Opinion: Pro bailout with an explanation

[RETIREDFAN1]

I don't need to read the bill. I am against any nationalization of anything, which is what a bailout will amount to. The feds need to keep out and let the free market correct itself. Their interference will only delay the inevitable. There is no place for socialism of any kind in my conservative mind.

[applebutter]

I don't need to read the bill. I am against any nationalization of anything, which is what a bailout will amount to. The feds need to keep out and let the free market correct itself. Their interference will only delay the inevitable. There is no place for socialism of any kind in my conservative mind.

If you didn't read the bill, how can you say it's socialism of any kind?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Socialism = government taking over the free market, banks, and industry. Anything that the feds do will be blatant socialism. They need to take their recess and let the markets sort themselves out. I trust the free market. It WILL correct itself and bounce back if the socialists will give it the chance.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Soviet-style collapse

in America's future?

Exclusive: Henry Lamb traces meltdown

to U.N. treaty affirming 'right' to housing

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 27, 2008

1:00 am Eastern

 

 

 

By Henry Lamb

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The meltdown in the financial markets has caused the finger of blame to spin like a weathervane in a hurricane. The underlying cause of the debacle, however, has been largely ignored. Driven by "progressive" Democrats and Republicans, the cause is the relentless shift from a free market economy to a socialist economy.

 

Until the Roosevelt era, the responsibility and privilege of having a home was left solely to the individual. Few people realize that Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) was created in 1938 by FDR, to provide a federal guarantee for home loans extended by local banks.

 

Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) was created in 1970, during Nixon's reign. Both were designed to buy mortgages from local lenders as a way to insure an adequate supply of money for local lenders. These "secondary" mortgages were packaged into "bundles" of securities that were traded among an array of financial institutions.

 

During the 1960s, the United Nations produced the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article V(e)(iii) proclaimed that all people had a "right" to housing. Both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations supported the treaty, but it was not ratified until the Clinton administration, Nov. 20, 1994. No one noticed or connected the dots to the emerging socialist, communitarian concept called "sustainable development." Grass-roots organizations across the nation were deeply involved in preventing ratification of another U.N. treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was also under consideration at the time.

 

To meet its obligations under the U.N.'s Racial Discrimination Treaty, the Clinton administration instructed Fannie Mae to expand loans to low-income borrowers, according to Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman. Thus, the "sub-prime" market was born, and government guaranteed-loans were extended to millions of families who could not qualify for a mortgage in a free market economy, but easily qualified under the new socialist scheme.

 

In 2005, Republican senators saw the danger and tried to reform these institutions with the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulator Reform Act (S.190), but Democrats blocked the bill.

 

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were institutions that were neither purely socialist, nor purely free market – a blend that is best described as communitarian, in that they allowed private investors to buy and hold shares in the corporations, but were also guaranteed by the federal government. That is, until recently, when the federal government took over both institutions. Now, the federal government essentially owns all those properties – a result that is as socialist as had the government nationalized those properties by force.

 

AIG, the international insurance giant, and other Wall Street and international financial institutions bought the bundles of mortgage securities that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac offered. Everybody involved made a ton of money, and housing for low-income families expanded exponentially – just as the Treaty on Racial Discrimination and the proponents of sustainable development had predicted. With all the new loans being made, the home building industry flourished, the real estate industry flourished, all industries related to housing flourished – until the market became saturated.

 

Home values stopped rising. Housing inventories began to rise. Home values began to decline. Foreclosures began to rise. Homebuilding slowed, housing-related industries began to lay off workers. Energy prices began to rise. Paychecks fell short of family needs. Foreclosures skyrocketed. Suddenly, there was little or no value in the bundles of security Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had packaged. Financial institutions found themselves in possession of massive "assets" that had no value. Creak, crumble, crash! The financial markets came tumbling down.

 

The piper must be paid. The question is whether to do it now – and let the chips fall where they may, or, to kick the can down the road and pay the piper later. The answer, of course, is to kick the can into the next generation, with another leap toward socialism. The bailout plan – whatever the particulars – is nothing short of a government takeover of the financial industry. The next president will have to sort it out and build the road toward future recovery or final disaster.

 

Barack Obama's incessant drumbeat about the failure of the economic policies of the last eight years is either gross ignorance or, more likely, political blame shifting. The cause of the current meltdown is clearly the Democrat's insistence upon giving federally guaranteed mortgages to people who could not afford them. Even now, Democrats insist, not on the minimum government involvement possible, but on adding all sorts of give-away ornaments on the bailout Christmas tree. Obama is also promising to take over the energy industry, the health industry, and to give tax credits and even refunds to some people with money he shamelessly takes from others. This is redistribution of wealth pure socialism.

