Signs of the political end times
The 2008 presidential race was an extraordinary campaign that culminated in the election of an extraordinary candidate. But extraordinary is a difficult beast to manage. Candidate Barack Obama was much better at achieving his historic election victory than President Barack Obama has been at managing his historic governing opportunity.
After only 15 months in office, the popular rebellions against the president and his governing party have been multiplying. A year after Obama’s election, Republican Bob McDonnell won back the previously Democratic held governor’s mansion in Virginia with 59 percent of the vote. One might say that Virginia goes back and forth. But at the same time, Republican Chris Christie defeated sitting Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in liberal New Jersey by four percentage points, or 100,000 votes. Then in January, the vote heard round the American political world was the election in Massachusetts of Republican Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, which was assumed to be safer than safe for any Democratic candidate.
In the meantime, something called the Tea Party movement has been growing in numbers and visible activity. The original Boston Tea Party was a protest against an illegitimate tax by a far away, power-usurping British Parliament. The parallel isn’t neat, but it’s relevant. These people are protesting not just high taxes and even higher taxes to come, but also the level of power grabbing, intrusive government activity that requires those taxes. The political significance of this raging grass fire can be measured by the growing number and intensity of attacks on the movement by panicking Democrats and their friends in the mainstream media who refer to those participating as racists and potential terrorists.
But popular anger goes far beyond self-identified Tea Partiers. The Pew Research Center has just released the results of polling done in March that indicates a much broader disapproval of this overwhelming Democratic government activism: “Just 22% say they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time, among the lowest measures in half a century.” As The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger put it yesterday, “This report isn’t bad news for the Democrats. It’s Armageddon.” He called it “the Pew blowout data”:
“In 1994 when the Democrats lost over 50 House seats at mid-term, the party’s favorable rating was 62%, and for the Congress they controlled it was 53%. They still got killed. Now the party’s favorable is 38% and Congress’s approval is 25%. The Republicans’ numbers are low, too, but they’re not in charge.”
This week, we have further rumblings that suggest the earth is about to open up and swallow one of our two major parties in November. On Tuesday, New Jersey voters came out in large numbers to defeat 59 percent of proposed local school budgets. Turnout was 24 percent of registered voters. Last year it was only 13.4 percent. It hasn’t exceeded 18.6 percent in a quarter century. Wow. Ordinarily, 70 percent of school budgets are approved. That’s another wow. These are suburban, liberal New Jerseyites, many of whom work in liberal New York City.
This does not mean the end of the world is coming. It’s just the end of Obamaworld as we’ve known it since January 2009. That’s why our current president and his sympathetic Congress are working so hard to remake the world as much as they can before January 2011. It may be a very different world for all of us.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top79 Comments to “Signs of the political end times”
“This week, we have further rumblings that suggest the earth is about to open up and swallow one of our two major parties in November.”
Weren’t we saying things like this after Bush defeated Kerry? Be careful. ‘One who puts on his armor should not boast like one who takes it off.’ (I Kings 20:11)
Report comment to moderator
New Jersey is obviously changing, something I didn’t think possible. Even in my wealthy town, they are bent out of shape. There are the liberal diehards here, but even the normal wealthy people have had it with paying $40,000 plus in taxes on their million dollar homes.
Maybe we had to fall into this abyss for people to finally understand that you can’t tax every little thing and still survive (not that the Dems aren’t still trying).
Report comment to moderator
What I see is an open contest between American capitalism and European style socialism. I believe that all these local, State, and November’s mid-term elections should be taken as a loud statement against socialism if the current trend and predictions hold true.
Socialism is being openly advanced. The denegration of America and her great history is being promoted. And the vast majority of peace loving Americans are fighting back.
Here is a page out of the Alinsky/Obama/Clinton playbook: name the advesary (socialism), freeze it, target it, destroy it.
Report comment to moderator
What was extraordinary was not so much the community organizer/socialist activist who ran for President on the Democrat ticket but the media creation and re-creation of that candidate. Come to think of it, these days, maybe not even that was extraordinary. Either way, America is headed up by a socialist (regardless of whatever label he wants to wear). That IS extraordinary.
Report comment to moderator
These people are protesting not just high taxes and even higher taxes to come, but also the level of power grabbing, intrusive government activity that requires those taxes.
This complaint is not a fair and balanced reading of what Obama has signed into law.
David Brooks says people are objecting to the speed and number of policy initiatives which, one by one, are sensible, but cumulatively, are overloading people’s attention. But wait: is your attention overloaded? My attention isn’t overloaded, either, and I’ve got my share of ADD. Besides, this is a republic, remember? We pay Congress to keep up with things we don’t have time and brains for. Maybe, instead of overload, people are being disturbed by misinformation.
