Is it just me or does the world look just a little bit less threatening? It may be overly optimistic, but at least it feels like some adults are back at the helm.

Yeah:
I think a lot of us feel that way. However we have monumental challenges ahead of us including the Black hole Trillion dollar deficit that Obama orchestrated over the last 6 years, a "foreign " policy that's in shambles, a cover up of the true state of the economy and the actual jobless rate and the list goes on.
I also have my fingers crossed that we lucked out insofar as Ebola goes.
Like a football team taking a commanding lead when the opponents repeatedly fumble it's now our game to win or lose.
What we don't need is another "Contract With America" iniative ala 1994 that doomed us to failure then.
Jim

Jim

The next two years will be the most dangerous for America....Obama's massive ego and feelings are hurt that his own party ran from him prior to elections and is infuriated at losing the Senate as well. Remember, it was losing the house in 2010 that led him to unleash the IRS and other agencies against conservatives. He is extremely vindictive and utterly without remorse. He will be even more dictatorial (and the dems can't rein him in)in his Saul Alinsky agenda for America. Expect an AG nominee even more left and corrupt than Holder. Obama will try to push Congress to impeach him. This is a dangerous, immersed with self psycho who doesn't care if he completely destroys America and his own political party with his actions. Obama lives in a fairy land of self. Congress better have the balls to deal with him, and we better not forget that the dems will pull out all stops to win the WH in 2016.

Look....we still have immense challenges ahead of us, I'm not disputing that, but now we have some hope. I haven't had much of that for a while.

Just the fact that Obama is not going to be able to continue to put far-left activist judges on the bench for the next two years makes me sleep better.

The National Labor Relations Board has some members that need to be appointed I believe.

Other than that, I don't expect much change from the last two years.

Mike:
Judicial appointees by Libtards have and will plague us for years to come. Just look at those two Socialist Bimbos Obama appointed to the Surpreme Court. Ginsberg the other Libtard troll is a holdover from Clinton.
We've staved off a disaster by eliminating Obama's ability on Tuesday to appoint another bimbo in the next 2 years.
In my own State a Federal Judge managed to gut the best piece of Legislation to permit the authorities to effective deal with Illegals here. Susan Bolton ,a Clinton Libtard appointee, effectively gutted this bill and the problem is this is a lifetime appointment we're stuck with.
I'd still like to kick H Ross Perot's worthless butt from one end of this State to the other for running as a 3rd party candidate and bringing this on as Clinton never would have been President without his stupidity.
Jim

Jim, just to get it in proportion, Obama didn't orchestrate the Great Recession and the Iraq blunder cost a lot more than a trillion dollars.

Mike, I think the Supreme Court serves the country well, putting law before ideology, the Roberts court especially.

All courts deliver surprises but I'd like to see the case for the Court warping the ethos of the country. The court impresses me.

I thought this has been tossed around before. Bo's team argues that declining ocare can be penalized. Roberts says no, but fabricates the excuse that bo is just applying a 'tax'. My understanding, bo did not make that case, and the 'law' did not support the leap to that conclusion.

Comrade King,

True factual proportion is to note the the recession was caused by Democrat legislation, (FCHA, CRA, mismanagement of Freddie and Fannie, Democrat Chris Dodd blocking any solutions by filibuster threat, aided by Barney Frank with his continuous statist religious demonization of any proposed solutions) hence the "Democrat Recession" is the real term. As is the "Obama Depression". Iraq was also turned into a "Blunder" by Obama, with his failure to achieve a SOF agreement, allowing Maliki to change the army from an effective apolitical force into an ineffective political militia. All at the expense of American national interest in order to placate his statist religious supporters. Your propensity to parrot "The Big Lie" is boundless..

What we need is judges with good sense of objectivity that reflect direction in which the country as a whole is heading. We don't need any more conservative assholes on the Supreme Court of United States.

Tipical libtard "living breathing constitution BS"

Jag we can tell your NO conservative and support many of the libtards polices-many times with ignorant posts that have basis on facts.

You,and King seem to forget

Your side LOST and "elections have consequence's "

I don't know what Jagermeister is saying because he's on my ignore list; However I expect it's more Libtard sour grapes.
Jim

It pleases me you're happy and feel vindicated, Dave. Hubris, however, can't mask widespread public contempt for how the US is governed. You've still got a broken system, reflected by sober commentary here.

There's a difference in speaking forcefully and persuasively, as Americans wonder at which pass the trail was lost: Bush or Obama or both. The issue isn't winning or losing. It's honest representation, not multi-billionaires influencing everything, and deliverance from the country's political misery.

sour grapes, just like Jim said.
How about trying the 2/3 didn't vote BS ??(note the Dems did not use that in 2012 when Obama barley won with less voters then 08 !)

The progressive experiment has failed,America has figured out its NOT what they want and its time to take control and start to reverse the damage-starting with obamacare and the individual mandate !

Ah, Comrade King, you always deliver.

Nice little attempt at demonization of people like the Koch brothers. The misery of America is caused by the ability that you sociopathic religious statists have to extort money from free citizens and then use it to buy votes. That is the real problem, Statist Neoslavery.

It is only because of the "conservative assholes on the Supreme Court" that we still have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and you have the ability to own and shoot your AKM.

It is gun owners like you and King who support Liberal Left Socialist Democrats who infringe upon our Constitutional Right.
You are not part of the problem which is flushing this country down the toilet. Libtard guys like you and King ARE the problem.

But you are both too stupid, too dishonest, and too agenda driven to see that.

That's the stupidest chit I ever read.

I can now see his post above. And it should be apparent as to why he's on my ignore list! You can't explain or try to reason with an idiot with this kind of attitude so as soon as I notice it, as I have in the case of others, they get ignored.
This forum has been an eye opener for me. I guess I've been insulated in the past and never realized just how many truly stupid and ignorant people we have in this country.
Hopefully they're pro-abortion and practice what they preach.
Jim
Oh and BTW:
Why isn't King Brown on my ignore list? Because His convoluted posts are so far out in left field that they:

*They Really illuminate the flaws in Libtard - progressive thinking

*Are somewhat entertaining as most of what passes for entertainment today is divorced from reaity anyway! As I've stated before he apparently dwells in a parallel universe!

Not only the Kochs, the Bloombergs, all the big money boys who distort the electoral process to serve their ambitions. Commoners like you and I, Ken, are along for the ride. They're driving.

It pleases me that you see it that way, as entertainment, Jim. Why else are we here?

It's sort of like the old standby, Who would you invite to dinner from those who ever lived? I linger with the thought of Muhammad Ali for brio, entertainment.

(I'm told there's an MA museum in Louisville, Kentucky, where I'm visiting next month after a conservation talk in Washington. Is it any good?)

Oh Comrade King,

Enough with the "Moral Equivalency" and the attempt to claim "Victim Status" and draw me into your little statist cabal.

Obviously the "Money" wasn't the real factor in this election, as the Democrats clearly outspent the Republicans. The real money problem is unconstitutional vote-buying by corrupt statist politicians. I mean the statist neoslavery of forcing free and equal citizens into an involuntary exchange of goods and services in order to buy the votes of other Americans. That's the source of corruption in American politics, the creation of a statist, sociopathic, corrupt political class who's self interest is the destruction of the American economy in order to create an entitled, parasitic victim class in order to buy their votes. They're called Democrats, but they're really merely Reds of the Soviet school. Like yourself. They're the one's who are driving the decline of America.

i don't think we bend the constitution in a direction.the constitution is the direction.and it shouldn't matter conservative or liberal the constitution is the constitution.but liberals want to attach meaning that do not exist. and we don't need to compromise with the losing democrats the country needs a change in direction and this election mandated the change ,not to compromise and get along with the democrats .King, i don't think the democrat fair housing(or what ever it was called)helped no skin in the game means people wont care.im tired

Comrade King,

Have you ever read Sun-Tzu? (Sun-Zi)

Yes, a companion. Use him daily in my work.The great warrior isn't the one who wins 100 battles. He's the one who doesn't go into battle. He destroys his enemy's strategy.

I thought so. "Retreat when the enemy advances"....It's much easier to understand Mao in particular if you understand Sun-Zi..

mc, the world is moving faster than me, too. What was near-heresy as little as 10-15 years ago is now law by which we live: same-sex, gays, prohibitive gun regulations, invasions of privacy and property etc, all adjudicated by Supreme Court jurists of all party affiliations as constitutional, as here in Canada. There is often surprisingly near consensus for and against the parties that appointed them. Presidents and prime ministers have mandates for change. Any change in US direction in the near-term can come only from cooperation in the public interest, retreating from the most poisonous intransigence in the country's history.

Considering that the latest changes in US direction that has caused the poisonous intransigence were executed in a fundamentally corrupt fashion, and clearly against the public interest, (only in the interest of the Totalitarian State) asserting that cooperation is required is absurd. What is required is the Moral Courage and the sense of principle to oppose it.

Where's the moral courage going to come from, Ken? An electorate you appear to down-rate as a democratic mob? Politicians you appear to believe repress freedom by pandering to the electorate?

I would like to think personal moral courage for decency and fairness of everyday lives could be grafted onto the US body politic. Instead it presents the face of Misfires to its wonderful people and the world.

BS, King. Where were they last Tuesday, asleep at the wheel? Commoners commandeered the results Tuesday. In my little precinct there are 216 registered voters. When I left the polls at 6:30 p.m., 210 had voted.

Kochs, Bloombergs? Don't think so.

SRH

Your community is to be commended, Stan. That's a great turn-out. My point is that we vote for representation of our interests in Congress and Parliament and get what the White House and the Prime Minister's Office decides will keep their parties in power, with big money a significant influence. Spending alleged $100 million in Kentucky is corruption of the process.

William Jefferson Clinton left this country in decent shape. I'm still shocked we survived next eight years. Quite honestly while WJC was far from perfect I much preferred him to Ronald Reagan.

clinton was great as long as he had the republican congress telling him what was good policy for the country.jagermeister you didn't vote so don't talk.well you cant discuss the Reagan administration with out talking about carter.yes the republican congress left the country in good shape in spite of Clinton.King do you understand what caused the economic meltdown?value was attached to paper, value was added by real estate secured by paper (no skin in the game)and based on a ever expanding bubble that the democrat congress created.their policy was "if you get into trouble you can sell your property and no one gets hurt and you make a little money"and please look at who voted for the iraq "blunder"

I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat this but here we go again:

The primary reason Clinton had no economic problems while he was in office was due to Reagans' economic policy for the prior 8 years. The positive effects of Reagans' policy really didn't bear fruit until after he left office. Economics 101: There is usually a substantial lag time between a change in policy and the policy actually taking effect.

Some of you might want to copy this down somewhere for your future reference!
Clinton's economic policy was essentialy "Leave well enough alone"!
Jim

I read several books on the meltdown, as I'm sure you did. I believe weak regulations by successive governments in finance and real estate tore the guts out of the country, and you'll note the red-suspender boys want them weakened again. Canada's tough regulations got us through better than all other economies. Our federal government is pondering where to spend its big surplus.

Comrade King,

Next time you read a book on the meltdown, I suggest you avoid the fiction section. It was government involvement in the housing market for political purposes that caused it. We've beaten that horse so many times I won't go into it again. That is, unless you post some statist lies and propaganda in response. Then, I'll be happy to. I suggest you start a new thread.

King has been told umteen times about CRA and still thinks he can ignore it and its cause in the housing crisis/"meltdown"

ACORN-and its community organizer's-like our golfer in chief are the ones that should be blamed !

Two things. And I hope some of you are smart enough to be embarassed.

If the economic success of Clinton's presidency was entirely attributable to Reagan, why can't the same position be extended to Obama? Or Bush ll ? That is, that there is a considerable lag between cause and effect on an economy as large as ours.

It's dishonest or ignorant to cherry pick which pieces of policy made things better or worse based on party. Applying abbreviated time frames to those you hate, yet allowing decades for your patron saints. Or choosing to omit looking at root sources of the bad, instead automatically laying them on whomever you oppose.

Our economy is cyclical with gigantic stores of demand, consequently, when a company feels they can't wait any longer, they spend. A coincidence of pent-up demand being forced to break loose by necessity is the hallmark of an economy rising from recession. Typically, those capital budgeting decisions are made without looking toward Washington.

Lastly, I want to mention the CRA.
I was on the board of an urban lending entity when the CRA was enacted. There is nothing in the CRA that forces a bank to make bad loans or change credit policy, or in any way deviate from whatever their std lending policy was at the time of the CRA's enactment. Good lending practice is good lending practice.

Please read it. Find the abandonment of std's that your propagandists claim are there. They aren't.

If you expand your condemnations to de-regulation and industry competiton, that can explain the rise of mega regional banks.
But for the system to grow, banks needed liquidity. A financial system pumped full of money to keep the economy stimulated with demand for loans.
The third leg of the stool was allowing the growth of unregulated securities markets.

As long as there was a place to dump the paper, the game of musical chairs could continue.

You should be able to read the CRA easily understand it.
Anyone here should also be able to discern who was running the show when the other pieces found each other. The pressure to flood the market with money and allow the derivative markets to flourish didn't come from urban residents that had no place to cash a Social Security check without paying a fee, or for that matter, couldn't get a loan to side their house when they worked in an auto plant.

I know it's inconvenient to believe other than the party propagandist's lies, but as someone who was actually there, I can only invite you to read the CRA, and see where your beliefs actually come from.

Lets see we can believe the "Baghdad bob" (clapper)of the misfires forum or.........................

It could be thought a little dishonest to discount the contribution of the Gingrich congress when ole bill was fraternizing with subordinates.

Interesting, you state nothing 'forces a bank to make bad loans'. Why wouldn't you state, from your experiences at the time, that bad loans were PREVENTED. Maybe, it's too embarrassing that questionable loans were, wink encouraged, rather than the half technical demonization of big financial corps.

Kinda disappointing King. Haven't you repeatedly said 'we' need more funding for the poor, green projects, womens reproductive issues, transgender preferences and minority rights? You haven't forgot about....healthcare have you. What's there to ponder, unless you're feeling a bit selfish.

It was the Clinton administration that turned Freddie and Fannie into the "Dumping Ground". Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick. Raines collected 50 Million in bonus and Gorelick 26 Million. Obama was the #2 largest recipient of Fannie/Freddie political contributions. At the time he was attacking McCain.

Why do you think Clinton became the Darling of Wall Street?

Here's a good explanation:

Read This Only if you Want to Know the Truth About the Collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Vincent Gioia

When President Bill Clinton took office, Fannie and Freddie were viewed as “key” to Clinton’s plans to expand home ownership. The Washington Post reports: “The result was a period of unrestrained growth for the companies. … The companies increasingly were seen as the engine of the housing boom.”

As Fannie and Freddie grew, conservatives repeatedly warned that their size posed a systemic risk to the financial system. As Sarah Palin put it, thanks to the implicit federal guarantee of their debt, Fannie and Freddie had become too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.

But Fannie and Freddie did not want to be exposed so they turned to Democrat friends for protection. James Johnson who was an advisor to Walter Mondale and is now a campaign advisor to Barack Obama, fought all efforts to reform of Freddie and Fannie. Clinton administration OMB director Franklin Raines joined the effort and tried to reassure critics that when he was Fannie Mae CEO in 1999: “We manage(d) our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks.”

To this day Fannie and Freddie’s lobbying power over Democrats continues to be strong and it’s no secret why that is the case. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top three recipients of campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie’s PACs and employees are all Democrats. From 1989 through today, Sen. Chris Dodd received $165,400, Barack Obama $126,349, and John Kerry $111,000. The Washington Post article concluded: “Blessed with the advantages of a government agency and a private company at the same time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their windfall profits to co-opt the politicians who were supposed to control them.”

It is amazing to me how contagious is the Democrat penchant for lying among themselves; it spreads from Democrat to Democrat like the Bubonic Plague. Bill Clinton of course was the lying master; he not only infected his wife Hillary, but all who supported him. Former Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey said of Bill Clinton he is an “unusually good liar; unusually good.”

Barack Obama has followed in Bill Clinton’s footsteps as an “unusually good liar” though realizing how little ability Obama has to think for himself, it is likely that his puppet string handler, David Axelrod, is the perpetrator of the lies Obama learns to speak behind his teleprompter. Now Obama says he warned about the problems with the two gigantic mortgage holders and buyers of still more mortgages and we would not be in this mess if he had been listened to (when, at what point in his 143 days in the senate?), and he says all this with the public certainty only someone skilled in misleading the public can do. Democrats speak their two minds through their forked tongues by once agreeing with the recommendations by our Treasury secretary and the Fed chief for prompt action to avert collapse of financial markets while also blaming the Bush administration for failure to avoid the problem. For good measure the Obama team places the blame on John McCain for doing nothing to correct the system in his 26 years in the Senate; conveniently overlooking the still longer time in the Senate occupied by their Vice Presidential candidate.

But the most unfortunate thing about all this is the failure of the news media, and even McCain’s own campaign, to inform the public that John McCain was one the very few in government to actually forecast the current financial situation unless Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were overhauled and corrected and the fact that McCain attempted to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005 is ignored.

The question that should be asked at this time is: “Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it”? The answer is that John McCain did and along with three other Senate Republicans he tried to reform the government’s involvement in mortgage lending three years ago, after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier.

McCain addressed the subject on May 25, 2006, when speaking in support of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 which was introduced to deal with the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (via Beltway Snark):

“Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”

In this statement, McCain predicted not only the entire collapse that has forced the government to assume obligations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but also Bear Stearns and AIG. He identifies the falsification of financial records to benefit executives, including Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of whom have worked as advisers in varying degrees to Barack Obama this year. McCain also noted their successful lobbying efforts to forestall oversight over their business practices. John McCain concludes with the warning that proved prescient over the past few days and weeks.

The bill McCain supported and cosponsored would have done the following: “(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board. Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.”

However the bill never made it out of committee. Chris Dodd, then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, as reported at the time, “one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis.” Meanwhile, Barack Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists McCain mentions in this speech, making Obama the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money as reported in the following exchange on Fox News in a video shown on You Tube:

HEATHER NAUERT: Barack Obama attacking John McCain once again on the economy and the market turmoil today. Our John Gibson has new information on the Democratic presidential nominee and the mortgage mess for us now. What have you got John?

JOHN GIBSON: Alright Heather. Lehman Brothers’ collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the center for responsive politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. Senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were democrats and number two is Senator Barack Obama. Now, remember, he has only been in the Senate four years but still managed to grab the number two spot ahead of John Kerry, decades in the senate, and Chris Dodd who is chairman of the senate banking committee. Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional democrats and the Clinton white house, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn’t afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration’s white house budget director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected 50 million dollars. Jamie Gurilli, Clinton Justice Apartment Official, worked for Fannie and took home 26 million dollars. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama’s VP search committee has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae C.E.O. job. Now remember Obama’s ads and stump speeches attack McCain and republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggy lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the senate. Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem. Heather.

HEATHER NAUERT: Wow, that’s quite a report, begs the question — where is John McCain on this?

JOHN GIBSON: John McCain is a measly $20,000 after over 20 years so he really doesn’t even come close in the political contribution department. Open Secrets has the list of Congressmen who have benefited from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac largesse since 1989 (inclusive). Remarkably, after only serving less than four of those 20 years, Barack Obama has vaulted to the #2 position on Capitol Hill. Only Dodd outstripped him. He took more than six times the amount that McCain received in a 20-year period. The record shows that McCain saw the problem coming and tried to get Congress to act. In 2005, both McCain and Obama served together in the Senate. Did Obama attempt to pass this reform, sign on as a co-sponsor, or even speak out in its favor? The record is tellingly blank. Update: Below is a screen shot of Barack Obama’s statement on the American International Group (AIG) bailout:

(Quoting) BARACK OBAMA: “The fact that we have reached a point where the Federal Reserve felt it had to take this unprecedented step with the American Insurance Group is the final verdict on the failed economic philosophy of the last eight years. While we do not know all the details of this arrangement, the Fed must ensure that the plan protects the families that count on insurance. It should bolster our economy’s ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills and save their money. It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG.”

“This crisis serves as a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary. It’s a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people; a philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to the rest. Instead, the pain has trickled up – from the struggles of Main Street all the way up to the crises on Wall Street.”

“Despite his eleventh hour conversion to the language of reform, Senator McCain has subscribed to this philosophy for twenty-six years in Washington and the events of this week have rendered it a colossal failure. It is time for a new economic strategy, guided by the principle that America prospers when all Americans prosper, where common-sense rules of the road ensure that competition is fair, open, and honest. That is the strategy I will pursue as President, and I will bring the change we need to restore confidence in our financial markets and strength to our economy.”

GIBSON: As we have seen, McCain has been talking reform for three years, with no assist from Barack Obama. And McCain at least knows the correct name of the company that got its bailout last night from the federal government. Is Team Obama so incompetent that they couldn’t check the name before issuing the statement?"

For those interested in the truth about who understands and tried to do something about the financial mess caused by the Democrat piggy banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the foregoing should be enlightening.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His blogs at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at gioia@gte.net.

King, comparing Canada and the USA economy is kind of deceiving.California has a similar population and a higher GDP than Canada so savings claims (surplus)to Canada is quite a big difference.so when a Canadian type heath care system is encouraged for the united states the size of system has to be taken in to consideration.if population was used then California could use a Canadian model if it worked, based on population and gdp(California is higher)the democrats are responsible for economic policy that when the bubble burst pulled the rug from under the economy.facts are facts

Ken61,exactly

"Barack Obama has followed in Bill Clinton’s footsteps as an “unusually good liar” though realizing how little ability Obama has to think for himself, it is likely that his puppet string handler, David Axelrod, is the perpetrator of the lies Obama learns to speak behind his teleprompter."

Oh boy, no more stockpiling of ammo and .22lr on the shelves in good supply. Life is grand.

I don't recall saying Canada needs more funding for any of those issues. Remind me if I have, Ken. Canada learned more money is not the answer to improved health services. We need more of western Europe's model.

There's no way Canadians can forget their healthcare, a distinguishing feature of the national character: one of sharing and unity without concerns of wealth distribution. Canadians don't complain of helping others in need.

We're richer for it. It makes a stronger, more contented country. On the evidence, a happier one, too.

I suggest you all look at the Canadians comments in that new thread I just started regarding their health care system in Arizona Votes to retain It's Freedom.
Jim

Not Ken, but can I answer. You've always praised the greatness of Canadian liberalism. By 'we', I mean you've been very generous in stressing the need for the US to spend more on the constant shortcomings that you so enthusiastically fabricate.

As to your healthcare system, europe is one big urban cesspool. Haven't we determined that some 80% of Canada is considered remote. What good would it do if some french health adviser says to slap a little deodorant on it.

The only way you're going to show any compassion for the health needs of Canadians that don't happen to live in cultural pc centers is with lots of pesos for life flights and remote health clinics. Allow me to prenotice that your brushing off of the problem screams louder than the bellyaching on misfires.

Follow the money, Craig. Think of equity for equality. Two glasses, one half-full, the other two-thirds. Fill to make them equal. Share the resource for equality.

Circumstances require more effort in some places than others--- remote clinics, medical flights, education, health, courts---but equality is less expensive in the long run.

We're all Canadians. Illness or unequal education and justice from whatever circumstances affects all of us. Equality makes healthier and happier lives.

Don't take my word for it. Compare your health and education outcomes with Canada's. It's the US that slaps around expensive deodorants.

I framed this reply on equity, capitalism, saving a buck while providing great benefits. Americans seem blind to wealth redistribution for a common good.

Comrade King, thanks for the Gift,

At least now you admit that Health Care is a mechanism for sociopathic, statist Wealth Redistribution rather than an improvement of quality or delivery.

America already has a system for the poor, it's called Medicaid. Obamacare is designed to destroy America's Health Care system, not to improve it. It's now projected to cost more than three times what it was initially sold as, so much for "Saving a Buck".

Craigd, The answer is Nope.
I cringe to ask how you can conflate simple comparisons of policy implementation with Clinton's pecadillo? Actually I don't see them as related, and I don't want to know.

By the implied logic, St Reagan had something to do with Clinton's intern showing him her thong.

It is dishonest to allow the policies of one President a week to give you what you want, before proclaiming failure and sedition, and then allow decades for another's policies to generate desirable results without complaint, nee idolatry.

The propaganda machines continuously demonize the CRA as a Federal mechanism to force banks ( well actually, expanded to cover most lending enterprises)to discard good lending practice and throw their shareholders money away.

That is not true.

I worked on dozens of loans targeted to CRA ratings, and never once felt any pressure to disregard lending practice.

If the customer was considered high risk of repayment failure, we had a number of tools available to balance our portfolio.

If one were to say that allowing trans regional mergers created a competitive environment that rewarded risky behavior, I might agree.

But that's not the CRA.

I'm not sure if there are any long-term bankers here. There probably are, but their normal demeanor would typically prevent them from participating on misfires. They best could explain the history and progression of the programs.

Propagandists spewing that the CRA in some way caused the housing market collapse always have a vested interest in the responses of their readers and listeners.

Hard to imagine being charged $5.00 to cash your Soc Sec check. People don't want to believe that that was the way it was. And that the very bank charging you for that wouldn't loan you money to fix your house because of the address.

Dave K, That's 7:30 I'll never get back in my life. A well produced, carefully parsed propaganda piece is always good before taking the dogs out.

About 90% of it is absolute fabrication.

But you wouldn't actually know.

Quote:
"Propagandists spewing that the CRA in some way caused the housing market collapse always have a vested interest in the responses of their readers and listeners"

Well:
This certainly bears out the old saying:
"If you're going to tell a lie tell a big one!"
Or use weasel words like "caused" in this case.
The CRA was the catylist leading to the housing market meltdown
and NOT the direct cause. Radical lending practices encouraged by groups like ACORN caused the housing mortgage meltdown.
Jim

Ah, yes, Jim, but it wouldn't have happened---radical and reckless lending practises---if the country had strong regulations to prevent it.

If you really wnat to know King and are willing to do some research;it's documented that John McCain and others raised a big red flag in Congress (Well before) the mortgage meltdown occurred. It was to no avail and greed on the parts of socialist impowerment groups(ACORN) and the bankers continued to the bitter end.
Jim

Not very fair considering Canada doesn't have an out of control black population like we do.

Jim

no matter how many times it been proven to King he still refuses-just like his BS belief in his shoddy Canadian HC system,
will never acknowledge it.To do so would admit defeat in his job in making others live as HE feels they should (at liberal through and through.

As to the CRA ,Obama is once again forcing banks to go back to the same subprime risky loans that CAUSED the crisis !

From IBD

Obama Boosts CRA Authority To Force Banks To Make Low-Income Loans



Despite new evidence the Community Reinvestment Act led to riskier lending and played a key role in the subprime mortgage crisis, the Obama administration is broadening the anti-redlining regulation's authority and scope, spooking bankers.

A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the nation's pre-eminent economic research group, states that the CRA "clearly" had a major impact on the flood of subprime loans made in the late 1990s and 2000s, which directly led to the housing crisis.


By quietly expanding the regulation, analysts say President Obama is picking up where President Clinton left off in April 1995, when he rewrote rules for what had been a largely toothless law as first drafted in 1977.

Through executive orders, Clinton set strict numerical lending targets for banks in "underserved" neighborhoods, while ordering regulators to crack down on alleged bank redlining.

The new rules for the first time mandated that banks use "innovative" or "flexible underwriting practices." Compliance required banks to pass a heavily weighted "lending test" or suffer holds on expansion plans.

The CRA overhaul "has been a disaster," said ex-BB&T CEO John Allison in his recent book on the financial crisis. He argued it's forced "banks to participate in making high-risk housing loans to low-income buyers who would not meet traditional bank lending standards."

Added Allison, who now heads the Cato Institute: "The default rates on these low-income loans are extraordinarily high."

Still, the Obama administration wants banks to step up approval of such low-income mortgages. And it's using the CRA to spur more lending, including:

• Forcing banks through threat of prosecution to expand their CRA assessment areas to include inner-city areas blighted by subprime foreclosures, where they are compelled to invest in new brick and mortar.

Many banks, in fact, are under direct federal orders to open new branches or ATMs in high-risk and unprofitable areas of Detroit, St. Louis and other cities hit hardest by the recession.

"If your assessment area looks like something you can eat — a bagel or is crescent shaped — that should be a red flag for your bank," senior Department of Justice official Tom Perez warned bankers serving areas mainly outside the inner city.

"DOJ wants banks to have a physical presence in the inner city," Washington-based Buckley Sandler LLP recently told clients, adding that "banks should carefully monitor loan data to determine whether an appropriate volume of loan originations emanate from minority areas."

• Ordering bank defendants accused of lending bias to underwrite riskier CRA loans at discounted rates.

For instance, Justice has ordered First United Security Bank of Alabama to "ensure that residential and CRA small business loan products are made available and marketed in majority African-American census tracts," while offered on terms "more advantageous to the applicant" than normal.

• Toughening CRA enforcement by bank examiners, who are giving more banks negative ratings on their CRA exams and crippling their ability to acquire or merge with other institutions. Federal data show the share of banks receiving failing grades has more than doubled to 4% from 1.5% in 2007.

• Factoring the findings of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Dodd-Frank Act-created agency empowered with investigating fair-lending violations, into CRA ratings.

• Broadening CRA examination guidelines to include loan "pricing discrimination," and instructing examiners to take a closer look at improper "steering" of minority borrowers into subprime loans with higher interest rates and fees.

• Using the threat of CRA "noncompliance" and denial of expansion plans to pressure bank defendants into settling "fair lending" cases, while scaring other banks into lending in low-income minority areas where the banks aren't located.

"Regulators have now said that banks will not be permitted to proceed with any expansion if they are the target of these pending DOJ actions," complained Independent Community Bankers of America President Camden Fine in a 2011 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

• Pressuring banks to fund HUD's new $7 billion Neighborhood Stabilization Program to earn CRA credits under a new "community development" test.

I believe you. McCain has been ahead of the curve on many things. I never thought of the bankers as a socialist empowerment group other than their blatant avarice sending people in that direction, though. (I think McCain's wrong for West's boots on the ground against IS in Syria and Iraq until the players are figured out to and there's some future shape of an agreement.)

You're right in that our cultures are different, Joe, developed from an entirely different history. The British colonists of North America went in different directions. Americans think we're mad with universal healthcare, Canadians think any country without it is looney.

Still, Canada can't talk about education, for instance, without race coming into it. We do well in international ratings but we've been talking about special schools for training black teachers since 1841. We're lagging in educational equality for blacks, lower-incomes and indigenous peoples.

That's what I mean by equity---value---for equality. I get some kidding here for my notion of each one is responsible to everyone for everything. What's a country worth---a rich country like Canada---if weaker and more vulnerable citizens don't get a fair shot at a decent life? Sharing the wealth is national policy.

Would you classify this as "Propaganda"? It's from IBD, who've done quite a bit of analysis of the meltdown.

Special Series:
The War On Banks
Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."
Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.
The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.
CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie's and Freddie's so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.
It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to "assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA)." The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.
But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that's what they did.
"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals," Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant's affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."
She described "CRA-friendly products" as mortgages with less than "3% down" and "flexible underwriting."
From 2001-2007, Fannie and Freddie bought roughly half of all CRA home loans, most carrying subprime features.
Lenders not subject to the CRA, such as subprime giant Countrywide Financial, still fell under its spell. Regulated by HUD, Countrywide and other lenders agreed to sign contracts with the government supporting such lending under threat of being brought under CRA rules.
"Countrywide can potentially help you meet your CRA goals by offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are eligible for CRA credit," the lender advertised to banks.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials...m#ixzz3IcBsJWgL
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Here's the real cause of the meltdown, government interference. It's the 20 page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" that was read into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994. It was prepared by Clinton's Interagency Task Force on Lending.

These 20 pages of governmental threats to banks was the real cause of the financial meltdown. As was the 14 years of Democrat cover for the "dumping grounds" of Freddie and Fannie that was required to finally set it off.

http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/federal-register/94fr9214.pdf