Posted on 09/11/2011 8:14:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dems come to power they tend to react to a crisis with more regs to help the children, etc, etc, etc. Problem is big corporations make sure the new regs kill Main Street and burden any upcoming medium size corporations that can compete against them.
GOP come to power they forget that not all regs are socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth. Big business can corrupt officials and cheat the people. Gov needs to keep an eye on them and make sure existing regs are enforced.
Example of GOP defect, Wall Street meltdown could have been avoided if SEC, banking and etc enforced existing regs. Contrary to popular belief, CRA identifies subprime borrowers when loan note is bundled into mortgage backed securities, but the CRA never condoned liar loans, which the bankers took advantage of the loophole and sold it to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as prime mortgage notes. Treasury was informed by the FBI when they uncovered liar loans in banks involved with money laundering and were concern enough with its widespread use to inform the banking reg in 2004. There was enough info to go after WaMu and several mortgage companies specializing in making loans and immediately selling it to FMFM. Worst analysts in Moody, S&P, Fitch were scuttle butting amongst themselves how they were forced by their bosses to rate mortgage backed securities AAA when the banks refused to provide individual borrower mortgage data in the portfolio to analysis using common commercial practice. Fortunately many of these MBS have a give back clause which allows the investor to force the banks to buy back their MBS if they do not meet the claims of the prospectus narrative.
All this would come out if the banks did not decide to settle the lawsuits and the Obama is trying to force the banks to carry out liberal social agenda in exchange for lenient settlement then force the bank CEO’s face criminal trial, possible conviction, prison and fines and most important public airing of the crime. That is what Main Street wants from the feds, not bailouts, plea bargains and minor fines so future bankers will pull the same scheme all over again. Remember, young bank execs and upcoming managers are also watching this crisis unfold where the culprits make billions and give back a fraction in fines and settlements. If these future young execs decide the scheme is worth the rewards, what do you think will happen when they become CEO’s fifteen years from now?
I appreciate that you post so aggressively and post all kinds of articles - I enjoy reading them. But what gives with Town Hall? This is the second BS article from that source in two days.
Well, why don’t you ask the author?
The efforts seem to be part of a larger strategy to silence those who disagree with the so-called "progressives'" agenda, as they try to make "compromise" a virtue. Is this part of a Soros-funded effort to neutralize opposition for the 2012 election? Watch AP "reports," columists, and even letters to the editor in local newspapers which suddenly tout the great need for "compromise."
Had the men and women of 1776 "compromised," we would have no Declaration of Independence and no freedom from British rule.
Citizens might remember that, unaccompanied by a strong determination to adhere to the Founders' ideas of liberty, then we risk damaging, rather than helping, the Republic. On questions essential to liberty, we may "compromise" away the liberty of our posterity and help to snuff out the light of liberty in the world.
In other words, if we keep doing the same things we've done already in the Congress and Senate, then we can expect the same results we've been getting--compromises that throw away the liberty of future generations.
On the other hand, if our nominees and representatives can articulate and explain the Founders' ideas as protections for liberty for all citizens, they will have planted the seeds of liberty in the hearts and minds of potential voters. Those seeds will bear fruit for the future, because once the ideas of liberty are understood, individuals may no longer voluntarily submit themselves to slavery to government. If, like the Founders, candidates and elected officials understood the ideas essential to liberty, they would sacrifice their "lives, liberty and sacred honor" rather than "compromise" on issues of limiting government, spending, taxation, etc.
Short-term gain, numbers wise, may lead to long-time loss.
Zacharias Montgomery: "If I have learned anything from the reading of history, it is that the man who, in violation of great principles, toils for temporary fame, purchases for himself either total oblivion or eternal infamy, while he who temporarily goes down battling for right principles always deserves, and generally secures, the gratitude of succeeding ages, and will carry with him the sustaining solace of a clean conscience, more precious than all the offices and honors in the gift of man."
Thomas Jefferson:
"[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40
In his First Inaugural, Jefferson clearly outlined the "principles" that would guide his Administration, and added:
"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
For too long, our public discourse has been based on "issues" and short-term political goals, with not enough emphasis placed on how this or that question on an issue relates to a principle essential to our very liberty as a nation. We must return to the "road" described by Jefferson as he took office if liberty is to survive the compromises and assaults by both major Parties over the past 100 years.
Americans are completely fed up with the gridlock.
I’m not fed up. I’m not opposed to the gridlock either. Considering the agenda of the one in the oval office I’d say gridlock is one way to stop him and his radical agenda. If saving our nation results in gridlock then I say let’s have more of it.
Think of how much.worse it would be without the gridlock!
OK, what gives with Town Hall? Second day in a row with a classic inside the beltway RINO moderate meely perspective that totally misunderstands the mood of the country?
No matter what, those brilliant, really-really smart,
intensely, cosmically bright, genius Independents will sway left and vote for Mr. Obama, once again.
(They are brilliant you know; they say it all the time.)
IMHO
Makes no sense to me - take the debt limit - at the end of the day there was a compromise put in place - not everything either side wanted - a compromise. Isn't the process that lead up to the compromise what America is all about - yes, it's a convoluted and contentious process, so what?
Of course, it would be a lot easier having Obama decide as he seems to want to do.
I’m not upset about gridlock. I don’t want to reach across the aisle and compromise (cave in) to a bunch of Liberal loons. Let them reach across and cave in to the idea of restoring the constitutional republic. Otherwise let the gridlock commence.
Well, it seems to me that even Pres. Reagan compromised at times! Does that make him a loser in your eyes?
Now when he compromised, he didn’t give up on his basic principles; he just knew how to choose his battles. He got chewed out by conservatives quite a lot!
Palin is already positioning for a 3rd party run.
She lambastes both dim and gop nearly equally. Her message is a populism that will attrack a lot of independents and "moderate" dims too.
While I'm not sure if she'll run or not, I am fairly sure that if she does it won't be under the GOP banner.
No matter what banner she runs under, she would have my vote and money.
Palin is already positioning for a 3rd party run.
She lambastes both dim and gop nearly equally. Her message is a populism that will attack a lot of independents and "moderate" dims too.
While I'm not sure if she'll run or not, I am fairly sure that if she does it won't be under the GOP banner.
No matter what banner she runs under, she would have my vote and money.
As soon as I read this (as you also replied) I know that the author of this article is another lefty. The media never admonishes the democrats to stop gridlock by going along with the republican agenda, it is always the other way around.
I am encouraged. When I read the comments on articles posted by yahoo the comments are almost always scathing against the democrats. I view yahoo as a place where non-politically minded people go for their news.
Liberals always say americans are moderates fed up with gridlock whenever their agenda is blocked by conservatives. Been reading the same crap everytime a conservative wave is about to roll the cockroaches under.
Dear C. Edmund Wright,
Thank you for reading my column. I am neither inside the beltway nor do I give a meely perspective. That column was a result of over 200 interviews on how they felt about how they were portrayed by the media.
Thank you, hope that the day treats you well.
This kind of story always gets written when it looks like Republicans are going to gain seats. When it looks like dems are going to gain seats the 'throw ALL the bums out' stuff disappears.
great point........
always follow the power / $$$$...(or access to same)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.