New Witch Hunt

Bankers warn the administration’s new “disparate impact” home-lending regulation will wreak havoc in credit markets, replacing merit standards with political correctness.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development issued the controversial new anti-discrimination rule earlier this year. Now enforced by every federal regulator dealing with banks, it has the effect of criminalizing credit standards used to qualify borrowers for home loans.

Last week, the Mortgage Bankers Association and Independent Community Bankers of America jointly filed a Supreme Court brief arguing that under the new HUD rule:

“Virtually every lender in the United States could be sued for using non-discriminatory credit standards simply because variations in economic and credit characteristics produce different credit outcomes among racial and ethnic groups.”

In their 33-page brief, filed in support of a landmark housing case pending before the court, they complain that HUD recently launched 22 separate investigations against lenders alleging that their policies of requiring minimum credit scores “had a disparate impact on minorities in violation of the Fair Housing Act.”

Dozens of similar actions have been brought against lenders by Attorney General Eric Holder. He is basing claims of bias on statistics showing differences in loan outcomes by race while ignoring racially neutral credit-risk factors that explain those differences.

Under disparate impact’s low standard of proof, the government doesn’t have to show lenders intentionally discriminated against borrowers.

For the first time in history, businesses are being ordered to justify the necessity of a certain level of return on investment given the racial impact resulting from the use of credit-score thresholds.

The mortgage trade groups argue the formalized disparate-impact rule also effectively criminalizes other legitimate business practices, including minimum down-payment requirements, sliding loan rates and the charging of brokers’ fees.

Banks today face increased litigation risk simply by complying with sensible lending standards for hedging against risk. So what? Who cares? Banks are greedy and probably deserve to be investigated.

Actually, we should all care, because we’ll all end up eating the legal and compliance costs banks will have to front under this race-baiting witch hunt.

The social engineers and race demagogues in this administration are trying to enforce a balance in financial outcomes that risks another collapse of the housing market. The Supreme Court must put an end to a scheme so reckless, unfair and unconstitutional.

But , of so Agenda driven and “fair”.

Ever notice how unfair “fair” is??

When is job security a bad thing? Right now.

Believe it or not, for all the scare-mongering about downsizing, outsourcing and Walmartizing, job security has never been stronger. But all it really indicates is that the U.S. labor market is the least dynamic it’s ever been.

To be sure, it’s counterintuitive that job security is so strong when 11.3 million Americans are still officially unemployed — 3.7 million more than at the peak of the last business cycle expansion in 2007. But it’s true.

Today an employed person faces only a 2% probability of losing his job in a given month, according to data from the Department of Labor. That probability has never been lower.

But job security for the employed doesn’t help the unemployed.

Today an unemployed person enjoys only a 26% probability of becoming employed in a given month. That’s some improvement over the horrifying 19% probability the jobless faced at the worst of the Great Recession. But it’s now more than four years since that recession officially ended.

At this stage in the previous two expansions, an unemployed person had at least a 40% chance of getting work. In earlier expansions it was even better.

The labor market is frozen now, with joblessness just as secure as employment. Yes, today you are less likely to lose your job than at any time since records started being kept in 1948. But if you don’t have a job, you’re very unlikely to get one.

In one sense it’s a vicious circle. When it is so difficult to find a job, no one will risk leaving the job he has. And with no one willing to leave his job, there are fewer openings to accommodate the unemployed.

A healthy labor market is one in which there is a dynamic interplay of employment and unemployment, where human capital rapidly transfers itself to where it is most valuable in a classic process of creative destruction.

But this is a vicious circle we can break any time we wish. All we have to do is reverse the policy errors that exacerbate and prolong it by destroying supply-side incentives — for those who supply their labor, and for those who supply the jobs.

On the labor-supply side, of the 11.3 million unemployed, 1.5 million are receiving special extended unemployment benefits. While surely not princely, these benefits defer from months to years the crunch-time that forces recipients to seek taxable work rather than enjoy tax-free leisure.

But that’s the Companies/Republicans fault, not Obama and Co… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Doing The Math

The number of American workers collecting federal disability payments climbed to yet another record of 8,853,614 in March, up from 8,840,427 in February, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration.

But don’t worry, the economy is “improving”. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

The Obama administration wants banks to lower lending standards, and Fannie and Freddie are back in the black. The stage is set for a replay of some very unpleasant history.

Do you miss the thrill you felt when your wealth got vaporized in 2008?

Well, they want to do it again. Because it’s only “fair”….And after all, it was the Banks’ fault! 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Let’s do the math: We have nearly 30 million uninsured people about to get medical coverage under the health care law come January. And we have a projected shortage of 45,000 primary care physicians by 2020. Add to that the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP), with 43,000 members who say they can offer basic care if state laws would just let them set up an independent practice without doctor supervision.

