Kenneth R. Harney at Realty Times reports that a lobbying and trade group representing large apartment owners is embarking on an ad campaign designed to frighten renters away from housing owned by small investors:
**"The National Multi Housing Council is mounting the campaign to warn consumers about what it considers the imminent dangers of renting with landlords who don't own many properties and don't offer "professional management."**
The NMHC then adds to their disgraceful scare tactics by using misleading statistics to dishonestly assert that 40% of all foreclosures are rental housing owned by small investors. They breathlessly warn that: "(I)f you choose to rent from a private individual, the risk of losing your rental home is very real,"
Have things gotten this desperate? I don't recall Mc'Donald's ever warning consumers that they are in imminent danger of getting food poisoning if they buy a burger at their local diner.
I wonder what the financial health of the NMHC's membership is? That could prove to be an interesting research exercise. How many of them might go bankrupt or into foreclosure if they haven't already?
Is the NMHC trying suck my tax dollars out of the bailout rathole? If they are, how much of that are they using to harm my business?
A lot of their members are publicly traded REITS and other companies that I'm sure many small owners are invested in. I'm very familiar with several of them through my 30+ years in this business. Small owners should let them know how they feel about this stupid and destructive campaign. I know I will.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Bargain-Hunters Descend, Cash in Hand
Capitalism is starting to self correct the housing market as it will always do in every market if left alone. But the left would rather confiscate taxpayer money to institute feeble, inefficient and reckless interference in the process. Wealth is created by individuals empowered with economic freedom. Government creates wealth and power only for itself.
** "Falling home prices are spurring an increase in all-cash home sales in markets that have been hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, an indication that bargain hunters have descended on the markets looking for deals.
Homes financed with cash comprised one-third of sales in Phoenix last month, up from 19% one year ago, according to a report by Raymond James & Associates Inc. In Sacramento, Calif., all-cash sales accounted for 24% of total home sales last month, up from 8% in January 2008 and 3% in January 2007, according to the Sacramento Association of Realtors. Sacramento and Phoenix have each ...
** "Falling home prices are spurring an increase in all-cash home sales in markets that have been hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, an indication that bargain hunters have descended on the markets looking for deals.
Homes financed with cash comprised one-third of sales in Phoenix last month, up from 19% one year ago, according to a report by Raymond James & Associates Inc. In Sacramento, Calif., all-cash sales accounted for 24% of total home sales last month, up from 8% in January 2008 and 3% in January 2007, according to the Sacramento Association of Realtors. Sacramento and Phoenix have each ...
Bankruptcy Mortgage Cramdowns Would Hurt Housing Market
The Heritage Foundation has produced an analysis of the Democrats latest bit of economic idiocy and shortsightedness. First they screwed the little guy by making (forcing) mortgages too affordable. Now they're going to screw him again by making them unaffordable and unobtainable:
"**Bad policy is not improved by limiting it to certain situations. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act (H.R. 1106) would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal owed on a mortgage, a practice often referred to as a "cramdown." Judges would also be able to reduce interest rates or lengthen the term of the mortgage. This is a huge policy mistake that will help only a few people while raising the cost of borrowing for thousands of moderate-income and first-time home buyers...
...Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages would:
* Raise mortgage costs. Cramdowns would add additional risk that mortgages will not be repaid as the contract requires. Lenders must charge for that added risk, and experts estimate that the additional costs would raise mortgage rates by as much as two full percentage points or substantially increase required down payments.
*Further undermine the value of mortgage-backed securities.
Banks and other investors are already facing heavy losses because mortgage-backed securities have lost much of their value because of uncertainties about whether the mortgages will be paid. The language in H.R. 1106 increases this uncertainty. Investors will be at risk of both foreclosure and cramdowns that reduce the earnings of these securities. Many cramdown mortgages will later go into foreclosure. Since investors have no idea what this new provision will do to the value of their securities, prices will drop further.
*Fail to help many homeowners. Only one-third of all Chapter 13 filers complete the process successfully and get the fresh start that bankruptcy promises. The other two-thirds "pay court fees, pay attorney's fees, pay fees to the bankruptcy trustee, invest time and money to restructure their financial affairs, and then wind up with nothing more than temporary relief. It is therefore not surprising that a substantial number of Chapter 13 filers—nearly one-third—go on to file for bankruptcy again."[2]
"**Bad policy is not improved by limiting it to certain situations. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act (H.R. 1106) would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal owed on a mortgage, a practice often referred to as a "cramdown." Judges would also be able to reduce interest rates or lengthen the term of the mortgage. This is a huge policy mistake that will help only a few people while raising the cost of borrowing for thousands of moderate-income and first-time home buyers...
...Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages would:
* Raise mortgage costs. Cramdowns would add additional risk that mortgages will not be repaid as the contract requires. Lenders must charge for that added risk, and experts estimate that the additional costs would raise mortgage rates by as much as two full percentage points or substantially increase required down payments.
*Further undermine the value of mortgage-backed securities.
Banks and other investors are already facing heavy losses because mortgage-backed securities have lost much of their value because of uncertainties about whether the mortgages will be paid. The language in H.R. 1106 increases this uncertainty. Investors will be at risk of both foreclosure and cramdowns that reduce the earnings of these securities. Many cramdown mortgages will later go into foreclosure. Since investors have no idea what this new provision will do to the value of their securities, prices will drop further.
*Fail to help many homeowners. Only one-third of all Chapter 13 filers complete the process successfully and get the fresh start that bankruptcy promises. The other two-thirds "pay court fees, pay attorney's fees, pay fees to the bankruptcy trustee, invest time and money to restructure their financial affairs, and then wind up with nothing more than temporary relief. It is therefore not surprising that a substantial number of Chapter 13 filers—nearly one-third—go on to file for bankruptcy again."[2]
Are Libertarians Crazy?
