RAISED TAXES=PATRIOTISM

[crazybabyborg]

I've always bristled when hearing Biden say that raising taxes is patriotic. I have a question that should be a no brainer for the media to ask the Obama camp, but since they won't, I'll ask it here rhetorically.

When over 700 billion of the American people's hard earned money was given, despite us screaming foul, to fix a mess that should have been avoided by congressional action in the face of an investigation, and now we're told that we will pay more taxes to help pay back the $700 Billion of our money, HOW on earth are we supposed to feel a sense of patriotism about that?

We should and do, feel raped.

And one of the rapists is running for President. I do hope he empties his pocket in his inauguration tuxedo of Fannie and Freddy money. Wouldn't want to have that bulky look.

[Slogger]

"Swindled" is the word I would use . . . so far.

The appearance of impropriety; acts of corruption/graft; possible collusion and RICCO added, are more like it.

[nonesuche]

Actually yesterday Obama clearly said if you do not willingly pay more taxes then you are SELFISH.

I guess he wants us to pay for his Auntie too?

[A's Fever]

Both of the candidates endorsed the plan and in fact it was the President who proposed it.  Would it have been better to stand by and watch the banking system fail?  What would happen to the rural population you serve if the entire banking system collapsed?  That would show those Wall Street fat cats, right?  But who would really suffer, those folks who already made off with millions?  Somehow I don't think so.

We have seen the entire western world address the banking problem in similar fashion, and Asia is being proactive as well, pumping liquidity and lowering interest rates.  Obviously the problem is massive and needs to be stabilized first, then overhauled.  One could almost argue that there is no better use of taxpayer's money - that is - common funds used for the common good.  I would rather see my tax dollars at work here than save on taxes only to face another great depression.   By the way, I am a single mother of three, so there is not a lot of extra money here. But I would rather pay a few extra dollars for this purpose now than face what I and my children would face in a depression, especially here in California, which is already overcrowded and so full of economic problems.

As for calling it patriotism, ya, I have a problem with that too . . .

[Slogger]

He must have a sense of humor . . . I'm laughin'.

[crazybabyborg]

Both of the candidates endorsed the plan and in fact it was the President who proposed it.  Would it have been better to stand by and watch the banking system fail?  What would happen to the rural population you serve if the entire banking system collapsed?  That would show those Wall Street fat cats, right?  But who would really suffer, those folks who already made off with millions?  Somehow I don't think so.

We have seen the entire western world address the banking problem in similar fashion, and Asia is being proactive as well, pumping liquidity and lowering interest rates.  Obviously the problem is massive and needs to be stabilized first, then overhauled.  One could almost argue that there is no better use of taxpayer's money - that is - common funds used for the common good.  I would rather see my tax dollars at work here than save on taxes only to face another great depression.   By the way, I am a single mother of three, so there is not a lot of extra money here. But I would rather pay a few extra dollars for this purpose now than face what I and my children would face in a depression, especially here in California, which is already overcrowded and so full of economic problems.

As for calling it patriotism, ya, I have a problem with that too . . .

I absolutely agree with you that both candidates and the President all agreed that the bailout needed to happen. I'm most disappointed with McCain for falling right in line with Bush and Obama on this issue. It hasn't properly been teased out by the media ( big surprise ), so this is a guess, but I believe that Bush really believed that without it, we were in real danger of hitting bottom and fast. I also think he persuaded Obama and McCain of that, and that Obama and McCain agreed that both would lend support so as to level the advantage to either candidate. As I said, that's a guess, but I'd bet on it. I disagree with the decision and I absolutely disagree with the application after it was passed.

The initial handling should have been clue enough to stop passage. When Pelosi, Reid, and Frank were in front of the cameras saying they had "improved" on what Bush had sent them and that there was no need for either candidate's input, they produced for passage a draft that INCLUDED INCREASED PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ACORN!!! God Forbid they should have a juicy 700 BILLION dollar opportunity in front of them without slapping a big slice of pork on it. This from the very same group that CAUSED the crisis!!! Guys, this is OUR money! This is the destination point for the difference in what we earn and what we take home! I too, am a single mom, and if I had been able to keep a little more of my paycheck, I wouldn't still be paying the loans it took to put my son through college. I don't want my tax dollars going to Acorn, or to Franklin Raines so he can make 9 million dollars in 5 years as Fannie's CEO, and line Obama's pockets with Fannie and Freddy money. I don't want anyone's tax dollars going to bolster either political party, promote voting fraud, or funding the corruption of mortgage institutions. AND I don't want to turn over 700 billion dollars to the very same people in our government that chose to villanize the regulators who asked them for regulations to stop the corruption within Fannie and Freddy in 2004. The clear record shows WE CANNOT TRUST THEM!