And the answer is …

The nurse-practitioners, of course, say it’s a matter of simple addition: New laws are needed to give them more autonomy.

But doctors say it’s a miscalculation to think that patient safety won’t be compromised by not having a doctor overseeing things. Family physicians have more than four times as much education and training, accumulating an average of 21,700 hours, whereas nurse-practitioners receive 5,350 hours, the American Academy of Family Physicians points out.

So you’ll get the clerk instead of the mechanic to fix you up.

But fear not! Obama is here to save you.

Last week, one of the world’s leading consulting firms, Milliman, warned about sticker shock ahead for individuals and families buying health insurance.

How did the White House respond? In its usual Orwellian fashion, it said, “Health care costs are falling, thanks to the reform law.” Falling is correct only if you’re standing on your head.

President Obama repeatedly promised that insurance exchanges would save families up to $2,300 a year.

He couldn’t possibly have believed it. From day one, it was obvious the law would push up premiums.

That’s because it requires insurers to cover services rarely covered in the past, puts sick people in the same risk pool with the healthy and slaps insurers with $100 billion in taxes to pass along to consumers.

Who will be clobbered by high premiums? Everyone buying insurance on the exchanges.

Those are people who customarily buy their own insurance (about 25 million) and people who are currently uninsured but have to get it beginning in 2014, and finally millions of people whose employers will drop coverage in response to the law’s costly requirements. Milliman predicts 67 million people in all by 2017.

These people will have no choice but to buy the one-size-fits-all “essential benefits package.”

That includes treatment for drug addiction, maternity care and dental and vision care for children. Only 2% of plans currently include all these services. When the law compels insurers to cover more, it compels consumers to pay more.

The Ohio Department of Insurance says the requirements will push up premiums 20% to 30%.It cheats the couple not having any more children and the straight-arrows who will never shoot heroin.

The healthy also get whacked. Until now, most states helped people with pre-existing conditions by setting up separate, subsidized risk pools.

Someone in the sickest 5% of the population will use 17 times as much care as a healthy person, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Obama health law pools everyone together and requires the healthy to pay as much as the sick.

This is like asking you to subsidize the premiums of the guy who has 15 speeding tickets and 5 DUIs but is required to have insurance! (they do exist by the way- High risk pools)
See Adverse Selection. 🙂
So what’s the answer…Slick Marketing!! 🙂

Uninsured: The White House recently released details about how it plans to market ObamaCare to the uninsured. What it reveals is that most of them don’t want what the administration is trying to force them to buy.

In a series of slides posted on the Health and Human Services’ website, the administration explains how it plans to market ObamaCare to the uninsured.

Let’s leave aside for a minute the oddity of this effort. Its backers have endlessly touted ObamaCare as a miracle of modern government that will at long last bring insurance within reach of 48 million people who desperately want it. Besides, the law mandates that everyone buy ObamaCare coverage.

So why the need for a big marketing push at all?

Once you look at the marketing slides the HHS has produced, you find the answer.

It turns out that the Democrats and the Obama administration apparently didn’t bother to investigate who these uninsured people actually are before they forced through a $1.8 trillion plan to help them.

What they’ve learned since is that more than half of the 48 million who the government says are uninsured aren’t interested in health insurance, which is why they don’t bother to buy it in the first place.

The administration now admits that vast numbers of the uninsured will be unlikely to respond to ObamaCare’s marketing pitches.

The biggest market segment identified by HHS, in fact, is what it describes as “healthy and young,” who make up 48% of the uninsured population.

They have “a low motivation to enroll” because they are in “excellent to very good health” and so “take health for granted.”

Plus, as the HHS has apparently just discovered, most of them say that cost is the main reason they don’t have coverage.

Then there are the “passive and unengaged,” which make up 15% of the uninsured and also have a “low motivation to enroll” because they “live for today.” They also cite cost as a key factor.

The problem, of course, is that ObamaCare will make insurance vastly more expensive for many of those who fall into these groups by larding on new benefit mandates and placing limits on premium-lowering deductions and co-pays. It will also introduce insurance market rules that force the young and healthy to subsidize premiums for those older and sicker.

State insurance commissioners have been warning the administration about how all this will cause “rate shocks.”

And even ObamaCare’s backers admit that its subsidies won’t compensate for all the new costs these rules will impose, making it even less likely that these groups will sign.

Indeed, the only group likely to rush into ObamaCare’s arms are the 29% who the HHS says are “sick, active and worried” who will have the “highest predicted responsiveness” to mass media ads.

See adverse selection. And Moral Hazard. And you should understand why this whole thing is so doomed….

If only these people sign up, ObamaCare’s premiums will spiral out of control, as the pool of insured gets sicker and more expensive.

And that, in turn, will cause still more of the young and healthy to drop insurance and taxpayer subsidy costs to skyrocket.

