Friends, I don't have to tell you how disappointed I am that the bailout bill passed the House today. I did all I could to stop this bill, but it seems like Washington has no real interest in what the people think or want.
For your information here is the list of those in the House that voted for this bill. If you despise this bill as much as I do I hope you will do the right thing and not vote for anyone on this list.
Abercrombie Ackerman Alexander Allen Andrews Arcuri Baca Bachus Baird Baldwin Barrett (SC) Bean Berkley Berman Berry Biggert Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Mack Boozman Boren Boswell Boucher Boustany Boyd (FL) Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Braley (IA) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Buchanan Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carson Castle Clarke Cleaver Clyburn Coble Cohen Cole (OK) Conaway Cooper Costa Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cubin Cuellar Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis, Tom DeGette DeLauro Dent Dicks Dingell Donnelly Doyle Dreier Edwards (MD) Edwards (TX) Ehlers Ellison Ellsworth Emanuel Emerson Engel Eshoo Etheridge Everett Fallin Farr Fattah Ferguson Fossella Foster Frank (MA) Frelinghuysen Gerlach Giffords Gilchrest Gonzalez Gordon Granger Green, Al Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Herger Higgins Hinojosa Hirono Hobson Hoekstra Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Inglis (SC) Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Johnson, E. B. Kanjorski Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind King (NY) Kirk Klein (FL) Kline (MN) Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) LaHood Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lungren, Daniel E. Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Markey Marshall Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McCrery McGovern McHugh McKeon McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Miller, George Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murtha Myrick Nadler Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor Pelosi Perlmutter Peterson (PA) Pickering Pomeroy Porter Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Reyes Reynolds Richardson Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Ros-Lehtinen Ross Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Sarbanes Saxton Schakowsky Schiff Schmidt Schwartz Scott (GA) Sessions Sestak Shadegg Shays Shuster Simpson Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Souder Space Speier Spratt Sullivan Sutton Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Terry Thompson (CA) Thornberry Tiberi Tierney Towns Tsongas Upton Van Hollen Velázquez Walden (OR) Walsh (NY) Wamp Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Weldon (FL) Weller Wexler Wilson (NM) Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wolf Woolsey Wu Yarmuth
Time to take the power back! Let's make it clear who really runs this country.
In my opinion, these people are enemies of the American people and it is our duty to do what ever we can to see them defeated during their next election.
By the way, they tried to be sneaky and cast this vote under the name of another bill (H.R. 1424), some mental health bill, and pass it off as Dodd Amdt. No. 5685. I don't know if this is common in Washington, but it sure makes me even more mad.
In case you're interested, here is the list of those who voted against this abomination.
So You Call Yourself A Conservative?
Current mood: aggravated
Category: News and Politics
I can't stand it anymore! McCain is getting worse everyday. Today he comes out running his mouth about the bailout, and how it must pass or we'll all be doomed. This is pure fear mongering, and I am sick of it! The market will recover on its own if only these Washington thugs will let it!
Then he says that he plans to keep taxes low to stimulate the economy. That is seemingly his only conservative principle. So, lets see just how low he plans to keep them.
His highest tax cut is only 4.4% and it's for the wealthiest people in the country. The middle class, the ones who are really going to hurt from this crisis, only get between 1.4% and .5%. Seriously, are these numbers really anything to brag about? I have nothing against cutting taxes for the wealthy, but at least give the middle class the same cut!
And to top it all off McCain is trying to convince conservatives in the House to support this bailout, which would give the wealthiest Americans $700 billion on top of their tax cuts.
What McCain supports is not conservatism. It's not the free market. He is supporting corporatism and socialism!
What about McCain's record on pork spending? Again, this issue is hardly worth talking about. We all saw McCain and Obama go back and forth at the debate about the $18 billion in pork spending last year, but neither one ever mentioned the $1 trillion we spent overseas last year. What's the sense of arguing about a few billion dollars, which went to the taxpayers anyway, when we are wasting trillions overseas? So much for McCain being interested in cutting spending.
This is insanity! There's no rational reason for a conservative to support such a candidate. I am a proud conservative and that's why I can never, ever, support a candidate who seeks to destroy, and distort, conservative principles. In my opinion, any conservative who votes for McCain is betraying conservatism.
Am I suggesting you vote for Obama? Hell no! I am suggesting that we seek a third party candidate who actually represents some conservative principles.