Warning: If people feel overwhelmed by lawmaking, expect them to discharge some anger at those who obstruct, mischaracterize, and manipulate.
Report comment to moderator
CFrom my experience on this blog, Scroop Moth is not a reliable source for re-framing and defining what the Tea party protesters are protesting.
D. C. Innes did rather well and explaining the groundswell and the reasons for it.
Report comment to moderator
There is a growing discontent among Republicans, Libertarians and many Independents over the lack of fidelity to the Consitituion by politicians and judges on the left and in power.
Remember the President saying the following in a White House interview with Bret Baier (March 17, 2010) in response to a question about the “Slaughter rule” which would allow Democrats to avoid an up or down vote on a health care bill:
* “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.”
This is like saying he does not worry about the Constitution of the United States, which is all about process, checks and balances and justice in governing.
_________
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, even if what you say is correct in your defense of Obama and the Democrats, in politics perception is the key. The FACT of the matter is that the majority of opinion is opposed to the direction of the current administration and the Democratic controlled congress base on their PERCEPTION of infidelity to the constitution, political corruption, sky rocketing dept. and deficits, and the alarming growth of federal power.
The political side of me wants the Democrats to keep on believing and governing according to what THEY PERCEIVE to be. They will reap the whirlwind if they do.
The practical side in me wants them to wake up, change course, and listen to the People. If they do, we can hope for a change in this nation’s collision course of world wide irrelevance and financial depression. There are too many families that have had their financial lives thrown into ruin as a result of these politicians. There are too many more who are in jeopardy.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK (7): There is a growing discontent among Republicans, Libertarians and many Independents over the lack of fidelity to the Consitituion by politicians and judges on the left and in power.
FRANK: You’re doing it again — that same ol’ Bravo Sierra us-vs.-them false dichotomy.
It would be more accurate to say, “There is a growing discontent among Americans over the lack of fidelity to the Constitution by politicians and judges from both parties.”
And I especially like how you press Libertarians and Independents into your self-serving conservo-Republican fantasy!
What, you don’t think there’s a growing discontent among Libertarians and Independents over the lack of fidelity to the Constitution by politicians and judges on the right?
~ Frank in Spokane (your friendly neighborhood Christian libertarian)
Report comment to moderator
These people are protesting not just high taxes and even higher taxes to come, but also the level of power grabbing, intrusive government activity that requires those taxes.
Not only that, they are protesting that life is difficult and unfair, and in the end nobody gets out alive.
It’s time for a riot and a jihad and a lynching and a bunch of good scapegoats. Nothing like a good scapegoating to get the blood flowing.
Pray. Pray real hard.
Report comment to moderator
Random, I think you need help. Are you okay? How can I pray for you?
Report comment to moderator
The complaint is fair because the overwhelming majority have the same complaint. They are taxed on every level for every big and little thing and they’ve had it. Now Obama wants a VAT. Do you really expect them to just suck up another tax? What don’t you get?
Report comment to moderator
NJL #12
What is a VAT?
Report comment to moderator
BROTHERDAN There are too many families that have had their financial lives thrown into ruin as a result of these politicians. There are too many more who are in jeopardy.
I agree!
For once, you and I are singing the same lyrics, BROTHERDAN. Unfortunately, it sounds like we’re singing different tunes.
Could you please provide one or two sentences of elaboration about what you mean by “these politicians”?
For what happened to my 401K, I blame the financial vandals on Wall Street and the politicians who enabled them. I’m grateful to the politicians who restored stability and arrested a very dangerous economic collapse.
Who screwed up your 401K, BROTHERDAN?
Report comment to moderator
The US government is the most powerful entity on the planet. It possesses the most powerful military, nuclear weapons and unlimited wealth which it acquires at the end of a gun. The Beast feeds off of the productive and throws a few scraps to the unproductive to purchase their votes.
Congress is a cesspool crawling with power-hungry rats who haven’t earned a penny in their lives, preferring rather to steal from those who have. Our government has become a cancer that will destroy the productivity which once was called the American Dream and will replace it with a socialist nightmare.
Obama’s war on wealth will kill the golden goose. Only the wealthy invest. Only the wealthy build factories and businesses which employ millions and make America strong. One only takes risks on innovation if there is the prospect of reward. Obama the Destroyer is killing all of that.