Democrats may think that a big, slick marketing campaign can change all this. Our guess is that it will be about as effective as Ford’s was for the Edsel. (IBD)

But you get to pay for it, in perpetuity!! 🙂

Imagine if you and your friends split the tab for coffee every day, and then someone who orders a five-course meal joins the group. Oliver Wyman, management consultants, reported that putting people with pre-existing conditions in the risk pool will push up premiums 40%.

Similarly, Milliman predicts medical claims going up 32% on average and by as much as 62% in California and 80% in Ohio by 2017.

$100 billion in new federal sales taxes on health plans over the next decade will clobber consumers, too. In New York, where premiums will be highest, the taxes will add $900 a year to the cost of a family plan, Oliver Wyman estimates.

The White House dismisses concerns about rising premiums, saying consumers with moderate incomes will get subsidies. That’s like arguing that it’s OK for food prices to double because the needy can get food stamps. Taxpayers foot the bill for subsidies. And consumers ineligible for them get socked with sky-high costs.

Even with subsidies, millions of people coerced to sign up will stop paying premiums. A family with two adults, two kids and a household income of $35,300 will be eligible for an $11,090 subsidy paid directly to the insurer, but they will have to pay at least $118 a month toward the premium.

Families living paycheck to paycheck will default in order to make rent or car payments.

This is the mortgage crisis and the college loan crisis all over again. Another gift from the politicians who think Washington knows best. (IBD)

‘Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.’ –George Washington

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Photo

Subprime Subplime

Federal regulators for the first time are laying out rules aimed at ensuring that mortgage borrowers can afford to repay the loans they take out.

IMAGINE THAT!

Wow! what a concept!

Funny, since the rules they laid previously were the CAUSE of this “problem” in the first place!

Funny how that worked out. 🙂

The rules being unveiled Thursday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau impose a range of obligations and restrictions on lenders, including bans on the risky “interest-only” and “no documentation” loans that helped inflate the housing bubble.

Funny, the Liberals were the ones who forced it on the industry in the name of “fairness”.

Lenders will be required to verify and inspect borrowers’ financial records. The rules discourage them from saddling borrowers with total debt payments totaling more than 43 percent of the person’s annual income. That includes existing debts like credit cards and student loans.

But the government can still continue to spend on it’s Credit Card ad infintum. 🙂

CFPB Director Richard Cordray, in remarks prepared for an event Thursday, called the rules “the true essence of `responsible lending.'”

Oooh, look the Obama Consumer Protection Bureau is doing something good for consumers !(sarcasm).

“Responsible lending”  Ooohhh! aaaaahhh! Isn’t just so wonderful! They care!

So where were they 20 years ago?

Oh, right THEY WERE THE ONES PUSHING the irresponsible lending in the name of “fairness” and “compassion”… 🙂

NOW, Decades later the Liberals want to protect the people from the Community Reinvestment Act and Clinton’s Housing initiatives that were the primary reason for the 2008 housing bubble crash to begin with.

So the liberals are going to pass regulations to protect consumers from the regulations they passed previously to “help” consumers. Got it! 🙂

Wow! is government just so wonderful!!! 🙂

And of course, the Ministry of Truth will be gushing praise all over them like a love sick stalkerotzi puppy and we’ll drown in the slobber. It won’t even occur to them as “journalists” that this is two-faced.

And the low-information, moron voter will think Obama is just the greatest guy since the invention of man and that he cares about them.

They should look at their shrinking paychecks and the inflation in their living costs first before kissing The Emperor’s Ring!

Cordray noted that in years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, consumers could easily obtain mortgages that they could not afford to repay. In contrast, in subsequent years banks tightened lending so much that few could qualify for a home loan.

But, we all know from the liberal memes that the reason everything crashed was not the subprime ponzi scheme set up by Liberals, but GEORGE W BUSH!! (isn’t everything? 🙂 ), his evil tax cuts (which the Democrats just made permanent by the way) and those evil “illegal” wars (Libya excluded). You know, the ones that cost just as much as the rise in the cost of servicing an ever growing debt- think credit card payments rising. The amount of increase in the debt payments equals the cost of those wars. Funny, how liberals don’t mention this… 🙂

The new rules seek out a middle ground by protecting consumers from bad loans while giving banks the legal assurances they need to increase lending, he said.

Protect the bank from more lawsuits and protect consumers from “predatory bankers”. 🙂

These would be the same banks that the Government told by laws and regulations to lend to people who couldn’t afford the loans to begin with because that was more “fair”. 🙂

So the Banks were bad people for not lending and now they are bad for doing what the Government wanted them to. Got it! 🙂

So they took all that bad debt, created derivatives and traded it around like hot potato toxic waste until it melted down all over everyone!

WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS PROTECTION FROM LIBERALS! And anytime they think something is “fair” because we are going to get an enema like the world has never seen every time.