I guess I am, according to the braniacs at Harvard Law School! They are having a conference that is obviously designed as anti-capitalist propaganda disguised as science. Daniel J. Mitchell at The Cato Institute reports:
***"I don’t know whether this belongs in the comic-relief category or the future-threats category, but the Harvard Law School is having a conference to analyze the “free market mindset.” The basic premise of the conference seems to be that people who believe in limited government are psychologically troubled.
The conference schedule features presentations such as “How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community” and “Addicted to Incentives: How the Ideology of Self Interest Can Be Self-Fulfilling.” The most absurd presentation, though, may be the one entitled, “Colossal Failure: The Output Bias of Market Economies.” According to the description, the author argues that the market “delivers excessive levels of consumption.” Damn those entrepreneurs for creating so much wealth!
In the good old days of Soviet dictatorship, the regime classified dissidents as being mentally ill (after all, only a nutcase would fail to see the glories of communism)." ***
END EXCERPT
Also check out the conference materials, which is a collection of biased and intentionally confusing pseudo-scientific gobbledegook. No doubt this conference is designed to be used by leftist policy makers to discredit economic freedom and make the case for a self anointed elite to run the lives of the ignorant masses. This story is as old as mankind. A ruling class convinces itself of its unique intelligence and virtue in order to assert a divine right to shape society to their liking.
Who's really crazy here? Are they saying that the economic philosophy that has created the wealthiest society in human history is really a mental disorder? And that the hundreds of tyrannical, centrally planned failures are sane and should be emulated?
Yeah. That's it. Put Milton Friedman, F.A Hayek, Adam Smith and Ayn Rand on the couch. Karl Marx is the guy who really had it together.
***"I don’t know whether this belongs in the comic-relief category or the future-threats category, but the Harvard Law School is having a conference to analyze the “free market mindset.” The basic premise of the conference seems to be that people who believe in limited government are psychologically troubled.
The conference schedule features presentations such as “How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community” and “Addicted to Incentives: How the Ideology of Self Interest Can Be Self-Fulfilling.” The most absurd presentation, though, may be the one entitled, “Colossal Failure: The Output Bias of Market Economies.” According to the description, the author argues that the market “delivers excessive levels of consumption.” Damn those entrepreneurs for creating so much wealth!
In the good old days of Soviet dictatorship, the regime classified dissidents as being mentally ill (after all, only a nutcase would fail to see the glories of communism)." ***
END EXCERPT
Also check out the conference materials, which is a collection of biased and intentionally confusing pseudo-scientific gobbledegook. No doubt this conference is designed to be used by leftist policy makers to discredit economic freedom and make the case for a self anointed elite to run the lives of the ignorant masses. This story is as old as mankind. A ruling class convinces itself of its unique intelligence and virtue in order to assert a divine right to shape society to their liking.
Who's really crazy here? Are they saying that the economic philosophy that has created the wealthiest society in human history is really a mental disorder? And that the hundreds of tyrannical, centrally planned failures are sane and should be emulated?
Yeah. That's it. Put Milton Friedman, F.A Hayek, Adam Smith and Ayn Rand on the couch. Karl Marx is the guy who really had it together.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Home Sales and Inventory Drop
Two seemingly incompatible supply and demand housing statistics emerge that have different explanations:
It must take a lot of intestinal fortitude to buy a home with all the uncertainty created by an intrusive federal government sending mixed and incoherent signals that paralyze investors and potential homeowners alike. It also doesn't help that Barack "Eeyore" Obama is constantly predicting doom in order to justify more incompetent government meddling in the economy.
But we have good news on the supply side of the equation:
A healthy market should have around a six month supply. But as I posted earlier, this number should start coming down consistently as new construction has stalled and foreclosure rates will fall. In other words, there is very little new supply of homes coming to market and what little demand there is will pressure prices to rise or at least stabilize.
"Sales of existing homes took an unexpected plunge from December to January, falling to the lowest level in nearly 12 years as pessimism about the economy grew and buyers waited to see how the new government would help revive the US housing market."
It must take a lot of intestinal fortitude to buy a home with all the uncertainty created by an intrusive federal government sending mixed and incoherent signals that paralyze investors and potential homeowners alike. It also doesn't help that Barack "Eeyore" Obama is constantly predicting doom in order to justify more incompetent government meddling in the economy.
But we have good news on the supply side of the equation:
"The number of unsold homes on the market last month fell almost 3 percent to 3.6 million, the lowest inventory level in two years. But due to the slumping sales pace, it would still take 9.6 months to rid the market of all of those properties, up from 9.4 months in December."
A healthy market should have around a six month supply. But as I posted earlier, this number should start coming down consistently as new construction has stalled and foreclosure rates will fall. In other words, there is very little new supply of homes coming to market and what little demand there is will pressure prices to rise or at least stabilize.
Finessing 'Moral Hazard'
You don't "finnesse" immoral policies. You just don't do it.
"...Administration officials say it is impossible to help large groups of borrowers without introducing some degree of what has come to be known as "moral hazard." In other words, in its effort to help homeowners who behaved responsibly but wound up in trouble, the Obama plan will likely help some who didn't, which some say encourages more risky behavior."
"...Administration officials say it is impossible to help large groups of borrowers without introducing some degree of what has come to be known as "moral hazard." In other words, in its effort to help homeowners who behaved responsibly but wound up in trouble, the Obama plan will likely help some who didn't, which some say encourages more risky behavior."
Responsible Americans Riled Up
And why shouldn't they be?
"...Brenda Gilchrist said she feels like she is being punished twice, first by watching foreclosures depress the value of her three-bedroom condominium in Santa Rosa, Calif., and now by subsidizing borrowers who bought more than they could afford.
The price of her condo has fallen to the mid-$300,000 range, down so far from the $510,000 that she and her husband paid for it four years ago that their 20% in equity is gone. She said they decided to buy a less expensive home even though they had qualified for a $1 million loan. "We said, 'Absolutely, no way.' We chose to buy within our means," said Ms. Gilchrist, a 39-year-old managing partner of a human-resources firm. "The 'good guys' are getting a raw deal," she said.
"...Brenda Gilchrist said she feels like she is being punished twice, first by watching foreclosures depress the value of her three-bedroom condominium in Santa Rosa, Calif., and now by subsidizing borrowers who bought more than they could afford.
The price of her condo has fallen to the mid-$300,000 range, down so far from the $510,000 that she and her husband paid for it four years ago that their 20% in equity is gone. She said they decided to buy a less expensive home even though they had qualified for a $1 million loan. "We said, 'Absolutely, no way.' We chose to buy within our means," said Ms. Gilchrist, a 39-year-old managing partner of a human-resources firm. "The 'good guys' are getting a raw deal," she said.
Time to Buy: Rent vs. Buy Gap Narrows
This is good news. From The Wall Street Journal:
"Now, after two years of rapid home-price depreciation, the relationship between the cost of rental payments versus after-tax mortgage payments is tilting toward ownership in a number of metropolitan areas.
Over the past 18 years, after-tax mortgage payments have averaged 26% more than rent payments, according to Green Street Advisors, a real-estate consultancy based in Newport Beach, Calif. In 2006, at the height of the housing bubble, mortgage payments reached as high as 66% more than rent payments. But by the end of 2008, average monthly rent for the largest 50 metropolitan areas was $1,045, compared with after-tax mortgage payments of $1,300, assuming a rate of 5.5% on a 30-year fixed mortgage. That means mortgage payments averaged just 24% more than rent payments, the narrowest gap since 2001."
END EXCERPT
This indicator has always been one of the best in predicting a revived housing market. If housing prices fall or rents rise to where the monthly payments are essentially equal, buyers start moving into the market at a much faster pace.
Additionally, interest rates are as low as they are going to get and will probably rise soon when the Fed tries to combat the coming high inflation that will result from the Government's massive spending and borrowing spree.
New housing starts are also at historic lows which means any new demand will reduce current supply and pressure prices upward, or at least stabilize them. New construction takes a long time and any significant increase in supply will lag behind a market revival by a year or two.
There is a window of opportunity here for anyone who is thinking of buying a home. Do it now with as much down payment as possible and get a FIXED RATE mortgage.
"Now, after two years of rapid home-price depreciation, the relationship between the cost of rental payments versus after-tax mortgage payments is tilting toward ownership in a number of metropolitan areas.
Over the past 18 years, after-tax mortgage payments have averaged 26% more than rent payments, according to Green Street Advisors, a real-estate consultancy based in Newport Beach, Calif. In 2006, at the height of the housing bubble, mortgage payments reached as high as 66% more than rent payments. But by the end of 2008, average monthly rent for the largest 50 metropolitan areas was $1,045, compared with after-tax mortgage payments of $1,300, assuming a rate of 5.5% on a 30-year fixed mortgage. That means mortgage payments averaged just 24% more than rent payments, the narrowest gap since 2001."
END EXCERPT
This indicator has always been one of the best in predicting a revived housing market. If housing prices fall or rents rise to where the monthly payments are essentially equal, buyers start moving into the market at a much faster pace.
Additionally, interest rates are as low as they are going to get and will probably rise soon when the Fed tries to combat the coming high inflation that will result from the Government's massive spending and borrowing spree.
New housing starts are also at historic lows which means any new demand will reduce current supply and pressure prices upward, or at least stabilize them. New construction takes a long time and any significant increase in supply will lag behind a market revival by a year or two.
There is a window of opportunity here for anyone who is thinking of buying a home. Do it now with as much down payment as possible and get a FIXED RATE mortgage.
A Dishonest and Immoral Housing Policy
The AP offers some factual analysis of Obama's speech, including his lame response to the millions of Americans angry that are paying for the bad decisions of their neighbors:
OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."
THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.
Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.
"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."
Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.
"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.
END EXCERPT
It's not just impractical, but impossible to determine the circumstances underlying these loans with any degree of certainty. Bernanke's false analogy is typical socialist rhetoric and is misleading at best. This isn't an accident, like smoking in bed. Most of these loans were deliberate attempts to make money through debt the borrowers either knew or should have known they couldn't afford.
The way a free economy should deal with that is to allow those folks to experience the consequences, honest mistake or not. What you don't do is reward that behavior by handing the bill to everyone else.
Had these folks made money from their recklessness as many did during the bubble, would they have shared their gains with the rest of us? Of course not. So once again, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we have private profit backed by public risk.
The argument that this scheme will stabilize neighborhoods is nonsense and will actually prolong the problem. Many of these borrowers will never be able to pay any loan and will just default again. Additionally, the price drops from foreclosures provide opportunities to buyers now sitting on the sidelines, which will allow the market to work itself out if the fools who got us into this mess in the first place would just leave it alone. That's happening right now in many neighborhoods.
No one can morally justify forcing 92% of homeowners into bailing out the excessive risk taking or just plain foolishness of the other 8%.
And what of the 32% or so of Americans that rent their homes? A lot of them probably had the good sense not to buy homes with risky debt. And this is how we reward them? They have every right to feel screwed.
How about all the folks that have already lost their homes? Are we going to give them a Mulligan and return their homes?
Policies that reward the irresponsible and punish the responsible are never justified, no matter what the short term pain may be. Over the long term, we are encouraging bad behavior and discouraging the good.
Filed: real estate, mortgage, obama
OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."
THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.
Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.
"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."
Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.
"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.
END EXCERPT
It's not just impractical, but impossible to determine the circumstances underlying these loans with any degree of certainty. Bernanke's false analogy is typical socialist rhetoric and is misleading at best. This isn't an accident, like smoking in bed. Most of these loans were deliberate attempts to make money through debt the borrowers either knew or should have known they couldn't afford.
The way a free economy should deal with that is to allow those folks to experience the consequences, honest mistake or not. What you don't do is reward that behavior by handing the bill to everyone else.
Had these folks made money from their recklessness as many did during the bubble, would they have shared their gains with the rest of us? Of course not. So once again, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we have private profit backed by public risk.
The argument that this scheme will stabilize neighborhoods is nonsense and will actually prolong the problem. Many of these borrowers will never be able to pay any loan and will just default again. Additionally, the price drops from foreclosures provide opportunities to buyers now sitting on the sidelines, which will allow the market to work itself out if the fools who got us into this mess in the first place would just leave it alone. That's happening right now in many neighborhoods.
No one can morally justify forcing 92% of homeowners into bailing out the excessive risk taking or just plain foolishness of the other 8%.
And what of the 32% or so of Americans that rent their homes? A lot of them probably had the good sense not to buy homes with risky debt. And this is how we reward them? They have every right to feel screwed.
How about all the folks that have already lost their homes? Are we going to give them a Mulligan and return their homes?
Policies that reward the irresponsible and punish the responsible are never justified, no matter what the short term pain may be. Over the long term, we are encouraging bad behavior and discouraging the good.
Filed: real estate, mortgage, obama
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
A Mortgage Mess History Lesson
A New York Times article from ten years ago gives us some insight into the genesis of the government created mortgage mess that has brought the world's economy to its knees:
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
Remember, Fannie and Freddie were privately owned, Government controlled companies. That meant private profits with public risk. The moral hazard started there with politically motivated business decisions that risked other people's money.
"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans."
Of course lenders were pressuring them. They were being coerced and intimidated by HUD, The Justice Dept., Congress, ACORN and others to underwrite loans that made no sense. There is an axiom in business: Risk is commensurate with reward. But the government wanted lenders to make high risk loans with low interest rates. Well, who's going to invest in that? Once Fannie and Freddie started buying this garbage, the green light was given to Wall Street investors to start buying it as well. And they did in a big way.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Ah, yes. Franklin Raines. The guy who made hundreds of millions while sinking his company on the taxpayer dime. Hey! Let's not have any standards at all! Or at least none that require any real effort to meet. This is like saying that the driver with ten speeding tickets and five accidents should pay the same insurance rates as the driver with a clean record. What do you think would happen? Why is anyone surprised now?
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."
Gee! Ya think? This article was written ten years ago, mind you. Plenty of people were sounding the alarm, but were ignored or vilified. A lot were intimidated into silence lest they be labelled as heartless racists or worse if they questioned this insanity. Unfortunately, the laws of economics don't bend to accommodate self-reverential demagogues. Watch the video below for more of the historical record.
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
Remember, Fannie and Freddie were privately owned, Government controlled companies. That meant private profits with public risk. The moral hazard started there with politically motivated business decisions that risked other people's money.
"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans."
Of course lenders were pressuring them. They were being coerced and intimidated by HUD, The Justice Dept., Congress, ACORN and others to underwrite loans that made no sense. There is an axiom in business: Risk is commensurate with reward. But the government wanted lenders to make high risk loans with low interest rates. Well, who's going to invest in that? Once Fannie and Freddie started buying this garbage, the green light was given to Wall Street investors to start buying it as well. And they did in a big way.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Ah, yes. Franklin Raines. The guy who made hundreds of millions while sinking his company on the taxpayer dime. Hey! Let's not have any standards at all! Or at least none that require any real effort to meet. This is like saying that the driver with ten speeding tickets and five accidents should pay the same insurance rates as the driver with a clean record. What do you think would happen? Why is anyone surprised now?
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."
Gee! Ya think? This article was written ten years ago, mind you. Plenty of people were sounding the alarm, but were ignored or vilified. A lot were intimidated into silence lest they be labelled as heartless racists or worse if they questioned this insanity. Unfortunately, the laws of economics don't bend to accommodate self-reverential demagogues. Watch the video below for more of the historical record.
ACORN Defends Its Terrorism
Stuart Varney takes on thug spokesperson Bertha "by any means necessary" Lewis of the criminal organization known as ACORN.
In this case the "homeowner" in question bought a house for $87,000, refinanced it for $270,000 and the defaulted. Where's the money? Who knows? ACORN doesn't care. The shareholders and employees of this bank can go screw themselves along with taxpayers, which means a lot of real people will pay for this fraud three times over.
In other words, ACORN uses the government as its leg breaker to force banks into lending money to people who can't (or won't) pay it back, then resorts to terrorism when the bank wants the collateral the borrower voluntarily agreed to put up.
These people are government (Democrat) supported thieves, plain and simple. They cloak their theft in the name of a warped sense of "justice", which is just another way of saying thay deserve the property of others for free because...well, just because.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Fairness Doctrine Nonsense
Newsbusters reports on a laughably inconsistent editorial in the Toledo Blade that calls fears of the return of the Fairness Doctrine a "straw man" and then calls for its return.
But inconsistency and distortion are the only consistent characteristics on the Left side of this argument. So it comes as no surprise that the Blade's editorial board thinks these two positions can hold together as complimentary ideas. In calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, The Blade now joins Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Sen. Tom Harkin, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Bill Clinton, Bill Press et al in support of this assault on free speech that the Blade dismisses as a "silly" conspiracy theory.
The Blade's editorial also regurgitates the usual left-wing talking points on this issue. Liberal radio failure is because "opposing opinions have been pushed out as radio conglomerates obtained a stranglehold on scarce broadcast licenses", says the Blade. They would have us believe that the money grubbing capitalists in charge of these publicly traded companies are ignoring their fiduciary responsibilities to share-holders by ignoring money making opportunities. Yeah. That makes sense.
The Blade also tells us that there are over 10,000 radio stations today and then complain that "in 2006 Clear Channel owned 1,190 radio stations, nearly four times as many as the next largest company, Cumulus Broadcasting, which owned 303. Along with Citadel Broadcasting, the number-three broadcast company at 225". That means those for-profit companies control about 17% of the market. Even if you were to believe The Blade's ridiculous Black-Listing theory, one wonders why liberal talkers can't make any inroads with the other 83%.
That's because other than in a handful of markets, liberal talk radio has been a failure, precisely because no one wants to listen to it. That's a fact they refuse to accept. Libs already have a near monopoly on other areas of the media as well as Hollywood and Academia And if they can't force you to listen to them on radio, then they will just destroy the whole medium.
But inconsistency and distortion are the only consistent characteristics on the Left side of this argument. So it comes as no surprise that the Blade's editorial board thinks these two positions can hold together as complimentary ideas. In calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, The Blade now joins Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Sen. Tom Harkin, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Bill Clinton, Bill Press et al in support of this assault on free speech that the Blade dismisses as a "silly" conspiracy theory.
The Blade's editorial also regurgitates the usual left-wing talking points on this issue. Liberal radio failure is because "opposing opinions have been pushed out as radio conglomerates obtained a stranglehold on scarce broadcast licenses", says the Blade. They would have us believe that the money grubbing capitalists in charge of these publicly traded companies are ignoring their fiduciary responsibilities to share-holders by ignoring money making opportunities. Yeah. That makes sense.
The Blade also tells us that there are over 10,000 radio stations today and then complain that "in 2006 Clear Channel owned 1,190 radio stations, nearly four times as many as the next largest company, Cumulus Broadcasting, which owned 303. Along with Citadel Broadcasting, the number-three broadcast company at 225". That means those for-profit companies control about 17% of the market. Even if you were to believe The Blade's ridiculous Black-Listing theory, one wonders why liberal talkers can't make any inroads with the other 83%.
That's because other than in a handful of markets, liberal talk radio has been a failure, precisely because no one wants to listen to it. That's a fact they refuse to accept. Libs already have a near monopoly on other areas of the media as well as Hollywood and Academia And if they can't force you to listen to them on radio, then they will just destroy the whole medium.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Film maker blasts UK over ban
LONDON, England (CNN) -- "Controversial Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders condemned as "crazy and cowardly" Britain's refusal to let him enter the country Thursday.
Wilders, a Dutch lawmaker who produced a much-criticized film about Islam last year, flew to London for a screening of the movie despite being told a day earlier he would not be admitted.
...He called it a "very sad day" for "freedom of speech in the European Union."
Wilders had been invited to screen his film, "Fitna," at the House of Lords on Thursday evening. The 15-minute film features disturbing images of terrorist acts superimposed over verses from Islam's holy book, the Quran, to paint Islam as a threat to Western society.
The British ambassador to the Netherlands told him Wednesday that he would be refused entry into Britain because the beliefs expressed in the film would threaten public security. "
END
I guess he doesn't see the Islamo-Nazi's in their midst as a threat to national security. It should be clear by now that the UK, once the most powerful nation on earth, is committing suicide along with the rest of Europe.
Iowa Trooper Suspended For Obama E-Mail
OMAHA, Neb. -- An Iowa State trooper who was investigated after it was shown that he forwarded an e-mail showing mug shots of people wearing Obama t-shirts has been suspended for 30 days.
Sgt. Rodney Hicok was at home and off-duty when he forwarded the e-mails, said an official with the Iowa Department of Public Safety Bureau and Professional Standards.
Miley Cyrus Sued By Angry Asian
"Miley Cyrus has said she meant no offense by a gesture that some have construed as insensitive to Asians — but one woman isn't buying the pop star's story, and she thinks Cyrus should pay.
TMZ reports that the Los Angeles woman, Lucie J. Kim, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all Asian Pacific Islanders living in Los Angeles County. And she's seeking quite a payout: $4 billion."
END
Ms. Kim lives in America but is apparently unaware that we have a little thing called the First Amendment that protects even those who make stupid gestures and statements. (See: Joe Biden) That makes us quite different from many Asian countries like China, Laos, Vietnam and even Japan.
Nowhere in the constitution do you have a right not to be offended or "emotionally distressed". Especially not by a snapshot of a bunch of kids at a private party. Hey! Who's that Asian kid in the photo? Has he weighed in on this? Why isn't he suing too?
Lucie J. Kim is either a grandstanding nut or an idiot who doesn't have the slightest idea of what this country stands for. More than likely she's both of those things. Please sue me too, Lucie. I can use the laugh.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Don't Say You Weren't Warned
Peter Schiff was one of the few who predicted the mortgage and financial meltdown when it was unpopular to do so. And he did it with amazing accuracy. Now he has a lot more company as he forecasts a prolonged recession (depression?) and hyper-inflation that will result from the centrally planned takeover of the economy - aka: Stimulus.
Is anyone listening? Given his track record, Schiff certainly has the credibility. But hey! Lets not let facts get in the way of a good crisis. There's power to grab don'tcha know.
Hat Tip to: Hot Air
Is anyone listening? Given his track record, Schiff certainly has the credibility. But hey! Lets not let facts get in the way of a good crisis. There's power to grab don'tcha know.
Hat Tip to: Hot Air
Who's Your Daddy?
When the Left says they care about the little guy, what they really mean is that the little guy is a childish fool that needs to be controlled. John Kerry reveals the parental intentions of his party:
"I've supported many tax cuts over the years, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. But a tax cut is non-targeted.
