Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (49623)	10/1/2008 7:25:37 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

Common Sense Regarding The Bailout Common Sense Regarding The Bailout Rule One: If you reward bad behavior, you get bad behavior. In the news this week and probably in the weeks to come is the financial mess that threatens the U.S. economy. I, for one hope, that all parties (Congress, Wall Street, & Taxpayers) will take just a little time to consider the common sense lessons that most of us know to be true. The most important rule in shaping behavior is that if you reward bad behavior you will get more bad behavior. Once we look past the spin the election and media are putting on this issue, we will find common sense pointing to a clear violation of the basic rule about rewarding bad behavior. For years and years, bankers relied on time honored rules concerning the lending of money for purchasing houses. These rules included the following: · Never lend more than a borrower can afford to repay; · Never lend 100% of the value of the home because it important for the borrower to have a financial stake in the purchase and if home value goes down in the short term the banker's risk will remain secured; and, · If a loan has any possibility of remaining as a bank asset, make damn sure the first two rules are followed. The current financial mess clearly stems from numerous legislative actions that effected the latter of these guiding principles in mortgage lending. Historically, risk to the mortgage lender and to the borrower (the possibility of losing equity) had kept this system secure and rolling along for years. Congress, a few decades ago, decided to tinker with the system and the result was that risk was shifted from where it belongs. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 and bankers who might have wanted to expand were effectively required to make numerous loans in neighborhoods where the property values were less stable (more risk) and to borrowers who were less likely to be able to repay these loans (more risk). More and more regulations were passed by Congress that further added to this change in the amount of risk that banks were exposed. Under this Act, bank expansions could be held up by complaints from community groups such as ACORN. This gave such groups enormous leverage to threaten and extort lenders into make riskier and riskier loans. Then in came Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac buying up the questionable loans (sub-prime) and encouraging more and more lending in unstable areas, to borrowers of questionable means. Fannie and Freddy then bundled up the risky loans and resold them on the world market. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac had rewarded the banks' bad lending practices by assuming their risk. The banks seeing their risk disappear were freed of the historic check on bad lending practices – LOSS. You know the rest of the story. Well actually, many will buy into the spin that Sen. Obama and the Democratic leadership are trying to put out – that all of these problems lie at the feet of the Republicans and their not wanting regulation. This is blatantly a distortion of the facts. If fact, Republican leadership has for the past couple of decades have tried to reign in Fannie Mae's and Freddy Mac's irresponsible manipulation of the financial markets. In 2005, Sen. McCain was a co-sponsor of legislation that would have, most likely, prevented this crisis. However, this legislation was blocked by Democrats. Understandably, the media has been reluctant to give Sen. McCain the credit he deserves given that they are wholeheartedly supporting Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama's guiding principle of "Obama First" will not allow him to tell voters about the real story of Democratic responsibility for this crisis. Additionally, Sen. Obama has extensive ties to those who led Fannie Mae on its path to fiscal crisis and to ACORN, a group that put incredible pressure on lenders to make risky loans. The shift in risk away from lenders primarily resulted from Democratic policy initiatives aimed at getting more home ownership in minority neighborhoods. However well intentioned, these initiatives are a root cause the financial crisis we are now facing. Congress was incompetent by not being able to recognize the predictable consequences of their interference with this industry. So what does common sense tell us about the need for a bailout? First of all, there is plenty of blame to go around: Congress created the shift of risk that occurred and rewarded the bad lending practices by allowing the purchase these loans by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Bankers should have held fast to their understanding of sound lending practices and tried harder to resist Congress's drive to riskier loans. Groups like ACORN insisted that banks make loans to borrowers who lacked the ability to repay these loans. Borrowers should have resisted making loans that they were unlikely to be able to repay. The media should have alerted the voters about the real situation at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Voters should have voted out the people who caused this financial mess years ago. Second, the House of Representative did a good thing voting down the bailout. "The American people rejected this bailout and now Congress did likewise," said U.S. Rep. Mike Pence Many times legislation that is enacted is such haste will be susceptible to serious defects and inclusion of hidden provisions. Third, a bailout that rewards bad behavior will get more bad behavior on the part of business. Executives of banks that are involved in this bailout should not be rewarded with golden parachutes. Groups like ACORN must not receive any benefits under any bailout or rescue package. Borrowers who were not misled by lenders and those who were involved in buying homes for investment purposes should take their loss and move on. Members of Congress who encouraged, facilitated and/or concealed the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac should resign or be voted out of office. A non-partisan investigation should be required to investigate the failure of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac; and those who are guilty of wrong doing should go to jail. This is common sense. Forth, any rescue package must require transparency and sound lending practices. "It is now imperative that Congress come together and develop a response to the crisis facing our financial markets that reflects the American people's belief in personal responsibility and fiscal discipline." — Rep. Mike Pence, Republican. Fifth, any package that is passed should not result in a Federal takeover of the financial industry. It is clear that the government and politics is the main culprit in the story of financial collapse and it should not be trusted to manage this industry in a responsible manner. Something along the lines of the extension FDIC insurance and loans to banks would be preferable. (After the Enron mess, Congress hastily required that assets be valued to market and this good intentioned regulation has exacerbated the current situation. When valued at today's market, mortgages look worthless.) Allowing banks to value their assets in terms of what the market will be some time in the future could take some pressure off the markets and each individual bank's portfolio. Politicians are not financial experts and many times they pass regulations that do more harm. U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, declared that the bailout might put the nation on the "slippery slope to socialism." Sixth, voters should be told the real story by the media. Unfortunately, voters and tax payers will not be able to trust the media to provide accurate information. This election cycle has resulted in creating a media cheerleading section for Sen. Obama and Democrats. The media is refusing to look at any issue that may reflect badly against Sen. Obama. The Media's behavior thus far has been shameful. What about the allegations that Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex with Larry Sinclair in November of 1999? Will the MSM stop taking sides in the election and do their jobs? Will they investigate Mr. Sinclair's allegations? Will they dig into Obama's past as hard as they have jumped on Sarah Palin? Will they look deeply into Obama's relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violation of the Logan Act? Will they look into the allegations made in Berg v. Obama that he is not eligible to be President? Probably Not. In conclusion, it is clear that something needs to be done soon. However, whatever is done must be based on facts and common sense; and not politics. -- Zach Jones zachjonesishome.wordpress.com The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Oscar Wilde australia.to