The bureau also proposed amendments that would exempt from the rules some loans made by community banks, credit unions and nonprofit lenders that work with low- and moderate-income consumers.

Yeah, we don’t want to upset the morons who vote for Democrats now do we.

Which means this is all for show, as usual. It’s just Politics. Not economics. It’s all for Show. Yet Again.

“We are from the Government and we are here to help you” 🙂

(Thanks to Scotty Starnes for the story lead)

1,307 Days

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

ROTFL!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Progress

Food-stamp use reached a record 46.7 million people in June, the government said, as Democrats prepare to nominate President Barack Obama for a second term with the economy as a chief issue in the campaign.

Participation was up 0.4 percent from May and 3.3 percent higher than a year earlier and has remained greater than 46 million all year as the unemployment rate stayed higher than 8 percent. New jobless numbers will be released Sept. 7. Food-stamp spending, which more than doubled in four years to a record $75.7 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2011, is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s biggest annual expense.

Remember, “food stamp president” is a racist term. 🙂

$16 Trillion Dollars in Debt! Congrats!

But don’t worry, that was Bush’s Fault. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Housing Crisis: Previously unpublished court documents reveal that as a young lawyer from Chicago, President Obama’s lawsuit against big banks started inflating the housing bubble that created the mess he says he inherited.

We have often written that the true roots of our current economic crisis lay in the excesses of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act as redefined under the Clinton administration. We have explained how community outreach by banks, under pressure from groups such as Acorn, was transformed into the mandatory credit issuance based not of creditworthiness, but on the basis of “fairness.”

“Redlining,” the activists argued, was the antithesis of the American dream of owning a home. Moreover, they insisted, everyone had the “right” to own a home. So the banks were forced to issue loans to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back. The banking system was forced to inflate a housing bubble that set us up for a near-catastrophic economic collapse.

This did not occur by accident, but by design at the hands of disciples of the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming the system, causing it to collapse, then to be replaced by a worker’s paradise of redistributed income with the individual totally subservient to the greater good.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama called it the “fundamental transformation” of America, and he was there when the seeds of collapse were planted.

The Daily Caller has obtained and analyzed previously unpublished court documents relating to a class-action lawsuit filed in 1995 by young attorney Barack Obama on behalf of three lead plaintiffs and 180 subsidiary plaintiffs against Citibank for alleged discrimination in lending practices.

As the Daily Caller relates, “Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national ‘anti-redlining’ campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called ‘red lines’ around African-American communities.”

The discrimination lawsuit was initiated by Chicago progressive activist Fay Clayton in 1994. Obama’s employer, lawyer Judson Miner, joined with Clayton to file a class-action lawsuit a year later. Obama later introduced himself to Clayton as an “associate” on the case.

Citibank would settle the case, with $950,000 going to the lawyers, including Obama. But it gave only $20,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs, and included $360,000 in benefits to be divided among the 183 other clients. Their portion of the settlement was not in cash, but in coupons. About half of the 186 African-American clients in Obama’s lawsuit have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

According to a 1998 Chicago Sun-Times report, Obama claimed $23,000 in billable hours for his role in the lawsuit. He would also garner large campaign donations from the mortgage industry, including at least $126,349 between 1989 and 2004, in cash, not coupons.

That settlement was only the tip of the iceberg. When Citibank, in April 1998, sought federal approval for a merger with Travelers Group, it only got OK from the Clinton administration progressives after it promised in May to provide $115 billion for anti-redlining loans. Anti-redlining promises made by other financial institutions added up to $600 billion between 1993 and 1998, according to a 2000 Treasury Department report.

We have heard a lot about the “vampire capitalism” of Bain Capital and its former chief, Mitt Romney. We have heard next to nothing about the “vampire socialism” of Barack Obama in helping to plant the seeds of economic collapse that he would exploit to his own political benefit later.

It was the progressive dreams of Barack Obama that would crash the nation’s economy in 2008, wipe out at least $4 trillion in equity and help keep the unemployment rate above 8% for four years.

As president, Obama would blame his predecessor, George W. Bush, and Wall Street. But before the housing market finally collapsed, it was a young lawyer named Barack Obama who helped put the wrecking ball in motion. (IBD)

And now he wants to keep it rolling for another 4 years.

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Bolling Over

Since March, <Eric> Bolling (Fox Business Network)  has pleaded to President Obama to reach out to him about his ideas for reducing the price of gasoline, even giving out his phone number on the air during Fox & Friends in hopes that the Commander-in-Chief would give him a ring to discuss his “silver bullet” solution.

No such luck, especially when your rigid ideology does not permit it. The President and his “green” commandos only want less supply and higher priced oil so that you’ll be forced (in their minds) to kiss up to their “green” agenda.

The Agenda is the Agenda after all.

You know, the one that has cost jobs and a well over half a trillion dollars of taxpayer money in one bankruptcy after another.

