Government’s Role

Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, one root of evil is Barney Frank

Tickler Leave a comment

The shockingly oblivious Democrat from Massachusetts Barney Frank has proven himself to be one of the most vehement protectors of crap management and a record-breaking flusher of others’ wealth. Thanks for the new $200+ billion invoice. And for the liberals and conservatives out there, I don’t want to hear another word about the 10 billion/month we’re spending in Iraq attracting and subsequently pulverizing extreme Muslims. Barney Frank and his kind just waged a single day war on the taxpayer (read “rich white conservatives”, not the “working people”) to the price tag of 18 months in Iraq.

Asked about Treasury’s modest bailout condition that the companies reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolios starting in 2010, Mr. Frank was quoted on Monday as saying, “Good luck on that,” and that it would never happen.

There you have the Fannie Mae problem in profile. Mr. Frank wants you to pick up the tab for its failures, while he still vows to block a reform that might prevent the same disaster from happening again.

At least the Massachusetts Democrat is consistent. His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn.

READ MORE

Oh, and the best part? Many of the irresponsible people who got into houses they never could have afforded may get to stay in those houses, on my dime. You’re welcome. Now grow up and use your brain next time. The formula is as follows:  work your tail off, get promoted, work your tail off, get promoted, buy a house you can afford in good times and bad, work your tail off, retire. I’m keeping it simple, because buying twice the house you can afford — just because some greedy (and stupid) bankers dangled the carrot — means you can’t follow complex.

Oh, and the greedy bankers? Here’s some for you. We must have experienced a decade of MBAs on Wall Street who were apparently the drunken weak link on their teams in school. Oh, except for the Goldman Sachs guys, they were the ones doing the work.

Do I sound angry? Yeah, I’m angry.

Obama’s ‘Community Organizer’ Days, More Insight

Tickler Leave a comment

The Community Organizer’s New Clothes

There’s a piece by James Taranto of the WSJ today about Obama’s “Community Organizer” days that shouldn’t be missed.

…community organizing consists of helping elect Barack Obama president! This fits right in with Obama’s claim, noted here yesterday, that he is more qualified to be president than Palin is to be vice president because, whereas she has run a mere town, he has run a campaign for himself.

The community Barack Obama has organized is, in [the Obama campaign manager’s] own telling, the community of those who admire Barack Obama. He is mayor of Obamaville and aspires to be president of Barackistan. At the center of it all is a man who, like Hans Christian Andersen’s naked emperor, may or may not believe that his veneer of accomplishment is real.

READ IT IN FULL HERE

also…

Why Obama’s ‘Community Organizer’ Days Are a Joke

Michelle Malkin provides some interesting insight into the non-profit-status-abusing company for whom the “exciting new guy” Obama used to work.

Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.

Very worth a read… THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

Democrats Maintain Prison of Poverty in U.S. Cities

Tickler Leave a comment

Looking for still more proof that Democrat social and fiscal strategies (hehehe) fail? Please take a few minutes to read Glenn Beck’s excellent article on the poorest U.S. cities and their governments. Yep, you guessed it…

Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.

Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.

READ MORE

It would be nice to have a research staff to collect all of this kind of info for my humble publication, but I’m a staff of 0.05. I guess I’m just glad someone’s got the resources and time to call out the island of misfit toys we know as liberals.

Obama, Abortion Extremist

Tickler Leave a comment

Scary review of Obama’s abortion views based no on what he claims, but what he does on the record. A portion of the article follows but please follow the link after to read the entire article. It’s surprisingly sad how little regard these people have to human life.

Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when a baby gets rights, Obama said, “I’m absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.” This is a crashing banality couched as thoughtfulness. If Obama is so sensitive to the moral element of the issue, why does he want to eliminate any existing restrictions on the procedure?

In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is “above his pay grade.” Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he’d better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

He told Warren that he favors “limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health.” But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34 respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It’s not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act — the occasion for his televised accusation of lying.

In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted “present” — effectively “no” — on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

READ IT HERE

McCain Proves Superior At Saddleback

Tickler Leave a comment

I hope everyone had a chance  watch the forum with McCain and Barry Oblivious. If not, please do so below. While Obama was struggling to begin half of his responses with uhhh, ummm, I, I, I think…, McCain had clear ideas with conviction in them and his whole presence was much more impressive than I expected. It’s good to see the relatively unscripted side of these two (though of course they both have somewhat memorized positions on all of these issues).

Obama

Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5 – Part 6

McCain

Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5

Related articles…

Barack Obama, Abortion Extremist by Rich Lowry

Who Really Cares, Right vs. Left in Charity & Service…

Tickler Leave a comment

In “Who Really Cares: America’s Charity Divide – Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”, Arthur C. Brooks uses hard data to prove that, when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives – especially religious conservatives – are far more generous than liberals, who seem to believe that “compassion” begins and ends with voting for government handouts.

  • Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes
  • Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%
  • People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally “progressive causes” such as the arts and the environment
  • Conservative “red” states give away far more of their incomes than liberal “blue” states do
  • Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches – religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities
  • Religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time. For instance, a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person
  • Religious people are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly
  • A working poor family without welfare support gives, on average, more than three times as much money to charity each year as a family with the same total income that receives welfare support. In other words, poverty does not discourage charity in America — but welfare does
  • People raised in intact and religious families are more charitable than those who are not. For instance, married parents are 9 percentage points more likely to give money than divorced parents, and 29 points more likely than never-married parents
  • Charitable giving spurs the economy: at the national level, a $1 increase in giving per person stimulates a $19 increase in GDP per capita
  • Americans give far more money and are far more likely to volunteer their time than citizens of any European country. For example, the average American family gives three and a half times as much as a French family, seven times as much as a German family, and 14 times as much as an Italian family
  • Charitable giving and volunteering improve physical health and happiness, and lead to better citizenship — whereheas many government policies that discourage private charitable behavior have negative effects

While Politicklish.com takes no money from sales or interest in this book, and is certainly not trying to sling the book for the author (who we don’t know from anyone), we’re always in favor of exposing data to the public, and this book’s full of data. Read for yourself if you like.

Socialist vs. Capitalist Systems, Great Old Clip

Tickler Leave a comment

It’s strangely timely and relevant still today, right?

I know what some will say… so let’s all say it together… The propaganda I agree with is good propaganda!

But being one who cherishes the existence of absolute truth, there is a better way for pretty much everything. Feigning open-mindedness only gets you into the popular clubs, it won’t gain you substance.

Kenyan Economist: Stop The Aid To Africa!

Tickler Leave a comment

There’s a incredibly insightful article in Spiegel about the damage foreign aid brings to third world countries in very plain language. These are things I and others have been saying for years, but when you have an economist from Kenya saying the same, maybe people will believe it now.

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

SPIEGEL:

Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa…

Shikwati: … for God’s sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there’s a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program — which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It’s only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it’s not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa …

SPIEGEL: … corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers …

Shikwati: … and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN’s World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It’s a simple but fatal cycle.

SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn’t do anything, the people would starve.

Shikwati: I don’t think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders — drawn by the Europeans by the way — more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.

SPIEGEL: Would Africa actually be able to solve these problems on its own?

Shikwati: Of course. Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there’s a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn’t do all that poorly either.

SPIEGEL: But AIDS didn’t exist at that time.

Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It’s not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it’s only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.

SPIEGEL: And why’s that?

Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa’s biggest business. There’s nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical.

SPIEGEL: The Americans and Europeans have frozen funds previously pledged to Kenya. The country is too corrupt, they say.

Shikwati: I am afraid, though, that the money will still be transfered before long. After all, it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, the Europeans’ devastating urge to do good can no longer be countered with reason. It makes no sense whatsoever that directly after the new Kenyan government was elected — a leadership change that ended the dictatorship of Daniel arap Mois — the faucets were suddenly opened and streams of money poured into the country.

SPIEGEL: Such aid is usually earmarked for a specific objective, though.

Shikwati: That doesn’t change anything. Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: “The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it.”

SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags …

Shikwati: … and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany — for three times the price. That’s insanity …

SPIEGEL: … and hopefully an exception.

Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They’re in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria’s textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide.

SPIEGEL: Following World War II, Germany only managed to get back on its feet because the Americans poured money into the country through the Marshall Plan. Wouldn’t that qualify as successful development aid?Shikwati: In Germany’s case, only the destroyed infrastructure had to be repaired. Despite the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic, Germany was a highly- industrialized country before the war. The damages created by the tsunami in Thailand can also be fixed with a little money and some reconstruction aid. Africa, however, must take the first steps into modernity on its own. There must be a change in mentality. We have to stop perceiving ourselves as beggars. These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.

Shikwati: … jobs that were created artificially in the first place and that distort reality. Jobs with foreign aid organizations are, of course, quite popular, and they can be very selective in choosing the best people. When an aid organization needs a driver, dozens apply for the job. And because it’s unacceptable that the aid worker’s chauffeur only speaks his own tribal language, an applicant is needed who also speaks English fluently — and, ideally, one who is also well mannered. So you end up with some African biochemist driving an aid worker around, distributing European food, and forcing local farmers out of their jobs. That’s just crazy!

SPIEGEL: The German government takes pride in precisely monitoring the recipients of its funds.

Shikwati: And what’s the result? A disaster. The German government threw money right at Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame. This is a man who has the deaths of a million people on his conscience — people that his army killed in the neighboring country of Congo.

SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do?

Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.

Interview conducted by Thilo Thielke

Translated from the German by Patrick Kessler

READ IT HERE

SPIEGEL: If they did that, many jobs would be immediately lost …