WE SURROUND THEM!

“80% of Americans are satisfied with their healthcare. Taking over the whole system for the other 20% is mindless. The risky government experiment on healthcare will be a nightmare for all. The government screws up everything they touch. I'd be willing to bet you've never listened to Beck or Rush for more than 10 minutes. People like you who decry racism every time someone disagrees with Obama are not interested in advancing an argument, rather they are only interested in shutting down someone elses argument. Mindless drivel is what mindless drivel does....”

“Privatizing Fannie, Freddie Could ‘Mitigate’ Risks Caused by Government Intervention, Says GAO
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
By Matt Cover



(CNSNews.com) - A Government Accountability Office report says that privatizing the government-sponsored enterprises (GSE) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could mitigate the systemic economic risk caused by the federal government’s guarantees to the now-defunct mortgage giants, but that the benefits of privatization could be reversed by government efforts to insure private-sector mortgages.

“The extent to which privatizing or terminating the enterprises mitigates current safety and soundness and financial stability risks is difficult to determine,” said GAO.

“Under one scenario, such risks would be mitigated because large and complex enterprises, which might engage in risky business practices due to the implied federal guarantee on their financial obligations, would not exist,” the report concluded. “Instead, private lenders would be subject to market discipline and consequently would be more likely to make credit decisions largely on the basis of credit risk and other market factors.

“However,” GAO continued, “this scenario would be complicated if a federal entity were established to insure mortgage debt. If the federal mortgage insurer did not set appropriate premiums to reflect the risks of its activities, then lenders might have incentives to engage in riskier business practices than otherwise would be the case.

“In similar situations, such as the National Flood Insurance Program, federal agencies have faced challenges in establishing appropriate premiums to compensate for the risks that they underwrite,” said GAO. “If large private-sector financial institutions assumed responsibility for key enterprise activities or purchased a significant portion of their assets, the perception could arise that the failure of such an institution would involve unacceptable systemic financial risks. Therefore, markets’ perceptions that the federal government would provide financial assistance to such financial institutions could undermine market discipline.”

The report, issued Thursday and circulated to key members of Congress, examined three competing proposals for the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Make them full-fledged federal agencies; keep them as GSEs; or privatize them.

While the GAO does not make policy recommendations, it did examine the positives and negatives of each option, weighing how well each option might achieve federal mortgage lending policy against the risks to taxpayers should something go wrong.

Making Fannie and Freddie pure government agencies, it said, would be the most direct route toward achieving federal policy. In that scenario, however, the government might not be able to manage the task of securitizing millions of mortgages, possibly exposing the taxpayers who would have to pay for any losses the agency incurred.

“Nevertheless, successfully managing a large conventional mortgage purchase and MBS [mortgage-backed securities] issuance business still may be a complex and challenging activity for a government entity,” the report says.

“[T]he failure to adequately manage the associated risks could result in significant losses that could be the direct responsibility of taxpayers,” it says.

If this new government mortgage company were to do as Fannie and Freddie have done and continue purchasing and securitizing mortgages during economic slowdowns, the risk to taxpayers would be amplified because poor economic conditions would make mortgage lending much more risky.

“This risk may be heightened if a government entity were expected to continue purchasing mortgages and issuing MBS during stressful economic periods when the potential for losses may be greater than would otherwise be the case.”

Keeping Fannie and Freddie as they are, the report found, would also allow the government to pursue its goals. However, keeping Fannie and Freddie as government-backed corporations would do nothing to address the problems which helped cause the current recession.

“When mortgage credit markets stabilize, the enterprises as reconstituted GSEs might be expected to perform functions that they have performed for many years,” it says. However, “[c]ontinuing the enterprises as GSEs could present significant safety and soundness concerns as well as systemic risks to the financial system.

“In particular, the potential that the enterprises would enjoy explicit federal guarantees of their financial obligations, rather than the implied guarantees of the past, might serve as incentives for them to engage in risky business practices to meet profitability objectives.”

Privatizing Fannie and Freddie would make it very difficult for the federal government to pursue housing and mortgage policies which favor one group--usually low-income borrowers--the report finds. This might not be a bad thing however, since Fannie and Freddie lost massive amounts of money on just those types of loans.

Fannie and Freddie “embarked on aggressive strategies to purchase mortgages and mortgage assets with questionable underwriting standards. For example, they purchased a large volume of what are known as Alt-A mortgages, which typically did not have documentation of borrowers’ incomes and had higher loan-to-value ratio or debt-to-income ratios.”

These Alt-A mortgages “served targeted groups” according to GAO, but also accounted for massive losses eventually covered by American taxpayers.

“Alt-A mortgages accounted for nearly half of Fannie Mae’s $27.1 billion in credit losses of its single-family guarantee book of business in 2008.”

Privatization, the report suggests, could prevent such a thing from happening again.

“This option also could eliminate the traditional legislative basis for requiring that they facilitate the flow of mortgage credit serving targeted groups, particularly through the numeric mortgage purchase program.””

“Report to the Mohawk Thread for re-education.”

“Dem Senator Warns of 'Big, Big Tax' on Middle Class in Baucus Bill

September 16, 2009 7:45 AM

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/09/dem-senator-warns-of-big-big-tax-on-middle-class-in-baucus-bill.html

DavisABC News' Teddy Davis reports:

It's not every day that you hear a Democratic senator charge that a fellow Democrat is proposing to raise taxes on the middle class, but that is what happened on Tuesday when Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ripped into the health-care bill developed by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mt., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

The Baucus proposal would impose, starting in 2013, a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for "high-cost plans" -- defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans.

Health economists believe a tax on high-priced benefits could help slow the growth of health costs by making consumers more sensitive to prices.

The tax contemplated by Baucus is also a big revenue raiser. It is expected to raise $200 billion, money that Baucus is hoping to use to pay for subsidies for the uninsured.

Given how much money this kind of tax can raise, Rockefeller says he understands why it is "tempting."

The West Virginia Democrat worries, however, that a lot of middle class workers, like the coal miners in his state, will end up facing "a big, big tax" under the Baucus bill because they currently enjoy generous employer-provided health care benefits which they receive tax free.

Referring to Baucus, Rockefeller said, "He should understand that (his proposal) means that virtually every single coal miner is going to have a big, big tax put on them because the tax will be put on the company and the company will immediately pass it down and lower benefits because they are self insured, most of them, because they are larger. They will pass it down, lower benefits, and probably this will mean higher premiums for coal miners who are getting very good health care benefits for a very good reason. That is, like steelworkers and others, they are doing about the most dangerous job that can be done in America."

"So that’s not really a smart idea," Rockefeller continued. "In fact, it’s a very dangerous idea, and I’m not even sure the coal miners in West Virginia are aware that this is what is waiting if this bill passes."

Rockefeller made his comments on a conference call with reporters which was sponsored by the liberal Campaign for America's Future.

Rockefeller, who sits on the Finance Committee, said that he cannot support the Baucus bill unless it receives major improvements during the amendment process.

Baucus, the Finance chair, is scheduled to discuss his "chairman's mark" with reporters on Capitol Hill at 12 noon on Wednesday.

ABC News' Brittany Crockett contributed to this report.”

“FUNNY.

FRIGHTENING.

TRUE.

”

“FUNNY.

FRIGHTENING.

TRUE.


last edited: 9/16/09 6:50:37 AM”

“FUNNY.

FRIGHTENING.

TRUE.

”

“FUNNY.

FRIGHTENING.

TRUE.

”

“Like probably many of you, we were absolutely entranced by the description of Rush Limbaugh's home in the New York Times this past weekend. It reminded us of this great book we have called Dictator Style, which showcases the flamboyant interior-decorating styles of some of the world's biggest despots. Limbaugh is, it seems, a member of the Saddam Hussein school of interior design. Like Saddam, he likes things opulent and luxurious— crystal chandeliers, lush carpets—and favors an oversized heirloom look— the chandelier in the dining room is a replica one from the Plaza, his library is "a scaled-down version of the library at the Biltmore Estate"—it's like Old Money Disneyland-style. Also like Saddam, Limbaugh likes to gild the lily:

The gleaming cherry-wood floors are dotted with hand-woven oriental carpets….Cherubs dance on the ceiling, leatherbound collections line the bookshelves and the wood-paneled walls were once “an acre of mahogany"... His staff lights fragrant candles throughout the house to greet his arrival from work each day.

Like many others whose fervent hate of and disregard for others is matched by a deep and true love for themselves, Limbaugh also keeps "a life-size oil portrait of El Rushbo, as he often calls himself" in a prominent position on his main staircase.

Limbaugh's scarily swank digs reminded us of a few other giant places occupied by giant personalities that we've recently come to know, and, in some cases, to love. After the jump, check out our mini-gallery of Egomaniacal Estates!”

“Is this what the green movement is all about? envy?”

“Why are you jealous, Hyway?”

“Asks the one posting about what other people have that he doesn't.”

“Does the O in MarkO stand for Olbermann?


Hard to believe someone making millions of dollars would live like that. Can you post a picture of Al Gore's trailer too? I know Ted Kennedy's in a smaller crib now, but can you post a pic of his previous one?”

“Sure they're happy with it, the taxpayer pays their tax bracket % of it's cost and inflation of goods and services pays the companies insurance bill. If they had to pay tax on that HC gift as income, you'd hear a lot of b!tching coming out these now happy folks because they would feel the increase in tax caused by HC inflation.”

“Does the "N" in Nonconformist stand for Needledick?

Asks the one posting about what other people have that he doesn't.”
hyway
8:34:30 AM
9/16/09

Well, Noncon?

I like Rush's "dictator style".....
The emperor has no soul.”

“Have you seen the digs of MarkO's hero? So opulent, it's sickening!

”

“I thought we were playing Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous? Carry on Keith!”

“I'm sickened. BLEEEECH!!!”

“So if "the news" didn't cover the latest event, how do they know how many people were there?”

“obviously, if the mainstream press doesn't cover it it didn't happen.”

“Grab yer ankles and pull a number outta yer ass.”

“
El #&%!$ing RushBo?? With a giant portrait of Himself over the mantle?? ROF

Funniest thing in a solid month!! Man, ya gotta sell a Lot of Snapple to pay for a Saddam style setup like that.

I wonder if the hookers appreciate it?

”

“Somebody gets it....

You get an "R" for ridicule, Tiltoid.

Accusing someone of envy is a serious matter, Hyway.
I didn't pull your chain but you yanked on mine, and so did Noncon.
Perhaps you are jealous of me, Hyway........you too, Noncon.”

“the internet is serious business.”

“Tilt, that portrait is his hooker.

The MSM work for the same companies that buy ads and pay the lobbyist and generally run this whole country, but they do supply health insurance to enough people which along with the gov subsidy keeps them being loved by all the soap and Buick buyers.”

“Accusing someone of envy is a serious matter, Hyway.
markO
11:30:45 AM
9/16/09


But accusing someone of racism is not. Make sure you get things in the proper order, hyway.”

“I thought he referred to himself as Old Smegma Breath.


last edited: 9/16/09 8:34:19 AM”

“MarkO or hyway?”

“Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

by Declan McCullagh
(AP)
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats' cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June -- the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to "no" -- and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

One difference is that while Heritage's numbers are talking about 26 years in the future, the Treasury Department's figures don't have a time limit.

"Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately," says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. "It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."

"They're not telling you the cost -- they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."

The FOIA'd document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: "Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.)

Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.

The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption. You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this.”

“

It looks like Rush is good at sucking the BIG ONE.”

“Jeeze, Strat, paying to clean up the environment. Who woulda thunk? But, ya know, of course we wouldn't have to be taxes if we could always count on PRIVATE INDUSTRY to clean up their messes. But nah, that wouldn't be the American way, would it? That's why we we completely blew through the BILLIONS in SuperFund money over the past 30 years to clean up environmental disasters from private cos.

Just wouldn't want to infringe on private industry to clean up the mess and possibly disrupt that holy grail of private markets...”

“Olbermann Fired and the NBC Rift
Keith Olbermann's Firing Reveals Tensions at NBC and MSNBC

© Bobby Brown
Sep 15, 2008
Keith Olbermann has lost his job covering the 2008 election for MSNBC for inept journalism and bashing a 9/11 tribute, revealing a hidden rift between NBC and MSNBC.

Olbermann Fired



As the RNC began, MSNBC’s ratings rose because of what has hailed as the ‘experiment’. The ‘experiment’ was teaming up Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, both openly Obama supporters, to chair MSNBC’s coverage of the presidential race. This meant they would have to act as objective journalists rather than in their usual roles, Matthews as a biased political analyst and Olbermann as a talk show host, on their respective primetime shows.

This resulted in a boost in MSNBC’s ratings due to their respective liberal fan base combining with cable viewers wanting to see the national conventions that normally wouldn’t watch cable news. It didn’t last long.

As usual Olbermann and Matthews took every opportunity to defend democrats and attack republicans. This incited many Americans who had turned to MSNBC’s election coverage expecting fair journalistic coverage to complain about the biased coverage and change the channel.

This prompted thousands to chant ‘’NBC! NBC!’’ and hold up signs criticizing the network when Sarah Palin mentioned the liberal media at the RNC.

The final straw came during the RNC just after a tribute to the victims of the 9/11 attacks was aired on MSNBC. Olbermann apologized that MSNBC had decided to honor the victims by airing the tribute and stated that the tribute was ‘’not appropriate to be shown,’’ and that any who participated in showing it should be ‘’eviscerated’’.
A



Olbermann and Matthews were removed from covering the election that weekend and MSNBC announced that David Gregory would replace them for the remainder of the election, including at the debates and on election night.
Rift Revealed

While officially NBC stated the removal of both Olbermann and Mathews was only because of a ‘’perceived shift to the political left”, NBC and MSNBC insiders were more direct and revealed a much more compelling reason.

MSNBC’s blatantly liberal pundits have caused ratings to tank and viewer backlash. This has created a rift between the network and its parent company NBC.

“MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict. They’re living from fix to fix and swearing they’ll go into rehab the next week,” one senior staff member said, describing the constant bashing of those that do not agree with their liberal views and the warnings from NBC to halt them. Interviews with 9 others revealed the same assessment of the longstanding tensions between the two stations.

Apparently the tension has gotten so bad that long time NBC anchors Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams even spoke up, saying that defending NBC from MSNBC is becoming, ‘’tougher and tougher.’’

MSNBC President Phil Griffin was quick to defend Olbermann and Matthews though, saying ‘’…the change is [simply] designed to free the MSNBC stars to state their opinions on air more freely.’’



Make no mistake, the people running NBC are liberals and they are biased. They like MSNBC’s bashing of anyone who supports war against terrorists, anyone who is not a liberal or that isn’t an Obama supporter. They just don’t like getting called on it.

Olbermann had worked for FOX News Channel before he was fired by Rupert Murdoch, who said ‘’He was crazy.’’ Olbermann has certainly proved that by constantly ranting about Bill O’reilly and his hatred of FOX News Channel since being canned. Call it a fatal attraction.

Olbermann has long been a critic of the US effort to rid the world of terrorists; his comments regarding the 9/11 tribute are no surprise.

NBC will probably never deliver balanced news but hopefully they will cancel Olbermann’s show. If openly insulting his employer and his disrespectful comments towards 9/11 victims, and those that endeavor to honor and remember them, didn't prompt that decision though; it is doubtful anything could.

The copyright of the article Olbermann Fired and the NBC Rift in Prime Time News Shows is owned by Bobby Brown. Permission to republish Olbermann Fired and the NBC Rift in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.


http://prime-time-news-shows.suite101.com/article.cfm/olbermann_fired_and_the_nbc_rift#ixzz0RIWcwwDG”

“You see where ABC apologized to the PrezBO for airing the "jackass" comment?”

“Good afternoon, Douchebag.”

“The black folk are always way taller than anyone one else at these rallies, Oh they're only on all of the signs. Not Racist at all.”

“New Rasmussen poll on Obamacare
55% oppose
42% support


Investors Business Daily polled physicians

65% oppose
33% support

45% of doctors said they would consider leaving their practice if Obamacare passes

So much for the "bump"”

“She's a democrat....I'm just sayin...”

“wrong

How can you not be [a Republican]? How can anyone not be? How can you live in a country when you can not [sic] say the Pledge of Allegiance anymore? Insane people have taken over the Democratic Party. They�re mad. They�ve taken over the asylum. To be worried about what the terrorists were eating at Camp X-ray, I think you�re beyond insane. They've just blown up New York.”

“I left the GOP and registered Independant so your post is irrelavant to me. Nice try though....NOT!

I can't disagree too much with that statement though. I'm entitled to my opinion. The Democrats are corrupt. They use the poor and blacks in hwat amounts to modern day slavery”

“you said joan rivers is a democrat

joan river said "how could you not be a republican" and then went on to rant about all the eeeeeeeeeeeevil democrats

what in the lilyliverfvcked hell does that have to do with whether or not you are a member of the republican party?”

“It is curious that his statements that he isn't a Rebublican anymore are always bracketed by reams of their current talking points.


Doctors don't want anyone to fvck with their gravytrain? I'm shocked.

What will they threaten to do next... hold their breaths 'til they turn blue?”

“If a clansman leaves the KKK because they aren't extreme enough does that mean he's not a racist any more?”

“When did tHe dOOd leave the klan?

I'm shocked!”