Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Posted on January 27, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Homes, Investments, Law, Links, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Regulations, Resources, Security, Technology, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Big business depends entirely on the patronage of those who buy its products: the biggest enterprises loses its power and its influence when it loses its customers.

~Ludwig von Mises

 

bull

Banks Forced to Nationalize

 

 

The Liars’ Poker: Economists Explain Why Hints of the Economic Crisis Eluded Them

 

 

Should U.S. Nationalize Banks?

 

Inhofe Angered by President’s Decision to Spend Second Installment of $350 Billion

 

Floor Speech: Inhofe Angered by President’s Decision to Spend 2nd Half of TARP

 

 

I urge all individuals and businesses to boycott those companies and banks that have accepted billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Do not do business with them.

View them as lepers.

Shun them and their executives.

Move your business and accounts to a business or bank that have not accepted a bailout.

Why?

The businesses and banks should have either been liquidated, taken into bankruptcy or merged with a financially sound company or bank.

The government is trying to use the current financial crisis and recession to “nationalize” banks.

 

The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.

~Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1966 

Spreading socialism by making loans to mismanaged companies is not the function of limited government under the U.S. constitution.

This is a rip-off of the American people.

Shun the socialists looters and moochers!

The bailout businesses and banks  are no longer capitalist institutions.

They have joined the professional thiefs in Washington D.C.–the socialist of both parties.

Let prudence and not politics determine your action.

Would you do business with a company that needs to beg for billions of dollars from the Federal government  to just stay in business?

I would not and if you value your property and liberties you should not either.

Trust me does not cut it.

Remember what happened to all the investors that trusted Bernard Madoff  and did not exercise due dillengence.

 

 

Financier Bernard Madoff Admits 50 Billion Dollar Fraud

 

Bernie Madoff on the modern stock market

 

 Madoff in 2004: ‘Most Want to Comply With Rules’

 

What caused the financial crisis?–Greed, Arrogance, and Stupidity–the usual suspects. 

The Fascist Democratic Radicals (FDRs) are trying to force the nationalization of industry and banks.

Suggest you study what Hitler did in 1933.

Fight the socialists in Congress and the White House.

Wakeup!

The Federal Government is stealing stockholder equity. This is a rip-off.

 

We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.

~Friederich Hayek

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout

“Hundreds of banks and a handful of insurers and automakers have applied for funds from the Treasury Department as part of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Treasury Department has transferred capital to the majority of these companies. …” 

http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table 

 

 

Firms That Got Bailout Money Keep Lobbying

“…Citigroup and Bank of America are hardly the only two financial firms to confront the issue. During the last three months of 2008, at least seven other firms receiving bailout funds — American Express, Capital One, Goldman Sachs, KeyCorp, Morgan Stanley, PNC and Bank of New York Mellon — all lobbied the government about the bailout, according to a review of their most recent disclosure reports.

The automakers that received billions under the same program lobbied as well: including General Motors; its financing arm, GMAC; and Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that controls Chrysler. Other recipients of federal financing also lobbied Congress, the Treasury or both about other matters.

The American International Group, taken over by the government during an injection of more than $40 billion last fall to prevent the company’s collapse, has discontinued all its federal lobbying; it is now in effect government-owned. But its former executives continue to lobby.

Its former chief executive, Maurice R. Greenberg, ousted a few years ago amid allegations of securities fraud, is leading a group of shareholders lobbying for a chance to renegotiate the terms of the government takeover or buy back a bigger stake in the company. …” 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/business/24lobby.html

 

The End

From that moment, Whitney became E.F. Hutton: When she spoke, people listened. Her message was clear. If you want to know what these Wall Street firms are really worth, take a hard look at the crappy assets they bought with huge sums of ­borrowed money, and imagine what they’d fetch in a fire sale. The vast assemblages of highly paid people inside the firms were essentially worth nothing. For better than a year now, Whitney has responded to the claims by bankers and brokers that they had put their problems behind them with this write-down or that capital raise with a claim of her own: You’re wrong. You’re still not facing up to how badly you have mismanaged your business.

Rivals accused Whitney of being overrated; bloggers accused her of being lucky. What she was, mainly, was right. But it’s true that she was, in part, guessing. There was no way she could have known what was going to happen to these Wall Street firms. The C.E.O.’s themselves didn’t know.

Now, obviously, Meredith Whitney didn’t sink Wall Street. She just expressed most clearly and loudly a view that was, in retrospect, far more seditious to the financial order than, say, Eliot Spitzer’s campaign against Wall Street corruption. If mere scandal could have destroyed the big Wall Street investment banks, they’d have vanished long ago. This woman wasn’t saying that Wall Street bankers were corrupt. She was saying they were stupid. These people whose job it was to allocate capital apparently didn’t even know how to manage their own. …” 

 

“…No investment bank owned by its employees would have levered itself 35 to 1 or bought and held $50 billion in mezzanine C.D.O.’s. I doubt any partnership would have sought to game the rating agencies or leap into bed with loan sharks or even allow mezzanine C.D.O.’s to be sold to its customers. The hoped-for short-term gain would not have justified the long-term hit.

No partnership, for that matter, would have hired me or anyone remotely like me. Was there ever any correlation between the ability to get in and out of Princeton and a talent for taking financial risk?

Now I asked Gutfreund about his biggest decision. “Yes,” he said. “They—the heads of the other Wall Street firms—all said what an awful thing it was to go public and how could you do such a thing. But when the temptation arose, they all gave in to it.” He agreed that the main effect of turning a partnership into a corporation was to transfer the financial risk to the shareholders. “When things go wrong, it’s their problem,” he said—and obviously not theirs alone. When a Wall Street investment bank screwed up badly enough, its risks became the problem of the U.S. government. “It’s laissez-faire until you get in deep shit,” he said, with a half chuckle. He was out of the game.

It was now all someone else’s fault. …”

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom

 

Sen. Inhofe’s first YouTube channel vid: Show your TARP rage!

By Michelle Malkin 

 

“…Stalwart GOP conservative Sen. Jim Inhofe was opposed to the Crap Sandwich from the beginning — and has pushed vigorously for a rollback of the massive bailout. Today, he launched his YouTube channel with a salvo aimed at President Bush for moving to free up the rest of the $350 billion in TARP funds. Inhofe’s S. 64 would impose accountability restrictions on the bailout money.

Watch the vid and leave your feedback. Show your TARP rage! …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/12/sen-inhofes-first-youtube-channel-vid-show-your-tarp-rage/

 

Boycott

“A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest, usually of political reasons. …”

“…A boycott is normally considered a one-time affair designed to correct an outstanding single wrong. When extended for a long period of time, or as part of an overall program of awareness-raising or reforms to laws or regimes, a boycott is part of moral purchasing, and those economic or political terms are to be preferred.

Most organized consumer boycotts today are focused on long-term change of buying habits, and so fit into part of a larger political program, with many techniques that require a longer structural commitment, e.g. reform to commodity markets, or government commitment to moral purchasing, e.g. the longstanding boycott of South African businesses to protest apartheid already alluded to. These stretch the meaning of a “boycott.”