He is scolding banks and businesses for their excesses, while committing mind boggling excesses himself that far exceed and business or government in history. The EPA now owns the air we breath. The IRS is now responsible for our health and our bodies.
Obama is trying to acquire all of our emails and the whereabouts of every cell phone. People who disagree with him are now called seditious.
So I ask you this: Why would anyone willingly hand The Beast more power?
“Once, during the rectification of the Voldrani, the Destructor came in the form of a giant moving Slor! Many Chubs & Zhuls knew what it was to be roasted in the belly of the Slor THAT day, I tell you…”
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I meant to say “on the left” because it is abundantly clear to me that the left is where the vast majority of infidelity to the Constitution is found. This is obvoius in judicial appointments as well as the extent of spending and votes for radical bills that defy the Constituion.
I disagree with your sweeping notion of moral or political equivilence between the two main parties. We live in two different worlds, Frank. I see significant long-standing differences between Republicans and Democrats because I look at their actions and votes as well as listen to their words.
Report comment to moderator
So Frank, are you denying my claim that Libertarians and some Independents tend to show more concern for fidelity to the Constitution than do Democrats? Are you saying that Libertarians and Independents by and large are pleased (rather than discontented) with the level of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution shown by the Democrats currently in power? Why do you come across as intolerant when I give credit to Libertarians and Independents?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop (14): For what happened to my 401K, I blame the financial vandals on Wall Street and the politicians who enabled them.
Frank: Joel Mark’s suspicions to the contrary, I am and equal-opportunity critic of politicians without regard to party affiliation.
Which leads me to ask:
What about the vandals in the federal government who required that mortgage loans be made to higher-risk (often known as “minority”) Americans
… which pumped more money into the housing market …
… which helped created the housing bubble …
… which “popped” …
… which wreaked havoc on (mal)investments derived from bundled mortgages?
My point is, there is political greed and chicanery aplenty, on both sides of the aisle.
(Not saying you said there wasn’t, but that sounded just a tad like a shot at them greedy high-finance GOP types … )
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK (16): I meant to say “on the left” because it is abundantly clear to me that the left is where the vast majority of infidelity to the Constitution is found. …
I disagree with your sweeping notion of moral or political equivilence between the two main parties.
Frank: Hmm. I never woulda guessed.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK (17): So Frank, are you denying my claim that Libertarians and some Independents tend to show more concern for fidelity to the Constitution than do Democrats?
Frank: Not at all.
I’m denying your subtle yet evident claim that Libertarians and Independents somehow aren’t concerned over the lack of fidelity to the Constitution shown by Republican politicians and judges.
Report comment to moderator
(But then, would you expect anything less from a leftist plant?)
Report comment to moderator
I have read (perhaps here previously) that many [most?] of the collectivization entitlement programs initiated by Democrats were initially marketed as being entirely voluntary. If you didnt want to have your taxes taken for [insert program here] Mr Roosevelt or much later Mr Johnson said in essence “Fine. It’s wholly voluntary”
But in time programs became mandatory
We must work the Libertarian angle up a bit more. Too much of our govt today assumes you as voter/consumer lack the basic smarts to choose among competing health plans (Surely one would fit your income and budget if there was true wide open competition among insurers).
Conservatives should openly acknowledge that the actual preferred goal is for folks to be secure enough and smart enough to not ever be dependent on anonymous bureaucrats in DC or elsewhere. State that openly and often enough and watch the libs squirm as they acknowledge how their preferred goal conflicts with this one.
Report comment to moderator
Incidently, recent data collected by various police agencies has been quite revelatory. Cops do not require nearly as much police presence at TEA party rallies as would be needed at protests against war, WTO and other cherished causes of Libs.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH, pretty much what Frank said at 18. But you know that. It seems that everybody has blood on their hands. Funny thing is, the Bush administration tried to put a stop to what was happening at Freddie and Fannie. Barney et. al. called them racists. They ran from that charge like sissies. You deny the Democrats part in this. For this, you have become part of the problem.
When people call me a racist, (actually, that only happened once), I set them straight. That one time was at no small personal physical risk. I hope the GOP, or any other, will learn to call that charge what it is. If I was an elected official, and was so charged, I would create a furor over it. And the MSM wouldn’t be able to silence me.
Frank, one thing I would hope that you would admit: if the Libertarians were to become prominant enough that we would begin to talk about the three party system, we would then be talking about corruption that is rampant in all three.
Report comment to moderator
This is like saying he does not worry about the Constitution of the United States, which is all about process, checks and balances and justice in governing.
