How We Need Someone in Washington Like This Man

By now, many of us have heard the speech by this gentleman about his country's slide into economic ruin via socialistic take-overs. For those who have not, and for those who need to once again hear someone say what has to be said, listen here.

Oh for someone to have the courage to say this to Pelosi and Reid, Geithner and Frank and Dodd and all the others who are trying so very hard to tear down this country from what it was into just another socialistic and second rate country.

More on the Financial "Meltdown"

I'll preface this by admitting that I have absolutely no idea how the financial markets work, and have no financial stake in the stock market at all. Having said that:

Years ago, when someone owned stock in a company, what he/she owned had an intrinsic worth. Those shares in XYZ Company were a fractional ownership in the company, and the assets of the company gave shares a true, tangible value. That has changed now. Now many companies have no inherent worth, but simply are companies whose only business is owning other company's stocks, which companies own yet a third company's stock, etc, etc. So at the bottom of the food chain, the shareholder is holding a piece of paper, whose only value is what someone else says it is worth. Everything further up the chain is all "smoke and mirrors". Is it any surprise that such a system must topple sooner or later?

Now add to that the fact that somewhere in that food chain, there is someone who is less than completely honest, and who realizes that if the supposed value of that piece of paper is jacked up, it becomes more desirable, and so more shares can be sold and so he/she can make more money, and his/her company becomes worth a lot more because of this sudden added value. Starting to sound familiar?

I honestly don't know if the proposed bailout is necessary or not, to "save the economy". But there are some features about it that certainly raise red flags in my mind.

"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."

Those words, straight from the bail out plan, scare the pants off of me. They put the Secretary of the Treasury completely outside of and above the law of the land. For the life of me, I can't think of ANY way to justify that.
The plan also basically is giving a huge chunk of the economy over to Federal control. And since there is good evidence that much of this mess was caused by federal control, why on earth do we think they will do any better job in the future?
In July, the feds gave something in the neighborhood of $400 Billion for protection of those holding bad mortgages and in danger of foreclosure, remember?? WHERE IS THAT MONEY?? Why are we paying twice?

I'm getting long-winded here...... a link to an article that talks about some of this"derivitives" stuff which I found helpful

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife109609;_ylt=AihYXGa_2tf9PJDeCl.2G0S7YWsA

More on the financial collapse

It seems that the current administration DID try to put some controls on the Fannie Mae and FreddyMac nonsense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/11LEND.html?ei=5070&en=f31e9de1e37a3180&ex=1221969600&pagewanted=all&position=

Note the date here. This was in 2003. And the Democrats, especially Senator Barney Frank (D), stood up and claimed everything was just peachy and no regulation was needed.

Also of note, the sub-prime lending was MANDATED by the Congress under bills passed by the Carter and Clinton administrations; these bills mandated loans be made to applicants who could not meet the banks' requirements for mortgages, else the banks faced stiff penalties.

Once again we see the fantastic job that government intervention leads too!!