Boycotts are now much easier to successfully initiate due to the Internet. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott 

 

Bailout

“In economics, a bailout is an act of loaning or giving capital to a failing business in order to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin. [1] [2]

A bailout is a matter of circumstance, so the possible motives behind one are unlimited, though typically the bail-er demands some influence over the company he bailed out. A bailout could be done for mere profit, as when a predatory investor resurrects a foundering company by buying its shares at fire-sale prices; for social improvement, as when, hypothetically speaking, a wealthy philanthropist reinvents an unprofitable fast food company into a non-profit food distribution network; or the bailout of a company might be seen as a necessity in order to prevent greater, socioeconomic failures: For example, the US government assumes transportation to be the backbone of America’s general economic fluency, which maintains the nation’s geopolitical power. [3] As such, it is the long-held policy of the US government to protect the biggest American companies responsible for transportation–airliners, petrol companies, etc– from failure through subsidies and low-interest loans, or, in other words, through bailing them out. These companies, among others, are deemed “too big to fail” because their goods and services are considered by the government to be constant universal necessities in maintaining the nation’s welfare and often, indirectly, its security.[4] [5]

Emergency-type government bailouts can be controversial. Debates raged in 2008 over if and how to bailout the failing auto industry in the United States. Those against it, like pro-free market radio personality Hugh Hewitt, saw this bailout as an unacceptable passing-of-the-buck to taxpayers. He denounced any bailout for the Big Three, arguing that mismanagement caused the companies to fail, and they now deserve to be dismantled organically by the free-market forces so that entrepreneurs may arise from the ashes; that the bailout signals lower business standards for giant companies by incentivizing risk, creating moral hazard through the assurance of safety nets (that others will pay for) that ought not be, but unfortunately are, considered in business equations; and that a bailout promotes centralized bureaucracy by allowing government powers to choose the terms of the bailout. Others, such as Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, and economist Jeffrey Sachs [6], characterized this particular bailout a necessary evil and argued that the probable incompetence in management of the car companies is insufficient reason to let them fail completely and risk disturbing the (current) delicate economic state of the United States, since up to three million jobs rest on the solvency of the Big Three and things are bleak enough as it is. In any case, the bones of contention here can be generalized to represent the issues at large, namely the virtues of private enterprise versus those of central planning, and the dangers of a free market’s volatility versus the those of socialist bureaucracy.

Furthermore, government bailouts are criticized as corporate welfare.

Governments around the world have bailed out their nations businesses with some frequency since the early 20th century. In general, the needs of the entity/entities bailed out are subordinate to the needs of the state. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout

 

 

 Deconstructing the Subprime Crisis

 

Franklin Allen on Lessons from the Subprime Crisis

 

Franklin Allen on Past Crises

 

Jeremy Siegel on the Resilience of American Finance

 

Who made money from sub-prime crisis? Credit Crunch winners and losers – bankers, hedge funds, speculators and investors. Economic trends keynote conference speaker Patrick Dixon

 

Credit Crunch explained, Banking Nationalisation and Global Economic Crisis – What next after credit crunch and global market chaos? After bank share price collapse?

 

Banks Nationalisation in Credit Crunch . Future after huge capital injection by governments in exchange for banking shares. Impact on wider economy, global economic crisis and future of banking. Comment by keynote conference speaker Patrick Dixon

 

Personal Guide to Survive Credit Crunch 10 steps in 60 seconds. What to do in economic slowdown or recession keynote conference speaker and Futurist Dr Patrick Dixon

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 90 so far )

Democratic Party Payoff: Barney’s Bailout Bill for the United Auto Workers (UAW)

Posted on November 18, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Economics, Links, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Uncategorized, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Obama intends to bail out auto makers 

 

Should Congress Bail Out The Auto Industry?

 

UAW Spends 3 Million on Obama Ad

 

Peter Schiff – No More Bailouts – Let The American Auto Makers Fail – Failed Management

 

Jim Rogers: Inflation down the road

 

No More Bailouts!!!

 

The Democratic Party and Barack Obama received sigificant campaign contributions from the UAW, both money and time from the UAW memership.

Union members were encouraged to vote for Barack Obama and Democratic Party members running for office.

The union does not want to force the auto companies into bankruptcy that would result in the cancellation of the labor contracts and a new contract with lower wage levels and benefits.

The UAW is now pressing the Democratic Party and President-Elect Obama for a bailout of the big US auto companies.

I am against any and all subsidies and bailouts.

The Federal government should not favor either winners or losers by intervening in the market place.

Any politician of either party that votes for bailouts will not be getting my vote in the future.

Any company that obtains a bailout no matter what form it takes will not be getting my business.

More and more bailouts will result in inflation which is a tax increase on all the income and wealth of the American people.

No more taxes!

No more bailouts!

Let markets work and businesses fail and succeed–the American Way!

Listen to the American people–no more bailouts!

 

You’re Going To Destroy A Worldwide Economy! Ron Paul

 

Andy Rooney on Prices


 

 

Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” lyrics by Yip Harburg, music by Jay Gorney (1931)

They used to tell me I was building a dream, and so I followed the mob,
When there was earth to plow, or guns to bear, I was always there right on the job.
They used to tell me I was building a dream, with peace and glory ahead,
Why should I be standing in line, just waiting for bread?

Once I built a railroad, I made it run, made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad; now it’s done. Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower, up to the sun, brick, and rivet, and lime;
Once I built a tower, now it’s done. Brother, can you spare a dime?

Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell,
Full of that Yankee Doodly Dum,
Half a million boots went slogging through Hell,
And I was the kid with the drum!

Say, don’t you remember, they called me Al; it was Al all the time.
Why don’t you remember, I’m your pal? Buddy, can you spare a dime?

Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell,
Full of that Yankee Doodly Dum,
Half a million boots went slogging through Hell,
And I was the kid with the drum!

Say, don’t you remember, they called me Al; it was Al all the time.
Say, don’t you remember, I’m your pal? Buddy, can you spare a dime?

 

“Annie” (1982) – Tomorrow


 

 

Background Articles and Videos 

 

Annie (1982) – You’re Never Fully Dressed Without A Smile

Jackie Mason ’08 Vlog 59 Bailing Out General Motors

 

Schwarzenegger and Kyl on Auto Bailout: Blame the Unions

 

Peter Schiff – Obamanomics Will Accelerate An American Economic Collapse Into A Great Depression

 

 

Democrats working on bailout plan that includes ownership stake in Detroit automakers

by Ken Thomas | The Associated Press

“…Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., are developing legislation that would let the auto industry tap into the $700 billion Wall Street rescue money, approved by Congress last month, to fund their business operations.

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC are lobbying Congress to approve the aid, citing an economic downturn that has choked off auto sales, frozen credit and made them vulnerable. GM, the nation’s largest automaker, posted a $2.5 billion quarterly loss Friday and has predicted it could run out of cash by the end of the year without government help.

“The reason why the autos are in this challenge is because of the meltdown in the financial market,” said Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. “They were on a restructuring path — yes, they were challenged — but this has utterly kicked them in the gut and is strangling them because they can’t borrow money.”

The legislation could set up a congressional showdown with the White House during President George W. Bush’s final days in office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are hoping for quick passage of the auto bailout during a postelection session that begins Monday.

Bush is open to helping the industry, the White House says, but the administration has expressed reservations about using the bailout money beyond the financial sector. …”

http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/11/democrats_working_on_bailout_p.html

 

Detroit: Same Old, Same Old   

Jim Manzi

“…In 1960, the Big 3 sold about 90% of all cars purchased in the U.S; today they sell about 47%.  That is, most cars bought by Americans this year were not made by the Big 3.   And this share loss has accelerated over the past decade.  (Also note that Michigan has already lost more than half of its auto manufacturing jobs in the last ten years, so lots of current Big 3 jobs will likely be “lost” even if they continue to operate outside Chapter 11.)

 

A dollar invested in GM shares twenty years ago would today have a face value of about 7 cents.  There is no five year period that I could find in the last thirty years for which GM’s stock price outperformed the S&P 500.  The market capitalization of GM is now under $2 billion, which is substantially less than that of such icons of our economy as Cognizant Technology Solutions, DaVita, Inc., Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, and the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan.  GM is in danger of becoming a small-cap.  Investors apparently don’t buy (literally) Cohn’s thesis. …”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGE4MGEwMTkwMzE3MGE1NWI4MGJkYTA4M2NkMTIwZmU=

 

Groups line up for another bailout

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

The Associated Press

“…Now with the three major U.S. car companies warning they could face a collapse before year’s end without new government help, Democratic congressional leaders are pushing to carve out a portion of the financial rescue money for them.

It’s far from certain the package will become law _ or even see an up-or-down vote. Republicans and President George W. Bush are reluctant to send new money to the carmakers, saying they should instead speed distribution of a $25 billion loan package Congress approved in September to help automakers develop fuel-efficient vehicles. …”

 

 http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/politics-16/1226687672112530.xml&storylist=washington

 

UAW leader says blame economy for Detroit 3 woes
Saturday November 15, 4:45 pm ET
By Mark Williams, AP Business Writer

UAW president says economy to blame for automakers problems, not workers

“…General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC are seeking $25 billion from the government to get them through the economic crisis and the worst sales slump in more than 25 years. GM appears to be in the worst shape, warning that it can’t borrow from normal sources.

The nation’s largest automaker said it had $16.2 billion in cash at the end of September, raising the possibility that GM will fall below the minimum of $11 billion to $14 billion needed for day-to-day operations by the end of the year.

Democrats in the lame-duck Congress are pressing for a bailout of Detroit’s Big Three with money from the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package. But President George W. Bush and many Republicans have come out against the idea, arguing that the financial rescue package was not intended for such uses, and that a bailout would reward poor management and lead other industries to demand government handouts.

In a statement Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic proposal gives automakers time to develop plans to assure their long-term viability, including meeting new fuel-efficiency standards and developing new technology.

“A restructured, competitive American automobile industry will continue to play a crucial role in our national economy and in the global marketplace,” she said.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081115/auto_bailout_gettelfinger.html

 

UAW Strike a ‘Defining Moment?’

Rick Moran

 

“…The United Auto Workers, seeking to hold on to lucrative health benefits and job protections, has gone on strike against General Motors for the first time since 1970.

 

 

 

The length of the walkout may hinge on the answers to two crucial questions: How long can the U.A.W. afford to stay out? And how long can G.M. endure a strike? While an indefinite strike would pose risk to both sides, each has made a calculated decision that it has more to gain by standing tough. G.M. is better positioned to handle a strike now than in earlier contract talks, though not for reasons that have to do with strength. With its operations shrinking in the United States, the majority of its sales and profits are now coming from abroad.

GM is seeking to move to a lower cost structure and more flexible work force to better compete against Japanese automakers. The danger, as in every auto strike, is that the network of suppliers and manufactures that feed the GM assembly lines will also be hit thus causing a ripple effect through the economy:  …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/uaw_strike_a_defining_moment.html

 

Detroit Automakers a Relic of the Past
A Commentary by Michael Barone

 “…The issue is whether the federal government should bail out, with a capital injection the size of what would have been unthinkable four months ago, General Motors and perhaps the other two U.S.-based auto manufacturers, Ford and Chrysler.

As one born and raised in Detroit and its suburbs, who once lived next door to Big Three factory workers and later went to school with the children of Big Three executives, I have mixed feelings about this proposal. My native Michigan is ailing, with the highest unemployment in the nation, plummeting housing values and cascading foreclosures. Its economy, despite the efforts of two previous governors — Democrat Jim Blanchard and Republican John Engler — is dangerously dependent on what used to be called the Big Three and are now called the Detroit Three.

The bankruptcy of one or more of them would deeply impact the personal lives and dash the seemingly reasonable expectations of those who, directly or indirectly, have depended on them. I can’t help but think of these people when the issue is raised.

And yet the implications of a bailout are frightening. The Detroit Three were unprofitable well before the current financial crisis hit, and GM is reportedly hemorrhaging $1 billion a month. The huge cost of lavish employee and retiree health care benefits, negotiated with the United Auto Workers (UAW), makes it impossible for the companies to sell for a profit anything but the big cars and SUVs that, after gas prices hit $4 a gallon last spring, almost no one wants to buy.

No one in the private sector is willing to pony up a dime for this business plan. GM stock is below its 1946 price, and one investment house has priced it at zero. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/detroit_automakers_a_relic_of_the_past

Don’t use temporary economic woes to remake U.S. institutions

By Thomas Sowell 

“… is not just a question of being able to put scare headlines on newspapers or alarmist rhetoric on television. Such things are just the prelude to massive political “change” in fundamentally sound institutions that have for more than two centuries made the American economy the envy of most of the world.

If the left succeeds, it will be like amputating your arm because of a stomach ache.

To add to the painful irony, many of those who are most eager to have a massive government intrusion into the market are among those whose previous intrusions into the market are largely responsible for the current financial crisis.

It was the left– the “liberals” or “progressives”– who led the charge to force lending institutions to lend to people whose credit history made them eligible only for “subprime” loans that were risky for both borrowers and lenders.

It started way back in the Carter administration, with the Community Reinvestment Act, and gained momentum over the years with legal threats from Attorney General Janet Reno and thuggery from ACORN, all to force lenders to lend where third parties wanted them to lend. Now we have a bad stomach ache– and now the left wants to start amputating the market.

http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081116/OPINION03/811160304

 

United Auto Workers

“…The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, better known as the United Auto Workers (UAW), is a labor union which represents workers in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Founded in order to represent workers in the automobile manufacturing industry, UAW members in the 21st century work in industries as diverse as health care, casino gaming and higher education. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Auto_Workers

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Threat: Are Chinese Communists Behind Rush In Passing Bailout Bill?

Defeat the Cram Down Bullshit Bailout Bill: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Bailout Bill vs. Rescue Economy American People (REAP) Law

The American People Want A Full Meal Buffett Deal–Not A Bailout!

Stop The Bailout: The American Elites’ Bum Rush of The American People–No Sale!

Obama Bombs Bailout Meeting–Whitehouse Still Standing–McCain Saved By House Republicans

Obama–ACORN–CRA–Congress–Democratic Party–Fannie Mae–Freddie Mac–Bailout–Socialism– Just Say No!

ACORN–Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now–Obama’s Red Shirts 

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Unconstrained Obama vs. Constrained McCain: A Conflict of Visions

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

The Missing SNL Bailout Skit: Censorship Under A Democratic Party Obama Regime

Posted on October 8, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Comedy, Economics, Immigration, Investments, Links, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 

SNL Skit – Banned (NBC Claiming Copyright – Bullcrap!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK9dt0yqpIk

http://patdollard.com/2008/10/it-is-here-the-banned-snl-skit-cannot-hide-from-louie/

 

O’Reilly Factor: Laura Ingraham On the Fairness Doctrine

 

Liberal Fascists Against Free Speech on Talk Radio

 

LOL 

Rush Limbaugh and Free Speech

 

Sarah Palin is change…


 

 

Democratic Party leaders ordered the pulling of the very funny SNL bailout skit after their financial backers complained that the truth really hurts.

SNL complied on orders from the network bosses.

I feel their pain.

I did not get to watch it.

This is just a taste of what is in store should the Democratic Party control the Senate, House and Presidency.

Free speech under radical socialism means do not reveal the truth even in a skit.

The Democratic Party and some Republicans would also like to destroy talk radio.

The recent bailout bill resulted in Congress being bombarded by telephone calls and e-mails opposing the bill by 99 to 1.

This also happened with the comprehensive immigration bill.

Once the American people became aware of what the American elites of both parties were trying to pull they made the call and sent the e-mail.

Should the American elites mess with talk radio and try to destroy it, millions of Americans will march on Washington–it will not be pretty.

What the American elites will not admit is that talk radio each day has an audence of over 100 million listeners.

Most talk show listeners have several favorite talk radio shows that they enjoy listening to both driving to work and when working listening to online over the web.

The bailout bill should have been defeated.

The American people are watching to see who really is bailout.

The American people are also watching the latest FCC end run by the left to use diversity and localism to stop talk radio.

Nice try but we are on to your tactics.

The American elites are playing with fire and they will get burned.

 

The forbidden skit: Full transcript and screenshots of SNL’s Soros/Sandler bailout satire
By Michelle Malkin

‘NBC is furiously erasing its tracks. Any attempts to upload the forbidden SNL bailout skit skewering George Soros and his left-wing subprime schemer friends Herbert and Marion Sandler will likely be squashed. So, I transcribed the whole comedy sketch for you and provided screenshots for the 7-minute video that has disappeared from NBC and Hulu. (Pat Dollard’s blog has posted the full clip on its server. Thanks to Ms. Underestimated for the .wmv file.)