JOEL MARK is seriously mistaken about the facts of the matter. Obama shows respect for the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by staying out of the internal procedural rules of Congress.
Article II gives the Executive no power or duty with regard to the procedural rules in the Legislative branch.
Article I Section 5 gives the two Houses of Congress the power to determine their own rules of procedure, as they see fit.
From the standpoint of the Constitution, therefore, a president would be a blithering idiot to “spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.” JOEL MARK is entitled to his opinion, but a president who devoted the energy of the Oval Office to this concern would, in my view, be open to accusations of misfeasance.
Saying this president “does not worry about the Constitution of the United States” is rather disrespectful, coming from someone who often invokes the topic of respect. On the other hand, what else could we expect from JOEL MARK, after he called Justice John Paul Stevens “craven”?
Report comment to moderator
XION Only the wealthy invest. Only the wealthy build factories and businesses which employ millions and make America strong. One only takes risks on innovation if there is the prospect of reward. Obama the Destroyer is killing all of that.
Why is the market up 3,000 points?
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html
Only the wealthy swamp the treasury auctions with buy orders. Not all of the wealthy build factories and businesses. A great many of them prefer to give their money to the government at next to zero interest. With all that money available to the government practically for free, in the midst of collapsing demand, don’t you think it would be morally irresponsible for the government not to put it to good use (good according to the opinion of lots of economists, of course).
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
In the context of legitimate objections the “Slaughter rule” which would allow Democrats to avoid an up or down vote on a health care bill, Obama said, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.”
Beyond that, the whole notion that the the government can force healthy people to purchase a service or prodict regardless of their desire to do so is blatantly unconstitutional.
My view is that Barack Obama is a bit like that Democrat congressman who was recently caught on video saying that hew didn’t care what the Constitutions said. I think the President thinks the nation would be better off just following his enlightened progressive modern will and decisions rather than being stuck with the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
You misinterpret me at #20, Frank. What you gleaned is not what I said.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK What about the vandals in the federal government who required that mortgage loans be made to higher-risk (often known as “minority”) Americans
Please name the law that imposed such a requirement. I don’t think it existed.
Wall street didn’t pump money into mortgages because the government required bad loans to be made, but because it found ways of disguising the flaws of derivative investments, because mortgage brokers were bad, and because Alan Greenspan was living in the fantasy (of which he has repented) that markets are self-regulating.
Furthermore, I really resent your class warfare, FRANK. I thought you were better than that. Lots of banks and mortgage companies made profitable and sound loans in the sub-prime market. This provided a wonderful service to both investors and borrowers. Berkshire Hathaway owned one or more highly successful sub-prime operations, and showed that it can be done right. There’s nothing inherntly wrong with a subprime loan, as long as it follows the tried and true principles of credit.
Fundamentally, markets are not good at setting the price of risk. I’m sorry, that’s a bitter pill for a libertarian to swallow. Treasury Dept. bureaucrats with PhDs from MIT may actually do a better job.
Report comment to moderator
In 2001, in an interview on a Chicago public radio program, Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having “deep flaws.” It was a panel discussion that aired on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, titled “Slavery and the Constitution.”
Obama said that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
Gretchen Helfrich asked, “Barack Obama, what are your thoughts on the Declaration and Constitution?”
Regarding the Constitution, Obama said, “I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.”
He continued; “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
He did not elaborate on the “fundamental flaw” that remain nor was he pressed to do so (naturally).s.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK #27 fails to answer the several points I made at #25, so my rmarks stand by default.
Report comment to moderator
The flaw in Colonial culture was racial inequity, the historical effects of which still have not been erased. Obama could be wrong about that. Most Republicans ardently believe that this original sin has long since been cured. On the other hand, his opinion comports with the received opinion of decent and respectable academics. The flaw in the Constitution, of course, was its establishment of a slave republic.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
You were responding to me in your post at #25, so I simply wanted to make sure I was understood and I simply spoke for myself. Your alleged points at #25 seemed rather peripheral to my points (which you were supposedly responding to) so I saw no need to take them into specific consideration in my reply. But you had your say and so did I. Whether your point stands by default is of no particular concern. I just spoke my mind. Let each reader decide for her/himself.
Report comment to moderator
You’re wrong again, JOEL MARK. You say I responded to your “points.” That’s not accurate. I responded to one point, My post #25 responded only to your judgment that Obama’s remark was “like saying he does not worry about the Constitution of the United States, which is all about process, checks and balances and justice in governing.”
You say that my post was “peripheral”. It was, in fact, central to your offer of evidence that Obama does not worry about the constitution. What you characterized as disregard is actually observance of the Constitution. How is this peripheral to that question?
Whether my point stands by default is of concern to me, and enough concern for you to post words about it. You often display a lot of concern about whether comments “stand.” You’re clearly in default.
Your also in default over your disrespect for Justice John Paul Stevens.
Report comment to moderator
Moth, ignoring all the points where we disagree, I sincerely pray you are well in all respects and are looking forward to enjoying your weekend, whether or not it is all that different from the other 5 days. It’s just that you are on my mind. Take care.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Louise, I’ll take that as a kindness, whether or not other readers wonder. In your prayers, you might mention the naphthalene.
Report comment to moderator
Brother Dan:
Random, I think you need help. Are you okay? How can I pray for you?
I have no problem with you or anybody else praying for me. It’s a waste of time and breath, but you can spend both as you see fit.
I am sorry you didn’t understand my comment. I won’t waste my time trying to explain it to you again.
Report comment to moderator
#5 Scroop
David Brooks did state so, however he also stated that those making the policy initiatives have much more faith in larger gov’t than he does.
Report comment to moderator
#18 Frank
Not to mention that the mortgages that were gov’t backed toward minorities were ARM’s. What Clinton did back in 1999 started the process and foundations of the economic near-depression.
Report comment to moderator
Moth, you might recall that our common half-ancestry usually weighs against influence of the opinions of others and God invented mothballs for a reason. I couldn’t care less about other readers – too clever by half gets tedious. Kindly keep in touch. (lise@robohn.com)
Report comment to moderator
#29 Scroop
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and its alterations by Clinton and Bush is usually provided as the reason. I myself am not sure as all the research I have done on it comes up conflicting, with no consensus that I can see. However I think the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982 probably helped fuel the subprime mess a whole lot more because it “allows lenders to make loans with terms that may obscure the total cost of a loan” as well as allowing ARM’s in the first place.
In 1993 the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston influenced the gov’t to loosen requirements for loans for low-income and minority households. That is what hurt lower income and minority families directly in the current economic crisis.
Report comment to moderator
The difficulty with that scenario, Rom116, is that the actual behavior of mortgage buyers in the boom/bubble did not especially center on these minority driven accounts but on the high end, no money down alternative products. Lots of evidence for that.
Compounding this — what made this so financially devastating — was then the use of other hedging products, the synthetic CDOs, that created pools of risk far vaster than those found in the mortgages themselves. This week the WSJ did a nice article on the Abacus deal of Goldman Sachs, also look up Pro Publica’s piece on the Magnetar deal. When it comes to fiscal wreckage, it was the act of Wall Street, not the poor folks on Maple Street that brought the (financial) house down.
Report comment to moderator
Scores:
Joel Mark: +100 (Hands down winner)
Frank: +50 (Confused Christian isolationist with some coherent points)
Moth: –9,000,000,000,000 Obama Marxist slave points (to be paid by those of this generation on fixed incomes, the elderly under Obamacare, and the next five generations of Marxist slaves in the Obama gulag—formerly known as the United States of America)
Report comment to moderator
The following 9 words say it all about The Obama Doctrine:
· Diminish our Country
· Undermine our Allies
· Embolden our Enemies
– by Frank Gaffney
Report comment to moderator
Signs of the political end times
Epistemic closure.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/have-conservatives-gone-mad/39417/
JASILVER, who was right about Iraq, Frank Gaffney or Michael Moore?
Report comment to moderator
VAT means value added tax. Each stage of production is taxed, which means at the end the consumer has paid taxes he doesn’t even know he paid. It’s how they do it in Europe. And we know the success they’ve had…..
I do not feel overloaded. Congress can’t seem to handle more than one thing at a time. I feel overtaxed, that I can’t save anything, that I’m working for someone else. I’ve had it.
Report comment to moderator
#32 – Scroop Moth wrotre; “The flaw in the Constitution, of course, was its establishment of a slave republic.”
That is not what Obama meant. Obama said that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
Therefore it is impossible to conclude that he meant slavery–unless he was referring to his modern plan to bring us all closer to slavery to the gov’t through opprissive taxation.
Report comment to moderator
Read it again, JOEL MARK.
According to the excerpts you provide, Obama was talking about two distinct flaws.
1. The deep cultural flaw from cololnial times, that continues to this day.
2. The constitutional flaw that reflects the cultural flaw.
Obama’s conventional thinking is easy to see. As I explained above, “the flaw in Colonial culture was racial inequity, the historical effects of which still have not been erased.” The concept of racial prejudice and its continuing effects is very familiar and simple. So, that’s the cultural flaw.
The second, the flaw in the Constitution, is the malevolent legal structure that permitted slavery. The slave republic was a flawed institution that reflected a flawed culture.
Even though slavery does not continue, we still feel the effects of racial prejudice. Wrong or right, this notion is utterly conventional. Furthermore, I think we’re also still left with artifacts and legacies of the slave republic, such as the US Senate and a highly politicized and contested Supreme Court.
Report comment to moderator
How is the US Senate a relic of slavery? Or the politicized Supreme Court?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop moth and anyone else.
Obama says only about half what you think he says and doesn’t even mean that half. The rest is filled in by ‘well wishers” duped by the ‘rock stardom of this “extraordinary president. “
Report comment to moderator
The 2008 presidential race was an extraordinary campaign that culminated in the election of an extraordinary candidate. But extraordinary is…
Reminds me of the joke about a visitor to africa or maybe an island in the south east of Asia. The punchline of the joke would be “Don’t step in the ‘extraordinary’”
The election of ‘this president’ was one of the most , if not the most racist actions this country has ever done. It was a shameful act that said the color of the skin is more important than the content of character. Instead of “I have a dream” as Martin Luther King envisioned it is more the US has a nightmare. And with Obama as the current occupier of the White House, the racists’ chickens are coming home to roost.
Report comment to moderator
Read it again Scroop:
Obama said; “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day [2002], and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
Clearly, the point Obama was making was a point that he thinks exists today and slavery does not exist today. So your statement at #32 is wrong on its face. If Obama was referring to slavery (as you apparently claimed at #32) when he spoke of the fundamental flaw that exists to this day, then Obama needs to go back to 2nd grade. Slavery is lnog onver.
Report comment to moderator
It is clear that Obama took a public oath to faithfully follow a Constitution that he thinks is fundamentally flawed and that he thinks he knows better of.
That’s what Obama and Biden mean by “Fundamental change” for America. They seek a new nation of Obama, by Obama and for Obama. That’s why he speaks down to us like children.
Report comment to moderator
Again, in the context of legitimate objections the “Slaughter rule” which would allow Democrats to avoid an up or down vote in congress on a health care bill, Obama said, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.”
This has nothing to do with the separation of powers. This means exactly what he said–he doesn’t care about the rules, only the result on his terms. As a citizen, let alone as President he ought to care about the procedural rules in congress being followed.
He doesn’t abd he said as much. Here is one thing he said that we can believe. He doesn’t care about the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
#34 – a convaluted reply — throwing strange smoke to avoid clairity. Constructive discourse is not possible. Take care.
Report comment to moderator
I think Obama always has reparations for slavery in the back of his mind – a poison from his his mother, dreaming about his father, and Frank Marshall Davis.
Report comment to moderator
Monty’s right — people did not treat Obama as they would have other candidates, whether those people were the press or citizens getting ready to vote. They didn’t ask the hard questions, and they didn’t look beyond his race.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: If Obama was referring to slavery (as you apparently claimed at #32) when he spoke of the fundamental flaw that exists to this day, then Obama needs to go back to 2nd grade. Slavery is lnog onver.
This is ridiculous.
Obama was referring to racial inequality as the flaw that exists to this day.
One can logically refer to extinct institutions when discussing contemporary problems. Our former slave republic is relevant to the racial inequities that still exist, even though Emancipation was 146 years ago.
I didn’t say slavery is the flaw that exists today, but wrote, “the flaw in the Constitution, of course, was its establishment of a slave republic.” Slavery was the antecedent that reflected the cultural flaw of colonial society. That cultural flaw, which is racial inequity, has persisted both as a dynamic and an effect.
Obama spoke reasonably and conventionally.
JOEL MARK You are . . throwing strange smoke to avoid clairity”
So’s your old man.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: As a citizen, let alone as President he ought to care about the procedural rules in congress being followed.
That’s not what he said, exactly. Obama said, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are” in the Legislative Branch. The Constitution leaves it to the Legislature to make its own rules — and so did Obama. The Constitution gives the Executive no power or duty respecting those rules.
Incidentaly, the rules allow the majority to pick their own rules. There are multiple paths to passage.
Come to think of it, GWB didn’t spend a lot of time worrying over the fact that the Republicans held open the vote on the pharmaceutical bill all night long, which was against their rules.
The Dems have followed their rules to the letter.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: As a citizen, let alone as President he ought to care about the procedural rules in congress being followed.
That’s not what he said, exactly. Obama said, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are” in the Legislative Branch. The Constitution leaves it to the Legislature to make its own rules — and so did Obama. The Constitution gives the Executive no power or duty respecting those rules.
Incidentaly, the rules allow the majority to pick their own rules. There are multiple paths to passage.
Come to think of it, GWB didn’t spend a lot of time worrying over the fact that the Republicans held open the vote on the pharmaceutical bill all night long, which was against their rules.
The Dems have followed their rules to the letter.
Report comment to moderator
Fannie and Freddie control or back about 90% of the mortgages in America yet Obama’s tough new regulations exempt Fannie and Freddie. What good is that?
This same formula for disaster happened under Bill Clinton.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote: “Obama was referring to racial inequality as the flaw that exists to this day.”
But that’s NOT what you said at #32, which is what I as responding to. You yourself claimed it was slavery. Read your own post, sir. You can’t go back and respin things after you blew it when thinking people are participating here. Just be honest and move on.
Besides, the Constitution is not about racial inequality either. That was a problem in our culture, not the Constitution itself which laid the ground work for a government of the people and laid the ground work for overcoming slavery in years down the road. The compromise the Founders made at the beginning that allowed slavery to stand was unquestionably essential for accomplishing the unity needed to lay the ground work.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, I was commenting on the alleged flaw in the Constitution that Obama (falsely) cited that allegedly exists to this day. You responded to my comment with your notion that it was slavery. I pointed out the inconsistency in your response. The inconsistency stands.
Report comment to moderator
I believe Pres. Obama that he does not “spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.” For once, he was being truthful at that moment. So, shame on Obama for this. It is more important to Obama that he get his way and fundamentally change America than it is for him to respect our laws and procedures and our fundamental Consitutional guidelines.
Report comment to moderator
Reforming Wall Street without reforming Fannie and Freddie would do a lot of good because Wall Street generated the crisis, not Fannie and Freddie.
The bubble in real estate prices happened simultaneously in both the commercial and residential markets. This shows that Fannie and Freddie, the CRA, and predatory lending weren’t the cause of the crisis.
The SEC relaxed the net capital rule in 2004. This was the proximate cause that permitted the investment banks to dramatically increase their leverage and issue mortgage-backed securities far more aggressively. Responding to this competitive pressure, Fannie and Freddie also increased their lending. Thus, forces on Wall Street caused the spike in subprime mortgages during the 2004-06 real estate bubble.
The expansion of subprime lending did not occur until 2004, when it suddenly just about doubled as a share of all mortgages. Banks that are covered by the CRA issued only 25% of subprime mortgages.
Reforming Wall Street without reforming Fannie and Freddie will also do good, because there was never enough subprime lending to cause a financial crisis of magnitude. The systemic collapse was caused by the financial innovations that synthesized phony assets, a hundred times over.
Increasing deliquency popped the bubble, but they were a small part of the bubble’s volume. The bubble contained trillions of dollars of ingenious leverage. It was the leverage, stupid, not the loans.
The pressure to make bad loans didn’t come from Bill Clinton in the 90’s. Rather, Wall Street hook a world-wide savings glut to the mortgage business. Investment bankers couldn’t get enough mortgages to sate the demand. As the supply of traditional mortgages ran out, Wall Street figured out ways of financing the production of bad mortgages. Wall Street kept the bubble going with vast fees paid all along the supply chain, from local mortgage brokers, to small banks, to the investment banks.
Report comment to moderator
Once again, JOEL, reread what I wrote:
“The flaw in Colonial culture was racial inequity, the historical effects of which still have not been erased . . The flaw in the Constitution, of course, was its establishment of a slave republic.”
That’s all I said about slavery. I did not say or imply that slavery is the flaw that still exists today, or that Obama said so. I’m not as smart as you, JOEL, but I’m not dumb enough to say that. Even you couldn’t think I’m that dumb.
With all your brains, you have to know how perversely you’re arguing.
You’ve offered no decent reason, Sir, for rejecting my original interpolation of Obama at #25 and my further explanations at #32, #48, and #58.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, Next time you make an assertion about what I said, do this quote it, then paraphrase it as best you can, and then state what you think is wrong with it. You’re skipping the first two vital steps. OK?
Report comment to moderator
#68 Scroop “Reforming Wall Street without reforming Fannie and Freddie would do a lot of good because Wall Street generated the crisis, not Fannie and Freddie.”
You live in an alternate reality called Obamaland which isn’t remotely connected to the real world. Nearly all experts on the crisis implicate Fannie and Freddie as the fundamental cause. Only socialists and Obots disagree.
Report comment to moderator
Please, XION, this is a non starter, a hack claim that got abandoned a long time ago.
The source of your information is an 18-month-old opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Russell Roberts, whose stated purpose is to shift blame from Wall Street to government. The problem with his narrative is that he doesn’t quantify the functions he describes. He concedes as much:
Without Fannie and Freddie’s implicit guarantee of government support (which turned out to be all too real), would the mortgage-backed securities market and the subprime part of it have expanded the way they did? Perhaps.
The writer concludes by calling for a careful analysis of public policy. His opinion essay is not that analysis, just a hypothesis.
Say the quantity of bad mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought blew the bubble bigger. That means bigger, not big. There were other blowers: the entire financial system, as a matter of fact. It was structured to ignore, disguise, and evade risk and responsibility.
Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie lost market share as the housing bubble expanded. They did not lead the private market, they followed it. (Further, their ratio of performing loans was better than that of the market as a whole.)
What caused the collapse of confidence and the financial panic? Think about it. The assets owned by Fannie and Freddie were a liability to the US government, but not for Wall Street. There’s no way Fannie and Freddie’s bad loans could have forced the giant players into bankruptcy.
The thing that had GWB in a panic when he announced a looming crash on Sept. 24 was not Fannie and Freddie, but the vast phantom of securitized debt that was not backed by the government.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s say I own 90% of your home and pay 90% of the mortgage. The home is foreclosed on. And you would say that the 90% owner (government) had no obligation whatsoever and that you should implicate the 10% contributor (Wall Street)?
Report comment to moderator
Your scenario is non-sensical, but no, and so what.
The government backed only a small portion of the bad debt on Wall Street, which is why Paulson and W. needed TARP.
Report comment to moderator
#71 Government Agencies Own or Guarantee 95 Percent of New Mortgages
Report comment to moderator
I have illustrated President Obama’s disdain for the U.S. Constitution (in several posts above) and I did so by letting Obama speak for himself.
Report comment to moderator
The Government insuring mortgages is you and me insuring mortgages, and I want a better deal than what Freddie and Fannie allowed. They control the standards. If they had been reformed when W asked for it, things would have been a little different, but the Dems didn’t want to do that. They did the same thing the Goldman Sachs people did. They knew what would happen and instead of glee over the profit they’d make like Goldman Sachs people wrote in their emails, the Dems gleefully said “we can take back the White House.”
And here we are.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK has demonstrated his disdain for Obama and inability to take correction for his errors of fact and logic.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER – setting aside your declarations about how Dems prevented W., I wonder what your thoughts are about why the market didn’t punish Fannie, Freddie, AIG, City Group, et. al.
Report comment to moderator
You got Big Banks and Wallstreet in the pockets of both parties feeding upon each other at the expense of the taxpayer to bail out the mess these cretons created. The failure of government (both parties) to provide the oversite we entrusted to them to control the Federal Reserve, Freddie and Fannie along with the continued failure of the SEC cost all of us.
Unfortunately, we have Obama supporting pinheads who beg for more government. The same government that wasted away Social Security and Medicare and irresponsibly allowed the financial meltdown; even legislating the demise.
“We on Wall Street feel somewhat compelled to take at least some responsibility. We used excessive leverage, failed to maintain adequate capital, engaged in reckless speculation, created new complex derivatives. We focused on short-term profits at the expense of sustainability. We not only undermined our own firms, we destabilized the financial sector and roiled the global economy, to boot. And we got huge bonuses.
But here’s a news flash for you, D.C.: We could not have done it without you. We may be drunks, but you were our enablers: Your legislative, executive, and administrative decisions made possible all that we did. Our recklessness would not have reached its soaring heights but for your governmental incompetence.”
Report comment to moderator
No one objects to government regulations that facilitate fair and transparent competition. But when the government itself is the biggest offender, who will regulate them? None of these regulations will affect Fannie or Freddie which has 95% of the market. So the whole thing is a sham from start to finish. Yet the ruse is played out night after night on the government run media.
Report comment to moderator
XION,
Not a problem for your question. Our citizen-of-the-world in the WH is preparing to hand the nation over to the world banking community to watch over things. There are a number of actions occuring to create regional, if not worldwide, monetary denominations. Keep an eye on the Bank of International Settlements located in Switzerland.
The true answer to your question is an informed electorate. But the continual neo Marxist indoctrination in our schools and from our lamestream media continue to hamper the process for proper regulation by the people of a nation.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!