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (49623)	10/1/2008 7:41:29 AM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

America's move toward tyranny October 01, 2008 Walter E Williams worldnetdaily.com Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." The freedom of individuals from compulsion or coercion never was, and is not now, the normal state of human affairs. The normal state for the ordinary person is tyranny, arbitrary control and abuse mainly by their own government. While imperfect in its execution, the Founders of our nation sought to make an exception to this ugly part of mankind's history. Unfortunately, at the urging of the American people, we are unwittingly in the process of returning to mankind's normal state of affairs. Americans demand that Congress spend trillions of dollars on farm subsidies, business bailouts, education subsidies, Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs and other elements of a welfare state. The problem is that Congress produces nothing. Whatever Congress wishes to give, it first has to take other people's money. Thus, at the root of the welfare state is the immorality of intimidation, threats and coercion backed up with the threat of violence by the agents of the U.S. Congress. In order for Congress to do what some Americans deem as good, it must first do evil. It must do that which if done privately would mean a jail sentence; namely, take the property of one American to give to another. According to a Washington Post article (June 22, 2005), there were nearly 35,000 highly paid registered lobbyists in Washington in 2004 who spent $2.1 billion lobbying the White House, Congress and various agencies on behalf of various interest groups. Political action committees, private donors and companies give billions of dollars to political campaigns. My question to you: Do you think that these people are spending billions of dollars to assist presidents and congressmen to better perform their sworn oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution? If you do, you're a fine candidate for a straitjacket. For the most part, the money is being spent to get politicians and government officials to use their coercive power to create a favor or special privilege for one American at the expense of some other American. If we Americans didn't give Washington such enormous control over our lives, I doubt whether there would be 10 percent of the money currently spent on lobbying and campaign contributions. This enormous control that Congress has over our lives also goes a long way toward explaining much of the government corruption that we see in Washington. If the average American were asked whether he wishes to return to mankind's normal state of affairs featured by arbitrary abuse, control and government dictates, I am sure he would find such a suggestion repulsive. But if you were to ask, say, the average senior citizen whether Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug subsidies should be continued, he would probably answer yes. The same would be true if you asked a college professor whether higher education should continue to be subsidized, or a farmer or a dairyman whether their products should be subsidized, or a manufacturer whether there should be tariffs and quotas on foreign products that compete with his product. The problem with congressmen producing favors and privileges to all interest groups is that it creates what none of us wants: massive control, numerous dictates and micromanagement of our lives. There is no question that if one were to ask whether we Americans are moving toward more liberty or more government control over our lives, the answer would unambiguously be the latter – more government control over our lives. We might have reached a point where the trend is irreversible, and that is a true tragedy for if liberty is lost in America, it will be lost for all times and all places.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (49623)	10/1/2008 8:26:55 AM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 224748

The Democrat's support jumped to 50 percent or above in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania in Quinnipiac University surveys taken during the weekend — after the opening presidential debate and during Monday's dramatic stock market plunge as the House rejected a $700 billion financial bailout plan. Combined, these states offer 68 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory on Election Day, Nov. 4. Pollsters attributed Obama's improved standing to the public's general approval of his debate performance, antipathy toward GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and heightened confidence in the Illinois senator's ability to handle the economic crisis. The fresh polling is the latest troublesome turn for McCain, the Arizona senator who is trying to regain control of the campaign conversation amid increasingly difficult circumstances for Republicans. It comes on the eve of a debate between Palin and her Democratic counterpart, Joe Biden, and as the financial crisis shapes the presidential race in unpredictable ways. For now and probably for the next month, the race will be entirely about who can best handle an economy in peril. The war in Iraq, national security and foreign policy issues — McCain's strengths — have largely fallen by the wayside as each campaign tries to chart a course to the presidency in extraordinarily choppy economic waters. The new surveys show Obama leading McCain in Florida 51 percent to 43 percent, in Ohio 50 percent to 42 percent and in Pennsylvania 54 percent to 39 percent. Since 1960, no president has been elected without winning two of those three states. The results are notable because they show Obama in a strong position in the pair of states that put Bush in the White House in 2000 and kept him there four years later — Florida and Ohio, with 27 and 20 electoral votes, respectively. Obama has been struggling to break into a comfortable lead in both states; for weeks he had been mostly about even with McCain in Ohio while lagging for months in Florida, even after being the only candidate on the air and spending some $8 million on advertising. Pennsylvania, with 21 electoral votes, is a different story. Obama is trying to hang onto the state Democrat John Kerry won four years ago, though McCain has mounted a stiff challenge as he seeks to benefit from his rival's trouble with working-class voters who question his liberal voting record and, perhaps, his race. The telephone polls, which were taken before and after last week's McCain-Obama debate, have margins of error ranging from plus or minus 2.8 percentage points to plus or minus 3.4 points. ___