If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there's no guarantee that they're going to invest that or invest it in America.
They're free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest."
In other words, if you have too much money you might choose to use it for things Democrats feel are wasteful and disruptive to the American household they are in charge of. In their eyes, any money you keep is just an allowance given to humor you into believing you're independent. The rest is the property of the anointed and will be used to bring about order and envelope the masses into the arms of an all-powerful state.
Monday, February 9, 2009
'Doom' talk scored as 'not presidential'
Joseph Curl At The Washington Times describes the economic panic Obama and congressional Democrats are fomenting in order to garner support for their power grab stimulus bill:
"Mr. Obama has gone much further than that. Just Friday, Mr. Obama said a report that 600,000 jobs were lost in January meant "it's getting worse, not getting better. ... Although we had a terrible year with respect to jobs last year, the problem is accelerating, not decelerating." Last week he said, "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."
But he isn't the only Democrat ramping up the rhetoric while talking down the economy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said last month that our economy "is dark, darker, darkest." Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin said, "This economy is in mortal danger of absolute collapse." And Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said of the economic-stimulus bill, "If we don't pass this thing, it's Armageddon."
So much for Hopenchange and moving away from the politics of fear. This type of rhetoric is a favorite of demagogues and sleazy salesman when they want to sell a bag of crap. They get in your face with anxiety inducing hysteria in order to get you to buy without opening the bag and giving it the smell test.
Republicans have done the country a service by slowing down the process and giving the public a chance to examine this stinky mess. They are and increasingly don't like what they see. You can see that as Obama becomes more unhinged (and unpresidential) by the day.
This is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy however, as this rhetoric has a paralyzing effect on consumers and businesses. Fear and uncertainty will stop an economy dead in its tracks every time.
The economy is now being damaged deliberately by Democrats in order to enhance there own power. No one should be surprised since they got real people killed when they undermined the war effort and rooted for our failure. When you can do that for political purposes, nothing is off limits.
But they care about you. I know because that's what they tell me.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Islamo - Nazi Funnies
It's Friday, so let's have a laugh with Ahmed and Salim - two hapless Palestinian kids trying to be normal while surrounded by psychotic, dickless cowards:
H/T to Bare Naked Islam
Here's a video on how psychotic, dickless cowards are really made.
H/T to Bare Naked Islam
Here's a video on how psychotic, dickless cowards are really made.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Barney Frank: They Hate Me Because Bankers Aren't Cool.
Not too long ago Barney Frank was whining that his unpopularity was due to Homophobia. Now he views the country as one big High School and it's the Bankers fault that everyone is giving him wedgies:
"Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has this very blunt message for bankers: “People really hate you, and they’re starting to hate us because we’re hanging out with you. And you have to help us deal with that.”
Again Barney, you generate hatred just fine all by yourself. Maybe if you took some responsibility for your major role in the collapse of the credit markets and the creation of this recession, people might not think of you as the douchebag you are. Well, maybe not as much.
"The financial institutions that need congressional help “need to avoid being stupid,” Frank told reporters Tuesday during a briefing on his agenda as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee."
Oh brother. you need to realize that no one is buying your attempts to place blame on everyone but yourself. We have the record, Barney. How stupid are you? How stupid do you think we are? Stop embarrassing yourself and the country.
Fisking Obama
Barack Obama has written an Op-Ed for the Washington Post in order to gin up the public's anxiety and grease the skids for his $1 trillion taxpayer funded power grab and payback to his leftist base.
But since he's presumably making his best case for the crap sandwich called "stimulus" he wants us to eat, lets look at his argument:
"By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression."
No it's not. I guess you were so wrapped up in yourself during the Carter years of the 70's, that you forget the double-digit unemployment and inflation along with 20%+ interest rates. Truth be told - you're lying and you know it.
"And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse. "
In a word: Bullshit. There have been dozens of recessions in the history of this country and on average they have lasted between 10 and 11 months - without the gargantuan and unprecedented spending you propose. As a matter of fact, the Great Depression was not only the longest (10+ years) prior to this one, but involved the most government spending, taxation and meddling in private markets - until now. Your irresponsible package is bigger than that and WWI, WWII, The Korean and Vietnam wars, The Marshall Plan and Louisiana Purchase combined in current dollars.
Most of the shortest recessions involved little or no government action. What really prolongs recessions is the paralyzing uncertainty that comes with wondering what hare-brained schemes economic illiterates like you will come up with next.
"That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come."
Create or save 3 million jobs? Not only is that a bunch of crystal ball GIGO nonsense, it's a deliberately unprovable number. How exactly do you quantify jobs saved or even attribute jobs created to government spending anyway?
"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent."
Has it ever occurred to you that those three industries are not only the most screwed up but are beset with the most government interference? Does that mean something, anything to you?
"In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems ..."
Who said tax cuts will solve all of our problems? No one, that's who. But tax cuts and less heavy-handed government policies have shown to be a major catalyst of economic growth. That's provable fact, not theory. See: Ireland, Eastern Europe, Calvin Coolidge, JFK, Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush.
It's also provable fact that what you propose is failed theory. Central planning by arrogant braniacs who've never made a payroll in their lives has produced sclerotic economies, prolonged recessions and destroyed liberty. See: Europe, 1990's Japan, 1930's and 1970's U.S., The USSR etc, etc.
And please stop repeating the absolute garbage that tax cuts got us into this mess. They got us out of the last recession. What got us into this mess was a corrupt government using the financial system for political purposes by forcing lenders to loan trillions to people were completely unqualified and undeserving. And then we the taxpayers were put on the hook as co-signers of the mess you and cohorts (ACORN, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd et al) created.
