Good Times Breed Bad Times

The problem with Obama is a simple one. One association does not a radical make. But in Obama's case, the list of left-wing radical mentors and associates is seemingly endless, (Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi , etc., etc.) with a new revelation practically every day. With that trend, a picture begins to emerge, and that picture is that Obama is as steeped, not in just left-wing political thought, but in radical left-wing economic and race ideology, to the same extent that Pat Robertson was steeped in the ideology of the radical Religious Right. I would not have voted for Pat Robertson for dog catcher, and for similar reasons, I will not vote for Obama.

In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" Obama unintentionally revealed that he really is as radical as his early political mentors and acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi etc., (gee, there sure seem to be a lot of them) and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Now there is absolute proof. In 2001, Obama, the "community organizer" turned legislator, said in an interview:

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview.

Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

Indeed, some democrats are publically saying as much. See Barney Franks comments on the news, including face the nation last week, stating essentially that Democrats in Congress intend to greatly raise taxes and go on a spending spree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGnSAlqjoU

See http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

Obama's ill-conceived programs will require him to tax, and his health care plan alone is a substantial hidden tax on all business, large an small. In reality, it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
And
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx


The democrats failed social engineering policies in the housing market are what brought us to ruin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related
Even Bill Clinton says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE
Obama and a supermajority of Democrats simply is not the change we need, nor is it change we can afford.

I think the key issue is, as Mr. Samuelson says, that "when things go well, everyone wants to get on the bandwagon." That leads to an odd phenomenon, one that's simultaneously reasonable, self-perpetuating, and self-destructive: "evidence" that a strategy is working. Good times roll when (and because) people get on the bandwagon. The apparent success, easy to document with trend lines and statistics, becomes proof that the strategy is sound, which encourages more bandwagoners and, crucially, discourages skepticism (as Mr. Samuelson also says). There are ways to prevent that kind of bubble-boom followed by inevitable-bust. In my field I use business war games, strategy simulations, and crisis simulations, all of which have the key characteristic of helping people look more realistically at the situations -- opportunities as well as threats -- that they face.

What do you really know about Obama's economic philosophy? Since he has never run a town, state or business, he has no record to look at. Oh, he has made lots of promises, but given that he broke his promise to be limited to public campaign funds, you can???t put much faith in that, and there will be means to keep those promises anyway.

But you do know that Obama, along with his democratic buddies in Congress, personally and professionally advocated for a residential housing policy favoring forced sub-prime lending, which subsequently resulted in massive defaults and foreclosures, leading to your loss of significant equity value in your home, to the point that it destabilized your banks, which panicked the stock market, which wiped out your savings.

Look and listen to Obama for yourself. Obama in this video, addressing his community activist work and his work representing ACORN in litigation against the banks and relating to the Community Reinvestment Act, and addressing the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as those actions relate to the destruction of our economy by causing the current real estate and subsequent financial crisis, states that, and I quote:

"Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified."

Acknowledging the catastrophe, but as apologist for the Democrats, Obama then offers this justification.

"The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one."

Yah, great idea. Economically unsound, but embraced by Obama. Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

When experts like Mr. Samuelson miss the obvious causal agent, privately created money, that is responsible for the current financial crisis; I fear for my country???s future.

Since the US government has not issued any money, other than coins, in several decades, retiring the last US Government note in 1971, according to the US Treasury Dept. ??? the entire money supply has been created by the privately owned Federal Reserve and commercial banks as debt, extended into the economy as bonds and loans. (Government produced coins are about $1billion in a $50 + trillion money supply -- or about .002% of the money supply )

Because debt must be repaid plus interest, and because no additional money was created to pay that interest; meeting the interest requirements of all the loan contracts collectively is impossible.

For example: if the money supply is $50 trillion, and the interest is 6.0%; the interest payment is $3trillion. Deducting the $3 trillion from the $50 trillion money supply leaves only $47 trillion to pay a $50 trillion debt: an impossible set of contracts!

Debt does not equal debt plus interest.
(debt != debt + interest



)

Debt does not equal debt minus interest (debt != debt - interest) if the interest is paid from the money supply.

These simple equations doom our private banking system to failure.

When experts like Mr. Samuelson miss the obvious causal agent, privately created money, that is responsible for the current financial crisis; I fear for my country???s future.

Since the US government has not issued any money, other than coins, in several decades, retiring the last US Government note in 1971, according to the US Treasury Dept. ??? the entire money supply has been created by the privately owned Federal Reserve and commercial banks as debt, extended into the economy as bonds and loans. (Government produced coins are about $1billion in a $50 + trillion money supply -- or about .002% of the money supply )

Because debt must be repaid plus interest, and because no additional money was created to pay that interest; meeting the interest requirements of all the loan contracts collectively is impossible.

For example: if the money supply is $50 trillion, and the interest is 6.0%; the interest payment is $3trillion. Deducting the $3 trillion from the $50 trillion money supply leaves only $47 trillion to pay a $50 trillion debt: an impossible set of contracts!

Debt does not equal debt plus interest.
(debt != debt + interest



)

Debt does not equal debt minus interest (debt != debt - interest) if the interest is paid from the money supply.

These simple equations doom our private banking system to failure.

Obama in this video, addressing his work with ACORN litigation relating to the community reinvestment act and the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as they relate to the current real estate and financial crisis, states that, and I quote:

"Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified."

He further states:

???"The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one."

Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

Obama in this second video is campaigning at a convention of Acorn and I believe two other "Community Activist" organizations. Ask if he will be their ally if he becomes President, Obama says, quote:

???Yes, but let me say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we are going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We???re going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America.

See and hear it for yourself. Obama promised that Acorn and other groups like it will setting his agenda if elected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
See also: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972
Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."
See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2

Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
See also
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 from this web site. (oops!) stating that Freddie Mac was spending tax payer money to target Republicans in 2005 who were trying to regulate Fannie and Freddies fraud. Democrats were not targeted, as the were all in the tank with Fannie and Freddie to kill the regulations. Hear that, the article admits that Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie, and Democrats were trying to stop it from happening as a means to facilitate the Community Reinvestment Act.

It could take a socialist government style tax level to bail this mess out. We are in dire need of a rescue plan that will hit hard and likely come at the expense of aid to other countries. Was the war a bad idea given the stability at home? I would like to see what the oil reserves are worth and how we intend to lay claim to them. According to housing analyst M Soliman of Los Angeles, CA ???The real disaster however is the attributable to the lenders of America and the unlawful and deceitful acts committed against homeowners???. Compare the losses to the war and you will begin to really understand the mess they create. The casualties of war are understandable (and horrific). But the casualties from foreclosure is overwhelming given these people never had a chance. www.borrowerhotline.com www.foreclosureinfoshare@blogspot.com

See: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972
Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."

Who "Joe the plumber" may be is not the issue, though it's easy to see why the Dems want it to be. That's because the real issue is what Obama's comments to him revealed about Obama. In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" we find out that Obama really is as radical as his early political acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, etc., and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

And whether McCain won or lost the third debate is also not relevant. He succeeded in the first half hour to plant the seeds of a Reagan style wipeout. Reputable historians and economists overwhelmingly agree that the taxation imposed by Hoover and FDR, and the "stimulus" spending and public works programs of FDR, actually deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. It was the production demands of WWII that got the economy going again. And when the war was over, the economy promptly went into recession.

See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
And
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Point is, Obama's programs are to tax, and it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

Look and listen for yourself. Hear Obama in his own words discusses his links to both ACORN and the mortgage meltdown, and praises bundling and securitizing mortgages by banks as a means to float loans to the poor. Never mind the link commentators point of view, just listen to what Obama says in his own words. A picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe more in the case of the last half of the second link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2

This is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

And the link below describes how some Democrats in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"We Americans want problems with instant solutions. We want victories and defeats with clear heroes and villains. We crave a world of crisp moral certitudes, when the real world is awash with murky ambiguities."

Another epic quote to add to the list.