The hits on the Sandlers ( “People who should be shot”) and Soros ( “Owner, Democratic Party”) occur near the end of the skit. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/07/the-forbidden-skit-full-transcript-and-screenshots-of-snls-sorossandler-bailout-satire/

 

The missing SNL bailout skit — and the Soros connection

By Michelle Malkin 

“…Over the weekend, I watched a hilarious, dead-on, and surprisingly honest skit on Saturday Night Live about the craptastic bailout and its Democrat roots. The skit called out Fannie/Freddie and featured Nancy Pelosi dragging out various sob-story “victims” — who turned out to be a parade of deadbeats and schemers. I was going to post the video for you tonight, but I can’t.

The video has been pulled. Vanished into thin air. (Go here for full transcript and screenshots.)

Where did it go and why?

I have a theory.

One of the rapacious couples featured in the skit was Herbert and Marion Sandler (portrayed by Darrell Hammond and Casey Wilson). Unlike the other composite figures, the Sandlers are a real-life couple.

Also lampooned: Left-wing billionaire George Soros.

As Todd Thurman at Heritage notes, the Sandlers are left-wing moguls who built “a mortgage company whose major product was subprime mortgages and they sold it to Wachovia for $24.2 billion in 2006. And what do the Sandlers do when they are not peddling subprime garbage? They are busy writing checks to leftist groups like the Center for American Progress, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Yes that ACORN.”

The Sandlers are seething over the skit. And George Soros must be livid as well. Anyone else smell a legal threat behind the disappearance of the vid?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/06/the-missing-snl-bailout-skit-and-the-soros-connection/ 

 

“Fairness Doctrine” = Unfair = censorship

 

President Rush Limbaugh. Half Hour News Hour

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Why Rush Wins
It’s not terribly complicated.By Byron York

“…What motivates him came through in our discussion of his years on the air before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. When he told of being ordered by station management not to discuss controversial topics — pretty much standard procedure at the time — it was clear how frustrating he found the situation. But his frustration seemed to come not so much from being forbidden to discuss politics on the air as from being forbidden from discussing anything interesting on the air.

“The real practical effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to shut down all controversial programming, because management would not deal with complaints,” Limbaugh told me. “So when you did listen to talk shows on the radio, they were dull and boring and horrible.”

“…The bottom line isn’t really about politics. It’s about radio. If Limbaugh were a liberal, we’d probably be talking about why liberals dominate talk radio. So you can talk about ownership and diversity all you want. But the bottom line is that Limbaugh simply knows radio, and what works on radio, better than anyone else in the world. That’s why he wins.”  

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-6848744_ITM

 

Stanley Kurtz’s Fairness Doctrine Preview   [Guy Benson]

“…Stanley Kurtz’s appearance on the Milt Rosenberg radio program in Chicago last night provided an unsettling look into the authoritarian tactics being employed by the Obama campaign to stifle and intimidate its critics.

I happened to be in the WGN studios for the entire affair because my friend, Zack Christenson, produces the show in question. He was aware of my previous reporting on the Obama-Ayers connection and kindly invited me to sit in on the two-hour interview. (For full disclosure, I work for two other radio stations in Chicago, WIND, and WYLL).

As I arrived at the downtown Chicago studios a few hours before show time, the phones began ringing off the hook with irate callers demanding Kurtz be axed from the program. It didn’t take long to discover that the Obama campaign—which had declined invitations to join the show for its duration to offer rebuttals to Kurtz’s points—had sent an “Obama Action Wire” e-mail to its supporters, encouraging them to deluge the station with complaints.

Why? Because, naturally, Kurtz is a “right-wing hatchet man,” a “smear merchant” and a “slimy character assassin” who is perpetrating one of the “most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.”

Evidently, much of Obama nation is composed of obedient and persistent sheep. They jammed all five studio lines for nearly the entire show while firing off dozens of angry emails. Many vowed to kick their grievances up the food chain to station management. After 90 minutes of alleged smear peddling, Milt Rosenberg (a well-respected host whose long-form interview show has aired in Chicago for decades) opened the phone lines, and blind ignorance soon began to crackle across the AM airwaves. The overwhelming message was clear: The interview must be put to an end immediately, and the station management should prevent similar discussions from taking place. …”

“…Team Obama is fast becoming the campaign that cried “smear.” They labeled the National Right to Life committee “liars” for providing evidence of some unpleasant facts about their candidate’s record on a series of infanticide votes. This tendency to lash out and engage in baseless name-calling not only smacks of desperation; it also may foreshadow an Obama presidency’s strategy in handling unfavorable media reports and sources.  …”

If anyone still believes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine isn’t a top priority for the American Left, last night’s example offered a stark and alarming wake-up call. Still not convinced? For goodness sake, read Jonah’s book.

UPDATE: Here is the podcast of the full show.

 http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmRhYmE3NzFlMTljNTdmZGQ3MjhkYTVjNzdmMjVhMzE=

 

Right Wing Radio — The Eternal Enemy   [Jonah Goldberg]

“…Let’s stipulate that the report is accurate about the fact that conservatives dominate talk radio. Who among us is shocked by this very old news? What I find simply amazing is that liberals see nothing wrong with using the state to police media content when they don’t like the content.

Does anyone really believe liberals would even entertain this renewed passion for the fairness doctrine if talk radio were overwhelmingly liberal? It just strikes me as so transparently opportunistic and unprincipled. If a conservative were to argue that the state should get involved in making Hollywood, or the biggest newspapers, or the broadcast news networks, or leading museums, publishing houses, or universities less liberal, liberals would justifiably scream bloody murder about censorship and propaganda.

Yes, yes, I know that they are public airwaves, blah blah blah. But every industry relies on some public accommodation of some kind. Museums and universities get major subsidies, tax breaks etc, newspapers are given all sorts of special considerations, from access to government workings and legal leeway in the courts. Indeed, many leading journalists argue for the de facto licensing of elite journalists by making them immune from prosecution under whistleblower and other laws against leaking. And the biggest newspapers are also deeply involved in radio and tv broadcasting. And let’s not even discuss public broadcasting.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWE3MThlMjgyMGRiZmQ4ZThjODhlNzFlNDIxYzYwZWY=

 

The Fairness Doctrine at Work

By William Tate

“…For those not familiar with the Fairness Doctrine, it was a Federal Communications Commission policy that required radio and TV stations to, in effect, provide equal time on matters of public importance. A station which did not do so ran the risk of losing its broadcast license, something which Rupert Murdoch once famously compared to having a license to print money.

The Fairness Doctrine was originally intended to encourage a public dialogue on controversial issues by ensuring that both sides of a topic were aired. As a former radio and TV journalist, I can assure you that the opposite was true. Station owners were afraid that their licenses would be yanked if there was the slightest possibility that they could be accused of violating the doctrine; it was far safer to simply avoid controversial matters.
That, and its questionable constitutionality, caused the Reagan-era F.C.C. to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. Within months, Rush Limbaugh’s program was nationally syndicated, and radio programming has never been the same. Many industry observers credit Rush with single-handedly saving the AM band, one reason he has achieved cult-like status among broadcasters.
Liberals often seemed perplexed by the success of conservatives in talk radio and the abject failure of liberal talk radio (see Air America, Jim Hightower, Ed Schultz, etc.), another example of how their belief in government regulation blinds them to the way the free market operates. It’s the law of supply and demand. Liberals have long had multiple media outlets to turn to: government-supported PBS and NPR, the broadcast networks, the newsweeklies, the Times and the Post, and the rest of the legacy media. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/the_fairness_doctrine_at_work.html

 

FCC Tries to Hush Rush

Jim Boulet Jr.

“…The “Hush Rush” crowd’s dream has been to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which once required any radio station airing a conservative program to provide equal time for the liberal view. The doctrine’s advocates have tried using the democratic process, but to no avail whatsoever: In 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the latest effort 309 to 115.