So what if the technology isn’t there yet and it costs multiple times more than what we have now — It’s better than oil!! 🙂

So we have $4 a gallon in April.

Twice as much as it was when Obama took office. But don’t worry, it’s still Bush/Republican/Rich people’s fault.

And you’ll always have this sage advice from Candidate Obama in 2008: “There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy,” Obama said. “Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You’d actually save just as much!”

Now don’t you “feel” better. 🙂

The EPA & Moratoriums have nothing to do with it.

This effects the entire economy. You’re paying for the inflation in trucking & transportation costs of just about everything you buy from T-Shirts to Peanut Butter (which is up 27% in the last 2 years by the way– I guess the guys at Big Peanut are getting fat rich over it!) Where is Rachael Maddow when you need her! We Need the Jiffy Police!! We Need to expose Big Peanut for the greedy, capitalist SOBs that they are! 🙂

Your costs are going up. Have you noticed?

The Environmentalists and their lawyers are a bane on our existence in the 21st Century with their 19th Century mentality.

The EPA, run by environmental ideologues crushes businesses and us with choking regulations.

But there is another predator out there that most don’t see because “Big Oil” is the evil Boogeyman by the Left.

Which as a sidenote I never quite got because the oil itself comes largely from the Middle East so the money ultimately goes there because that is where the product came from to begin with so they are ultimately the “source”.

Oh and there’s this tidbit: The Chinese government dealt the public relations strategy of green technology advocates in the Obama administration a blow last month when Premier Wen Jiabao announced that the state-run economy would stop expanding its wind and solar industries, choosing instead to focus on nuclear, hydroelectric and shale — or fracking — as the energies of the future.

“It is getting tougher and tougher for the Obama administration to argue that somehow we’re in this big race for green power worldwide when the rest of the world seems to have decided that the race isn’t worth winning,” Daniel Kish, the senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller.

The Chinese were, after all, the reason Solyndra, Beyond Solar, and other “green” companies went bankrupt. It had nothing to do with mismanagement at all.

But back the hidden danger.

It’s The Banks. You know, the “rich” people who were bailed out by Obama in 2009. The ones that are still bankrolling politicians on both sides. The ones who when effectively forced by the Democrats to make whacko risk loans to people who could afford them started a trading industry to try and package and re-sell impossible debt. It worked for about 10 years then crashed the entire economy horribly in 2007.

They are the largest “speculators” on the petroleum market. It was estimated by Eric Bolling that they add around 17 cents a gallon alone.

Government taxes on gasoline makes more money than Oil Companies do on the Oil itself.

The fact that 87% of off-shore oil is inaccessible because the government says so (because the environmentalist say so) and that new drilling is all but prohibited by the Obama Administration is a real problem. Not a phony Class Warfare one.

The Keystone Pipeline, folks. remember that?

The “increase” in production that Obama sights when criticized isn’t due to him AT ALL. And he knows it, but a liberal is more than happy to lie if it can throw you off the sent and the class warfare is just a bonus.

Put simply: If you lower supply what happens to the price when demand goes up?

“So…the solution…” Bolling announced.

“You know a little bit about this, don’t you, Eric?” Palin interjected.

“I’ve had 20 years experience in the trading world in oil and gas…” Bolling noted. “Can we bring in the top secret…”

Suddenly a security guard brought out Bolling’s top secret envelope encased in a bulletproof suitcase.

“We have a top secret silver bullet here,” Palin observed. “We are criticized, I know I am, for preaching all the time, drill baby, drill. Well, this goes beyond drill baby drill!”

“If I could ask you to open — to reveal the envelope so I can step away and put this around,” Bolling instructed Palin.

Palin finally opened the envelope, and the cat was out of the bag.

“Top secret…In addition to drill baby drill,” Palin clarified.

Bolling spun his chalk board around which read, “RAISE ENERGY MARGIN REQUIREMENTS, ALL ENERGY TRADED ON EXCHANGE.”

“It doesn’t replace drill, baby, drill, Governor,” Bolling explained. “It’s in in addition. Raise energy trading margin requirements. All energy has to be traded on an exchange. Bear with me. It’s a little technical. The reason why so many billions of barrels are traded…is because the banks can trade it. People are allowed to trade it for little or no money down. At some point, Goldman Sachs decided they want to buy oil barrels it pushes the price up. If they sell them in the same day, they don’t have to put a penny up to do that trade. It’s a free trade for them. If they want to hold it overnight, sometimes they will pay up to $2,000-$3,000 on a contract that is worth $100,000. So governor, this we need to make this equation a little bit more even. We need to bring this bowl down to something more reasonable.”

What I took from this, because I’m no economics genius, was that if you raise the risk (the price paid for those speculations) the people who are speculating now will think a bit more before pulling the trigger.

If there is no risk and all reward the sky’s the limit.

And If I buy it for X and sell it to the next guy for X+2 I just made a profit but now the other guy has to sell it for even more to make their profit so the price goes up and up and up.

The problem is that the smaller investors who aren’t the deep pocket banks could be hurt by it.

So like most ideas it’s not perfect but it’s better than the one we got.

And if it doesn’t work, well, there’s always “Drill, Baby, Drill” 🙂

Because the best way to beat high demand is high supply and that means we use what we have instead of getting the majority of it from people who have even more dubious and devious purpose than Liberals, people like Hugo Chavez, George Soros, Iran,The Middle East.

Natural Gas Prices show this. 5 years ago they were at an All-time high. Now with a much higher supply the price is low.

But to do it you have to have the Political will to fight Liberals, Environmentalists and Their Lawyers, and the Networks –which boils down to Liberals anyways.

And they don’t play nice. They don’t play by any rules. They don’t respond to logic and reason. And they are as mean,nasty, and intolerant a bunch as you’ll ever meet.

But they are the ones you have to defeat.

And they are the ones that must be defeated in 2012.

Period. End of Story.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 

April Fools

I would not dare try to do an April Fool’s Joke simply because no matter how outrageous and exaggerated I could be I could never match the reality of the Liberal Mind.

So with that in mind…

The “Dah!” moment of 2012 so far:

‘The unions don’t respect diversity of opinion.’- lawyer for janitor fired for “pro-Walker” bumper sign in her car.

http://townhall.com/video/women-fired-for-supporting-walker

Progressives and Liberals have no tolerance for diversity of thought.

“She told me that I was to take the sign out of the back window and put it on the floor of the car or I could park across the street.”

She refused to take the “Stand With Walker” sign down, pointing out that many other teachers had placed anti-Walker bumper stickers on their cars, apparently with no repercussion.

Her bosses’ daughter was also a teacher. The Teachers at the school complained. Hmmm….

Liberals: You have the Freedom to Think 100% exactly like us or ELSE YOU WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

“We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”

Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

The difference between what “Today” put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the “Today” version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

But that’s “journalism” for you. You can trust them to do “fair” and “balanced” “journalism” now can’t you! 🙂

So you can trust them on The economy, jobs, your health, Obamacare, etc. After all, they are not biased at at all. 🙂

So how much has he accomplished and how much will they accomplish if given the chance?

From the moment he stepped into office, Obama has used his power to redistribute capital and bring corporate America under state control. Among other things, he has:

Forced all large banks, including healthy ones, to take federal bailout money while forcing them to pass stress tests before they can get out from under state control.

Forced banks to renegotiate private mortgage contracts to forgive principal payments for customers while ordering the banks to liberalize their lending practices and even open branches in blighted and unprofitable areas outside their service area.

Signed sweeping regulations that give the state new authority to control the entire financial sector — from banks to hedge funds to insurance companies to even car dealers.

(The Dodd-Frank Act gives Obama unprecedented powers to monitor and redirect the capital flow of all financial firms, as well as adjust their capital requirements and even shut them down and restructure them.)

Renegotiated the terms of Detroit creditor contracts so autoworkers get preferential treatment at the expense of shareholders while preserving the high union cost structure that bankrupted GM and Chrysler.

(“I owe those unions,” Obama has said. “When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I got into politics to fight for these folks.”)

Centralized control of the health care industry through 2,730 pages of new mandates that bring insurance companies and drugmakers under the supervision of the state and force the wealthy to subsidize the uninsured at a starting cost of $1.6 trillion.

Transferred an additional $1 trillion in private taxpayer wealth to welfare programs and public works projects, which have increased dependency on the state to record levels.

All of these measures put more power in the hands of the state and, in the case of health care, exert more control over the individual lives of Americans. As such, few are popular.

So how did Obama do it? Or more to the point, how did he get away with doing it?

By making capitalists the enemy of the people. By using media propaganda to convince enough people who lost their jobs or homes in the financial crisis that they were victims of Wall Street “exploitation.”

And by fomenting class envy between “the 99%” of Americans he imagines as “struggling” and a nebulous 1% overclass of “millionaires and billionaires” and “fat cat bankers” he demonizes as “greedy.”

“We can either settle for a country where a few people are doing very well and everybody else is having to just struggle to get by, or we can build an economy where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share,” Obama said Feb. 21 from the White House.

“That’s the economy that I want,” he added. “Those who don’t want it will be forced to pay their fair share.”

History provides a harsh reminder of how such class warfare ends if carried out to its extreme.

Less than a century ago, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia portrayed a life-or-death “class struggle” between capitalists and workers. The Bolsheviks were inspired by Karl Marx, another trained lawyer who never spent a day in the private sector. They followed his 1848 blueprint for worker revolution, “The Communist Manifesto.”

Marx argued that capitalism splits industrial society into two hostile camps: the “bourgeois” — whom he described as anyone employing a worker, owning a business or making money from investments — and the “proletariat” that he figured made up the other 90% of society. He claimed that the wealth controlled by the top 10% “exists solely due to its nonexistence in the hands of those (other) nine-tenths.”

In other words, profits produced by merchants, entrepreneurs and investors don’t really belong to them. Marx believed they were stolen from workers and that workers would one day rise up and, justifiably, “wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois.”

Turning the tables, the working class would then become the ruling class — though Marx believed this would happen in stages.(IBD)

So, Four More Years Anyone?

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

The Audacity of Dishonesty

1. Announcing a massive $26 billion mortgage deal with “abusive” banks, the president blamed everybody for record foreclosures except the party most culpable: government.

Speaking Thursday from the White House, Obama scolded “irresponsible” and “reckless” lenders, who “sold homes to people who couldn’t afford them.”

Yeah, they dragged people into it, held them down and forced them to do it!

And the people came in and demanded it first!

Back in 2003, as the Examiner’s Philip Klein points out, <Barney> Frank said that the government-sponsored entities were not in any sort of crisis. “The more people exaggerate these problems,” Frank told the New York Times, “the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

For the most part, private firms such as Countrywide Financial were issuing “nontraditional” mortgages in order to package them off to Wall Street and make money, not to please Barney Frank. Like most policymakers, Frank didn’t appear to see the housing bubble or looming subprime crisis before it was too late. (WP)

He <Obama> also cited buyers who bought homes bigger than their budgets, and Wall Street bankers who packaged the shaky mortgages and traded them for “profit.”

“It was wrong,” he asserted. And now the nation’s “biggest banks will be required to right these wrongs.”

Obama acts as if the private sector bears all the responsibility for the mortgage mess. But he and his attorney general know it’s merely a scapegoat for the reckless government housing policies they and their ilk drafted and enforced in the run-up to the crisis.

Starting in the mid-1990s — in a historic first — it became federal regulatory policy to force all U.S. lenders to scrap traditional lending standards for home loans on the grounds they were “racially discriminatory.”

President Clinton fretted that blacks and other minorities could not qualify for mortgages at nearly the same rates as whites and Asians. So Clinton codified more “flexible” underwriting standards in a “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending,” and entered it into the Federal Register.

At the same time, he set up a little-known federal body made up of 10 regulatory agencies — the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending — to enforce the looser standards. It threatened lenders to either ease credit for low-income borrowers or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related bad publicity. It also threatened to deny them expansion plans and access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form,” the 20-page document warned financial institutions. The task force enforced these policies throughout the Bush administration.

According to Peter Ferrara, senior fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy:

“This overregulation reached the point of forcing lenders to discount bad credit history, no credit history, no savings, lack of steady employment, a high ratio of mortgage obligations to income, undocumented income, and inability to finance down payment and closing costs, while counting unemployment benefits and even welfare as income in qualifying for a mortgage.

“This” he said, “turned into government-sanctioned looting of the banks.”

The Justice Department — along with HUD, which regulated Fannie and Freddie — proved the most aggressive members of the fair-lending task force. Eric Holder, then acting as deputy AG, ordered lenders to actually “target” African-Americans for home mortgages they couldn’t otherwise afford. Obama cheered Holder on as an inner-city community organizer who also pressured banks to ease credit for home borrowers.

In other words, the same two officials now leading the charge to punish “abusive” lenders had egged them on before the crisis.(IBD)

2. The Obama administration is now telling liberals that it is not backing down on its new health-care mandate, even as it coos of compromise to religious groups appalled by it. These messages may seem to be contradictory, but actually the administration has been quite consistent: Nothing it has ever said on this issue has been trustworthy.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has been the leading misleader. The administration, recall, has decided that almost all employers must cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients in their employees’ insurance plans — even if those employers are religious universities, hospitals, and charities that reject those practices.

So she has tried to make the mandate seem more moderate than it is. In USA Today, she writes that “in the rule we put forward, we specifically carved out from the policy religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith.” Taken at face value, this statement would seem to imply that Notre Dame could escape the mandate if it fired its non-Catholic employees. That policy would be outrageous: What gives the federal government the legitimate authority to tell a religious institution how it should structure its mission? But in fact the administration would make the university jump through several more hoops. It would also have to expel its non-Catholic students. And even these changes would not be enough, since the university would continue to do much more than attempt to inculcate religious beliefs in its students — which is another test the administration requires for the exemption to apply.

Sebelius says that three states have religious exemptions as narrow as the one the federal government has adopted. The notion that the federal government is imposing the model of three very liberal states — New York, Oregon, and Vermont — on the entire country is not comforting. But even in those states, some employers have been able to sidestep the mandates by, for example, organizing their insurance under federal regulation, which until now has not overridden conscience. The new mandate eliminates that escape route.

Joel Hunter, one of Obama’s pet pastors, says “this policy can be nuanced.” (“I have come to bring nuance,” as Matthew 10:34 does not say.) He is wrong. Either the administration will back off, and allow religious organizations to follow their consciences, or it will not. If it chooses the former course, it may still find a way to increase access to contraception — which is not especially scarce, by the way — but it will have to replace its current policy, not just “nuance” it. (NR)

“Nuance” is the new Orwellian phrase for LYING. 🙂

It’s “complicated” 🙂

But the assurances were greeted Tuesday with skepticism from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has been leading the opposition to the new requirement.

“So far, ‘work this thing through’ is just the sugar-coated version of ‘force you to comply,’ ” Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel for the conference, said in an e-mail.

Remember, compromise with a Liberal means that you compromise your principles to do what THEY want you to do.

3. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked to respond to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s comment that the lack of a budget creates “uncertainty” which is “negative for growth.”

Carney responded: “I have no opinion; the White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business.”

1,017 Days and Counting!

4. EPIC <The Electronic Privacy Information Center >director Ginger McCall notes that monitoring what people are saying about government policies goes too far and has a chilling effect on free speech.

“The Department of Homeland Security’s monitoring of political dissent has no legal basis and is contrary to core First Amendment principles,” she said.

“The language in the documents makes it quite clear that they are looking for media reports that are critical of the agency and the U.S. government more broadly,” said McCall. “This is entirely outside of the bounds of the agency’s statutory duties.”

DHS officials have admitted that monitoring of social networks for negative opinion was undertaken by the agency, but claim that the operation was a one off test and was quickly dropped as it did not meet “operational requirements or privacy standards,” which “expressly prohibit reporting on individuals’ First Amendment activities.”

EPIC argues otherwise and has presented evidence that suggests the practice is being held up by the DHS an an example that should be emulated.

“They are completely out of bounds here,” McCall said. “The idea that the government is constantly peering over your shoulder and listening to what you are saying creates a very chilling effect to legitimate dissent.(Info Wars)

5. Mexican cartel suspects targeted in the troubled gun-trafficking probe known as Operation Fast and Furious were actually working as FBI informants at the time, according to a congressional memo that describes the case’s mission as a “failure.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has acknowledged that guns were allowed into the hands of Mexican criminals for more than a year in the hope of catching “big fish.”

The memorandum from staffers with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform says the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration were investigating a drug-trafficking organization and had identified cartel associates a year before the ATF even learned who they were. At some point before the ATF’s Fast and Furious investigation progressed — congressional investigators don’t know when — the cartel members became FBI informants.

“These were the ‘big fish,’ ” says the memo, written on behalf of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. “DEA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had jointly opened a separate investigation targeting these two cartel associates. … Yet, ATF spent the next year engaging in the reckless tactics of Fast and Furious in attempting to identify them.”

According to Issa and Grassley, the cartel suspects, whose names were not released, were regarded by FBI as “national-security assets.” One pleaded guilty to a minor offense. The other was not charged. “Both became FBI informants and are now considered unindictable,” the memo says. “This means that the entire goal of Fast and Furious — to target these two individuals and bring them to justice — was a failure.”

Representatives with the Justice Department and its subagencies declined to comment.

6. Deputy Attorney General James Cole had informed the committee in a letter last week that it would be “impossible” to comply with the document request by Issa’s deadline.

At issue are thousands of pages of internal Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) documents from last year which the Justice Department has provided to the investigating Justice Inspector General, but which the Justice Department initially indicated are not subject to congressional review because of the constitutional separation of powers.

7. Last Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer questions about his role in the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal. However, instead of answers, Congress got more defiance, more arrogance, and more wasted time with an attorney general who clearly feels no sense of obligation to the American people or our rule of law. …

In a rash attempt to deflect attention away from himself and his own irresponsibility, Holder let Congress know that the Obama administration is still working toward the day when it can reinstate former President Bill Clinton’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. According to Holder:

“This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.”

It’s difficult to follow Holder’s logic here, but it goes something like this …

The Obama administration — particularly Eric Holder’s Justice Department — oversaw an epic scandal whereby our own federal government illegally funneled thousands of firearms into the hands of Mexican drug lords. This contributed to the death of one U.S. Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans.

Despite being head of the Justice Department and our nation’s chief law enforcement officer, Eric Holder claims he doesn’t know how or why this scandal occurred, or even who under his charge may have authorized it. He also refuses to turn over critical documents to congressional investigators that could help prevent something this tragic and corrupt from ever happening again.

Therefore, Obama and Holder are confident that if they can ban a large number of the legal firearms that law-abiding Americans use every day for self-defense, hunting, and recreational and competitive target shooting, it will help solve Mexico’s crime problem.

Now don’t you feel better… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok