Clinton/Obama-Type Socialism Bred Financial Crisis

The truth finally becomes clear as to why the United States is in the financial mess that it is. Though the main stream (read:liberal) media, Obama himself and every Democrat who can find a microphone is blaming President GW Bush for the entire crisis (just like they blame him for everything, all the time), a revelation that is impossible to ignore points the finger directly where it all started.

The following New York Times article printed on September 30, 1999, leaves no misunderstandings as to how we got in this predicament. It was the Clinton administration and its normal socialist policies that can be proven to be responsible for opening the Pandora's Box of loans to people who logic said were not qualified.

The Clinton administration put tremendous pressure on financial markets to open themselves up to loans to people whom basically could not afford to carry such loans.

Such 'wisdom' is typical of the short-sighted, ignorant liberal party that does nothing except hurl us toward a socialist system. What else can you call it when the federal government is forced to bail out, and thus own, the commercial structure of this country?

And Obama blames Bush. Which is further evidence that no liberal is actually interested in anything close to the truth, rather simply blindly destroys this country in the name of an ignorant political agenda.

Here is that article from the NY Times from 1999:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

• By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Ronald Reagan IS rolling over in his grave

Confronting Evil: The Big Stick

Though I strongly disagree on his policy concerning Israel and his appeasement of the wicked Palestinians, I do love President George Bush. I admire his tenacity and resolve as Commander in Chief as it applies to Afghanistan and Iraq. He has fought our outward enemy and our enemy within, the liberals, at the same time.

The liberals, who attempted to sacrifice our nation's well-being for the sake of gaining political power, and who are blind to the very real threats against us, created an anti-Iraq War platform from which to undermine our nation's stability. They stated that there was no rationale for us going into Iraq which was COMPLETELY IGNORANT of Sadaam Hussein's VIOLATION of the cease-fire AGREEMENTS he made with General Schwartzkopf that ended the first Gulf War.

It is completely mystifying why there ever has been even a single question as to our justification for entering Iraq and why this legal basis has not appeared in the media AT ALL: Sadaam Hussein violated the cease-fire agreement when he kicked out the international inspection teams, period. That was enough legal reason for us to enter Iraq and finish the job we should have in the early 1990's.

And, of course, it was liberal policies that actually KEPT us from finishing the job in the first Gulf War. You remember, the UN and the world's liberal, appeasing minions, crying out how we couldn't go after Sadaam personally, how we just could expel his army from Kuwait. Heaven forbid if we should actually stamp out a wicked tool of evil instead of subjecting his people to another decade of sadistic torture and manipulation.

And President Bush, Sr. had to deal with a Democratic Congress, so he only could get away with certain amounts of force and could not overtly go after Hussein. But go after him he did. Though perhaps it has not been widely publicized, this author knows for a fact that Bush, Sr. did make attempts to eliminate Sadaam Hussein. How do I know? Because my cousin was a Navy SEAL at the time (my uncle was a SEAL/BeachJumper in Vietnam) and when asked if he knew if we went after Hussein, he said "We sure did." When asked how he knew he said, "Because I was in Baghdad hunting him." When pressed for details, this cousin replied, " Do you know how many people over there look like Sadaam Hussein? So many that I ran out of bullets."

So despite suicidal liberal whining and policies, Bush, Sr. actually tried to end it back then. But it took his son, George W. Bush to actually have the moral fortitude to go and confront a wicked man. That is because President Bill Clinton, of course, knew nothing of moral fortitude. Perhaps he was too busy entertaining Monica Lewinsky to notice that Sadaam Hussein was not cooperating with the very cease-fire agreements that he had agreed to to stop our Army from swallowing Iraq.

Oh, sure, Clinton sent over a few cruise missiles, but dictators and despots know when a threat is real and when it is just for show. Clinton's was just for show; simple saber-rattling. Hussein knew that Clinton lacked the will to actually engage him head-on, he knew that Clinton wouldn't use the big stick, and so the Sadaam the monster grew.

Iran did the same thing to President Carter in 1979 when they audaciously swarmed the US Embassy in Tehran and took all the Americans hostage. Carter was inept. Iranian fanatics knew that Carter wouldn't use the big stick, so evil reigned.

How should one deal with evil regimes who bully other societies or even their own people? Well do you remember Muammar Qaddafi, the once-belligerent dictator from Libya? Remember how he used to spout off incessantly (much like Iran's current pip-squeak President Ahmadinejad) about the USA, the 'evil Satan'? But then the Reagan Administration tied Qaddafi to the downing of an American jetliner, and do you remember what Ronald Reagan did? He sent some F-15's in and BOMBED Qaddafi's HOUSE. And Mr. Qaddafi was very, very quiet for many years after that.

So why did Qaddafi shut up, all of a sudden? Well, unlike Carter and Clinton, Qaddafi knew that Ronald Reagan not only had the big stick, but that he was willing to use it.

Confronting evil is necessary only for those societies who wish to survive. It is needed only if a people decide that they do not want to get swallowed up and conquered by warring, aggressive plagues such as Islam is. Islam will gladly come and subjugate those who will not stand in its way. That's why Osama and every other Muslim extreme disciple out there wanted Gore, Kerry and now Obama or Hillary to win the U.S. Presidential election, because they all know that Democrats do not have the courage to stand in Islam's way for more than a minute or two.

In fact, Democrats are not even convinced that Islam IS evil because their world-view of relative morality. That is, they think truth is relative, that it changes depending on the person. Therefore good and evil are relative and the liberal is probably more likely to think western Judeo-Christian values are evil than they are to see that Islam is a wicked, murdering hate-cult.

Aggressive evil, which Islam is, or any other evil for that matter, can be stopped only one way, and that way is a two-step formula. First, you must have a big stick; second, you must be willing to use it.

Did Jimmy Carter have a big stick? Yes, he did. Was he willing to use it on Iran? No, he wasn't. So if you have a big stick yet are unwilling to use it, aggressive evil views that as the same as not having one. Ron Reagan had a big stick too, only he was willing to use it on Muammar Qaddafi. Look at the different results based on use of the big stick.

Granted, Reagan did not use it when the US Marines were killed in their quarters by the bombing in Lebanon, but he should have.

If that is confusing (i.e. you are a liberal and still do not understand), think of a mad dog biting your kid's leg. Is that dog suddenly going to stop if you negotiate with it? If you tell it to stop will it stop? If you yell at it or warn it will it stop? No it won't. But if you reach over in the corner where you keep your big stick, grab it and then thump the dog on the head with it, the biting beast will stop then, won't it? He most certainly will and then he will run away as fast as he can.

That dog knows what is painful to it and if you did not have a big stick your child might have suffered profound injury. Furthermore, the next time that dog comes around and he sees you with that stick, do you think he will try to bite your child again? No, he will steer clear.

So the big stick represents the power to inflict damage on wanton aggressiveness and the willingness to use it can then act as a deterrence; but only if the aggressor understands that you will use it.

President Bush, thank goodness, is willing to use the Big Stick. That is the only thing keeping Islamic aggression from making great advances. The Democratic Congress, however, and its legion of liberal media dupes, are fighting against using the big stick, which, of course, if such a path were to be taken, our enemies would win; the dog would keep on biting.

The liberal world must wake up and recognize the threat that we face in this new millennium. No, we cannot make peace with Islamic terrorist governments simply for one reason: THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL. Until a liberal understands this, he remains a pawn in the hands of our enemy and is himself a traitor to this nation and an enemy of our own Constitution.

I am also confident that John McCain will do the right thing as Commander in Chief for the United States. He would not appease Islamic aggression by caving in like Hillary would and so would Obama. With his war experience, McCain definitely knows that we have a big stick, and he would be quite willing to use it when necessary.