Currently
listening
:
Master of Puppets
By
Metallica
Release date: 1990-10-25
We Don’t Need Your Damn Help! UPDATE!
Current mood: aggravated
Category: News and Politics
I know some of this stuff may be boring to some of you, but it is important that we educate ourselves about what the government is trying to do to us.
As many of you know the bailout bill has been finalized, for now, and is set to be voted on in the House. Below are the basic terms of the 110 page bill:
1) The treasury secretary will get $700 billion over time to buy troubled financial assets as HE SEE FIT
2) He can demand stock in any company getting money in return for the help
3) He can hire firms to help manage the assets without competitive bidding
4)Two oversight bodies will be created to try to prevent cronyism and bad deals
5) Some kind of industry-funded insurance program will be set up to prevent repetitions of this drama
6) Corporate tax deductions for executive pay will be limited to $500,000/yr
7) Golden parachutes for fired executives will be prohibited under certain circumstances
8) Home owners MAY get assistance to prevent foreclosure provided it doesn't cost the government anything
9) If the government has not recouped its money in 5 years, it may institute a tax on securities transactions
Of course, there is much more in the 110 pages. Still, never in history has one person been empowered to spend so much money with so little oversight. He can buy any assets he wants to at whatever price he wants to. While there is some oversight, the oversight boards know even less than he does about how much complex derivatives are really worth. The whole deal comes down to trusting Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs CEO with an estimated net worth of $700 million (not billion) and a vast network of contacts all over the world.
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have tentatively said they plan to vote for the bill despite some misgivings. The bill will come up for a vote in both chambers of Congress this week but it is not expected to be approved unanimously. Many voters and members of Congress still see it as as the original Paulson bailout bill (now, new, improved with lipstick) transferring $700 billion from ordinary Americans to Wall St. In any event, the new President's nominee for secretary of the treasury will be intensely scrutinized by the Senate.
Keep calling those reps in Washington. Don't let these goons off the hook.
UPDATE: The bill has been defeated in the House! It's a good day, and a victory, for the taxpayers. Thanks to every American who called and made it clear to their reps that we did not want this bailout. Now, the bill could still come back so don't give up. Keep harassing you reps in Washington.
What Kind Of People Are We?
Current mood: accomplished
Category: News and Politics
Whenever a great bi-partisan consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.
The events of the past week are no exception. The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder.
Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters. That describes the current bailout package to a T.
And we're being told it's unavoidable. The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences, predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics, are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!
The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us. Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals!
Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process!! There goes your country!! Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary". Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.
Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind, another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.
Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at around seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.
The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?
When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?
Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.
Friends, I wish I could say I wrote these great words, but I didn't. These are the words of Congressman Ron Paul from the State of Texas. Many in Washington and in the media have criticized Dr. Paul. They called him a nut. They called him an idiot. They said he was a racist. They said he wanted to destroy this country. What do you think? Personally, I think he is the most intelligent and sanest person in Washington.
CALL OR WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TODAY! DON'T DELAY! OUR FUTURE IS ON THE LINE!
Continuing trouble in the markets has brought a lot of attention to federally backed mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
I have read a little about Fannie and Freddie, and don't pretend to fully understand everything that these two firms do, not that anyone could fully understand all the untold regulations employed by congress. But I am sure of one thing: these firms are designed to intervene in the natural workings of the free market.
From what I gather, the base function of these firms is to artificially stimulate the housing market and guarantee high risk loans. So is it any wonder that banks made bad loans and that the bubble got so large? This is a prime example of what happens when the government engages in central economic planning.
So, in light of our economic problems I wonder if it would be proper for us to have a formal investigation of Fannie and Freddie in congress?
Congress was quick to subpoena oil company executives to Capital Hill for a "price gouging" hearing, so why not investigate now? Is the mortgage crisis not just as important? Let's call the heads of Fannie and Freddie to Capital Hill to testify. Let's hear their explanation for making these bad loans. Personally, I would be very interested to hear what they have to say. How about you?
Hurricane Washington: The Biggest Threat to the American Republic
Current mood: accomplished
Category: News and Politics
Friends, are we at the doorstep of the next Great Depression? According to top economists the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) only has $50 billion to insure an estimated $1 trillion worth of deposits. Is this something to worry about? The video explains that congress needs to recapitalize the FDIC fund, but where are they going to get nearly $1 trillion dollars.
Now, can everyone see what happens when we try to live beyond our means? And we can't lay this at the feet of any particular political party. This is a Washington problem!
Can you see how important this issue is? The future of our republic is at stake here!
Let’s Truly Remember
Current mood: amorous
Category: News and Politics
Friends, it is time once again for us to morn those who were murdered that September morning. The video was taken during the first minutes of the attack. It takes them several minutes to realize that a second plane had hit.
Now that we have remembered those who died that day let's not forget that we are subjecting ourselves to these dangers everyday. As long as we have a foreign policy that intervenes in the affairs of other sovereign nations we have to be prepared to be the targets of these kinds spineless attacks.
A Pig is Still a Pig
Current mood: aggravated
Category: News and Politics
Well friends Obama says that McCain is not for real change. He compared McCain's ticket to a pig with lipstick on saying, "a pig is still a pig". Well, if I can use another old saying, "isn't that the pot calling the kettle black"?
McCain doesn't stand for real change, but neither does senator Obama. Since Obama compared McCain's policies to Bush's let's take a look at Obama's.
1) Obama spouts the same political propaganda about cutting taxes for the poor and middle class while stating that only the "rich" will have to pay more taxes. This tired line has been used by politicians since the introduction of the 16th Amendment, and time and again it has turned out to be a lie.
2) On the economy Obama believes the best thing is to "stimulate" growth through government spending. Sounds a little like the New Deal, huh? Even now he is proposing another "stimulus package" that will no doubt be funded by some foreign nation, like China, and tacked onto our $9.7 trillion national debt. At least when FDR spent money it was America's money. Obama says he supports the free market, but yet he supports increasing regulations. So, we have more spending, more debt, and more regulation. Sound like change?
3) On healthcare Obama is proposing his own version of Hillary Care. Remember when they tried to push that national healthcare plan on us back during Clinton's first term? Fact is, we already cannot financially support the government healthcare programs we have i.e. Medicare and Medicaid. So Obama wants more government run healthcare programs. Is that anything different?
4) On energy Obama goes back to the good old 70's. He supports government funding, and creating, alternative fuels, which they have been doing since the 70's. He supports a ban on off shore drilling. He supports a ban on nuclear energy. He opposes drilling in ANWR. So which of these policies is something new in Washington?
5) On foreign policy Obama is just another Washington man. He supports the use of military force in Kosovo "to keep the peace". He supports the idea that America has a duty as the world's leader and policeman. He supports the idea that American soldiers be sent to die defending the rights of foreign peoples. So he supports the idea of using the U.S. military even when our national security is not threatened. Is this a new policy?
These are just a few examples. I urge Obama supporters to really dig deep. If you really listen to what he is saying you will realize that the man offers no significant change. If change is what you want I suggest looking else where this November. Further, your vote is not something to be taken for granted. We should all take the responsibility of voting more seriously. It's our own future that is at stake!
There's a little known, or spoken, truth that is ignored during the whole fuel economy debate.
The recent surge in gas prices has caused many to seek ways to save a few bucks at the pump. Obama has recycled President Carter's old fuel saving suggestions from the 70's, but mean while there is one government agency that is doing everything it can to decrease, or at least ignoring, the fuel economy of vehicles registered in America.
That agency is the EPA and no one ever talks about it. As many of you know the EPA sets emissions standards for all cars sold in the U.S. In fact, EPA regulations lead to the use of such devices as catalytic converters, smog pumps, and EGR valves on our cars and trucks.
So what's wrong with these devices?
1) They rob a car's engine of fuel economy.
2) They can rob a car's engine of horsepower.
3) They add thousands of dollars to the price of the car.
I compared the specs from a Honda Civic sold in the UK, where they have no EPA, to the equivelent model we have here in America.
Here is what I found:
A Honda Civic EX (US) has a 1.8L i-VTEC and gets an estimated 34 mpg on the highway and retails for around $19,205.
The Honda Civic SE (UK) has the same 1.8L i-VTEC and gets an estimated 44.1 mpg on the highway and retails for about 15,180 British pounds.
I realize that the British pound is worth more than the dollar right now, but these numbers should give us something to think about.
Do EPA regulations really provide benefits to Americans? And do these benefits outweigh the consequences of the regulations? And how come none of the candidates, except Ron Paul, ever talk about the consequences of government regulations? And could we get the same environmental benefits of regulation without the negative side effects by simply enforcing private property rights?
Can A Conservative Woman Be A Capable Executive?
Current mood: accomplished
Category: News and Politics
Friends, I am getting tired of all this pointless mud slinging.
Only hours after Governor Palin was announced to be McCain's VP pick the media, and the Obama camp, were complaining about her lack of experience. To be fair, the Republicans have not been any better. Obama has been attacked since day one for not having enough experience to become president, but exactly what experience is necessary to be a good executive?
I want to clear this up right now. Article II Section I of the U.S. Constitution spells out the "qualifications" required to become president. "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
So the only qualifications that our Founding Fathers saw fit to mandate for the chief executive were 1) they be a natural born citizen 2) they be at least 35 years of age. And both Senator Obama and Governor Palin meet the required qualifications.
Why did the Framers demand so few qualifications from the executive? Well, in my opinion, I believe they did this to keep the elite from monopolizing the office. You see, the Founders were not stupid. They knew that being a good executive was not synonymous with being highly educated, or financially successful, and they wanted to leave the position open to any American with the drive and ideas to get the job done.
So since they both meet the requirements set forth by the Framers let's examine their past experience and see which one is likely to be more capable in the chief executive role.
Governor Palin: First elected to the Wasilla City Council in 1992 and served until 1996
Senator Obama: First elected to the Illinois State Legislature in 1996 and resigned in 2004 to run for U.S. Senate.
Governor Palin: In 1996 Palin was elected as mayor of Wasilla, where she gained a reputation as a tough executive, reformer, and fiscal conservative.
Senator Obama: In 2004 Obama spoke at the Democratic convention and gave his famous speech "challenging the Bush administration's priorities" and later that same year defeated Alan Keyes in the race for U.S. Senate.
Governor Palin: In 2006 Palin became the Governor of Alaska. She ran on a platform of "clean government".
Senator Obama: In February of 2007 Senator Obama announced his run for the White House on a platform of "change".
Governor Palin: After becoming governor she has worked, in a unpartisan way, to clean up the political corruption that has plagued the State of Alaska, including challenging Ted Stevens to come clean about his misdoings. She recently became famous for filing a lawsuit against the federal government challenging their endangered classification of polar bears.
So based on this who do you think would be a better chief executive?
Abortion: A Religious Issue?
Current mood: accomplished
Category: News and Politics
In light of the recent debates where Obama claimed the abortion issue was "above his pay grade" I thought I would bring up this question.
Is abortion a religious issue?
The common copout answer for politicians who don't want to take a stand on this issue is "abortion is a religious issue, and while I am personally opposed to it, I can not impose my religious belief on others".
But is abortion really a religious issue? No, it's a human rights issue. One of the basic functions of all government is to protect the lives of those who are defenseless. And unborn babies are human lives, and they are at the mercy of others. So how exactly is it strictly religious to protect human life? We have laws against murder. Is this really any different?
Now, exactly when the fetus gets human rights has been a matter of some debate. I think the current legal standard is 22 weeks? Or as the Roe v. Wade decision defined it "when the fetus becomes a viable life and can survive outside the womb". I am not sure I agree with that reasoning, but that much, at least, must be respected.
But I think after such time that the fetus becomes a viable life every elected official should make it clear that the baby is an individual and deserving of full human rights and protections under the law. You don't have to be a religious person to believe in the value of life.
No Matter Which Two You Pick You Get Poked In The Eyes
Current mood: adventurous
Category: News and Politics
Friends, are any of you getting sick of only having two choices every 2, or 4, years?
It makes me sad when I think that, out of all the great people in this nation, we always end up having to choose between either the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate.
Sure there has been some candidates, like Ross Perot, who have shaken things up a bit over the past 100 years, but in reality we are being held hostage by the two major parties and we really have no real choices when it comes to electing the top leaders of this nation.
Is the electoral college system to blame for our two party monopoly? If so should it be amended?
Anyway, check out the videos below. They may give you some things to think about.
disappointed
angry
aggravated
accomplished
adventurous
amorous
