It was a day that covered the gamut of all possible human emotions. No one knew what to expect. By the time that fateful day ended the Dow Jones Industrial average had dropped 684 points. That day was September 12, 2001. On September 29, 2008, no Islamofascist explosions had downed any passenger planes. There was no dancing in the streets within the Muslim nations nor was there any candy thrown in celebration as there was on September 11 2001. I am sure that there was an impromptu arabesque or two performed at Obama headquarters around the country. All is going according to plan. Due to the diligence of the Democrats and their unending sixty-year effort to decimate our country, on September 29, 2008 the Dow dropped 777 points…and counting.
The idea that Pelosi, Frank, etc., came up with was to simply make a bad situation virtually permanent. Just for starters, this great idea had the government (AKA: you and me) buying up bad mortgages and other lousy “investments” from troubled banks and other financial filchers. The left wanted to reward the cranial density of these institutions without requiring them to change their operating procedures, most of which were forcibly instituted by the liberals themselves.
They decided to up the ante by placing 20% of the profits into a fund for, of all ironically named things, the Housing Trust Fund. ACORN (more on them later..) and other vagrant magnets would benefit greatly from this. Maybe if we placed all of these non paying bottom feeders in public housing provided by the “Housing Trust Fund” in the first place as opposed to giving them lavish homes that they obviously can’t afford, this problem might have never materialized. If I have to pay for everyone’s housing, I’d like to be doing the choosing, not the ungrateful pickpockets. Isn’t this why apartment buildings were invented? Can’t pay a mortgage, pay rent. In combing my copy of the Constitution, I must have overlooked the “inalienable right to a home that someone else has to pay for” clause or article.. Beggars can’t be choosers except when the “fairness monitors” of the left are over involved.
Please take note of a few pertinent words in the second sentence of the last paragraph. “Bad” mortgages. Is the theory being forwarded that if the government (AKA: you and me) buys up these “bad” loans that they will miraculously become “good” mortgages? As well, if the banks and lending institutions became “troubled” after making these “bad” mortgages, wouldn’t it logically follow that the government (AKA: you and me) would then become “troubled”?
This burglarious bailout was supposed to “bolster companies balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend..” If these companies are going to “lend” to the same losers, what lesson will a bailout have taught them other than there are no personal consequences for their plundering?
The obvious urgency to address this problem encouraged and enabled the liberals to unleash their maximum Socialist potential. When the pressure was on, the liberals knew that the markets were holding their collective breaths awaiting the “Congressional Collectivist Consortium”. With McCain front and center on the issue, the left tried their level best to assemble a bill that no one in their right mind would support.
What an amazing set of regulated robberies they wanted to put into place. It was nothing more than organized crime by any other name. The “lead up” to all of this is what needs a little bit of attention as well..
The builders assembled lots of oversized five bedroom, three bath houses. The realtors then sold these houses. The “lending institutions” then made 125% loans (etc) with “no money down” to those who did not have the ability to pay these loans through to closure. This group was also handed countless credit cards, which surprisingly were pushed to their individual and completely unpaid limits. The “lending institutions” hoped to “score” from the application of justifiably higher interest rates that were applied to these loans that never had a prayer of being paid off. These loans invariably failed. These loans HAD to be made. Because it was “fair.” No chance for disaster there..
Something as sensible as “risk based pricing” was classified as “discriminatory”. What is wrong with the idea of charging more for extending credit to slugs that were rightfully and properly identified as posing a greater credit risk? In the world of liberal “fairness”, the risk eventually falls to those of us who involuntarily pay taxes to the federal government.
Suddenly, “risk based pricing” became known as “predatory lending”. Imagine just for a moment, the idea that those who are more likely to default on a loan should have to pay a higher rate of interest and higher finance charges in order to indemnify the lending institution for the increased risk. The “discriminatory unfairness” of it all..
This was all hyper-inflated in order for it to become the necessary “crisis”. This was “systematic discrimination”. The “standards” were “discriminatory”. It took wonderful community activist organizations like ACORN to take on HSBC Finance and H+R Block along with typically helpful liberal courts. This judicial “extortion” was the Rosetta Stone in the “shakedown charade” that was to come, all motivated by the “fairness” of it all. The liberals brought this collapse to fruition and they had help from the liberal courts. This is just another reason why they should be denied the clean sweep of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and with one more liberal jurist, the Supreme Court.
Have we just reached a point where regardless of your reckless “investments” and experiments, that once you reach a certain size, you aren’t allowed to “fail”? Just the day before, twenty five billion more in governmental (AKA: you and me) Monopoly money was given to the U.S. auto industry in the form of loan guarantees. In 1980, it was 675 million handed over to Chrysler. These most recent loan guarantees were intended to “spark a wave of automotive innovation”. Automotive innovation is something that the domestic auto makers have been systematically avoiding for nearly twenty five years, thus the poor sales and of course, twenty five billion from the taxpayers ought to do the trick. I sure hope that I won’t need a loan for one of the “innovative” and unnecessarily expensive domestic cars because I probably wouldn’t get a loan because I have the ability and the discipline and a history of paying loans off..
The liberals answer is to leave all of the candy in the store and to allow the same knucklehead to be in charge of the place and then to make the diabetics pick up the tab..