Freddie And Fanny Were Lovers.....
Now that the largest, most complex house of cards has collapsed, all of Washington, as well as the mainstream news media, is a) pointing fingers into space trying to avoid blaming those who caused the mess and b) proclaiming that the solution is MS, PhD (more of the same, piled higher and deeper). To protect the guilty, and to avoid having to deal with the real cause of the fiasco, the only proposal all seem to agree 'pon is to force productive Americans to foot the bill.
Thus continues the War on Productivity on the national level.
Nobody is suggesting making a list of all the Congressthieves, politically connected appointees and idle heirs, and, yes, especially the Presidents and Vice Presidents who have been in office and otherwise involved with the creation and corruption of these organizations (and I use the term very loosely), and emptying their bank accounts, pension funds, stock portfolios and selling their homes and other real estate holdings to pay for this mess.
They should be. That's much more nearly just than sticking it to innocent working individuals.
Much of the money in the accounts of the Washington thieving class are the ill-gotten gains from this very scam. Not to mention that the entire con scheme was financed by the taxes of the productive class.
I'm no economist, but I've read a little on the subject. A real economist (not one of the obfuscation economists of Washington DC, Sacramento and other outlaw hideouts), but someone who understands von Mises, Hazlitt, and their contemporaries and heirs can give far better answers than I.
I think, though, that most of them will agree with the following: We need the Federal Reserve abolished. The dollar must be attached with full convertibility to gold, silver, or some other suitable commodity. Senseless regulations must be lifted and individuals must take responsibility for their actions. There must be no involvement of government in banking, entrepreneurship and commerce.
Government must be barred (no pun) from entering areas in which it has no knowledge or expertise, and in which dishonest and unearned money can be skimmed. Government's only proper job is to protect the rights of all individuals and, by insinuating itself into areas in which it can do only harm, it's actually working to damage those rights and indeed, to destroy them.
If Americans don't act to rein the government in very soon, America will soon be over. In the 1930's, America had reserves to help pay for the economic problems government created. Today, we have none. We're borrowing our way out of problems, and the debt is huge. The paper is held by unfriendly governments, and it's just a matter of time before they call in the debt.
Remember: VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENTS!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
22 comments:
LOL on the 'title' along with the picture. On a quick scan I agree with every word. I left a comment on TWC's place and in the top article at Bidinotto's who also has a good take on the 'crisis'.
I like your idea of confiscation of all assets of all the 'shwog' politicians - even though they may have been fighting for reform all along the way. Although I don't believe in 'blanket' punishment, that's exactly what they want to do to us! And in that case... and you won't see me quote this much, 'do unto others...' :-)
BTW, my 'financier' friend says that some in China are talking about going on the gold standard! I'll have to get a reference on that - it came by way of a phone call....
I like the idea of a confiscatory policy aimed at those who stole/reaped the rewards rather than kicking the average Joe.
Kent,
I just read Bidinotto's comments. He, as a fully qualified journalist, has and used a lot more facts than I, especially as to the names of some of the major thievin' bustards.
I'm always impressed by his work.
TF,
As mentioned above, Bob Bidinotto has a very good analysis of the stuff I brought up, though he names names. Definitely worth a read.
http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/
Col.,
I esp. liked the updates that include testimony and speeches that reflect the opinions at the time they were considering reforming fannie and freddie and McCain comes off rather well (at that time). Robert (as he now prefers) did some legwork there and it paid off. I just opted out of the secondary discussion on 'comments' where someone wanted to redefine 'capitalism' to suit his views.
There are complexities in the current situation that are beyond comprehension not only because of the multitude of the types of financial instruments involved but also the enormity of the amount of capital involved.
I can't 'think in' 100's of billion dollars ;-) I find it hard to believe that anyone can, and that may be a big part of the problem.
Kent,
Oh, so it's Robert now, eh? I guess that comes with the graying of the beard. That's ok though. I also know a couple of Dicks who prefer to be called Richard.
I see how complex this can get. I heard today that the feds had a watchdog agancy that was supposed to rein in Freddie and Fanny if things started to get out of hand. And that agency had another agency watching it! Nobody saw a problem--my guess? Nobody was paying attention.
They should all have to pay back every penny they were paid during that time. As well as everyone else involved.
Love the picture. 'Bout sums it up.
col.,
"Nobody was paying attention."
Some were. E.g.:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190
Democrats filibustered the bill.
"There must be no involvement of government in banking, entrepreneurship and commerce."
I agree, when the government bails out this lot, why won't they bail out other companies as well. They shouldn't be bailing anyone out who is in private business.
But unfortunately CH, enough people out there think the government ought to step in and use other people's money to save them.
TWC,
There is a lot of bull coming out of the New York/Washington DC political/financial community.
Even though all those slimeballs are rich, they expect us to foot the bill for their blunders.
Kent,
Now if McCain would only analyze the situation correctly, he wouldn't be calling for even more regulation. Oh, wait! You said that, already.
BTW, from your first comment: I'm not in favor of blanket punishments. I don't think it'd be too difficult to get a list of the names of who did things they shouldn't have done, failed to do things that it was their job to do, and people who received money from these failing organizations as it became clear that they weren't accomplishing their missions.
Mk,
In fact, there is no authorization for any of this in our Constitution. It does give the federal government authority to coin money and regulate the value thereof. That, among a few other unwarranted tasks given as a monopoly to government, should be changed by Constitutional Amendment. Our federal government has proved itself over and over as being utterly inept at handling the nations finances.
Col.,
"I don't think it'd be too difficult to get a list of the names..."
I'd love to see that happen. But that's a bit too much confrontation for Washington. They're better at grabbing people for tapping their feet in bathrooms, but not for those who created the laws that allowed the wholesale destruction of an industry. "They _meant_ well", you know ;-)
Kent,
That, and the fact that no one in Washington actually wants to hold anyone responsible for anything.
That is, except for the productive class.
Col.,
"..no one in Washington actually wants to hold anyone responsible.."
And history tells us it wasn't always like that. The two stories that always impressed me was when the idea of helping out the 'widows and orphans' of the Reveloutionary War arose and Madison says (paraphrasing) that while he had the same sympathies of those who proposed the measure and that many of them were his friends and his friends' families, he could find nothing in the Constitution to justify taking from some and giving to others.
Davey Crockett made the same speech after the same attempt after the Civil War, actually quoting Madison, iirc.
Something changed after that and I'm not certain exactly when, but when people dismiss 'slippery slope' arguments, I always think of these points in time, when we were at least close to the top of that slope, leaving aside some of Lincoln's actions, and perhaps that was part of it. Still things went on pretty well until the "progressive era" imho. I think it was how the 'intellectuals' at the time were enamored with European socialism and must have felt we were 'behind the times' or something. I could be more concise ;-)
Kent C
Col.,
"Now if McCain would only analyze the situation correctly, he wouldn't be calling for even more regulation. Oh, wait! You said that, already."
Not picking up the intent here.. the Oh wait! could have a sarcastic edge to it, but perhaps not. If you're suggesting that McCain called for regulation in the article I posted you're exactly right - regulating of a failing _Gov't agency_ not any private enterprise. Kinda like the Internal Division of a police department that actually roots out bad cops.
If you meant to say that McCain wasn't calling for more regulation on the private aspects of the situation, and validating that I had pointed that out, then yeah, you're right ;-)
Kent,
Not really sarcasm, but I'm just pointing out, in an unnecessarily oblique way that McCain might be right at times (even Maxine Watters is probably right sometimes, though I've never seen it) you can never tell with him. You never know what he'll do next. Destroy the First Amendment or join a group determined that no rational judges get seated.
I'm still not sure he isn't a "manchurian candidate" having been programmed to throw a monkey wrench into the works every now and again.
He has to know better than this--they all have to. What else do they have to do with their time?
Col.,
Ok.
"He has to know better than this--they all have to. What else do they have to do with their time?"
I truly think that is part of the problem. Trying to "do something" when their job is really to do nothing. People have a hard time with that.
There's about as much evidence that McC is the manchurian candidate as there is for B.O. being part of a sleeper cell. (I'm saying 'some' ;-)
Another image (actually 2 hit 'previous'):
http://www.pbase.com/kentc/image/103629268
KC
I'm thinkin' Barney Frank (D) umbass NY doesn't need to see that shot
Col., excellent post. I couldn't agree more with everything you say here.
Senseless regulations must be lifted and individuals must take responsibility for their actions. There must be no involvement of government in banking, entrepreneurship and commerce.
Exactly right. Government has almost become a behemoth or an iron-jaw monster which at times appears to be actively seeking our destruction.
If Americans don't act to rein the government in very soon, America will soon be over.
That's the bottom line. But how can we rein them in now? We're doing all we can I think, at least we bloggers who can see the writing on the wall. We should have nipped them in the bud a long, long time ago!
Aurora,
Heck, our ancestors had 'em whipped, once. Then, over time, bit by bit, their descendants gave our freedom away. It's up to us, or perhaps our kids (that's why I say "keep 'em out of the children's prisons," so they learn our values, not those of the socialists.
Steve,
Hee hee! There's so much that can be said! I have to resist.....I have to....
Post a Comment