 

McCain may be only marginally better, but any deterrent to the Democrats' determined transformation of America to unabashed socialism should be welcomed. Despite the U.N.'s declaration to the contrary, no person has a "right" to housing. If Democrats prevail and continue their pursuit of the U.N'.s goal of universal socialism, America can expect to experience the same total collapse experienced by the Soviet Union.

 

Ultimately, the piper must be paid.

[applebutter]

Socialism = government taking over the free market, banks, and industry. Anything that the feds do will be blatant socialism. They need to take their recess and let the markets sort themselves out. I trust the free market. It WILL correct itself and bounce back if the socialists will give it the chance.

Is regulating the money supply socialism? Is printing money?

 

"Anything that the feds do will be blatant socialism" just isn't good enough. The government does lots of things that are in no way socialistic. You know this, I think.

 

I don't know whether what happened today will end well or whether we'll end up with Obama and a 60 vote Democrat majority in the Senate.

 

What I do know is that I really dislike formulaic thinking. I don't like people telling me that Barack is better because he will bring change, and they can't tell me what change means. And I don't like people telling me that anything the government does is socialism. There are rules. Those rules have to be followed, but if they have to, they can be changed.

 

I don't like the government doing any more than is required to provide a fair market. That may require more action now than I like, but it may.

 

[applebutter]

Ultimately, the piper must be paid.

The piper provided me no service, nor did he provide services to my kids. Why in hell should they have to pay him?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Socialism is socialism.....no matter what you want to call it. A pig with lipstick is still a pig......Like I said, they need to take their recess and let the free market sort itself out. I trust the market, NOT the government. Government intervention in the free market is what led to this mess in the first place........

 

The only rules that I'm concerned with are those contained in the Constitution. I challenge anyone to show me where any of this is Constitutional.......

 

I'll even give you some help. Here is a copy of the Constitution:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

[Voted4Dubya]

Socialism is socialism.....no matter what you want to call it. A pig with lipstick is still a pig......Like I said, they need to take their recess and let the free market sort itself out. I trust the market, NOT the government. Government intervention in the free market is what led to this mess in the first place........

 

The only rules that I'm concerned with are those contained in the Constitution. I challenge anyone to show me where any of this is Constitutional.......

 

I'll even give you some help. Here is a copy of the Constitution:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

 

Exactly, even if people claim a $700 billion plan is somehow "good" for the country, the fact remains is that the end result would be higher spending and more government intruision into our lives. Its a slippery slope to socialism folks, and it only takes one step. Don't let the President scare you. Stick to your guns, and we will see who the real Capitalists are.

[applebutter]

Socialism is socialism.....no matter what you want to call it. A pig with lipstick is still a pig......Like I said, they need to take their recess and let the free market sort itself out. I trust the market, NOT the government. Government intervention in the free market is what led to this mess in the first place........

 

The only rules that I'm concerned with are those contained in the Constitution. I challenge anyone to show me where any of this is Constitutional.......

That's circular logic. If you don't know what it means, that's okay. But don't waste my time telling me that socialism is socialism. That's not helpful.

 

If you read what I've written carefully, I don't think you will find anywhere that I've said this bill should have passed. I'm asking you for reasons that no bill should. You say it's not constitutional, it may well not be. Tell me why. Fixing the liquidity problem has a pretty good chance of promoting interstate commerce, or at least not retarding it.

 

I can get platitudes from TLR or Bo. I think I should expect better from you. Tell me why my kids should have to pay for the criminal behavior of Democrats in Congress.

 

 

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

Exactly, even if people claim a $700 billion plan is somehow "good" for the country, the fact remains is that the end result would be higher spending and more government intruision into our lives. Its a slippery slope to socialism folks, and it only takes one step. Don't let the President scare you. Stick to your guns, and we will see who the real Capitalists are.

 

 

Long time no see, V4W. Glad you're back. You are exactly correct on this....

[Voted4Dubya]

Long time no see, V4W. Glad you're back. You are exactly correct on this....

 

Its good to be back, been a few years. I'm a long way from Texas though, finally made it to DC...now if that doesn't scare you :rolleyes:

[Guest bleeds]

Am I the only one who believes Speaker Pelosi's comments were very well thought out and that she knew what the result would be? She knew if she made her comments, after the long hours of work on this bill, House Republicans would react this way. By her doing this, she assured a backlash against House Republicans, and thus Sen. McCain.

 

There is no bottom to how low the democrats will go to assure victory in November, even if it means bankrupting our country.

 

 

[applebutter]

Am I the only one who believes Speaker Pelosi's comments were very well thought out and that she knew what the result would be? She knew if she made her comments, after the long hours of work on this bill, House Republicans would react this way. By her doing this, she assured a backlash against House Republicans, and thus Sen. McCain.

 

There is no bottom to how low the democrats will go to assure victory in November, even if it means bankrupting our country.

You may be right. I saw video of her cracking jokes on the floor after the big drop.

 

Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zWnwleIzLk

[RETIREDFAN1]

I'm asking you for reasons that no bill should.

 

Tell me why my kids should have to pay for the criminal behavior of Democrats in Congress.

 

The Constitutional issues and the government grab for power are why I'm against any bill being passed.

 

Your kids should NOT have to pay for this, but unfortunately, due to the criminal and unConstitutional government acts of the past decades by BOTH parties, yours, mine, and everyone elses will have to pay (along with US too) . The bailout, even if it is passed, will only delay the inevitable collapse, not prevent it. If they would leave the market alone, it would correct itself more quickly and less painfully than it will after having to absorb this power grab.....

 

[Guest bleeds]

I believe it was orchestrated. Now, house democrats can paint House Republicans as the ones who put the country deeper into a financial crisis and can tie that to Sen. McCain by the most flimsy of ties. But they will build it up as all the fault of House Republicans and the mainstream media will show it as same.

 

This may cost Sen. McCain the election. Look for Gov. Palin to be hammered about this in her debate with that moron Biden.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Am I the only one who believes Speaker Pelosi's comments were very well thought out and that she knew what the result would be? She knew if she made her comments, after the long hours of work on this bill, House Republicans would react this way. By her doing this, she assured a backlash against House Republicans, and thus Sen. McCain.

 

There is no bottom to how low the democrats will go to assure victory in November, even if it means bankrupting our country.

 

She conveniently forgets that if HER party had maintained discipline there is NO way that the bill would have failed even if every Republican in the house had voted against it. Was it something like 95 dims who voted against it, too? We, the People spoke loudly to our reps today and they knew that if they wanted to keep their job they had better listen. I hope we keep it up......

 

[BluePirate]

Its good to be back, been a few years. I'm a long way from Texas though, finally made it to DC...now if that doesn't scare you :rolleyes:

 

It has been awhile because I don't think you've posted since I joined. Welcome back... oh, and we've posted so many facts that most of the liberals ran off. :whome:

[Voted4Dubya]

She conveniently forgets that if HER party had maintained discipline there is NO way that the bill would have failed even if every Republican in the house had voted against it. Was it something like 95 dims who voted against it, too? We, the People spoke loudly to our reps today and they knew that if they wanted to keep their job they had better listen. I hope we keep it up......

She didn't help at all, and regardless of what the news media says, she knew she wouldn't have the votes to get this passed. I knew this morning when I got to work we were going to vote for it. And for Shiela Jackson Lee to stand up there grandstanding blaming the Republicans for the failure when she voted against it, thats just enough to make your teeth itch.

[Guest bleeds]

The bailout, even if it is passed, will only delay the inevitable collapse, not prevent it.

 

Care to give us an economic evaluation of that comment? Not asking for philosophical assessment, or a prophetical one, just an economic assessment.

 

 

 

[applebutter]

The Constitutional issues and the government grab for power are why I'm against any bill being passed.

 

Your kids should NOT have to pay for this, but unfortunately, due to the criminal and unConstitutional government acts of the past decades by BOTH parties, yours, mine, and everyone elses will have to pay (along with US too) . The bailout, even if it is passed, will only delay the inevitable collapse, not prevent it. If they would leave the market alone, it would correct itself more quickly and less painfully than it will after having to absorb this power grab.....

Look at Article I, Section 8. I think there is a good possibility of a bill that isn't unconstitutiional.

[Guest bleeds]

I guess I don't get an answer.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Care to give us an economic evaluation of that comment? Not asking for philosophical assessment, or a prophetical one, just an economic assessment.

 

When you flood the system with money, money loses its value. When money loses its value, the cost of living increases. When the cost of living increases, more people can't pay their bills (or mortgages) resulting in more loans in default. More bailouts, more money thrown into circulation, more value lost. When does the vicious cycle end? The piper must be paid eventually.

 

 

I guess I don't get an answer.

Patience, I never ignore anyone...... :rolleyes:

[Guest bleeds]

When you flood the system with money, money loses its value. When money loses its value, the cost of living increases. When the cost of living increases, more people can't pay their bills (or mortgages) resulting in more loans in default. More bailouts, more money thrown into circulation, more value lost. When does the vicious cycle end? The piper must be paid eventually.

 

 

 

Patience...... :rolleyes:

 

 

But the wording of the plan would indicate that's not the way it would work.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Look at Article I, Section 8. I think there is a good possibility of a bill that isn't unconstitutiional.

 

The interstate commerce clause AND the necessary and proper clause will be used to establish Constitutionality of any bill that may be passed. I stand corrected on that point......

 

 

Personally, I don't now, nor will I ever trust government when they are set to gain as much power as they will if they do this.

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

But the wording of the plan would indicate that's not the way it would work.

 

The law of supply and demand indicates that it would work that way. I don't trust them.....it's as simple as that. There is a LOT of power to be gained here. I don't want it in the hands of the government......