GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label Main Street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Main Street. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Wall Street's Stranglehold on the Economy Is Choking Americans

BY SHAH GILANI, Contributing Editor, Money Morning

America's Founding Fathers were afraid of any concentration of power in the republic. They were particularly afraid that banking interests could hijack our fledgling democracy. And yet today, 234 years later, our Founding Fathers' worst fears have come true. Wall Street's stranglehold on the economy threatens our very prosperity, and the future of a truly democratic republic. It's high time we address the truth about Wall Street's tyranny and set a course for a more secure economic future - one that's anchored by a safe banking system, not a system rigged by banks.

Banks Are the Gamblers ... But You're Taking the Risks

The credit crisis and Great Recession are the unintended consequences of Wall Street's greed. I say "unintended consequences" because - let's face it - Wall Street institutions tipped over their own money pot and bankrupted the public casino they had created to leverage bets with house money. It all started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA). This piece of legislation was designed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or other characteristics in the credit and housing markets. Of course, this eventually led to lax mortgage underwriting standards in later decades. But it wasn't just the Democrats or President Bill Clinton who pushed for an expansion of and greater reach for the CRA in 1999. It wasn't just the Republicans or President George W. Bush who advocated easier documentation terms for homebuyers in a 2002 speech. It wasn't just all the Democrats and Republicans who pushed for Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) to package and buy trillions of dollars of low-quality, mortgage-backed securities. However misguided they might have been, these policies were all well intentioned. But each of these policies had unintended consequences. It was Wall Street that made sure these "consequences" could be shaped into a giant moneymaking scheme. Consider, for example, the truth about the subprime mortgage mess. Default rates on CRA-predicated mortgage loans were a lot lower than bankers had provisioned for.

What the bankers realized was that even though they were pushed to make more of these types of loans than they wanted to, they actually made a good profit on them. As long as housing markets were appreciating, CRA homeowners in distress could actually sell their properties and pay off their loans. Bankers sure weren't complaining then. After Wall Street pumped and dumped tech stocks on an unsuspecting American public - resulting in the "tech wreck" of 2000 ... and after the horrific terrorist events of 9/11 ... the U.S. Federal Reserve sliced interest rates to record lows and kept them there, much too long. That's when the subprime-mortgage and easy-credit games took off. Looking at the low default rates on CRA mortgages, bankers figured maybe loan standards were too high and there was room to lower them and still get paid in full. Standards were lowered across the board.

No Intention of Holding onto "Garbage"

Behind the scenes, the big public casino had been readied and the dice were starting to roll. Because Wall Street and its lobbying armies had gutted existing regulations and stifled all efforts to safeguard the public from new exotic derivatives products, there was nothing to stop the juggernaut. Banks had no intention of holding on to the garbage they were manufacturing. Wall Street securitized all the junk that it gathered together - and then sold it off to anyone who would buy it. And because not everyone who would buy Wall Street's junk was stupid, the institutions reformulated new products from that junk. The new "collateralized" products were just reconstituted, repackaged loans that redirected internal cash flows from mortgage payers so that some "tranches" of the new collateralized pools looked safe and could get the top "AAA" ratings from rating agencies. It didn't matter that rating agencies didn't understand the new math; they were in on the game and got rich, too. To add insult to injury, Wall Street employed another newfangled product. These "credit default swaps" were insurance-type contracts that anyone could offer on anything. But the real beauty of credit default swaps is that these contracts let Wall Street play on every side of every deal: Wall Street profited once when it sold the junk, again when it sold "insurance" on those subprime securities, and over and over again as it traded both the junk pools and credit default swaps. The best part about the whole scheme (which all the institutions were playing) was that the game was self-perpetuating. As long as finance companies, mortgage originators and banks were able to package and sell their pools of mortgages and other "leveraged loans," the money from the sale of them went back to the folks who originated the individual loans in the first place. The upshot: Those folks could make more loans and start the entire process all over again. The more money that was available, the lower rates went. The lower interest rates went, the cheaper it was to finance and hold a portfolio of assets. But because rates were so low, and the return on quality loans was correspondingly low, bankers needed higher-yielding assets to maximize the spread on their "cost of carrying" pools of assets. So what happened? It became necessary to offer mortgages to lower-quality borrowers in order to charge a higher (and more-profitable) interest rate. That's how the game snowballed. That's how it became a feeding frenzy.

Where Greed Takes Control

The idea for Wall Street's institutions was to "dance until the music stopped." They all knew they had engineered a housing bubble and that the insane appreciation rates on anything with a roof would eventually fall back to earth. By then, the big players expected they would have found a seat, leaving them to watch the other, less-nimble players stumble and take their lumps. There was one problem. Wall Street institutions were way too greedy and far too cocky. They believed that they were safe: In their view, they'd either be able to unload their holdings of the junk they'd created, or they had been clever enough to hedge away their risk with their own credit-default-swap-insurance schemes. Because Wall Street believed it was safe, the institutions didn't see what was really happening. They were all in the same boat ... and that boat was sinking. That boat happened to be the U.S. economy - and other top economies around the world. Because of their greed, banks actually made the boat and forced us into it. They sunk, along with us, but got bailed out while we were left to drown.

Here's Where Things Get Good

At this point, you might find yourself asking: So what? Most of the banks have repaid the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money that they so desperately needed. Most are returning to profitability, and some are even reporting record profits and paying out record bonuses to executives. Yes, some banks have gotten bigger, a lot bigger. Yes, there are more profits to be shared, because a couple of swaggering laggards of the old investment-banking mold - namely The Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings (OTC: LEHMQ) - are gone. Is that so wrong? Isn't that part of financial Darwinism in our capitalist democracy? The truth is not what it appears to be. Bear and Lehman were ruthlessly crushed by their competition so there would be more business to be had by fewer players.

It wasn't evolution. It was execution

The bigger banks get, the more they rely on a de facto government guarantee. "Too big to fail" is a doctrine pushed by banks that want to be so big that they crush - or at least absorb - their smaller rivals.

Banks want to be a cartel and to be able to raise fees and the cost of money for their greater profitability, at will. Big banks are making money because the government is keeping interest rates low. Big banks are buying a huge portion of the U.S. Treasuries the government needs to sell to finance the deficit. And that deficit has reached its current size because the money was used to bail out the banks and to mitigate the collateral economic damage that Wall Street caused. It's a financing game, another bubble to re-inflate bank balance sheets by allowing them to generate a virtually risk-free, high-net-interest margin. We need to be afraid of what our Founding Fathers were afraid of, too much power concentrated in too few hands - especially banking-interest hands. We need to break up all the big banks. And then we need to spread their pieces around the country, placing credit closer to Main Street. We need to end all proprietary bank trading ... to eliminate credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations... and to instill transparency in all capital markets products, trading platforms, and risk-taking businesses that have any systemic impact.

We need a free market, not a free for all

Competition and free enterprise are the hallmarks of our economic miracle. I'm for less government, less taxation and more power to the people. But this enormous concentration of power that Wall Street and the U.S. banking system have amassed is tantamount to an assault on our very freedom.

It's time to end the tyranny of the banks. And to once again enjoy the financial freedoms that the end of this tyranny will bring.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Adopt-A-Stimulus-Project

Hot Topics:

Adopt-A-Stimulus-Project

We need your help in watching stimulus projects nationwide
We need your help in watching stimulus projects nationwide

It is never too early to start watchdogging one of the largest spending bills in U.S. history – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It includes $27 billion to repair America’s roads and bridges.

Monitoring thousands of construction sites around the country is an impossible task for a single reporter. Or a handful of reporters. That’s why we need your help.

Search for stimulus projects in your state below, then pick one to monitor over the next few months. We’ll send you suggestions and tips on how to watchdog your project. Use this form to send us reports (we'll also send you a link to it by email when you sign up).

Email Amanda Michel at amanda@propublica.org for more information. If you don’t see a project in your area join ProPublica’s Reporting Network; we’ll notify you when projects get started in your county.

Your State: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

88 results were found for Wisconsin check out your state.   Click on the column heads to sort at:  http://www.propublica.org/special/adopt-a-stimulus-project

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Conservatism 101

A blog that Scott Edwards and I had created back in September. One of my posts. I am ready to write again..

Posted – 04.18.09 at 12:03pm

Written: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 - Conservatism 101

I was talking to one of my dear friends the other night who is attending Columbia for his second Masters. He is an Obama supporter and a life-long Democrat. He understands that I am a Conservative and a McCain/Palin supporter. We are friends and we have had long debates over what is "right" and what is "left."

At the end of our friendly phone call, he made a point to tell me, "You know, liberals are the smartest and most educated in our country." To which I replied, "Well, I consider myself smart and educated, and I am not a liberal." And this is the impetus for my writing this blog.

It is a wonder to me that someone, who believes to know--because they have had the luxury of an Ivy league education--what is best for the average American. It is a wonder to me that one thinks that he has a better understanding of "Joe the Plumber's" needs, because he hires a guy like Joe to fix his plumbing. (Hey, I hire a plumber too. They are what makes things "run"). And, it is a wonder to me that this person thinks that he or his colleagues are "smarter" because of their Ivy league education.

Elitism? At its' finest. Please do not tell me that I am not the "most" smart or educated because I am not a Ivy League Intellectual. Ivy league education is a privilege. Hard knocks are not, but they can be an advantage.

As an American, I hope to have the freedom and the choices to know what is best for me, my family, my community and my country.

Look, most of us, in our own way, contribute to this country--whether it be through time, work, taxes or charity. We all have a common interest in doing what is best for ourselves and for our community. But, we all have a different opinion on how our contributions are allocated and recognized. The difference, the sheer difference, between a liberal and a conservative is this: A liberal will tell you how they will spend your money. A conservative will let you spend it how you see fit. If you don't have any money? Well, FDR put in place the first of many programs that have been abused by the federal government and welfare opportunists. I am not saying that these programs are not needed, but these programs were developed on assistance, NOT on dependence.

Now come the Taxes! Social Security. AMT. Local Taxes. Federal Taxes. State Taxes. Gas Taxes. Food Taxes. Retail Taxes. Property Taxes. Death taxes. Marriage Taxes. Capital Gains Taxes. Property Taxes. Liquor/Tobacco Taxes. User Taxes. And the list goes on and on and on and on.

Now, imagine my surprise when I hear that Obama/Biden want to just tax more. Instead of creating opportunity, they choose to inhibit it by giving handouts. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had forced banks to lend to anyone and everyone. No docs? No problem! The list of government programs and opportunities for the "needy" go on and on and on. WHERE DOES ALL THE MONEY GO? HOW HAVE THESE PROGRAMS, IN THE LAST 30 YEARS, LIFTED THE POOR OUT OF POVERTY? Oh, and by the way, if you ever want to pay more taxes because you feel like you haven't paid enough, there is a form for that. Talk to your accountant.

You see, most of use working, middle class, Americans DO NOT have an Ivy League education. Most of us working Americans do pay taxes. Most of us working American's have never wanted kids to go without education, elderly to go without healthcare, and the environment to go without consideration and conservation. Yet, as a conservative, I am constantly accused of wanting destruction of these very issues. This is simply not the case.

Us conservatives are constantly being accused as a party of the "wealthy." What is most ironic about this statement? Many conservatives do not have an Ivy league education. Many conservatives are not wealthy. We are hard working and educated and eager to lessen government intervention. We are eager to spur entrepreneurship, job creation, smart funding for those who truly, truly need it, with hopes of creating opportunity for those that are able to achieve and want a piece of the American dream.

All of these aforementioned programs have not solved the poverty crisis. Democrats, for the past 30 plus years, have expanded these programs, through excessive taxation, in order to make their constituents reliant on their party. Entrepreneurs and small business take on huge amounts of risk. Liberals do not reward risk--they tax it.

Conservatives have a fundamental belief that government has gotten too large and too complicated. We recognize need and are, therefore, the most charitable of the parties. It is a fact.

So I close in asking this: If liberals are so smart and the most educated, why am I even writing this blog? They have had numerous opportunities and years to right the wrongs. They say they are the champions of the middle class--I guess Joe the Plumber doesn't fit their middle class profile.

The next four years will prove whether entrepreneurship and risk thrive, or if we have created a larger dependency on government. If conservatism has a chance, we will not forget where we came from and what led us to losing our direction in this election.

I am Miss Tory, and I approve of this message.

By Megan Barth – Megan’s Note

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Related Articles:

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Bankruptcy, Not Bailout

Newt Gingrich

by Newt Gingrich

"Outrage" is the word on everyone's lips to describe the fat bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds to the failed executives at AIG - and it is an outrage.
It's an outrage that the American people are being asked to pay for the bad behavior of people who should have known better, be they reckless traders on Wall Street or reckless borrowers on Main Street.

But the cure for our outrage is not merely, as President Obama is demanding, that AIG be prevented from paying its executives. The $165 million in planned bonuses - as manifestly undeserved as it is - is chicken feed compared to the $170 billion in taxpayer funds AIG has received so far.

Nor is it acceptable to ask Americans to keep throwing their tax dollars at failed companies and their leaders.

The answer is an old fashioned one: AIG should choose between receivership or bankruptcy. It should not be allowed to choose more bailouts from the taxpayer.

Restore the Rule of Law: Allow Failing Corporations to go Bankrupt

Under U.S. law, Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows a company to reorganize. Chapter 7 allows a company to dissolve itself.

The choices for AIG, as both an insurance and non-insurance company, are more complicated, but ultimately boil down to the same options. And for other companies either receiving or looking to receive a bailout from the taxpayers, the option should instead be bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy would send a needed message to U.S. investors: Don't assume the government will bail you out when you do something stupid.

And most importantly, bankruptcy would replace the rule of politicians over U.S. financial institutions with the rule of law.

Geithner Didn't Inherit the Policy of Throwing Billions at Failing Companies - He Helped Create It

Because when it comes to Washington's handling of the financial crisis, so far we've had the rule of politicians, not the rule of law.

Most prominent among the politicians in question is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

As Americans' level of outraged has risen, so has the level of finger pointing by Geithner and others for the mess we're in.

But Treasury Secretary Geithner is disingenuous at best and untruthful at worst when he says that he "inherited the worst fiscal situation in American history."

The truth is that Secretary Geithner didn't inherit the policy of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at failing companies - he helped create it.

Even before he was Treasury Secretary - when he was still head of the New York Federal Reserve - Geithner was so deeply involved in the government's bail out of Bear Stearns, its take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and its bailout of AIG that this was the Washington Post's headline from September 19, 2008:  "In the Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner Forge a Committee of Three".

The first meeting of the first bailout - of Bear Stearns - was held in Geithner's office. And the first meeting of what has become a $170 billion bailout of AIG was held - where else? In Geithner's New York Fed office.

Why Not Bankruptcy for AIG? Because Wall Street Wouldn't Have Done As Well

From the outset, Geithner was central to the developing policy of having the taxpayers bail out ailing financial institutions like AIG rather then allow them to go bankrupt. And for months now, we've been told that these bailouts were necessary to avoid a wider, cataclysmic, financial meltdown.

But now it's clear that other, less noble, considerations were at play.  As the Wall Street Journal editorialized yesterday, the real outrage over the AIG bailout isn't executive bonuses, it's that billions in taxpayer funds intended for AIG have been passed through to benefit foreign banks and Wall Street behemoths like Goldman Sachs.

And as former AIG CEO Hank Greenburg testified last October, these financial institutions wouldn't have faired as well if AIG had filed for bankruptcy protection rather than do what it did, which was to negotiate a bailout with Timothy Geithner's New York Federal Reserve.

Here's how Greenburg put it:

"Although AIG stockholders could have fared better if the company had filed for bankruptcy protection, other stakeholders - like AIG's Wall Street counterparties in swaps and other transactions - would have fared worse."

For the Cost of Bailing Out AIG, Every American Household Could Have Free Electricity For a Year

So now everyone is outraged, and rightly so. But the lavish executive bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds are just the beginning of the story.

So far, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $170 billion to AIG - that's an astounding $1,224 per taxpayer.

What else could we have done with all this money?
$170 billion would pay for more than doubling the Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers.

$170 billion would pay for a four-year education at a public university for more then two million Americans.

$170 billion would cover the electricity bill of every household in America for an entire year.

When You Reward Failure, All You Get is More Failure

What Washington should learn from all this outrage is to return to the common sense that should have guided it all along: When you reward failure, all you get it more failure.

A company that needs a $170 billion taxpayer bailout is a failed company. The executives that led that company are failed executives. But instead of having to face the consequences of their failure responsibly through bankruptcy or receivership, AIG and its Wall Street "counterparties" are being rewarded for their recklessness - with our money.

Thanks to the Bush-Obama-Geithner policy of bailing out failing companies, we now have the worst of all possible scenarios: A taxpayer subsidized, government supervised private company; an unsustainable public/private hybrid that is too public to make its own decisions and too private to be responsible to the taxpayers that are keeping it alive.

Outrages like the fat cat bonuses currently dominating the headlines will only continue as long as the rule of politicians supplants the rule of law on Wall Street.

Congress should rethink this entire process. The dangers of a domino-like financial meltdown are real. But so, too, is the danger that the outrage of the American people will reach the point that we no longer trust the dire warnings - or the righteous indignation - coming from Washington.

  Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
   Newt Gingrich

P.S. -- Historian William Forstchen and I have collaborated on many different works of historical fiction. I'm proud to announce that Bill has a new novel out, called One Second After. It's a fascinating and disturbing account of what America would be like in the aftermath of an electro magnetic pulse (EMP) attack. Like everything Bill does, One Second After expertly combines human drama and geopolitical reality for a fictional look at what could be an all-too-real future.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Stimulus Bill Passes in House of Representatives Without a Single Congressperson Having Read the Bill...

There is really nothing that can be said to that action... if you have even an ounce of common sense!!

We have just passed a trillion-dollar Stimulus Bill in the House of Representatives that 'nobody' is sure will work and most people are doubtful or flat think it can't work and will bankrupt our children and grandchildren. Yet no Congressman or Senator has read it or understands it.  The Bill grew overnight from an 800 plus page bill to almost an 1100 page bill and nobody knows what has been added in those 300 pages or what was removed.   And the entire process in the House of Representatives was hurried along instead of slowed for consideration and review by the leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi, so she can go on her European Vacation and protect the pork, both added for herself and friends like Harry Reid.  It should be noted that the Bill was passed in the House without a single Republican voting for it.

Everyday we find out more and more about how there is no record of  how the first half of the TARP money, the previous bailout bill, that has already been dispersed was spent and how what is trackable of that TARP money was used to bail out banks that should have been allowed to fail.  Not a penny of that money has trickled down to Main Street and the new partnerships have just given the National Government more and more power, putting us on the road to socialism.  And if any of you think this is the right road, perhaps you should review the "state" of Great Britain after Tony Blair. 

Now the Stimulus Bill, re-named by most as the 'Spending Bill', is in the Senate, where it is expected to pass with the votes of only three Republican Senators, whose motives and incentives are questionable.  The Obama administration is supplying a special plane to a Democratic Senator dealing with personal problems in order to guarantee their desperately needed 60 votes, hardly a bipartisan bill or even an Obama or Democratic victory.

Last week Obama promised there would be no earmarks in the Spending Bill, now we hear there are many that will not create any new jobs, plus there are many many pet projects, like the Fantasyland Express, packed into this massive un-reviewed bill that has been repackaged several times, including behind doors by the light of last night's mid-night oil, leaving no time for a review.  In this computer age bills are normally provided to the members of the House and Senate as a computer file that can be easily searched, but not this time.  They got it at the last minute, old school... 1100 printed pages.  Any flags there??  And is anyone yelling "waste of paper"  "tree killers" or what happened to "go-green"?  Certainly not your usual Dems! 

The Republican Plan... both John McCain's and Mitt Romney's would cost half of this present bill and would create double the jobs... and much more quickly, yet the Democrats would only have it their way.  If this Bill turns out to be the fiasco that it promises to be, it will destroy the United States as we know it.  Even if it were a success, in three weeks after Obama's Inauguration, we have become a socialistic Country.  And although there will be no joy is saying "I told you so..."  the responsibility for the outcome of this mis-guided and hurried through plan will fall completely on the Democratic Party and President Obama.

Somewhere in the chanting and search for hope and change, we have lost our common sense, our values and our principles.  Let us hope we don't lose all our rights before we come back to our senses.

By:  Marion Algier

Join Glenn Beck's WE Surround Them...