.
On the other hand so gimmics like the Dot.com and the subprime loan investments didn't have the proper fundamentals to "grow" steadily.
That's why their considered a bubble. The value of stock in the dot.com and subprime loans rose to quickly...again, that's why it's called a bubble. Because it has an adnormal growth, which on a chart graph looks like a bubble.
"And yes, you echo my sentiment - my whole point with quoting the John Stossel piece is that he said politicians like to claim that they can do anything and that they can save everything, but they can't. They don't control America in the way they would like us to think. I wasn't talking about the tax plans per se, just saying that Mr. Stossel's point was that what really drives a country is something called "intangible wealth" - more than debts and assets. Intangible wealth is the optimism and creativity inherent in a people not a government. And when it comes to intangible wealth - America is the richest nation on earth and has no shortage in sight of that kind of capital. That I found particularly exciting."
Now you're sounding like a Republican. It's my firm beleif that if people would actually look into the "conservative" philosophy they would run from the Democratic party.
"Explain to me this as well though - I've heard that people are railing against a tax increase, but they say that the increase people are crying about is at a threshold above 250k the tax will go from 36% to 39%. An increase of 3%. I wish I had a business making 250k so I could grasp what the real impact would be. I've seen comments on both sides of the aisle - small business owners that said it would hurt them and small business owners who said it's not a big deal. So, I can't speak on the tax thing as it wouldn't immediately effect me. I'll let small business owners make that case for themselves since they know how it will really effect them. You're right - when it comes to that bit I don't "get" it. I would like to be in a position to get it though - one day soon, I hope."
Captial gains tax is 35% right now. The best example I've heard in trying to convey what that means to us as Americans is this:
Ireland has a capital gains tax a 11%. So, business' big enough would be better off going to Ireland to set up shop. That one reason why companies leave the United States to go overseas. Of course, cheap labor is in play, too.
Now if Mr. Obama wants to increase the capital gains tax past the current 35%...then why should companies not go overseas? This tax plan of Mr. Obama is a sure way of slowing down the economy.
I've explained the difference between Big Business and people at 250,000, which is small business.
"I would also like for them to close these tax loopholes. I heard McCain say that on the books our companies pay like some of the highest taxes in the world - something like 39% to Ireland's 11%. And Barack said that's true - but only on the books. In reality - companies find so many tax loopholes that they end up paying significantly less that what they are expected to pay. I want those loopholes closed. If they're going to ship our jobs away - it better be because they can't afford us for real! I don't want to hear that, for example, because of all the loopholes they actually pay 12% or even 25% in actual taxes and they're still selling US labor out because they are hungry for for those cheap labor profits. I got Indian friends complaining that US is taking advantage of cheap labor and abusing the workers having them work extremely long hours for 3 or 4 dollars a day and stuff. Wages NO ONE here would ever agree to and could never work for. So if they're gonna sell us out - they better at least be made to pay the full share of their taxes - the whole 39%. Not just in theory, but in absolute fact.
Oh, so now we're to believe that the loopholes in America lower the current 35% but there are no loopholes in Ireland...that's just a hard 11%?
Yeah, right! Everyone is stupid except for the United States when it comes to taxing big business.
"I do believe in working hard to make your way in the world. But I also believe sometimes you need a boost. Where would minorities and women be without affirmative action? Where would a lot students be without gov. pell grants and gov. student loans? Where would some sick kids and families be without medicaid? Where would some poor families be without welfare? Sometimes people CAN'T realize the American dream without help. And I want a government that CAN and DOES want to help. Like everyone else - I want that help to be responsible and accountable and actually necessary. I like the report in one aspect - it said this help getting homes for poor people was a good idea and it could have been done well if done differently. I want THAT kind of thinking and action in government.
There's only way solution to poverty. AN EDUCATION! No amount of government money will take away poverty. That's why Jesus said: The poor you always have with you.
"I just think these people were set up to fail and to take the fall - not only colored folx live beyond their means and not only colored folx got these subprime loans. They have been made fools of by this system because they dared to believe. I cannot believe that when they signed these people up for these loans they told them "Take at your own risk." I bet they probably said something more like - "Oh, don't worry about it - you deserve your own home. The government wants you to have your own home - and if you mess up or fall behind, don't sweat it - they got you covered." I read this one comment from this white lady who said that she'd gone to a bank and they turned her down for the loan saying that they were "doing them a favor" and she and her husband were so upset that they took all their money 30k outta the bank. I guess they didn't realize either what a bad idea it was. But the bank did. She said she's glad she didn't get caught in a bad situation.
I don't think people are set up to fail. Maybe to succeed but to fail? I don't know.
"I wonder how many other people got that same kind of "favor" from the banks they went to. And I kid you not - I DID see that comment, in case you think I'm making it racist. But these things exist. If the banks didn't want these loans because they were such a bad risk - you'd think they'd slip an information pamphlet or something to the people called "The Truth of Subprime Lending."
Without an education, people will always be victims.
"I dunno. I just can't understand why there were no press conferences, no community outreach, no nothing to warn people who don't watch cable news or something. As many flyers as were printed to entice people to sign up for these - there should have been an equal effort to tell people the truth. I just don't get it. I don't get it. It shows a huge disdain for people in poverty in this country. How many poor folk are expected to understand this stuff - especially if it's written or talked about in the language some people use.
You said you don't have cable. Well, why the press isn't reporting this is a big subject on FOX news.
The Main Stream Media is withholding all this information from the people.
"What a shame. And a cold, calculating, heartless place this is becoming when we don't even warn our fellow man of impending danger. No more good samaritans out there *sigh* - I feel quite saddened and disheartened. Trying to hold on to my love for and faith in this nation - but it's getting harder and harder everyday.
I couldn't agree more.
Again, thank you for commenting.
mike t.
One more thing.
You last post is the exact same reason why I called this post: What's Wrong With This Picture?
The guy isn't reporting what is really serious about this economic crisis that's hitting America.
mike t.
People should read this.
maire,
Thank you for commenting.
Maybe they should.
mike t.
Post a Comment