We hear it every day on the news – how we have to help bail out homeowners. How the housing market is in a shambles. ACORN is moving people back into their foreclosed homes illegally even though they may be actually owned by another person and not the bank. Sub-prime loans and A.R.M. balloon loans are at the basis for the ‘crisis’… but is it REALLY a crisis?

Not according to the numbers reported by the non-partisan Consumer Right’s League:

Over 68% of households are homeowners—a record. 35% own their home outright—meaning no mortgage payments. Only 5% of homeowners are “sub-prime” borrowers.

Only 1.7% of all mortgages are at risk of foreclosure. (Based on historical percentages, half of all foreclosure proceedings end up keeping their home, so only 0.85% will lose their home—a personal tragedy but not necessarily a national crisis.)

Just for the heck of it I looked at my local Bank of America ‘bank owned’ homes for sale and I wasn’t surprised by what I found – homes in some of the worst areas in the state were the majority up for sale (hmmmm I wonder how much of this was the work of Bank of America giving sub-prime loans to anyone including illegal aliens – my guess would be all of these). Then there are several homes that are in the higher end areas of my state (these I am pondering were either yuppie house flippers or those Americans that tried living BEYOND their American Dream means). I’d probably put money that if you look in your state you may find the same results – especially with Bank of America considering their ‘mortgage lending’ practices.

Why is it that Obama is continuously using the words CRISIS to describe the mortgage foreclosure issue? Why is it the Obama insists that WE the taxpayers have to ‘bail out’ foreclosures on certain mortgage owners? I’d like to take a stab at this and say that it is his way to get more money into the hands of organizations like ACORN. He already has doubled the money in the urban development part of the 2010 budget by extending credit to homeowners and businesses in urban areas. This is the same type of lending that got us into trouble with the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act – first signed by Carter, then again by Clinton) which forced lenders to loosen their restrictions on just who could get a mortgage.

Did mortgage companies prey on people? I believe they did. Did the people have a choice whether or not to take a mortgage they simply HAD to know they couldn’t afford – YES they did. They were not victims. Not to mention Fannie and Freddie gladly offering to purchase all of these ‘bad’ mortgages. A housing bubble was created that eventually had to burst. Housing prices were artificially inflated because anyone and everyone was purchasing a home – whether they could afford it or not. Not just uncreditworthy people but people who CHOSE to live beyond their means and buy into a house that they simply would not truly be able to afford… especially with balloon type mortgages in which they pay only interest now then principal in a couple of years – HELLO did they not figure out what that payment would eventually be? Should these people be bailed out? Not in my opinion.

In reality, the number of foreclosures is MINUTE compared to the number of people paying their mortgages on time every month and for every month since they have owned their homes. Since when does this constitute a crisis? I could see if HALF of all homeowners were facing foreclosure but that is not the case. Obama has even more up his sleeve that he is letting on of course. This ‘crisis’ will allow him to create more and more spending ‘bills’ and programs to offer ‘help’ to people in specific communities, i.e., poor urban and rural communities.

There are already a couple of bills that have been created due to this: The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 and the federal Hope for Homeowners program. Both programs created by Congress – Hope for Homeowners has a specific program for homeowners with issues between October 2008 and September 2011 (H4H is not a new program.. just has new guidelines for helping with the ‘mortgage crisis’).

A few examples in Obama’s new budget:
..”The Budget restores funding for the Housing Trust Fund by requesting $1 billion to finance the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing for very low income residents.” Exactly what got Fannie & Freddie into trouble in the first place. And why is it that I have to fund low income residents to purchase homes when I myself do NOT own a home yet? Better yet.. why does anyone have to fund low income residents to purchase a home? It is a privilege, NOT a right.

“..Combats mortgage fraud and predatory loans. The Budget funds enhanced enforcement of fair housing, mortgage disclosure, and settlement requirements.” And who exactly is going to enforce this? It was groups like ACORN, funded through taxpayer dollars, that ENABLED these practices.

As Rahm Emmanuel is quoted as saying – “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Since everything seems to be a crisis nowadays with our new administration, it appears they will continue along that path and scare people into believing they need to spend even more taxpayer dollars on even more government programs. The housing crisis is simply NOT a crisis other than to the benefit of the administration. The sky is not falling but big spending is on the rise.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1880968,00.html
http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1911
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1106/text
http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page?

There are actually people on the left gloating about Obama's withdrawal plan for Iraq. Apparently, the timetables the antiwar crowd and the Democrats have been pushing for are now a reality. For five years we've heard the whining about timetables, private military contractors, equipment and so on; for five years such talk was ignored, and rightly so. This is why.

