This post is about "Government by Crisis." It should not be necessary. Anyone with the least political savvy, and it's hard to avoid having a little now days, should already know what it is all about. Yet still Barrack Husein Obama comes on the radio (I don't watch TV) and says: "Now look! these (fill in the blank) caused the mess we're in and now they don't want us to fix it. The few common sense measures in this legislation (of 3,000 pages) will prevent (fill in the blank) in the future. Don't worry. Pass this bill, It will save us from... (whatever)."
This was the tactic used for the bank bail-outs, auto take-overs, health care take-over, student loan program take-over, etc. It is being used this minute for the Wall Street Regulation, (or take-over?), bill. It will be used for internet and other media control and/or bailout and for Cap-and-Trade. BHO has a solution for any crisis (or pseudo crisis that the Central Committee can invent). All we have to do is surrender some more liberty (and money). As Ben F. said, "Those who surrender freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom nor security."
That is why the Tea Party Movement says that this is a "Time for Choosing:" liberty or otherwise.
By the way, I think that BHO's slow response to the Gulf oil leak was because it took him by surprise. He and the Central Committee did not yet have a plan to exploit that crisis. If it got worse while they waited, all the better. Anyway, it shows that oil is bad, and that is good... whatever.
Showing posts with label bailout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bailout. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Blame It on the Bankers
Nothing new but I spoke to someone yesterday who explained that the bank/economy melt down was all brought on by greed. I spoke to him at the gym. He's a doctor so you would think that he would know better. This time he is saying it is the greed of Lehman Brothers executives that started it all. He saw it on a Canadian Broadcasting program. I asked him a few questions but I am not up for such arguments as I have had them so often. I thought later that I should have asked him when they will be broadcasting the rebuttal. Surely they should give both sides a fair chance. If Canadian Broadcasting is anything like Public Broadcasting in the USA, there's not a chance. I am sure my friend would not care and understand. He would say that there can be no rebuttal. (See my W. F. Buckley quotation.)
I wanted to tell him that Lehman Brothers and the mortgage bankers were just doing what congress told them to do. They were supplying mortgages and securities to the public, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and to other banks that the regulators in government wanted them to provide. Everyone knew they were junk. That's why everyone wanted default swaps as insurance. (The guru's computer models said there wasn't much risk in those derivatives and the rating agencies gave them triple A's) It had nothing to do with Glass Steigal or the free market run amuck, or greedy executives. The free market was not free; it was confused and mislead by government mandates to reduce lending standards and other rules. Glass Steigal was irrelevant, since Lehman and other firms were making deals that would not have been disallowed with or without the regulations under Glass Steigal. Lastly, the executives were no more greedy than they had ever been or ever will be.
By the way, they are doing it again. They are making too many low interest mortgage loans and selling them to Fannie May and Freddy Mack just as BHO tells them to do. They would make more business loans as he asks too, if business wanted any loans right now. (What happens when rates go up and banks are caught holding 30 year 5% loans and their cost of funds is more like 10%? They will need to be bailed out and they will be told they were greedy.)
My rebuttal to him was necessarily brief. I told him that the problem was government involvement in the economy. That is what I firmly believe but how can that be explained in a few minutes to a thoroughly indoctrinated drone? I told him to look at Von Mises Institute.com and chickenshitnewworld. He accused me of being a Republican.
When will they ever learn?
I wanted to tell him that Lehman Brothers and the mortgage bankers were just doing what congress told them to do. They were supplying mortgages and securities to the public, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and to other banks that the regulators in government wanted them to provide. Everyone knew they were junk. That's why everyone wanted default swaps as insurance. (The guru's computer models said there wasn't much risk in those derivatives and the rating agencies gave them triple A's) It had nothing to do with Glass Steigal or the free market run amuck, or greedy executives. The free market was not free; it was confused and mislead by government mandates to reduce lending standards and other rules. Glass Steigal was irrelevant, since Lehman and other firms were making deals that would not have been disallowed with or without the regulations under Glass Steigal. Lastly, the executives were no more greedy than they had ever been or ever will be.
By the way, they are doing it again. They are making too many low interest mortgage loans and selling them to Fannie May and Freddy Mack just as BHO tells them to do. They would make more business loans as he asks too, if business wanted any loans right now. (What happens when rates go up and banks are caught holding 30 year 5% loans and their cost of funds is more like 10%? They will need to be bailed out and they will be told they were greedy.)
My rebuttal to him was necessarily brief. I told him that the problem was government involvement in the economy. That is what I firmly believe but how can that be explained in a few minutes to a thoroughly indoctrinated drone? I told him to look at Von Mises Institute.com and chickenshitnewworld. He accused me of being a Republican.
When will they ever learn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)