Friday, October 10, 2008

Mad As Hell!!! Stop The Poison Of Socialism That Is Seeping Into America!

"the hands-off brand of capitalism in the United States is now being blamed for the easy credit that sickened the housing market and allowed a freewheeling Wall Street to create a pool of toxic investments that has infected the global financial system."

WRONG!!! The exact opposite is to blame for the failure of free-market capitalism in the United States. There was no hands-off approach by government. In fact, it was the very intervention of government into our free-market that caused this crisis!

And please explain to me how if it was socialism that got us into this mess, why do we turn to socialism to get us out of it?

(September 30, 1999 – The Clinton Administration pressures Fannie Mae to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people even after warnings that the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue.)

(In July of 1999, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers.)

(September 11, 2003 - The National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats fear that tighter regulation of Fannie & Freddie could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'')

(September 11, 2003 - Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.)

The United States government had not only pressured Fannie and Freddie into pushing risky loans with low capital but also eased their worries about doing so by offering the knowledge that they are government subsidized and face no real risk. I don't agree with the Bush administration's 2003 proposal to regulate Fannie and Freddie or Bill S.190 co-sponsored by John McCain in 2005 to place regulations on Fannie and Freddie. The government has no business interfering in the private market. The Bush proposal and Bill S.190 were defeated by Democrats in the Senate who were paid off handsomely by Fannie and Freddie (Obama: $125,000) but NOT for the right reasons.

Fannie and Freddie NEVER should have been government sponsored companies to begin with. You see, whenever this country faces an economic crisis, the government takes the opportunity to socialize this country by seizing powers that it has no right to.

For example, in 1938 as part of FDR's "New Deal" during the Great Depression, Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in the name of facilitating liquidity. The government had no right to do so as America was and is no place for socialism. Of course to remove Fannie Mae's activities from the annual balance sheet of the Federal Budget, in 1968 the government converted Fannie Mae into a private shareholder-owned corporation (still government backed of course). Ginnie Mae, Government National Mortgage Association was created to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages.

In 1970, in a government controlled attempt to immitate the competition of free-market capitalism, the government created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), commonly known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and, thus, facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market.

Of course today's economic crisis (2008) was caused by the government interference mentioned above. As the economy tanked, on September 7th, the government seized the opportunity to once again push a socialist agenda on America by forcing taxpayers to fund a $700 billion dollar purchase of the mortgage market by the government. The government now owns half of all home loans in the United States.

Many claim that the US government placed no actual guarantees on the backing of Fannie Mae, however, it would take an ignorant person to believe that the government would encourage risky business practices out of Fannie and Freddie without a pretty solid backing. This implied federal guarantee is obvious when one looks at the sheer majority of investors before the collapse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to sell mortgage-backed securities with only half as much capital backing them up as would be required of other financial institutions. They are also tax exempt and are exempt from SEC filing requirements.

But the Marxist calls by government for the socialization of America didn't stop with the housing Market. On October 8, 2008, Senator John McCain called for a plan to order the federal government to spend $300 billion in federal funds to buy the bad home mortgages. A smiliar plan was proposed by Senatory Barack Obama in September.

On October 9, 2008, the Bush administration began looking into nationalizing American banks by taking part ownership throug the purchase of stock.

Currently, American retirement plans are owned by the government in the form of Social Security. A plan which began in 1935 under FDR. Public Education is under government control. Where will it end? It seems there is an obvious pattern here. Every time the American economy faces a struggle, the government sounds out the alarm and seizes more power away from the American people.

With both the House and Senate under control of ultra-liberal leadership and likely the Executive Branch as well, if Barack Obama does indeed become the next President of the United States this November, where will this socialization end? Does anyone really doubt that our country's oil will be the next part of America to be nationalized? How about Obama's plan to nationalize healthcare? Where will it end? When will big government finally be TOO big? When will we draw the line and will we before it's too late? What's the next part of our country to be nationalized? The media? Property rights? The right to bear arms?

And to think that this all could have been avoided if our country had refused socialism and demanded that government stay out of the free-market to begin with. Instead of looking for the easy way out by trading rights and freedoms for security nets from our government during hard times, we need to pull each other up by the bootstraps and allow CAPITALISM, not socialism, lead us back to the promised land!

1 comment:

B2 said...

Pelosi and Democrats Mull additional $300 Billion Stimulus:

OCTOBER 15, 2008 Democrats Mull $300 Billion Stimulus
more in Politics & Campaign »WASHINGTON -- Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are drawing up plans to toughen oversight of the financial industry and considering introducing another economic-stimulus package in the wake of the government's decision to buy stakes in major U.S. banks.
Nancy Pelosi
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is mulling recommendations from several economists that Congress act on an economic-recovery package that would cost taxpayers $300 billion, according to congressional aides, equivalent to about 2% of the country's gross domestic product.
The California Democrat envisions a bill that would include new spending on highways and bridges, extended benefits to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped states and a tax cut, congressional aides said. She has asked several House committees to examine details of a possible plan. And as part of the effort, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is expected to testify next week before the House Budget Committee on the state of the economy. Ms. Pelosi is expected to call lawmakers back to Washington in late November to take up the issue.
With the Nov. 4 election less than three weeks away, lawmakers are eager to respond to voter concerns about the economy. The chances of a new stimulus package being enacted are likely to depend on what happens in the election and what happens to the economy. The White House and its Republican allies in Congress so far have resisted a spending-focused stimulus package.
John Boehner
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) described the latest Democratic package as a "big government boondoggle."
Democratic lawmakers are also seeking to rewrite the rules on how housing purchases are financed, and to redefine the roles of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The lawmakers are also looking to tighten regulation of financial services, with hedge funds, private-equity funds and exotic financial instruments such as credit-default swaps likely to come under greater federal scrutiny.
"There is no question in my mind that we must adopt a stronger system of regulation and oversight for these swaps and derivatives and everything else that's out there," Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin said on Tuesday. "We've got to have regulations to protect our economy from these excesses."
The Iowa Democrat's committee oversees commodity trading.
House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank said the Bush administration's decision to invest directly in banks is a turning point in the debate over regulation. "It has definitely changed Washington, very dramatically," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "Two years ago, the prevailing opinion was [that] we needed to deregulate further. Now, the argument is [over] what kind of new regulation we need."
Rep. Frank plans to convene a hearing next week to explore how to strengthen oversight of financial markets. Committee aides are expected to focus on developing legislative recommendations the rest of the year; that would set the stage for action on a sweeping bill early in 2009, when the new Congress is seated.
"This is equivalent to what FDR had to save capitalism from its own excesses," Rep. Frank said, referring to measures taken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to calm markets and protect investors during the Great Depression.
Rep. Frank predicted that any legislation aimed at toughening oversight would face little opposition in Congress, especially after lawmakers have effectively exposed taxpayers to hundreds of billions of dollars in potential new liabilities. "We're beyond the point where anybody will stand up and try to block this," he said.
Lawmakers have reacted cautiously to the Bush administration's plan to buy stakes in nine major banks. Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) said the actions by the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. "will help us avoid what could potentially be a catastrophic economic meltdown."
Speaker Pelosi portrayed the coordinated efforts as "steps in the right direction that could help to restore confidence in our financial markets."
Write to Greg Hitt at