I wonder sometimes are the Obamites really so stupid to not realize forcing banks to give minoritys with bad credit loans is what created the housing boom and bust in the first place? I worry they haven't a clue. Certainly there actions suggest they are clueless,
Obama staffs the Justice Department to the hilt with all the most vile diversity consultants, race racketers, grievance mongers, discrimination lawyers (his former piers in other words) and sets them loose exactly as he promised at Spellmen Unviersity (atleast he doesn't lie to his "people"). Eric Holder has promised to double, triple, quadropole, the number of dispirate impact lawsuites and other various bullshit discrimination lawsuites all of which make an utter mockery of our Constuition (1776-1956).
And among the appauling lawsuites the newly radiclized Justice Department will be pumping out, will, no doubt be lawsuites against banks for not giving out "enough" loans to people of the preffered skin tone namely latinos and blacks-the two groups who where indispensable to the housing boom and bust which percipatated the fall of Lehman Brothers and whole god damn reccession. Ofcourse, the fact that the foreclosures where almost all happening in heavily latino sand states and in latino and black countys within those sand states, was far far too poltically incorrect to be reported by the mainstream media-no, to report that, would be "scape-goating". Well, this dirty little secret about who and what is to blame for the housing bust and the economic downturn has appeared in, atleast, Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money" and Thomas Sowell's "The Housing Boom and Bust" two books that someone in the Obama white house should have read by now.
But ofcourse to come to terms with this unmentionable truth about the housing boom and bust would be to admit that goverment, not "greed" was the main culprit in the reccession which is a conclusion completly unsayable i am sure around the Obama White House. In case your late to this uncoventional truth, here's the low-down: Clinton and Bush, the whole Democratic Party and a scattering of Republican imposters supported raising latino and black home ownership by force. In order to create a latino and black ownership society by force, these Democrats and manifestly un-conservative Republicans used Freddy Mac and Fanny May and discrimination lawsuites to force private banks (unconstuinally) to give blacks and latinos with terrible credit loans they shouldn't have gotten.
Christmas day I came across a clip of the Democratic candiates youtube debate from 08'. The question poised to the candiates was "do you support reparations for slavery?". Ofcourse, they all dodge it by saying that they'll help blacks in better ways. Well John Edwards, abiding to this formula, answered,
"I'm not for reparations..but i think there are other things that we can do to create some equality that doesn't exist in this country today. Today, there was a report, right here in Charleston, African Americans are paying more than there white counterparts for morgatages than anyother place in America..and heres an example: what is the conceivable exsplanation for this? That black people are paying more for there morgatages? And, by the way, its not just low income African-Americans..there's absolutely no exsplanation for this. It goes to the basic question i just raised a minuete ago to have a President whose gonna fight for equality, fight for real change, big change, bold change. We're gonna have to have somebody,we can't change our insiders for there insiders, that doesn't work. What we need is somebody who will take these people on, these big banks, these morgatage companys, big insurance companys"
Edwards is advocating exactly what created the housing bubble which was the goverment in the name of "equality" (as always) putting its tantacles where it has no Constuinal right to be (e.i. suing Banks for not giving out, what they deem to be, "enough" loans and mortage to blacks no matter how bad there credit) and creating the sub prime housing market as a result that would fall apart and bring down the banks along the way. I find it hilarous that Edwards asks "what conceivable reason could there be for that?" refering to higher morgatage prices for blacks. Ofcourse, with our PC mufflers on, no one stood up and said "because blacks, very logically, have worse credit cause the are a more risky investment, more likely to be foreclosed upon as all the data shows." If someone had had the balls to do so maybe we would have avoided this whole mess and probably avoided the whole Obama nightmare along with it.
And so what is the morale of this story? It's quote obvious i think: the market was right! Blacks got loans less because they were a more risky investment, and so when DC liberals get involved in forcing businesses', in this case banks, to run there companies a certain way, they screw it all up.
And as i write, the Demoncats are revving up to involve themselves in the running of whole new sector of the economy-that which emits Co2 into the atomsphere. They-Pelosi, Reed and Obama and all the other liberals who have never run a company in there entire lives-say they know, as always, whats best for companys emiting Co2: that is that they need to "make a long term investment by switching to more green technologies". So why not just suggest this rather than try to force them to remodel by imposing onerous taxes on these companys in order to coerce such change? ......(no answer)....
What they don't get is that these companys who will be slammed hardest by cap and trade, first of all, know how to run there own companys better than say Nancy Pelosi does and they won't remodel there plants when cap and trade makes there doing business in America impossible, no, they'll just leave America and take there thousands of jobs with them. But then again the liberals don't seem to realize that companys can and do leave America for other countrys when they impose tax upon tax upon tax upon them.
Once again, with cap and trade as with so many other issues, the liberal takes 3 mental steps and the conservative takes 7. So in the case of cap and trade,
The Liberal Logic is: 1. the world is going to die 2. but we can save it 3. so we need to pass cap and trade or die and
The Conservative Logic is: 1. we don't know how much climate change is going to occur in what time frame 2. even if we knew how hot it will be in 40 years, we still need to know how much of that change is natural and how much is man made which again is a nearly impossible question to answer that we need to know more about 3. then even if Al Gore is right which at the least not clear we still need to know what it will take to prevent climate change and 4. can we have any viable impact making neglible cutbacks along with a few EU nations? 5. what is the cost vs. the benefit of cap and trade? 6. China and India alone will cancel out our tiny insubstanial cutbacks but we won't get the jobs that we loose because of cap and trade back again. no deal.
Now, what if John Edwards had gotten elected? He would have been saying after the reccession like all his party did "it was those greedy rich wall street guys who caused this! the problem is greed! the solution is goverment. It was deregulation of the housing sector that got us into this mess and it goverment thats gonna get us out of it"
And he would have gotten aplauded for that and the so called media wouldn't point out as the have yet to point that the people in goverment are at fault and obviously trying to deflect blame and responcibility to Wall Street.
Check out the video of John Edwards debate answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5XAvfgpesU
No comments:
Post a Comment