I'll tackle the most controversial first: equipment. No one but the most ardent military haters could argue against our soldiers receiving the best equipment. We want our warriors as protected as they can be when the are at war. Alas, the military is supplied by the government, and the government, as we conservatives know, isn't close to being a reliable supplier of anything to the military, unless you want to live in a centralized military dictatorship like North Korea. Congressional pet projects, ideological debate, political partisanship, appropriation battles, turf wars, favored companies; all play in to the massive cluster**** our military ends up in when it comes to equipment supply during war. When Donald Rumsfeld told a soldier that

It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up... [1]

While being a massive PR bruise due to media repetition and liberal hysteria, what Rumsfeld said was factual. The military is in the business of war, and nothing is perfect: from the battle plan to the tires on the Humvee. This doesn't mean the government can skimp on equipment or any of us should defend the government when it happens, which happens a lot sadly (the Bush administration was rightly blasted for the problems with its supply line), but it doesn't mean left-wing antiwar activists can suddenly become the patrons of the military when it was their saint Clinton who cut the military nearly in half at a time US power was expanding across the world. Such dishonesty.

Speaking of Clinton's military cuts, that brings us to the private military contractors. These companies, full of former military and police elites, are necessary because of the liberals and the leftists. The Bush administration inherited a military cut by nearly 300 000 personnel, hundreds of ships and planes as well as an axing of six infantry divisions.[2] Afghanistan was the perfect war for our downsized military, but Iraq was much harder due to the split of old alliances by the antiwar bloc in Europe and those in the Coalition. A bigger country with a much more centralized population, the underestimated number of troops needed by Rumsfeld and the Pentagon as well as the early blunders by the Collation Provisional Authority with the Iraqi army, it was very apparent that not all security missions could be taken up by the military alone. Things like embassy security, personnel security, contracted convoy security and other such tasked needed to be taken up by private firms while the military fought the growing insurgency by the Ba'athists and the invasion of mass amounts of Al Qeada terrorists. When the involvement of PMCs became news, right on cue the left wing threw its arms up in disgust with these “mercenaries” (used as a pejorative). The irony, of course, flew right over them.

Now, timetables are something we all heard ever since the first bomb was dropped on Ba'athist Iraq. When are we gonna leave? Why isn't there an exit strategy? Such questions, like all things, have their time and place. Asking for timetables and threatening to cut off aid during the height of the insurgency or during the Surge isn't very appropriate, now is it? The reason Obama even has the ability to announce withdrawal is because President Bush finally smartened up to the failing “withdrawal is victory” mantra that was deeply rooted in his commanders and kicked out the failing generals and replaced them with General David Petraeus, who turned around the war in one year with the Surge and a new community oriented strategy. At the time of his confirmation, he was lambasted by the left and the Surge itself was ridiculed as a failure even before it was implemented. Surprise, surprise, the irony flies over the leftist as the Surge has stabilized a free and democratic Iraq and allowed for the very timetables for withdrawal. But I don't expect you'll hear anything close to praise for General Petraeus or the success of the Surge from those who now benefit politically from it.

The left wing has an odd history with war. During the First and Second World Wars the left was literally up in arms, wanting to kill the Kaiser and snuff out Hitler. But when the Cold War began and the enemy wasn't monarchism or fascism, but their papa Communism, suddenly the pillar of liberalism became peace and isolation, but only if you forget that it was Johnson who expanded the Vietnam War and that Clinton had more interventions and military conflicts than Bush. Now, that the generation of the 60s and the subsequent generations born into a exponentially prosperous America have taken over the nation's leadership, it seems that the more liberally minded of them wish to forget their blood lust (read: the 1990s) and save America from its imperial self. Good luck, since President Obama has taken up most of President Bush's security policies and has pushed for upping the ante in Afghanistan.

Gloat all you want, left-wing. The only reason you can push your programs and claim peace is that we fought for victory and attained it over your objections.

Sources:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46508-2004Dec8?language=printer
2. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644

Written on Jan. 21, 2009

Governor Doyle and several other governors have called upon Congress and President Obama to give states $1 trillion to stimulate the economy. Earlier today, President Obama said all sides agree we need a massive stimulus to jumpstart the economy. Governor Doyle’s request is breathtaking in its size. If granted, in one shot it would require the federal government to raise over $3,000 from each person in the country.

Since tax receipts are falling, Governor Doyle evidently wants our federal government to either borrow the money, probably from the Chinese – or have the Federal Reserve print more money. Is the secret to a strong economy to have the government spend money?
Last spring, Congress either borrowed or printed $170 billion and sent out checks as part of President Bush’s stimulus plan. At the time, February 13, 2008, the Dow closed at 12,552.24 and unemployment was at 4.8 percent. In the beginning of October, President Bush announced a $700 million bailout plan -- also presumably paid for with borrowed or newly printed dollars. The day the plan was signed, October 3rd, 2008, the Dow closed at 10,325.38, and unemployment was at 6.6 percent. Today the Dow is under 8,000 and unemployment is at 7.2 percent.

Is our current economic crisis caused by a failure of the federal government to create jobs or by lack spending so far? Governor Doyle and other stimulus advocates highlight healthcare, education, and transportation (highways and mass transit) as areas in which we could stimulate the economy. In the seven years leading up to the crisis under President Bush, federal education spending went from $35 billion a year to $67 billion a year (remember when the most popular politician of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, tried to get rid of the Department of Education?). This presumably meant all sorts of teaching jobs, testing jobs, and government bureaucrats to monitor the system. Pell grants for college scholarship went from $8.8 billion in FY 2001 to $18.8 billion in FY 2009 which meant a lot more money spent at the University. All of these figures are at least 20 percent over inflation and the education number is 60 percent.

Federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare went from $344 billion per year to $600 billion per year which presumably led to new jobs in the medical field as well as in the pharmaceutical industry (Bush’s prescription drug benefit being the biggest expansion of Medicare in over 30 years.)

What about transportation? Federal spending on highways went up from $35 billion to $53 billion a year presumably resulting in new jobs for construction workers, environmental consultants, engineers, bus drivers, etc. Indeed, all federal spending except for Social Security went from $1.4 trillion to $2.3 trillion. If stimulating the economy by spending government money actually worked, we’d all be as rich as Caroline Kennedy, and George Bush would be the favorite to win the Nobel Prize for Economics.

We haven’t touched upon small items – our doubling of spending on food stamps or massive increases in child care credits. When asked to explain the difference between the Democrat and Republican parties, I try to explain that Democrats are usually for larger government and the Republicans for less. Bush sure muddies the waters. He probably should have run as a Democrat.

Governor Doyle’s major complaint is that he is going to have to slash education funding. In the last five years, he has presided over increases in programs to reduce class sizes, especially in Milwaukee, and huge increases in 4-year old kindergarten. All we know about this budget for sure is that he will change the law to presumably increase teachers’ salaries at the union’s request.

Our country is in serious trouble. The national debt (percentage of GDP) has jumped from $5.9 trillion in 2001 to $10.6 trillion at the time of writing this column in 2009. Our children and grandchildren are in danger of being in permanent servitude to the Chinese. The printing of money by the Federal Reserve to bail out the bankers (which Bush signed and Obama voted for) threatens us with huge inflation.

America became the greatest country in the world under a Constitution put together with the intent to restrict the growth of government and the loss of freedom which will inevitably follow. If Obama really thinks all sides agree on a huge stimulus package, that’s scary. The current crisis was caused by big government Republicans and Democrats encouraging excessive borrowing – not by too little spending. It’s time to get back to what made this country great. Governor Doyle and the governors should be embarrassed to suggest that Washington should borrow more money to help the states.

Well we just got the porkulous bill shoved down our throats without being able to thoroughly investigate (Congress didn’t even have the chance never mind the simple people like us who are PAYING for it). A week later we see the Porknibus Bill in the House – actually called the Omnibus bill - 410 billion MORE of our taxpayer dollars being spent. The bills are part of the 2009 appropriations bill that had not been made into law due to the disagreement between Congress and President Bush.

There is plenty of pork in the bill by both Democrats and Republicans – 40% Republican and 60% Democrat. There is an estimated $7.7 billion in pure PORK in the bill. That is 7,700,000,000 people… not million but billion! And WE get to pay for it all! What is amazing is that $7.7 billion doesn’t even seem like a lot with all the billions that Congress and Obama are throwing around lately. Since we do not have money to pay for ANYTHING extraordinary at the moment, how in the hell do they justify some of the outrageous spending in this bill?? They can’t and they won’t, just like they didn’t with the porkulous package.

I watched Obama’s speech on Tuesday and correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure I heard the words ‘FREE of earmarks’ come out of his mouth. The same words he uttered during the election. The same words he stated when talking up his non-stimulus package. Does he not see the pork or does he think that WE won’t see the pork.

Here are just a few examples of what we are going to be paying for with OUR hard-earned tax dollars this year:

$500,000 for a fruit fly rearing facility in HI
Seriously people – FRUIT FLY rearing??? We are paying for fruit flies to have sex?

$1,117,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah
I didn’t know crickets had religion.

$472,000 for beaver management and control in the State of Mississippi
Angry Beavers?

$450,000 for incumbent worker training for United Auto Workers Region 9, Local 624 New York
With all the Union dues these guys pay, why can’t the UAW PAY for training??

$111,000 for the study of Armillaria Root Rot
Anyone??? Anyone??

$196,000 for the study of livestock waste
Now I know we are in deep sh*t!

$184,000 for Asparagus technology and production
Asparagus technology?? I didn’t know asparagus was high tech.

$165,000 Maple Research – VT
It tastes good and comes from trees – what is to study?

$750,000 Potato Research – several states
The potato has been around for a really long time – shouldn’t we know all about it already??

$4,841,000 Research for Wood Utilization – several states
Build with it, burn it - now give me my millions.

$118,000 Cranberry/Blueberry Research – MA
$184,000 Lowbush wild blueberry research – ME
$450,000 Cranberry/Blueberry disease & breeding – NJ
Is there a mad rush on cranberries and blueberries in the grocery stores?

$22,000,000 to add an addition to the JFK Presidential library and museum – MA
Gotta love this one – and in my home state no less. If you can’t get private donations, DON’T BUILD IT. Let the Kennedy family add the addition – they can name it after Mary Jo Kopechne.

These are just a few that I hand picked after looking at all of the earmarks and appropriations for hours. There ARE what I would consider honorable earmarks such as money for homeless shelters, domestic violence and education. The problem is that we cannot afford ANY earmarks. We don’t have any money!!!!!!! While I added a bit of humor, this isn’t funny. Congress has been pork laden for too many years. The taxpayers have been over burdened with pork fat for too many years. Obama promised CHANGE and he had the chance to follow through on that promise and didn't. He has the chance again with this bill. I wonder what the odds are that he will actually veto ANY of this pork.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-02-25-voa77.cfm
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html

While doing personal research on my computer the other night, I happened to come across Acorn.org, so I started looking at this organization. I first wanted to know the origin of the group, and I found it. I realize there are a lot of links, the purpose behind that is to allow you to research yourselves and not have me preach to you.

ACORN sprouted from a group called National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) led by George Wiley, who was considered a militant activist in the 60’s. He was considered the founder of the welfare system and promoted the “change through crisis” ideology (Cloward-Piven strategy). (1)

Mr. Wiley’s protege was Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN. Wade Rathke ran ACORN from 1970 to 2008. He stepped down because his brother was found to have embezzled hundreds of thousands from ACORN and the embezzlement was not reported to anyone. His voter mobilization work was through George Soros’ Shadow Party. Mr. Rathke also developed an Arizona Community Organizations for Reform Now, which preached the teachings of Saul Alinsky (Author, :”Rules for Radicals”). (2)

My next step was to research Shadow Party. The Shadow party was founded by Mr. Soros, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Harold McKewan Ickes. This is a think tank group that supports liberal ideology and includes activists, unions, and non profit organizations. (3)

So, from NWRO to Cloward-Piven strategy to ACORN to George Soros to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Who is Harold McKewan Ickes? Read for yourself. Spoiler: involved with Mob run labor. (3)

And of course we know that Mr. Obama used to work with ACORN, and the Democrat sponsored stimulus bill affords money to ACORN. What do you think will happen to further investigation of ACORN with respect to voter fraud, when the primary benefactor is in office.

Let us not forget that the Secretary of State says dissent is patriotic.

Trust, but verify. It is the responsibility of citizens of the United States to contact their representatives if they feel like they are not being represented. The Presidency works for the People of the United States, the Presidency does not tell us how to live our lives.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1769
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1773
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6706
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1624

BY MICHELLE SEITZ

When people discuss the history of America’s difficult economic times during the 20th century, the Great Depression and stagflation in the 1970’s will always be mentioned. However, one of the more severe recessions America has endured is rarely discussed. Until recently, this period in time received very little publicity. The reason why the history of this recession is so relevant today is because the measures that were taken to revive the economy were sharply different than what was done during the Great Depression and all of the notable ensuing economic downturns with the exception of President Ronald Reagan’s approach.

President Obama has just signed the single largest spending bill in America’s history into law. Americans have been told repeatedly since the day Obama was sworn in how urgent it is that this legislation is passed. He consistently refers to the current recession as “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” If only top-notch economists had that same crystal ball... The severity of this recession should not be dismissed. However, a comparison to the Great Depression is premature at this juncture.

All throughout the campaign, Obama promised that there would be transparency and bipartisanship in his administration. Instead, the single largest spending bill in America’s history was not made available to the public until after it was signed into law, lawmakers had less than 24 hours to read a bill that exceeded 1,100 pages prior to voting, and the voting was almost straight down party lines. In addition, only the lawmakers from the far left wing of the Democratic Party had substantial input.

This economic crisis is so severe, the administration just didn’t have the time to debate and seek input from those who have a different point of view and would propose different solutions. If the time had been taken to review the alternative solutions, then perhaps top economists would have reminded the Obama Administration of the 1920 recession and the government’s response.

When President Warren Harding was elected, he inherited a deepening recession. The most important aspect that separates Harding’s response from President Hoover’s, Roosevelt’s, Carter’s, Bush’s (both father and son) and Obama’s is he did not grow the size of government, spend money recklessly, raise taxes and implement burdensome regulation to address the problem.

The 1920 recession was not mild, as the country experienced very sharp deflation. The decline in the Gross National Product (GNP) price deflator from 1920 to 1921 was larger than any deflation experienced during the Great Depression. Using the Department of Commerce 1986 estimates, the 1989 Balke & Gordon and Romer estimates, they produce one-year deflation figures of 18 percent, 13 percent and 14.8 percent, respectively. The closest competitor is the 11.5 percent deflation recorded for 1931-32, the third year of the Great Depression. (1)

Unemployment did not reach Great Depression level heights; however, job loss was fairly rapid from 1920 to 1921. Unemployment rose from 5.2 percent to 8.7 percent during that time, and farm income dropped 40 percent. (2)

One can make an argument that the economic downturn from 1919 to 1921 was more severe than the current recession. It’s important to distinguish between future speculation and actual data. Unemployment at the beginning of the downward economic trend (December 2007) was 4.8 percent and is now currently 7.6 percent. (3) Although the numbers climbed sharply, the pace and decline in income was more severe in 1920.

Given the magnitude of the 1920 recession, President Harding could have made a case for government intervention and expansion. Much like the current crisis, commercial banks were failing, property value was declining, and people were losing their jobs and their homes.

President Harding’s response was to let businesses fail, cut government spending, balance the federal budget, reduce taxes and remove burdensome government regulations. How’s that for an economic stimulus package? It’s safe to say that if he were running for President in 2008, he would have been laughed off the campaign trail. The media would have destroyed him.

However, this unsung fiscal hero’s accomplishments are no laughing matter. The Harding and Coolidge (Harding died in office in 1923) Administration cut the top marginal tax rate from 73 percent to 25 percent in four years’ time. Although Harding dramatically reduced taxes, he was still able to reduce large budget deficits resulting from World War I and eventually run a surplus. This is one of the better cases for the argument that tax cuts increase tax revenue. Federal government spending was cut in half between 1920 and 1922. Harding also believed that burdensome regulation (think of the modern day Sarbanes-Oxley Act) stood in the way of private sector growth.

America’s first experiment with supply side economics was a success. The tax cuts and reduced regulation allowed business to grow capital and create jobs. The reaction by the Harding/Coolidge administration gave way to the “Roaring 20’s” economic boom – among the most rapid periods of economic growth in America’s history. The technological advances made during the 1920’s were also among the greatest in America’s history.

The recession that began in 1920 ended before 1923. Harding’s response makes a very strong case as to why government intervention is not the answer. The Great Depression may not have been so “great” if a hands off approach were taken. The Great Depression lasted until World War II, and some analysts believe that the war itself ended the Great Depression. Imagine if Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt responded in a similar manner as Harding instead of tripling tax rates, bailing out failed institutions, expanding government to unprecedented levels and imposing massive government regulations. The stagflation coupled with double digit unemployment in the 1970’s was brought to an end only when President Reagan reintroduced the supply-side theory.

History has shown us what works, which begs the following question: Why do our elected officials continue to ignore history? The Democrats are determined to prove to the world that FDR was one of America’s best Presidents regardless of the fact that fiscal history shows otherwise. People did not have history as evidence to illustrate that FDR’s policies would fail; however this is not the case for President Obama. America will not stand for unemployment that exceeds 20 percent or wait over a decade for measurable results that would stem from a third world war.

Upon implementation of America’s largest spending bill in history, the federal budget deficit could spike to an extraordinary $2 trillion. President Obama has bet big on FDR’s policies. However, he may want to consider Harding’s if he plans on winning a second term...

(1) http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JdJSGMq9Ls020nnSvSGMvBVYtnQTkMjNyNGwq9BfMTGfNnMZ1LpF!-165377178!2064305130?docId=96522339

(2) http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Smiley.1920s.final

(3) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf