Mark Perry reports:
Even though the Palins ($294,000) earned only about half the income of the Bidens ($569,000) in 2006 and 2007 combined, the Palins gave almost 6 times as much to charity ($8,205) in those two years as the Bidens ($1,375).
Hat tip: Greg Mankiw
If you subtract Girl Scout cookies and the $4 Biden tipped a bum (forgive me, a down trodden, vicitim of white, capitalist oppression) at the train station, the Bidens only gave $371.
UPDATE: A commenter posts that this item is incorrect because the Palins only donated $825.
That is partly correct. The Palins donated $825 in noncash/ check charitable contributions in 2007. In 2006, they made $630 in noncash/check charitable contributions. When added to their $2,500 cash/ check charitable contributions in 2007 and $4,250 in 2006, the grand total of the Palins charitable contributions for 2006 and 2007 was $8,205.
The devil is in the details.
Source:
http://www.johnmccain.com/palinfinancial/
04 October 2008
Obama and Some Guy He Barely Knows
The Democrat nominee for President of the United States voluntarily associates himself with a known and unrepentant terrorist.
The Obama campaigan characterizes Obama's relationship with 1960's Weatherman Underground terrorist Bill Ayers as "just some guy in the neighborhood." Oh really. The article notes that Ayers held a neighborhood coffee for Obama. This wasn't a homeowners association meeting. Ayers helped get Obama elected to the Illinois State Senate- Obama owes Ayers. If Obama and Ayers aren't ideological brothers, why would Ayers support an Obama campaign for elected office?
The fact is that Ayers and Obama are ideological soulmates. Obama's "community organizing" is the promotion and instilling of Ayers' radical views into communities through schools, churches, etc...,.
An Obama presidency would take this national- his plans for mandatory service corps and a host of social programs he wants to launch are really efforts to give your tax dollars to Bill Ayers and his radical comrades in arms and the fringe groups which support him (ACORN, anyone).
This is only the tip of the iceberg...
UPDATE:
Here is some more background on just some guy from Obama's neighborhood.
UPDATE II:
I am in very good company on this subject
The Obama campaigan characterizes Obama's relationship with 1960's Weatherman Underground terrorist Bill Ayers as "just some guy in the neighborhood." Oh really. The article notes that Ayers held a neighborhood coffee for Obama. This wasn't a homeowners association meeting. Ayers helped get Obama elected to the Illinois State Senate- Obama owes Ayers. If Obama and Ayers aren't ideological brothers, why would Ayers support an Obama campaign for elected office?
The fact is that Ayers and Obama are ideological soulmates. Obama's "community organizing" is the promotion and instilling of Ayers' radical views into communities through schools, churches, etc...,.
An Obama presidency would take this national- his plans for mandatory service corps and a host of social programs he wants to launch are really efforts to give your tax dollars to Bill Ayers and his radical comrades in arms and the fringe groups which support him (ACORN, anyone).
This is only the tip of the iceberg...
UPDATE:
Here is some more background on just some guy from Obama's neighborhood.
UPDATE II:
I am in very good company on this subject
03 October 2008
They LIke Us... They Really, Really Like Us
One of Obama's consistent campaign themes is that America must elect him president so the rest of the world will like us.
Because, you know, that's what's really important. Forget national defense, the economy, energy. What this election really needs to be about is a referendum on making sure the Old World likes us. Of course, Europe is looking out for our best interests.
Is Obama running for president or prom king?
Obama is now claiming that Kenyan's in the late 1950's admired America more than they do today. (Hat tip: Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracy). Other than Jim Crow laws and segregation, I'm sure 1950's America was a great place for Kenyans.
Because, you know, that's what's really important. Forget national defense, the economy, energy. What this election really needs to be about is a referendum on making sure the Old World likes us. Of course, Europe is looking out for our best interests.
Is Obama running for president or prom king?
Obama is now claiming that Kenyan's in the late 1950's admired America more than they do today. (Hat tip: Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracy). Other than Jim Crow laws and segregation, I'm sure 1950's America was a great place for Kenyans.
Obamanomics
From the Filing Cabinet:
Wall Street Journal
29 July 2008
"What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?
The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback....
...History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress."
Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
Wall Street Journal
29 July 2008
"What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?
The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback....
...History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress."
Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
Greatest Column Ever Written. Ever.
George Will notes:
"The search for unpolluted drinking water is as old as civilization itself. As soon as there were mass human settlements, waterborne diseases like dysentery became a crucial population bottleneck. For much of human history, the solution to this chronic public-health issue was not purifying the water supply. The solution was to drink alcohol."
Often the most pure fluid available was alcohol -- in beer and, later, wine -- which has antibacterial properties. Sure, alcohol has its hazards, but as Johnson breezily observes, "Dying of cirrhosis of the liver in your forties was better than dying of dysentery in your twenties." Besides, alcohol, although it is a poison, and an addictive one, became, especially in beer, a driver of a species-strengthening selection process. "
"The search for unpolluted drinking water is as old as civilization itself. As soon as there were mass human settlements, waterborne diseases like dysentery became a crucial population bottleneck. For much of human history, the solution to this chronic public-health issue was not purifying the water supply. The solution was to drink alcohol."
Often the most pure fluid available was alcohol -- in beer and, later, wine -- which has antibacterial properties. Sure, alcohol has its hazards, but as Johnson breezily observes, "Dying of cirrhosis of the liver in your forties was better than dying of dysentery in your twenties." Besides, alcohol, although it is a poison, and an addictive one, became, especially in beer, a driver of a species-strengthening selection process. "
Looking Forward: The Obama Judiciary
From the Filing Cabinet
The good folks over at the Volokh Conspriacy were kind of enough to post about Senator Obama's teaching exploits at the U of Chicago. (I'm searching for the link).
Give credit where credit is do: (I'm summarizing) Reports are that was a student favorite. He taught the law in a straight forward manner, stuck to the relevant case law, and taught the facts of the case law and jurisprudential theories.
Think this is reflective of the federal judiciary (and Supreme Court) under and Obama presidency? Think again.
From the Denver Post:
opinion
You want radical? You got it
By David Harsanyi
Article Last Updated: 05/08/2008 09:35:03 PM MDT
Supreme Court justices take an oath promising to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties . . . of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States . So help me God."
They do not take an oath to "faithfully and impartially perform all duties . . . except when personally offended, or when having pangs of empathy for the poor or trying to be a standup guy or gal."
Listening to Barack Obama, you may think they do. And though the Bush administration cared little for the Constitution, the next administration, it seems, won't care in a brand new way.
You may remember conservatives fuming when Sen. John McCain joined the "Gang of 14" — a group of self-proclaimed moderates who in truth were too cowardly to vote on qualified judicial nominees.
These days, McCain is reborn. Embarked on his "Don't Worry, I'm No Maverick! Tour 2008," he has addressed conservative concerns about judges, promising to look for "judicial restraint" and "limits to the scope of judicial power." McCain cited John Roberts and Samuel Alito as model judicial appointees.
For conservatives, it's comfort rhetoric (though hard to believe). For his soon-to-be presidential rival, it's unacceptable.
"Barack Obama," explained spokesman Tommy Vietor, "has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."
Really? Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, knows full well that the Supreme Court isn't charged with upholding subjective world views on "economic and social justice" — quite the opposite, in fact.
Justices solemnly swear to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." So judges, incredible as this may sound, are not prohibited from "protecting" the powerful if the powerful happen to be right on the constitutional issue.
To suggest otherwise, as Obama has, is to suggest they should ignore their oath.
Politically speaking, Obama would be served well as a candidate to throw in — you know, for kicks — the word "Constitution" when explaining his take on the highest court of the land. He rarely does.
The always-irascible Democratic Party chair Howard Dean chimed in, calling McCain's view a "radical right-wing judicial philosophy." (1. rad i cal — adjective: of or in disagreement with Howard Dean.)
Conceding that both sides are posturing, one could ask: Which is more radical? Judicial restraint, which allows a representative government to make laws and an independent judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of those laws? Or a judicial philosophy guided by shifting personal morality and so-called "social and economic justice" rather than the Constitution?
After a recent Supreme Court death penalty case, Obama said he would nominate justices who shared "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." (Cogito Conservative: What?!)
Relying on such extraordinarily subjective views undercuts the idea of blind justice. It implies that justices should be free to follow their own broader perspectives rather than the law.
It also means that appealing to the court's vision of "social justice" — an elastic notion, to be sure — would be as vital as making a strong legal case.
You want radical judicial philosophy?
There you have it.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
The good folks over at the Volokh Conspriacy were kind of enough to post about Senator Obama's teaching exploits at the U of Chicago. (I'm searching for the link).
Give credit where credit is do: (I'm summarizing) Reports are that was a student favorite. He taught the law in a straight forward manner, stuck to the relevant case law, and taught the facts of the case law and jurisprudential theories.
Think this is reflective of the federal judiciary (and Supreme Court) under and Obama presidency? Think again.
From the Denver Post:
opinion
You want radical? You got it
By David Harsanyi
Article Last Updated: 05/08/2008 09:35:03 PM MDT
Supreme Court justices take an oath promising to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties . . . of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States . So help me God."
They do not take an oath to "faithfully and impartially perform all duties . . . except when personally offended, or when having pangs of empathy for the poor or trying to be a standup guy or gal."
Listening to Barack Obama, you may think they do. And though the Bush administration cared little for the Constitution, the next administration, it seems, won't care in a brand new way.
You may remember conservatives fuming when Sen. John McCain joined the "Gang of 14" — a group of self-proclaimed moderates who in truth were too cowardly to vote on qualified judicial nominees.
These days, McCain is reborn. Embarked on his "Don't Worry, I'm No Maverick! Tour 2008," he has addressed conservative concerns about judges, promising to look for "judicial restraint" and "limits to the scope of judicial power." McCain cited John Roberts and Samuel Alito as model judicial appointees.
For conservatives, it's comfort rhetoric (though hard to believe). For his soon-to-be presidential rival, it's unacceptable.
"Barack Obama," explained spokesman Tommy Vietor, "has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."
Really? Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, knows full well that the Supreme Court isn't charged with upholding subjective world views on "economic and social justice" — quite the opposite, in fact.
Justices solemnly swear to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." So judges, incredible as this may sound, are not prohibited from "protecting" the powerful if the powerful happen to be right on the constitutional issue.
To suggest otherwise, as Obama has, is to suggest they should ignore their oath.
Politically speaking, Obama would be served well as a candidate to throw in — you know, for kicks — the word "Constitution" when explaining his take on the highest court of the land. He rarely does.
The always-irascible Democratic Party chair Howard Dean chimed in, calling McCain's view a "radical right-wing judicial philosophy." (1. rad i cal — adjective: of or in disagreement with Howard Dean.)
Conceding that both sides are posturing, one could ask: Which is more radical? Judicial restraint, which allows a representative government to make laws and an independent judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of those laws? Or a judicial philosophy guided by shifting personal morality and so-called "social and economic justice" rather than the Constitution?
After a recent Supreme Court death penalty case, Obama said he would nominate justices who shared "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." (Cogito Conservative: What?!)
Relying on such extraordinarily subjective views undercuts the idea of blind justice. It implies that justices should be free to follow their own broader perspectives rather than the law.
It also means that appealing to the court's vision of "social justice" — an elastic notion, to be sure — would be as vital as making a strong legal case.
You want radical judicial philosophy?
There you have it.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
I'm Happy
From the Filing Cabinet:
Conservatives are more happy than liberals.
It basically boils down to this:
Conservatives are happy because they believe their hard work ethic and responsibility are the determinants of their outcomes and futures. If you work hard and do the right thing, good things will come. More conservatives are also married and religious.
Liberals see themselves as victims of the world around them. Nothing is their fault- it's all the sytem, man. So they sit at home in their mothers' basements blogging away about their collective (pun, intended) misery and posting vapid comments on nutroots message boards. So they're unhappy and deranged- that probably explains why more of them aren't married.
Conservatives are more happy than liberals.
It basically boils down to this:
Conservatives are happy because they believe their hard work ethic and responsibility are the determinants of their outcomes and futures. If you work hard and do the right thing, good things will come. More conservatives are also married and religious.
Liberals see themselves as victims of the world around them. Nothing is their fault- it's all the sytem, man. So they sit at home in their mothers' basements blogging away about their collective (pun, intended) misery and posting vapid comments on nutroots message boards. So they're unhappy and deranged- that probably explains why more of them aren't married.
Open Obama Supporter Post- Why Should One Vote for Obama?
This post is an open forum for Obama supporters to post reasons why one should vote for Obama.
Please post your comments.
Please post your comments.
01 October 2008
Obama (heart) Communist Terrorists
From the Filing Cabinet:
Need more proof Obama doesn't like America?
What could communist Colombian terrorists and Obama possibly have in common? Apparently, a lot.
What could communist Colombian terrorists and Obama possibly have in common? Apparently, a lot.
LOUISIANA CONNECTION: In 2008, Producer/Director Steve Soderberg, got his start in Baton Rouge, released an epic length biographical film romanticizing Che. I wonder how feels about the fact that Che would probably have Soderber shot by firing squad?
Fear and Loathing... In America
One of the behind the scenes themes of the Obama campaign is that I truly believe he does not like Amercia- our ideals or our systems. I tend to think that while it's ok for an American president to believe things in this country need to be changed, it's quite another thing to hate the country all together. An American president should at least like the country.
Here are Michelle Obama's thoughts: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/2541
The differences between Obama's view and mine on this issue stem from our backgrounds and how we perceive the world around us through the lenses shaped by our histories. Long story short, I see racism, oppression, etc..., as isolated actions of ignorant, repugnant individuals. Obama sees these actions as tiny fragments of an overarching mosaic of institutions, systems and hierarchies built to oppress certain segments of society. I see it as issues of personal responsibility both on the part of the "oppressor" and the "oppressed." He sees it as The Man keeping us down.
The result of his worldview is that our free markets, our mertiocracy, our personal liberties, the power of our individualistic, risk taking spirit is not something to admire, but rather, something to be broken. Thus, America is not something to be proud of, it's a blemish on human history.
Obama believe that if you succeed in achieving the American Dream, whatever that is to you, it has nothing to do with your character or your ingenuity. It's because you are taking advantage of a system meant to give you an unfair advantage.
Mull that over for a bit...
Here are Michelle Obama's thoughts: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/2541
The differences between Obama's view and mine on this issue stem from our backgrounds and how we perceive the world around us through the lenses shaped by our histories. Long story short, I see racism, oppression, etc..., as isolated actions of ignorant, repugnant individuals. Obama sees these actions as tiny fragments of an overarching mosaic of institutions, systems and hierarchies built to oppress certain segments of society. I see it as issues of personal responsibility both on the part of the "oppressor" and the "oppressed." He sees it as The Man keeping us down.
The result of his worldview is that our free markets, our mertiocracy, our personal liberties, the power of our individualistic, risk taking spirit is not something to admire, but rather, something to be broken. Thus, America is not something to be proud of, it's a blemish on human history.
Obama believe that if you succeed in achieving the American Dream, whatever that is to you, it has nothing to do with your character or your ingenuity. It's because you are taking advantage of a system meant to give you an unfair advantage.
Mull that over for a bit...
Obama Sewing the ACORN Seed
There is so much to post about Senator Obama and his links to radical leftist groups like American Community Organizing for Reform Now (ACORN) that it's easier to just make a long-running single post which I will update as warranted,
Start the adventure here:
1 October 2008:
ACORN's Senator
Start the adventure here:
1 October 2008:
ACORN's Senator
Media Bias Case Number 1,238,743
Chris Matthews of MSNBC decides to get the real, unbiased view of the man on the street by interviewing... his daughter.
I wish I were making this up.
Some still don't believe that Main Street Media (MSM- tv news, newspapers, magazines) betray the trust people put in the by casting aside their impartial journalistic duty in order to promote a liberal ideology.
My frustration is an unwitting public consumes the propaganda to base their views and doesn't realize they are being mislead.
There is no problem with presenting biased ideas (at least until President Obama implements the Fairness Doctrine) on tv, radio or in newspapers. However, it should be clearly labeled as opinion or editorial content, not masquerading as "news."
I wish I were making this up.
Some still don't believe that Main Street Media (MSM- tv news, newspapers, magazines) betray the trust people put in the by casting aside their impartial journalistic duty in order to promote a liberal ideology.
My frustration is an unwitting public consumes the propaganda to base their views and doesn't realize they are being mislead.
There is no problem with presenting biased ideas (at least until President Obama implements the Fairness Doctrine) on tv, radio or in newspapers. However, it should be clearly labeled as opinion or editorial content, not masquerading as "news."
Connecting the Dots
There are clear connections between Senator Obama, our current finanical problems created by the mortgage mess, and Senator Obama's role as a "community organizer."
This article show explains the link between Obama's past as a "community organizer" and how it plays off of sub-prime loans and fueled the current crisis.
Too bad Senator Obama could not organize the community to earn or save enough money for a down payment.
We see the results of his "community organizing;" imagine what will happen if he's president.
A post on what "community organizing" really means is forthcoming.
This article show explains the link between Obama's past as a "community organizer" and how it plays off of sub-prime loans and fueled the current crisis.
Too bad Senator Obama could not organize the community to earn or save enough money for a down payment.
We see the results of his "community organizing;" imagine what will happen if he's president.
A post on what "community organizing" really means is forthcoming.
29 September 2008
Great Moments in Political Rhetoric
From the mind of Democrat Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden:
"Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence, is demonstrate that he or she knows what they're talking about, and communicates to people, if you listen to me, and follow what I'm suggesting, we can fix this. When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television, and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed, he said, look, here's what happened."
UPDATE: Apparently, it is not obvious to some Obama supporters why this statement is wrong. So, here it goes:
Great Depression - 1929
TV were commercially available - late 1930s.
FDR President - 1933- 194?
Is that clear enough, now?
"Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence, is demonstrate that he or she knows what they're talking about, and communicates to people, if you listen to me, and follow what I'm suggesting, we can fix this. When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television, and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed, he said, look, here's what happened."
UPDATE: Apparently, it is not obvious to some Obama supporters why this statement is wrong. So, here it goes:
Great Depression - 1929
TV were commercially available - late 1930s.
FDR President - 1933- 194?
Is that clear enough, now?
Profiles in Courage?
Perhaps President Obama will have the hope and courage to say yes we can vote present.
Originally appeared in the New York Times on 20 December 2007
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted 'present,' effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator."
Originally appeared in the New York Times on 20 December 2007
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted 'present,' effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator."
Birds of a Feather
From the Archives:
Originally appeared in the Washington Post on 15 January 2008
"Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan."
Click here for the full story.
Originally appeared in the Washington Post on 15 January 2008
"Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan."
Click here for the full story.
A Case of Obama Comedown Syndrome Diagnosed by Dr. David Brooks
From the Archives:
Originally appeared in the New York Times on 19 February 2008
"Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?"
Originally appeared in the New York Times on 19 February 2008
"Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?"
28 September 2008
Bailout Blame
U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) , chairman of the House committee of jurisdiction over the bailout, points a finger with a bloody hand over the mortgage meltdown on Wall Street.
In 2005, when the House was considering stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) which contributed greatly to the meltdown, Rep. Frank argued that Congress should have greater control over GSEs than the executive branch.
He quoted a latin phrase: "Who is watching the watchers." Who is watching the watchers, indeed.
In 2005, when the House was considering stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) which contributed greatly to the meltdown, Rep. Frank argued that Congress should have greater control over GSEs than the executive branch.
He quoted a latin phrase: "Who is watching the watchers." Who is watching the watchers, indeed.
The Bailout
I intend to post articles and analysis of the U.S. presidential election, but will need time to dig through my files.
In the meantime, start with this quick and easy primer on the mortgage meltdown, government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and the bailout.
Now find out how we got here.
Facts are stubborn things indeed.
In the meantime, start with this quick and easy primer on the mortgage meltdown, government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and the bailout.
Now find out how we got here.
Facts are stubborn things indeed.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