There are retirees out there who have depended on their retirement 401k accounts. Frankly, my heart goes to them way before those who are living in houses they can't afford. They shouldn't have been given loans, but somewhere, sometime, people have to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions. I want the money to go directly to those retirees without being filtered through our government and corrupt banks and corporations. I want STRICT rules to accompany the money. Rules like any CEO involved with Fannie, Freddy, or any bailout corporation is automatically fired and leaves with his car keys....period. All bonuses, all retreats, all raises, are frozen until every dime is paid back.

I want clear blame for the mess put on the appropriate shoulders. I want every American to be educated on why and how this spectacle of disgust happened inside of and because of our government. I want to absolutely wipe the smirk off of Obama's face as he tells the crowds that "It's time more than Wall Street is bailed out". He only gets by with that because we don't have a media to point out that he, Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Waters, Reid, and others looked the other way when they were TOLD the books were being cooked, regulation was needed, corruption was enmeshed, and the consequences could be disasterous. I want to wipe the indignation off of Biden's face when he spews forth that the American people who dare to look at this mess with outrage are selfish and unpatriotic.

THIS is why, this is the outrage, this corruption is a symptom of socialism that we have dabbled with and that is being ushered in. History is always written by the winners. Hold on to what you know, because you may very well be the only archive we have.

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=LQJUpgyZYho&feature=related

[WhiskeyGirl]

Raised taxes?  IIRC some did not feel there was a problem with the system.

I think they could have found away to keep money flowing through smaller and mid-sized banks, those that remained sound throughout the years.

How many them are left?  How many were not led kicking and screaming into embracing junk-mortgages?

Who did the CRA help?  Should it be the function of government to bail out failing communities? 

Anyone (government) help Mainstreet when Walmart moved into town? 

I believe that some things in life are owned by the local community - schools, property taxes, enterprise. 

If you have lousy schools, take action -- raise your own taxes.  If parents don't take an interest in the education of their children, no amount of money is going to help.

The Federal Government can't do everything, and should focus on things the local community can't - like defending the nation.

Does the Federal Government do best at micromanaging everyone's life?

just my humble opinions

[nonesuche]

CBB - those like Pelosi and Franks should be locked up for their participation in this fiasco. I do think some form of bail-out was likely a requirement, for as much as many cannot embrace this concept, what was happening in markets off our shores demanded this for stabilization.

Obama can hammer the offshoring of US jobs all he wants but it's the reality of living in a global economy now, in fact now that some of those economies such as India's are growing far more rapidly - the boomerang effect has begun. Now their salaries are rising and the gap between what US resources are paid is narrowing. Sometimes these things work themselves out without government intervention and I think they are beginning to. Also more and more of the US client base are demanding the resources delivering their services be onshore in the US. I don't agree companies should unilaterally receive tax credits for offshoring but I also am well aware of the tax credits which are and have been given to US companies for two decades now - for affirmative action hires.

You can't have it both ways, something I fear that Obama has not a clue regarding.

We need to hammer Pelosi so hard she's cast out into the street, if we can eliminate her then half of the most dangerous elements are removed. She reminds me of Medusa, except I see snakes coming out of her power-hungry mouth and not just her head.

WhiskeyGirl I want to understand how these people qualified for all of these mortgages, a larger percentage were minorities which was a key qualifier but some were not. I purchased a new home in February of this year and it required a downpayment of 35% in order to secure the lowest rate possible for a 30-year fixed??????

Perhaps the mortgage companies and banks were already tightening up qualifiers but I know that I have a higher than average salary with a market leader and a higher than average credit rating. I resented having to tie up that many funds in a mortgage play but I also knew this economy would begin to tank just like it did with the Bush/Gore election. I made sure my monthly mortgage payment would not exceed an unemployment check as well.