The U.S. Government set the ball rolling for the collapse of the world's financial system. Period. And you want us to trust the same morons to fix it. You must think we're all as stupid as the people who voted for you.
I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change.
Yeah, we know you reject the free markets and individual liberty that have made America the greatest economic engine in world history. They are a threat to your power and your Utopian socialist fantasies. News Flash: Only some of the American people voted for your "change". 50 million of voters rejected your Anti-American philosophy in favor of a guy a lot of his supporters never really liked to begin with. That should tell you something.
In short, you don't have the mandate you think you do; despite the press clippings from your sycophants in the media. Their knee pads are starting to wear thin as is your "I won, screw you" arrogance. Keep up the stubborn and hysterical grandstanding for your socialist/fascist/corporatist policies if you like. But remember that you and your party own it now.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Big Problem: $300 Billion Not Spent
Barney Frank, one of the chief architects of the mortgage meltdown has miscalculated again in his attempt to stick taxpayers with an even bigger bill for his incompetence:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Back when $300 billion seemed like a lot of money, Rep. Barney Frank pushed through Congress one of the first attempts to rescue the U.S. housing market -- a program that has since fallen far short of its goals.
In July 2008, the Hope for Homeowners Act was approved amid promises it could help 400,000 distressed mortgage borrowers. That was months before the government's $700 billion bank bailout, or a possible $900 billion economic stimulus...
...But as of Monday, only 451 applications had been submitted to the FHA for participation in the program and only 25 loans had been closed under it, said an FHA spokesman."
Gee. Why would that be? Here's some of the basic requirements for participation:
"Hope for Homeowners maintains FHA's long-standing requirement that new loans be based on a family's long-term ability to repay the mortgage. FHA only allows owner-occupants to be eligible for FHA-insured mortgages. Borrowers must also meet the following eligibility criteria:
Their mortgage must have originated on or before January 1, 2008;
Their mortgage debt-to-income must be at least 31 percent;
They cannot afford their current loan;
They did not intentionally miss mortgage payments; and
They do not own second homes.
END
Well, the problem is obvious. The program is only available to responsible borrowers who can actually re-pay the new loans. All the unqualified mortgagors that Frank and his party forced banks to lend to can't compound this disaster by borrowing more money they can't afford.
Don't worry. Frank will figure out a way to waste the money. $300 billion buys a lot of votes.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Back when $300 billion seemed like a lot of money, Rep. Barney Frank pushed through Congress one of the first attempts to rescue the U.S. housing market -- a program that has since fallen far short of its goals.
In July 2008, the Hope for Homeowners Act was approved amid promises it could help 400,000 distressed mortgage borrowers. That was months before the government's $700 billion bank bailout, or a possible $900 billion economic stimulus...
...But as of Monday, only 451 applications had been submitted to the FHA for participation in the program and only 25 loans had been closed under it, said an FHA spokesman."
Gee. Why would that be? Here's some of the basic requirements for participation:
"Hope for Homeowners maintains FHA's long-standing requirement that new loans be based on a family's long-term ability to repay the mortgage. FHA only allows owner-occupants to be eligible for FHA-insured mortgages. Borrowers must also meet the following eligibility criteria:
Their mortgage must have originated on or before January 1, 2008;
Their mortgage debt-to-income must be at least 31 percent;
They cannot afford their current loan;
They did not intentionally miss mortgage payments; and
They do not own second homes.
END
Well, the problem is obvious. The program is only available to responsible borrowers who can actually re-pay the new loans. All the unqualified mortgagors that Frank and his party forced banks to lend to can't compound this disaster by borrowing more money they can't afford.
Don't worry. Frank will figure out a way to waste the money. $300 billion buys a lot of votes.
Cuba To Continue Gulf Drilling
HAVANA—Cuban officials say that exploratory drilling to assess the potential for oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico is likely to resume in the second quarter of this year, a sign that lower world oil prices have not derailed efforts by the Cuban government and its foreign corporate partners to keep moving toward offshore oil production...Cuba believes it has major oil reserves in its waters. But the prospect of exploratory drilling—followed by likely future commercial drilling—in the Florida Straits has fired controversy in the United States, with the expectation that someday, foreign oil firms could be drilling as close as about 50 miles from parts of Florida."
No word on when U.S. Environmentalists will be travelling to Havana for protest activities. I haven't seen any opposition to drilling anywhere in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia or any country other than the U.S.
That's because the environmental movement is not about the environment. It's about damaging and cutting the world's largest economy down to size. We're standing in the way of world socialism/corporatism and need to be hamstrung in order to achieve that goal.
Obama Backs Off Smoot-Hawley II
Times Online: The European Union warned the US yesterday against plunging the world into depression by adopting a planned “Buy American” policy, intensifying fears of a trade war. ...“I agree that we can’t send a protectionist message,” he said in an interview with Fox TV. “I want to see what kind of language we can work on this issue. I think it would be a mistake, though, at a time when worldwide trade is declining, for us to start sending a message that somehow we’re just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade.”
The mere fact that Democrats are even considering this proves that the crapulus bill is about payback to unions and other Dem constituencies, not about reviving the economy. Anyone who's even mildly observant of economic history knows the disastrous effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the Depression and how they made a bad situation much worse.
No country ever went broke from free trade. Plenty have from protectionist policies that set off trade wars. Obama seems more interested in becoming FDR 2.0 and expanding government power than with doing things that actually work.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Be On The Lookout!
I never trusted those damn rodents to begin with. Now I know why. At least you could put his prison cell on the warden's desk where he could keep an eye on him.
Obama Worried About Re-Election
"President Barack Obama acknowledged Monday that the fate of his re-election four years from now likely rests on the success of the proposed $825 billion stimulus package. “A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still going to be some pain out there,” Obama predicted during an interview on NBC’s “Today Show.” “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
That's right. And your strategy won't work because it never has. Republicans should just step back and let Obama and the Dems hold this bomb alone. This so-called stimulus is just a leftist power grab that will only stimulate the bank accounts of Democrat supporters and prolong a recession that would work itself out if government would just leave it alone.
And since they're the ones who got us here to begin with, Obama's bigger government "solutions" only add insult to injury.
That's right. And your strategy won't work because it never has. Republicans should just step back and let Obama and the Dems hold this bomb alone. This so-called stimulus is just a leftist power grab that will only stimulate the bank accounts of Democrat supporters and prolong a recession that would work itself out if government would just leave it alone.
And since they're the ones who got us here to begin with, Obama's bigger government "solutions" only add insult to injury.
Gee! No Kidding!
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said in an interview aired on Monday he worried that detainees freed from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, might resume attacks on the United States."
What was your first clue? I guess what sounds so easy in campaign rhetoric isn't so easy after all.
Moral Obligation To Whom?
Even so-called limited government, free market Republicans aren't immune from economic fascism. Here's Charles Grassley:
"February 2, 2009 (Computerworld) Layoff announcements by IT vendors came fast and furious over the past two weeks. But it was Microsoft Corp.'s that drew the attention of a U.S. senator, who said it was "imperative" that the company give job priority to U.S. citizens over foreigners with H-1B visas.
"Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect ... American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times," Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer on Jan. 22."
No, you idiot. Microsoft has a moral and legal fiduciary obligation to its shareholders to run the company in a profitable manner. That means keeping those employees that will best serve that goal.
What about all the ordinary Americans who own Microsoft stock through pension and mutual funds? Are they supposed to lose money in order to serve Grassley"s ignorant grandstanding?
"February 2, 2009 (Computerworld) Layoff announcements by IT vendors came fast and furious over the past two weeks. But it was Microsoft Corp.'s that drew the attention of a U.S. senator, who said it was "imperative" that the company give job priority to U.S. citizens over foreigners with H-1B visas.
"Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect ... American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times," Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer on Jan. 22."
No, you idiot. Microsoft has a moral and legal fiduciary obligation to its shareholders to run the company in a profitable manner. That means keeping those employees that will best serve that goal.
What about all the ordinary Americans who own Microsoft stock through pension and mutual funds? Are they supposed to lose money in order to serve Grassley"s ignorant grandstanding?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Eat The Rich
An old chestnut of economic idiocy is being revived by the liberal fascists now that they are in power again. From Joel Hirschorn:
"Here is the solution that the overwhelming majority of Americans should demand: A law should be immediately passed that imposes a new special federal income tax of 99 percent on all income in excess of $500,000 annually for single taxpayers and $1 million for couples, starting for 2008 income. Call it a greed tax. Call it justice. Call it getting even for too many years of uncontrolled greed that has given the nation nothing but economic injustice and inequality, and given capitalism a very bad name. Call it a sensible way to raise federal revenues to help offset the cancerous national debt."
I've heard this proposal in various forms countless times over the years and it's always couched as means of "justice" and revenge as it is now. Never do proponents of this idea ever ask "Then what?
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) has also jumped on the bandwagon with a bill that would limit executive pay to $400,000 per year for companies receiving bailout money.
The fact that these proposals have almost zero chance of becoming law is beside the point. It is illustrative of the immaturity, short sightedness and simpleminded thinking of the left.
What will these geniuses do when these people decide to work and invest overseas and take their talents and money with them? High taxes and heavy handed regulation is already causing people and businesses to flee California, Michigan, New York and other socialist utopias. Billions of corporate profits are already in exile overseas to avoid one of the highest federal business tax structures in the world.
The left never thinks of these things because their ideas are so high minded that to them, pointing out reality is just divisive and proof of greedy counterrevolutionary thinking.
"Here is the solution that the overwhelming majority of Americans should demand: A law should be immediately passed that imposes a new special federal income tax of 99 percent on all income in excess of $500,000 annually for single taxpayers and $1 million for couples, starting for 2008 income. Call it a greed tax. Call it justice. Call it getting even for too many years of uncontrolled greed that has given the nation nothing but economic injustice and inequality, and given capitalism a very bad name. Call it a sensible way to raise federal revenues to help offset the cancerous national debt."
I've heard this proposal in various forms countless times over the years and it's always couched as means of "justice" and revenge as it is now. Never do proponents of this idea ever ask "Then what?
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) has also jumped on the bandwagon with a bill that would limit executive pay to $400,000 per year for companies receiving bailout money.
The fact that these proposals have almost zero chance of becoming law is beside the point. It is illustrative of the immaturity, short sightedness and simpleminded thinking of the left.
What will these geniuses do when these people decide to work and invest overseas and take their talents and money with them? High taxes and heavy handed regulation is already causing people and businesses to flee California, Michigan, New York and other socialist utopias. Billions of corporate profits are already in exile overseas to avoid one of the highest federal business tax structures in the world.
The left never thinks of these things because their ideas are so high minded that to them, pointing out reality is just divisive and proof of greedy counterrevolutionary thinking.
Springsteen's Phony Apology
Working class hero Bruce Springsteen apologized for selling his Greatest Hits album through Wal-Mart, a retailer that employs 1.4 million working class people. In doing so, he has chosen to side with the far left that says they love the little guy but really holds them in contempt - especially when they work and shop at an evil, non-unionized retailer like Wal-Mart.
Springsteen must hold all of us in contempt since he thinks we actually believe he didn't know who we was allowing to sell his album exclusively.
He chose to do business with Wal-Mart precisely because they offered him the best deal; the same deal that AC/DC and Guns n Roses recently took as well.
So I guess what Springsteen is saying is that we shouldn't buy his record at all. No worries Bruce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)