Yet regulations proposed on January 28 by the Federal Communications Commission would effectively reinstate the Fairness Doctrine via something called “localism.” This is legislation by stealth — most of the Fairness Doctrine’s opponents might not know about it until it’s too late. All opportunity for public comment on FCC’s proposal ceases on June 11, 2008.

Which isn’t to say it was impossible to see this coming. The Left has long sought new ways of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and their latest gambit features a sizable dose of political correctness.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” that cleverly recasts the Fairness Doctrine as “localism” by stating that “any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism.”

The center’s report also urged quotas by race and sex for radio-station ownership, because a survey of all “10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.” …”

“…Radio-station managers know that their job security is endangered by anything that might conceivably cause trouble for the station owners who employ them. Also, those purporting to represent minority interests often take political correctness to new levels. Think of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose touchiness is already legendary — what would such a group do if legally guaranteed influence over radio programming? CAIR has equally touchy affiliates in 19 states.

Should the FCC prevail, radio stations will return to the sort of programming that predominated during the days of the Fairness Doctrine, only filtered by 2008-style political correctness. Instead of full debate on controversial issues such as amnesty for illegal aliens, AM radio will become a herd of independent minds, a vast “Air America” from sea to shining sea in which never a conservative word is heard.

The FCC’s regulations are so far along that the Bush administration’s proposed rule-making moratorium will not stop them.

Congress could pass a resolution of disapproval. Or, President Bush might ask the FCC to find other things to occupy its time. …”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjMzZGIyYTMzYmM5ZmI5YzViNWQxYjAyZWRiMzA2YzY=&w=MQ==

 

Flash: SNL rewriting bailout skit, “didn’t meet their standards“

By Michelle Malkin 

 

“…Peter Viles at L.A. Land reports that Saturday Night Live is rewriting its forbidden Soros/Sandler-bashing
bailout skit because it “didn’t meet their standards.”

Translation: It didn’t meet George Soros’s and the Sandlers’ standards!

The scoop: …”

“…George Soros:

Owner, Democratic Party.

Owner, NBC.

***

I’m told the rewrite will remove the “People who should be shot” chyron below the Sandlers.

As for standards…

Commenter madmonk: “Standard[s]? What standards? They ‘joked’ about incest in the Palin family. So again… what standards?”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/07/flash-snl-rewriting-bailout-skit-didnt-meet-their-standards/

 

Debate over the Fairness Doctrine on Fox News Sunday

 

“Fairness Doctrine” — Feinstein Outlawing Talk Radio

 

FCC Commissioner: Fairness Doctrine Could Lead To Government Regulation Of Web

 

Rep. Roy Blunt addresses the Fairness Doctrine

 

Gov. Romney On The Fairness Doctrine

LOL

 

SNL Sarah Palin Interview vs Real Sarah Palin

 

Sarah Palin, Tina Fey on SNL

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Media Matters: Mendacities & Money Matters More

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Bailout Bill vs. Rescue Economy American People (REAP) Law

Posted on October 1, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Economics, Investments, Life, Links, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Taxes, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Charlie Rose – Al Hunt & Floyd Norris

Bush Implores Congress to Act to Rescue Markets

 

Financial meltdown timeline

 

“Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.”

~ 2 Corinthians 9:6

Forget about Treasury Secretary Paulson’s bailout bill that Congress voted down on Monday.
The Treasury does not need to purchase from financial institutions assets whose current value is temporarily depressed due to the decline in real estate prices. There are alternative courses of action to get liquidity or capital to financial institutions whose capital structure is impaired. Either loan money or invest funds in the financial institutions for up to five years. Let the financial institutions keep and sell the assets themselves when real estate prices recover. Then have the financial institutions repay the loan or buy back the preferred stock. There is no need for the Federal Government to purchase these assets. I know it, the American people know, and so does the Treasury Secretary and the President.

What will the American people support to rescue the economy?

1. Increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) from $100,000 to $250,000.

2. Increase the Securities Investor Protection Corporation insured ceiling from $500,000 to $1,000,000 per customer and increase the maximum of $100,000 for cash claims to $250,000.

3. Decrease the capital gains tax from 15% to 0%.

4. Repeal the mark to market accounting rules.

5. Allow financial institutions facing severe liquidity problems to borrow funds from the Federal Reserve for up to five years at an interest rate equal to prime plus three percent to encourage early repayment of the loan.

The greed, arrogance and stupidity (GAS) of the American elites in Washington and Wall Street needs to stop.

The American people no longer trust the American elites of both political parties and have lost confidence in their ability to either tell the truth or understand what urgently needs to be done.

 

Background Articles and Videos 

FDIC Insurance Explained

FDIC Insurance Fund Under Strain

 

FDIC

http://www.fdic.gov/

 

 

 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a United States government corporation created by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. It provides deposit insurance which guarantees the safety of checking and savings deposits in member banks, currently up to $100,000 per depositor per bank. The vast number of bank failures in the Great Depression spurred the United States Congress to create an institution to guarantee deposits held by commercial banks, inspired by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its Depositors Insurance Fund (DIF).

The FDIC insures accounts at different banks separately. For example, a person with accounts at two separate banks (not merely branches of the same bank) can keep $100,000 in each account and be insured for the total of $200,000. Also, accounts in different ownerships (such as beneficial ownership, trusts, and joint accounts) are considered separately for the $100,000 insurance limit. The Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 raised the amount of insurance for an Individual Retirement Account to $250,000. …”

“…Insurance requirements

To receive this benefit, member banks must follow certain liquidity and reserve requirements. Banks are classified in five groups according to their risk-based capital ratio:

  • Well capitalized: 10% or higher
  • Adequately capitalized: 8% or higher
  • Undercapitalized: less than 8%
  • Significantly undercapitalized: less than 6%
  • Critically undercapitalized: less than 2%

When a bank becomes undercapitalized the FDIC issues a warning to the bank. When the number drops below 6% the FDIC can change management and force the bank to take other corrective action. When the bank becomes critically undercapitalized the FDIC declares the bank insolvent and can take over management of the bank. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation 

 

Securities Investor Protection Corporation

“The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) is a federally mandated non-profit corporation in the United States that protects securities investors from harm if a broker/dealer defaults. Investors are not insured for any potential loss while invested in the market.

SIPC was created by the 1970 Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aaa et seq, but it is not a government agency; rather, it is a membership corporation funded by its members.

SIPC serves two primary roles in the event that a broker-dealer fails. First, SIPC acts to organize the distribution of customer cash and securities to investors. Second, to the extent a customer’s cash and/or securities are unavailable, SIPC provides insurance coverage up to $500,000 of the customer’s net equity balance including up to $100,000 in cash. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Investor_Protection_Corporation

 

Clark SIPC Explained

Securities Investor Protection Corporation

http://www.sipc.org/

 

Capital gains tax

“…A capital gains tax (abbreviated: CGT) is a tax charged on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a lower price. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property. Not all countries implement a capital gains tax and most have different rates of taxation for individuals and corporations.

For equities, an example of a popular and liquid asset, each national or state legislation, have a large array of fiscal obligations that must be respected regarding capital gains. Taxes are charged by the state over the transactions, dividends and capital gains on the stock market. However, these fiscal obligations may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because, among other reasons, it could be assumed that taxation is already incorporated into the stock price through the different taxes companies pay to the state, or that tax free stock market operations are useful to boost economic growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax

 

Capital gains tax in the United States

“In the United States, individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains just as they do on other sorts of income. Capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income. This is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments and to fund entrepreneurial activity. The amount an investor is taxed depends on both his or her tax bracket, and the amount of time the investment was held before being sold. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor’s ordinary income tax rate, and are defined as investments held for a year or less before being sold. Long-term capital gains, which apply to assets held for more than one year, are taxed at a lower rate than short-term gains. In 2003, this rate was reduced to 15%, and to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets. These reduced tax rates were passed with a sunset provision and are effective through 2011; if they are not extended before that time, they will expire and revert to the rates in effect before 2003, which were generally 20%.

The reduced 15% tax rate on eligible dividends and capital gains, previously scheduled to expire in 2008, was extended through 2010 as a result of the Tax Reconciliation Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 17, 2006. As a result:

  • In 2008, 2009, and 2010, the tax rate on eligible dividends and long term capital gains is 0% for those in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets.
  • After 2010, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer’s ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket.
  • After 2010, the long-term capital gains tax rate will be 20% (10% for taxpayers in the 15% tax bracket).
  • After 2010, the qualified five-year 18% capital gains rate (8% for taxpayers in the 15% tax bracket) will be reinstated.

Technically, a “cost basis” is used, rather than the simple purchase price, to determine the taxable amount of the gain. The cost basis is the original purchase price, adjusted for various things including additional improvements or investments, taxes paid on dividends, certain fees, and depreciation.

The United States is unlike other countries in that its citizens are subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income no matter where in the world they reside. U.S. citizens therefore find it difficult to take advantage of personal tax havens. Although there are some offshore bank accounts that advertise as tax havens, U.S. law requires reporting of income from those accounts and failure to do so constitutes tax evasion. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

 

Capital Gains Tax

 

Mark to Market

“In accounting and finance, mark to market is the act of assigning a value to a position held in a financial instrument based on the current market price for the instrument or similar instruments. For example, the final value of a futures contract that expires in 9 months will not be known until it expires. If it is marked to market, for accounting purposes it is assigned the value that it would fetch in the open market currently. …”

Simple example

Example: If an investor owns 100 shares of a stock purchased for $40 per share, and that stock now trades at $60, the “mark-to-market” value of the shares is equal to (100 shares × $60), or $6,000, whereas the book value might (depending on the accounting principles used) only equal $4,000.

Similarly, if the stock falls to $30, the mark-to-market value is $3,000 and the investor has lost $1,000 of the original investment. If the stock was purchased on margin, this might trigger a margin call and the investor would have to come up with an amount sufficient to meet the margin requirements for his account.”

“…Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Section 132 of the proposed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, titled “Authority to Suspend Mark-to-Market Accounting” restates the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority to suspend the application of FAS 157 if the SEC determines that it is in the public interest and protects investors.

Section 133 of the proposed Act, titled “Study on Mark-to-Market Accounting,” requires the SEC, in consultation with the Federal Reserve Board and the Department of the Treasury, to conduct a study on mark-to-market accounting standards as provided in FAS 157, including its effects on balance sheets, impact on the quality of financial information, and other matters, and to report to Congress within 90 days on its findings.[4] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_to_market

 

SEC gives banks more leeway on mark-to-market

“U.S. securities regulators on Tuesday gave the financial industry a reprieve from marking hard-to-value assets down to fire sale prices, throwing a lifeline to an industry beset by strained credit markets and the latest round of bank failures.

The U.S. stock market added to gains on the news, in hopes that regulators’ new interpretation of fair value, or mark-to-market, accounting rules, will slow or reverse the heavy flow of mortgage-related losses on banks’ balance sheets.

In the new guidance, first reported by Reuters, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reminded financial services firms that they don’t need to use fire sale prices when evaluating their hard to price assets.

“This is a significant first step and adds stability, confidence, and liquidity within the capital markets,” said Steve Bartlett, president and chief executive of The Financial Services Roundtable. “By clarifying how to treat assets in an uncertain market, the SEC is continuing to provide transparency to investors and helping institutions to provide credit in periods of market stress.” …”

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20080930&id=9211897

 

Special Report Mark To Market

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL5s1Q7OxlY

 

Subprime Crisis: The Role of Off Balance Sheet Entities

 

Subprime: The Role of Off Balance Sheet Entitities Part 2

 

Subprime: Is Mark to Market Accounting Marking Things Worse


 

Newt Gingrich Bailout Proposal – Part 1

 

Newt Gingrich Bailout Proposal – Part 2


 

Heritage’s JD Foster Explains the Credit Crisis

Three Things to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

1) Federal action is needed to restore confidence.
2) The companies are creations of big-government policies.
3) Breaking up the companies is long-term fix.

 

Wall Streets Day of Reckoning: Turmoil in the Global Market

 

Wall Street’s Day of Reckoning: The Fannie & Freddie Bailout

 

Richard Herring on What’s Next for Investment Banks

 

Franklin Allen on Lessons from the Subprime Crisis

 

LOL

Subprime crisis explanation by The Long Johns

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Threat: Are Chinese Communists Behind Rush In Passing Bailout Bill?

The American People Want A Full Meal Buffett Deal–Not A Bailout!

Stop The Bailout: The American Elites’ Bum Rush of The American People–No Sale!

Obama Bombs Bailout Meeting–Whitehouse Still Standing–McCain Saved By House Republicans

Obama–ACORN–CRA–Congress–Democratic Party–Fannie Mae–Freddie Mac–Bailout–Socialism– Just Say No!

ACORN–Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now–Obama’s Red Shirts

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 7 so far )

Doom’s Day–Repent–The End Is Near–Bailout Bill Blasted

Posted on September 27, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Comedy, Economics, Links, Music, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Taxes, Technology, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg 

Doom’s Day 

 

Jerry Lee Lewis – Whole Lotta Shakin’ Going On

 

Looks like Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson got the date wrong not to mention the details of the mother of all bailout bills. 

 

Finance Leaders Say Bailout Is Urgent

 

The Doors – The End

 

The real date is December 21, 2012.

 

Doom’s Day 
 

 

Dec 21, 2012 – End of the World? – Part 1 of 6

 

Dec 21, 2012 – End of the World? – Part 2 of 6


 

Dec 21, 2012 – End of the World? – Part 3 of 6

 

Dec 21, 2012 – End of the World? – Part 4 of 6


 

Dec 21, 2012 – End of the World? – Part 5 of 6, Part 6 – N.A

 

 

Background Articles and Videos
 

 Doomsday Event

 “A doomsday event is a specific occurrence which has an exceptionally destructive effect on the human race.[1] The final outcomes of doomsday events may range from a major disruption of human civilization, to the extinction of human life, to the destruction of the planet Earth, to the annihilation of the entire universe.

A 2006 poll by SciFi.com revealed that virtually all Americans believed that some sort of doomsday scenario could realistically impact the human race, and that many feel that such a scenario is likely to be man-made.[2]

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Obama Bombs Bailout Meeting–Whitehouse Still Standing–McCain Saved By House Republicans

Stop The Bailout: The American Elites’ Bum Rush of The American People–No Sale!

Obama–ACORN–CRA–Congress–Democratic Party–Fannie Mae–Freddie Mac–Bailout–Socialism– Just Say No!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama–ACORN–CRA–Congress–Democratic Party–Fannie Mae–Freddie Mac–Bailout–Socialism– Just Say No!

Posted on September 23, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Economics, Investments, Links, Music, People, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

For What It’s Worth – Buffalo Springfield

 

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

 

Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the “Family” and “Conscience” of Fannie Mae

OBAMA CAUGHT SAYING ACORN AND FRIENDS WILL SHAPE HIS PRESIDENTIAL AGENDA

EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration’s “BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama’s tie to all of it!!!

 

Jim Rogers Speaks the Truth about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

 

Jim Rogers: Socialism for the Rich.

 

Reaction To Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Rescue Plan

 

Will Congress Pass Bailout Plan?

 

Kevin Phillips on Bill Moyers – Economic crash 2008 (3/3)


 

Wall Streets Day of Reckoning: Turmoil in the Global Market

 

Dollar Collapse – Chicken Little Was Right – Goodbye Dollar

 

The American people are outraged by the corruption in Washington.

The American people are opposed to any bailout of Fannie Mae, Fannie Mac, AIG, investment, commerical, security and mortage bankers that profited from the home subprime mortgage scam –the crime of the century. 

The American people want the politicians of either party that aided and abetted this crime to be exposed for what they are–corrupt criminals that should not be in Congress nor the Whitehouse but in prison.

The Democratic Party fought against more regulation and oversight for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recommended and proposed by both President Bush and Senator McCain.

The Democratic Party insisted and required by law, the Community Reinvestment Act, that banks make loans to people that were clearly unqualified to receive them.

The Democratic Party made sure that the executives running both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac supported their efforts to fund undocumented loans for home mortages.

The Democratic Party is responsible for starting this crisis by their meddling and government intervention in the mortage market.

The former executives who ran both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be in prison and not advising Barack Obama.

Reform yes. Cover up no!

Prison yes. Bailout no! 

Only you can prevent socialism in America! 

 Ron Paul Blasts Secret Government Running Economy


 

 Background Articles and Videos

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/03/do_facts_matter

Do Facts Matter?

by Thomas Sowell

 

“…The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain– which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama’s rhetoric and the media’s spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years– including the present year– denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today’s financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration “right-wing ideology” of “de-regulation” that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?  …”

 

 

Bank Mess Started With Gov’t Intervention

By THOMAS SOWELL

“…Blaming the lenders is the party line of congressional Democrats as well. What we need is more government regulation of lenders, they say, to protect the innocent borrowers from “predatory” lending practices.

Before going further down that road, it may be useful to look back at what got us into this mess in the first place.

It was not that many years ago when there was moral outrage ringing throughout the media because lenders were reluctant to lend in certain neighborhoods and because banks did not approve mortgage loan applications from blacks as often as they approved mortgage loan applications from whites.

All this was an opening salvo in a campaign to get Congress to pass laws forcing lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to and in places where they would not otherwise put their money.

Banks’ Dilemma

The practice of not lending in some neighborhoods was demonized as “redlining” and the fact that minority applicants were approved for mortgages only 72% of the time, while whites were approved 89%, was called “overwhelming” evidence of discrimination by the Washington Post. …”

“…Laws and regulations pressured lending institutions to lend to people that they were not lending to, given the economic realities.

Forced Lending

The Community Reinvestment Act forced them to lend in places where they didn’t want to send money, and where neither they nor politicians wanted to walk.

Now that this whole situation has blown up in everybody’s face, the government intervention that brought on this disaster in is supposed to save the day.

Politics is largely the process of taking credit and putting the blame on others — regardless of what the facts may be. Politicians get away with this to the extent that we gullibly accept their words and look to them as political messiahs.”

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301532605156669

 

Inside Obama’s Acorn
By their fruits ye shall know them.

By Stanley Kurtz

“What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.

This is a story we’ve largely missed. While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn “leadership trainer” is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn. …”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MA==

 

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a community organization of low- and moderate-income families that addresses housing, schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions, and other social issues that affect its members. With a membership of over 350,000, ACORN is organized into more than 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the United States, as well as in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. The organization was born out of the American Civil Rights Movement. ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke, George Wiley, and Gary Delgado.[1] Maude Hurd has been National President of ACORN since 1990.

ACORN groups work through direct action, negotiations, and with public officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

 

ACORN

 

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation’s largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities.

http://www.acorn.org/

OBAMA’S ACORN EXPOSED PART 1 OF 2

 

OBAMA’S ACORN EXPOSED PART 2 OF 2

 

Rep. Waters Speaks About Obama at ACORN

 

What is a Community Organizer?

 

Lou Dobbs – Electoral Fraud Threat to Democracy

 

Obama complicit in voter fraud? — Obama’s ACORN connection

 

Acorn / Voter Fraud / Obama and Community Organizers

 

More ACORN Allegations

 

ACORN Vote Fraud

 

Representative from ACORN

 

ACORN Convention Member Speak Out

 

ACORN National Convention 2008, Detroit

 

ACORN Grassroots Democracy Campaign

 

Advocacy Group Partners With Countrywide

 

Shocking!—Democrats Trying to Give Bailout Money to Obama’s Owner ACORN


 

Community Reinvestment Act   

“The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as “redlining.” The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions. …” 

“…Criticism 

“…Critics claim that government policy encouraged risky lending[7] and the development of the subprime debacle through legislation like the CRA. Economics professor Stan Liebowitz writes that banks were forced to loan to un-credit worthy consumers with “no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant’s ability to make payments; no down payment.” The chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, is said to have “bragged” that to approve minority applications “lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit.”[8] Robert Gordon of the Center for American Progress disagrees, and quotes statistics that he claims show “independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts.” He faults then-Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan for “cheering the subprime boom” in the banking industry.[9] Economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo counters Gordon, stating that independent mortgage companies are “middlemen” between banks, including those regulated by the CRA, and consumers and that in any case the CRA had caused tens of billions in defaults on mortgages by unqualified borrowers.[10] Economist Yaron Brook concluded succinctly, “The Government Did It:” through the stick of the CRA [and] the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the fed created the mortgage market debacle. [11] …” 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

 

Subprime Pols

 

Government has been the principal factor preventing the “affordable housing” that politicians talk about so much.

By Thomas Sowell 

“…In short, government has been the principal factor preventing the “affordable housing” that politicians talk about so much.Politicians have also been a key factor behind pushing lenders to lend to borrowers with lower prospects of being able to repay their loans.The Community Reinvestment Act lets politicians pressure lenders to lend to people they might not lend to otherwise — and the same politicians are quick to cry “exploitation” when the interest charged to high-risk borrowers reflects that risk.

 

The huge losses of sub-prime lenders, some of whom have gone bankrupt, demonstrate again the consequences of letting politicians try to micromanage the economy.

Yet with all the fingerpointing in the media and in government, seldom is a finger pointed at the politicians at local, state, and national levels who have played a key role in setting up the conditions that led to financial disasters for individual home buyers and for those who lent to them.

While financial markets are painfully adjusting and both lenders and borrowers are becoming less likely to take on so much risky “creative” financing in the future, politicians show no sign of changing.

Why should they, when they have largely escaped blame for the disasters that their policies fostered? …”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjgwYzI4Njg3OWMxOGUzYmY0ZDMwYzYwNzkzYjc1NDI=

 

The Right Stuff…

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 19, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Subprime Crisis: President Bush’s financial team is now proving its mettle — and its expertise. Led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, it crafted a reasonable, workable response to the subprime meltdown.

“…Like so many others, we believe that government should largely remove itself from functioning markets. But in a case such as this, where a market has been seriously damaged due to regulatory excess, an obligation exists to help undo the damage.

That’s the case now with the subprime crisis and housing collapse, both largely due to decades of congressional incompetence.

With world credit markets seized up and little to show for piecemeal U.S. efforts to deal with the growing financial panic, Paulson and others on the Bush financial team late last week shifted course, crafting a systematic answer to the markets’ meltdown.

This was leadership writ large. Paulson spent decades on Wall Street as a trader and top executive at one of its flagship firms, Goldman Sachs, and his experience and market wisdom showed.

His controversial decision to create a new financial entity, modeled broadly on the 1980s-era Resolution Trust Corp., may just spell an end to this financial crisis. Congress, which has mostly sat on the sidelines during this crisis, should approve it right away.

Unlike the RTC, which owned actual properties, the new agency that Paulson’s Treasury is creating will buy up the impaired mortgage-backed securities and hold them for resale when the market turns favorable again.

For ailing financial markets, this was welcome tonic. At this point they care less about details of the agency than limiting the contagion of the subprime crisis so it will no longer contaminate global banks and investors’ balance sheets. Mission accomplished. …”

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306716096379423

 

Dispelling The ‘Deregulation’ Myth

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 19, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Politics: A dubious and dangerous idea seems to be gaining strength — that government caused the financial crisis by giving capitalism free rein. If anything, it hasn’t done enough of that.

“So why did banks and investment houses get into so much trouble? It will take a long and exhaustive post-mortem to answer that question fully, but one point is already clear: They made mistakes that had nothing to do with the 1999 law.

Commercial banks threw lending standards out the window in their rush to get new business. Like S&Ls of the 1980s, they would have gone wild without Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Washington, if anything, egged them on, but not because of free-market dogma. Banks and mortgage brokers were pumping up the homeownership numbers in America, and politicians were eager to take credit for that.

Wall Street, meanwhile, became a victim of its own innovation. It created new classes of derivative investments that spread — and, through leverage, amplified — the risk from the subprime mortgages produced by the banks. A new multitrillion-dollar market emerged almost overnight, lacking in transparency and reliable price signals. With their asset values in doubt, investment banks lurched toward insolvency.

If regulators failed here, it wasn’t because of policies adopted years before. It was more of the same story that has played itself out over and over in modern finance: Innovation races ahead of the rules. Crises tend to take almost everyone by surprise — including the major players as well as the regulators.

Careful study in the aftermath can lead to smart policies that cushion the blows of future shocks, but it doesn’t prevent them entirely. Nor should it. Capitalism needs some room for trial and error, bringing out new ideas and testing them in adversity.

In this respect, Gramm-Leach-Bliley has turned out to be smart policy indeed. By repealing the rule against banks owning investment firms, it has led to at least two crucial mergers — JPMorgan Chase absorbing Bear Stearns and Bank of America merging with Merrill Lynch. Morgan Stanley may be the next investment house to find shelter in a well-capitalized commercial bank.

You can spot the theme here: By taking down an outmoded firewall, the law is helping the financial industry cope with a once-in-a-lifetime crisis. Far from being the cause, this instance of deregulation, or whatever you call it, is part of the cure.”

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306716557967194

 

Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/18/2008

“…Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, “no one knows what to do” right now.

Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked “no” at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action.

Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.

“The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.

Only one problem: It’s untrue.

Yes, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn’t have.

But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie. …”

“…In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

That’s how the contagion began.

With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.

As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in “community development,” giving money to local housing rights groups and “empowering” the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.

Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.

Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who’s who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.

They got the bonuses. You get the bill.”

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

 

Analysis: Washington’s Trillion Dollar Wall Street Bailout

James Pethokoukis

“…Is a bailout necessary?
Look, the financial system probably couldn’t take another week like the one we just went through. Stocks plunging, credit markets freezing. As economist Robert Brusca puts it, “The proposed US government rescue plan comes at the end of a week of almost unprecedented turmoil on world financial markets amid a crisis of confidence in banks.”

The government had to get ahead of the curve and quit reacting on a case-by-case basis. If you look at banking crises in Japan and Sweden, for instance, all roads eventually led to a government bailout with taxpayer money at risk. The rule in these cases seems to be the sooner, the better. If you want more evidence, markets around the world and here in the United States are soaring on this news. Strategist Richard Bernstein of Merrill Lynch, in a research note, says the bailout plan is “an opportunity for the government to solve the on-going problems through one system-wide solution.” …”

“…As long as we have markets and humans there will be bubbles, whether in stocks, homes, Beanie Babies, tulips, or whatever. But as far as the housing/credit bubbles go, I think it could have been avoided. Alan Greenspan cut rates too low and left them there for too long, creating an extreme financial situation that Wall Street tried to profit from. Uncle Sam also fed into that market distortion by making greater homeownership a national goal, using both tax policy and the regulation like the Community Reinvestment Act to, essentially, push capital into homes. And were regulators as tough as they could have been? Obviously not. …”

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/9/19/analysis-washingtons-trillion-dollar-wall-street-bailout.html

 

More on the diversity racket and the home loan debacle

By Michelle Malkin  

 

“…Referencing my column yesterday on illegal immigration and the mortgage mess, Hans Bader at Open Market shares his experience. I’ve been getting a lot of e-mails with similar stories. Tip of the iceberg:

When I and my wife, a legal alien, bought our house, the mortgage company told me that if my wife were an illegal alien, rather than legal, we would have qualified for certain loan programs with big banks. But because she was a legal alien waiting for her green-card (which she had recently applied for), we didn’t qualify.

Mark Krikorian, an activist against illegal immigration, argues that “we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the “Diversity Recession” (if this doesn’t work, make that the Diversity Depression). In other words, if poor people in general, or blacks or Hispanics in particular, were less likely to be approved for a mortgage, the only possible reason was racism or classism or whatever. Thus ‘creditworthiness’ was an illegitimate, dead-white-male concept, like middleclassness. Because, after all, isn’t everyone entitled to credit?” …”

 

The Mother of All Bailouts = The Death of Fiscal Conservatism 

“…Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson just wrapped up his press conference announcing the Mother of All Bailouts. He said a “bold” approach was needed to achieve “stability” in the market.

Let me translate that.

“Bold” = Massively massive, taxpayer-funded rescue.

“Stability” = Privatizing profits and socializing losses on a scale we have never seen before in our lifetimes.

I have had it with Pollyanna conservatives who continue to parrot the “fundamentals of the market are great!” line.

The fundamentals of the market suck. The fundamentals of capitalism have been sabotaged.

Yes, yes, crony Democrats are to blame for much of how we got here. You don’t need to recite all the talking points back to me. I’ve been writing about the Fannie/Freddie debacle for years.

But it is September 19, 2008. And this is a Republican White House presiding over the Mother of All Bailouts. Every step along the way since stimuluspalooza began last summer, we’ve heard that every bailout step was just a one-off. Each step was supposed to calm the markets. Each new government intervention and allocation of taxpayer dollars was supposed to achieve “stability.” Each new package of goodies rewarding irresponsible behavior and bad financial decisions was supposed to prevent new ones. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/19/the-mother-of-all-bailouts-the-death-of-fiscal-conservatism/

Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage Crisis.

 

Deconstructing the Subprime Crisis

 

Joseph Gyourko on Fannie, Freddie, and the Housing Bust

 

Franklin Allen on Past Crises

 

Franklin Allen on Lessons from the Subprime Crisis

 

Jeremy Siegel on the Resilience of American Finance

 

Richard Herring on Mortgage-backed Securities

Susan Wachter on Securitizations and Deregulation

 

Wall Street’s Day of Reckoning: The Fannie & Freddie Bailout

 

Housing Bailout For Deadbeats Gamblers Liars Thieves

 

 

Part 1 – Exposing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Origins

New York Investing meetup organizer Daryl Montgomery discusses the origins of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the first episode of a multi-part series. The New York Investing meetup is an organization of 1800 independent traders and investors that provides unbiased stock market education and analysis. We also have a blog,”The Helicopter Economics Investing Guide” which can be found at:

http://nyinvestingmeetup.blogspot.com

 

Part 2 – Exposing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Origins

 

Part 3 – Exposing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Origins

 

Part 4 – Exposing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Origins

 

Part 5 – Exposing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Origins

 

The Big Lie – The U.S. GDP Figures

 

Patrick Byrne and Don Harrold – Part One

 

Patrick Byrne and Don Harrold – Part Two

 

Patrick Byrne on Naked Short Selling

 

Bud Burrell on FSN about short selling, hedgefunds …P1

 

Bud Burrell on FSN about short selling, hedgefunds …P2

 

Bud Burrell on FSN about short selling, hedgefunds …P3

 

Bud Burrell on FSN about short selling, hedgefunds …P4

 

Bud Burrell on FSN about short selling, hedgefunds …P5

 

Bud Burrell on FSN about short selling, hedgefunds …P6

 

Rush On Franklin Raines

 

Hey Barack, Who’s Franklin Raines

 

LOL

Solution to Our Economic Problems…

 

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bill Clinton… 

 

Barack Obama is a freaking Socialist…

 

 Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Senator McCain Takes Cheap Shot At Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Chris Cox

New Poll: McCain/Palin Will Win 50 States!–Obama/Biden Will Win 57 States?

Sweet Sarah Palin Knocks Out Bitter Barack Obama

Knight of Faith Sarah Palin vs. Knight of Infinity Barack Obama

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

McCain: Cut–Drill–Victory vs. Obama: Increase–Talk–End 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 67 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...