Some of this is smoke and mirrors as well with the economy, for I've received more calls from headhunters and even direct from market leader companies that have substantial new business in services and are seeking to hire, than I have in the year prior. I may leap to one of those too, for at least you have a runway of at least a year in most new positions, unless the sky falls in. Corporate america is also not fun at all currently, it's shark infested waters for EVERYONE is worried about losing their job, and most will mow over you to ensure they keep theirs.

I don't think Obama's shown me one thing that validates he can fix the mess in corporate america or on wall street. As for special interest groups, ACORN ranks right up there and they continue on, with his and Pelosi's unilateral support.

[crazybabyborg]

SPREADING THE VIRUS
HOW ACORN & ITS DEM ALLIES BUILT THE MORTGAGE DISASTER
New York Post

TO discover the roots of to day's economic crisis, consider a tale from 1995.

That March, House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scheduled to address a meeting of county commissioners at the Washington Hilton. But, first, some 500 protesters from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) poured into the ballroom from both the kitchen and the main entrance.

Hotel staffers who tried to block them were quickly overwhelmed by demonstrators chanting, "Nuke Newt!" and "We want Newt!" Jamming the aisles, carrying bullhorns and taunting the assembled county commissioners, demonstrators swiftly took over the head table and commandeered the microphone, sending two members of Congress scurrying.

The demonstrators' target, Gingrich, hadn't yet arrived - and his speech was cancelled. When the cancellation was announced, ACORN's foot soldiers cheered.

Editorial writers from Little Rock to Buffalo condemned ACORN's action as an affront to both civility and freedom of speech. Editorialists also pointed out that the "spending cuts" the protesters railed against were imaginary - Gingrich proposed merely to slow the growth in some welfare programs and turn control back to the states.

Yet ACORN had only just begun. Two days later, 50 to 100 of the same protesters hit their main target - a House Banking subcommittee considering changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that allows groups like ACORN to force banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers.

The CRA's ostensible purpose is to prevent banks from discriminating against minorities. But Rep. Marge Roukema (R-NJ), who chaired the subcommittee, was worried that charges of discrimination had become an excuse for lowering credit standards. She warned that new, Democrat-proposed CRA regulations could amount to an illegal quota system.

FOR years, ACORN had combined manipulation of the CRA with intimidation-protest tactics to force banks to lower credit standards. Its crusade, with help from Democrats in Congress, to push these high-risk "subprime" loans on banks is at the root of today's economic meltdown.

When the role of ACORN and congressional Democrats in the mortgage crisis is pointed out, Democrats reply that banks subject to the CRA represent only about a quarter of the loans that led to our current troubles. In fact, the problem goes way beyond the CRA.

As ACORN ran its campaigns against local banks, it quickly hit a roadblock. Banks would tell ACORN they could afford to reduce their credit standards by only a little - since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage giants, refused to buy up those risky loans for sale on the "secondary market."

That is, the CRA wasn't enough. Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a downpayment.

So ACORN's Democratic friends in Congress moved to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dispense with normal credit standards. Throughout the early '90s, they imposed ever-increasing subprime-lending quotas on Fannie and Freddie.

But then the Republicans won control of Congress - and Rep. Roukema scheduled her hearing. ACORN went into action to protect its golden goose.

IT struck as Roukema aired her concerns at that hearing. Pro testers, led by ACORN President Maud Hurd, stood up and began chanting, "CRA has got to stay!" and "Banks for greed, not for need!" The protesters then demanded the microphone.

With the hearing interrupted and the demonstrators refusing to leave, Roukema called the Capital Police, who arrested Hurd and four others for "disorderly conduct in a Capital building" - a charge carrying a penalty of a $500 fine, six months in prison or both. As the police arrived, two of the protesters menacingly approached Roukema's desk, still demanding the hearing microphone.

Requests to the Capital Police to release the activists from Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass,) failed. Then Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) showed up at the jail and refused to leave until the protesters were released; the Capital Police relented.

Meanwhile, instead of repudiating ACORN's intimidation tactics, Rep. Kennedy berated Roukema for arresting one of his constituents and accused the Republicans of preparing for "an all-out attack on CRA." He also promised to introduce legislation to expand the CRA's coverage to mortgage bankers and large credit unions.

THIS little slice of political life from 1995 had a variety of ripple effects. Above all, ACORN's intimidation tactics, and its alliance with Democrats in Congress, triumphed. Despite their 1994 takeover of Congress, Republicans' attempts to pare back the CRA were stymied.

Instead, Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Reps. Kennedy and Waters allied with the Clinton administration to broaden the acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis.

ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond. By steamrolling the GOP that March, it had crushed the last potential barrier to "change."

Three months later, the Clinton administration announced a comprehensive strategy to push homeownership in America to new heights - regardless of the compromise in credit standards that the task would require. Fannie and Freddie were assigned massive subprime lending quotas, which would rise to about half of their total business by the end of the decade.

WHEN the ACORN-Democrat alliance finally succeeded in blocking Republicans from restoring fiscal sanity in 1995, the way was open to virtually unlimited lending quotas - and to a whole new way of thinking about credit standards.

Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system - far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA.

So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system.

Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of "fairness" - and the contagion spread.

And when financial institutions across the board saw that they could make money by trading what would once have been considered junk loans, the profit motive kicked in. But the bad seed that started it all was ACORN.

HOW does Barack Obama fit into all of this? Obama has been a key ally of Chicago ACORN going back to his days as a community organizer.

Later, as a young lawyer, he offered leadership training to the activists who were forcing Chicago banks into high-risk subprime loans. And when he made it on to the boards of Chicago's Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he channeled money ACORN's way.

Obama was perfectly aware of ACORN's intimidation tactics - indeed, he oversaw a Woods Fund report that boasted of managing to fund the radical group despite its shocking behavior.

And as a lawmaker, in Illinois and in Washington, he has continued to back ACORN's leglislative agenda.

ACORN's high-pressure tactics live on. And congressional Democrats are still covering for ACORN, funneling it money and doing its legislative bidding. ACORN also continues its shady ways, using a vast network of technically separate but in fact quite interconnected organizations to evade federal laws on the politicized use of government money.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, the Obama campaign appears to have little more regard for freedom of speech than Reps. Kennedy or Waters did when they backed up ACORN's thugs in 1995. The campaign actually practices ACORN-style tactics, sending out "action wires" that call on supporters to block Obama critics from radio appearances (a tactic once applied to me) and demanding legal actions against unfriendly political advertisers.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promises a massive national-service program closely allied with the nonprofit sector. He wants to remove "barriers for smaller nonprofits to participate in government programs."

In other words, he plans a massive effort to funnel America's youth into volunteer work alongside the likes of ACORN. So Obama's favorite community organizers may soon be training your child.

ACORN's alliance with the Democratic Party is at the root of the current financial meltdown. And Barack Obama has stayed true to ACORN's ways.

Pretty soon, the folks who poured into the Washington Hilton to shut down Speaker Gingrich in 1995 may no longer need to take over the microphone. They'll be in charge of it.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/spreading_the_virus_133375.htm?page=0

None, you didn't qualifiy for a subprime loan.
 
A borrower's FICO score and loan-to-value ratio determine the type of loan a borrower will qualify for and, typically, low FICOs, coupled with high ratios such as 100% financing, result in subprime loans.

Subprime loans carry higher interest rates than do conventional loans for higher-rated, A-paper borrowers.

Certain types of subprime loans such as "no documentation" or "stated income" are funded at even higher interest rates, sometimes several points above traditional loans. Most are adjustable-rate mortgages.

IMO, the McCain plan of actually buying the mortgagaes directly from those who are being foreclosed and setting up new government loans within the homeowners ability to pay, makes sense. Yes, it helps the bank who made the loan, but they haven't gotten their hands on all of the high interests these mortgages would produce. Paying the loan off at least robs them of that. It would keep more foreclosed homes from flooding the market, and that helps ALL homeowners protect their property value. Most importantly, the tax dollars invested in buying the mortgages has a very high return potential. The new government loan still carries an interest rate and we all know how much you actually pay for a mortgage vs. the price of the home.

[crazybabyborg]

BTW, I also think that Frank and company should face charges for dereliction of duty and violation of public trust.

[nonesuche]

I do too CBB but if Obama is elected, it's more likely that Bush and Cheney will be in the crosshairs of the Obama camp's desire to bring them up on charges.

[truthseeker2]

Actually yesterday Obama clearly said if you do not willingly pay more taxes then you are SELFISH.

I guess he wants us to pay for his Auntie too?

I remember when Obama told Bill O'Reilly that is was 'neighborly'.  They keep looking for a word that will fool us. 

[Slogger]

Recently, it's opportunity and fairness.

Tricky, aren't they.  Clever how they slipped into that.

[Blue Moon]

You know, I have had a bad feeling about this economic meltdown.  Bush just did not act right during all of this.  It was almost like he was running scared.  I have felt all along that we (the USA) was being held hostage by a foreign terrorist nation and Bush and Company could not tell us to what extent happened.  You know terrorists have said they would topple our economy first and do it from within.  My husband says I am an alarmist but I feel this crisis occurred because of all the unsavory connections BO has with the weather underground and also with George Sorras.  It really scares me to even think people in our own country would fight to destroy it.     

My Birthday is Election day.  I was also born on Election day.  My mother would not go to the hospital for delivery until she had voted.  She voted (and yes he won-Eisenhower) and she arrived at the hospital just in time for ME.  My father always told me that story on election day when it fell on my b'day.  God bless them both. They NEVER missed an election.  And because my mother was adamant she had to vote before birth I have always voted also.  This year is scary and I am  glad neither one is here to witness it. They would be appalled.

[Slogger]

I understand the feeling, blue moon.  It's a worry!

BTW, I remember "I Like Ike" buttons.   

[Blue Moon]

I understand the feeling, blue moon.  It's a worry!

BTW, I remember "I Like Ike" buttons.   

I don't remember those buttons but I sure wish my mother had gotten one so I could have put it in my baby book.

[dottie]

Actually yesterday Obama clearly said if you do not willingly pay more taxes then you are SELFISH.

I guess he wants us to pay for his Auntie too?

I remember when Obama told Bill O'Reilly that is was 'neighborly'.  They keep looking for a word that will fool us. 

Patriotic was another word they threw at us.

Seems to me if you wanted to be patriotic, neighborly or unselfish you would get off your a@@ and go find a job and support yourself and not wait for handouts from the government that are paid for by honest hardworking americans.  Welfare has a need in this country for people that have found themselves in hardtimes and need help but to have people sit back year after year have more babies to get more money and never try to improve themselves with a job is just criminal.  these people are stealing from you and me and they don't care...the more acceptable we make this behavior the worst it will be...when will it ever end.  There is no incentive to get a job.  I could go on and on but i won't.

I saw a precious little girl on tv the other day and a reporter asked her what was the difference between democrats and republicans and she said " if a democrat is hungry you hand them a piece of bread and if a republican is hungry you give them flour and teach them how to make all the bread they want". A great way to say hand up not hand out.

I SAY GIVE THEM FLOUR!!!

out of the mouth of babes

[dottie]

.....and one more thing

tell me, how is it unpatriotic that we want to deceide where the money goes that my husband works his a@@ off 16 hours a day for and then have to turn around and give it to people that don't know and will never know what a 16 hour day is like. We choose to work hard because we want our kids to have opportunities that we didn't have.  and we are not selfish people...we give more than our fair share to our church, our childrens schools, special olympics and many other organizations...the more we have to give to the government these people suffer.  I don't know....maybe it's just me but i don't get it.

sorry for the rant but i just got really upset after the election...i'm scared for our future.

[WhiskeyGirl]

.....and one more thing

tell me, how is it unpatriotic that we want to deceide where the money goes that my husband works his a@@ off 16 hours a day for and then have to turn around and give it to people that don't know and will never know what a 16 hour day is like. We choose to work hard because we want our kids to have opportunities that we didn't have.  and we are not selfish people...we give more than our fair share to our church, our childrens schools, special olympics and many other organizations...the more we have to give to the government these people suffer.  I don't know....maybe it's just me but i don't get it.

sorry for the rant but i just got really upset after the election...i'm scared for our future.

I watched a very good documentary about the impending financial crisis "I.O.U.S.A." - it was excellent and outlined the debt/financial problem.

I was left feeling that taxes would need to be raised to bring down the debt, before it imploded and caused greater problems.

If money were used to bring financial stability, that is one reason to pay taxes.  However, I don't see financial stability as a goal.  I see more government pork. 

Continuing to spend without any concerns for the future is horrifying.  It doesn't matter if you're raising taxes on the rich, the "high roller government lifestyle" will come to an end at some point in time. 

How will the country ever recover from the mountain range of debt that is growing daily?

There doesn't seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel.