Happyg's Blog

This bailout "plan" seems to have the country divided in two. 50% demand we do nothing and let market forces run it's course and the other 50% think the government should control the market forces anyway. I have to tell you that after hearing all the tales of "impending doom" I think maybe a meshing of both ideas may have to be the solution. Here's mine:

Since the major concern of this crisis is to stabilize the future of our economy, it seems to me that this $700 billion dollar proposal should be immediately passed with the following changes.

(1) Without question there will be no executive who is allowed to make anymore than 50 times the average employee of any corporation that will be enhanced by the remainder of this proposal.

(2) All "paper" that contains pension or annuity fund monies shall be secured up to 80-85% for all instruments that have yet to be activated. All "active" plans (Currently distributing payouts) will be returned to a 100% level. If these funds are bundled into complex futures or other promissory notes they are to be "unbundled" under an emergency declaration ridding them of valueless assets. All remaining assets will be re-valued and returned to the markets under more "visible" terms.  If this results in the overall loss of 15% or more from any pension or annuity fund, the remaining balance will be secured up to the 85% level by the $700 billion fund.

(3) Return the qualification level of mortgage loan applications back to it's historic levels by demanding a 20% down payment and 25-30% of income ratio. (Sorry ACORN)

(4) After securing the pension and annuties of all Americans to an 80-85% or higher level, they are to unbundle the rest of this paper and let the free market bear the losses. In a free market, market forces need to be allowed to fluctuate without interference from governmental demands. (Requiring loans to people who can't afford them). Historically our market forces operate properly. Only when impediments are put in place does this market not operate in the best interest of our economy.

(5) And finally, energize our economy with another immediate stimulus package that will jump start our economy and return confidence to the American public.

Now I know some of these proposals will be met with resistence, but our main priorities need to be to protect our pension and annuity markets. Wall Street is by nature a gamble. Sometimes those who gamble win, sometimes they lose. It's always been that way. There is no reason why Americans, many who by no choice of their own invested in this paper, should lose their retirement income. We are Americans. We will solve this crisis. Those who committed crimes must be punished severely by hard core prison time. This attack on our American economy was an act of sedition. It cannot, and should not be tolerated.

As Tom Brokaw played softball with the presumptive nominee, he never could bring himself to ask those really hard questions. No "Russet-like" press, just an instinctive recoiling as his "guest" digressed to other far less specific topics. Why is it that our MSM won't ask this man any tough questions? Or, better put, when they do, why don't they demand answers? Below are just a few examples, maybe I'm wrong. You be the judge.

When Obama was asked whether or not the "surge" worked, he said, 'well, we just don't know'. Really? Brokaw then let him drift into a dialog suggesting that it was the Sunni's who 'caused the real turn around, even before the surge had started'. Really? Come to think of it, they did have a change of heart. Now the question should have been, "But Mr. Obama, if you had your way all our troops would have been gone long before they had their "change of heart", so do you think that we could be talking about leaving Iraq if we followed your plan?" Brokaw alluded to something like this, but once again, allowed digression.
It appears the "peace candidate" now is a big fan of "surges" and now wants to surge into Afghanistan. Really? I thought he was going to bring all the troops home? Brokaw, nothing.
He know wants to put Pakistan on "notice" that the US will target areas in their country if there is "actionable intelligence" and Pakistan refuses to act. Really? Can you say World War 3. Here's an important fact that Obama needs to know. THE PAKISTANI PEOPLE WILL NEVER WELCOME U.S. COMBAT TROOPS ON THEIR SOIL. IT WILL CAUSE THE PAKISTANIS TO UNITE AGAINST THIS NATION, BOTH THERE AND HERE AT HOME. THIS MAN IS A FOOL.
The bottom line is that Barack Obama isn't even close to being ready for prime time.

Every election the abortion issue raises it's ulgy head. The far left wants to kill babies, even when they survive the procedure, the far right wants to make sure no one has the choice to start with. What it all boils down to is that the best case scenario for the pro-life side is that this issue is sent back to the states to decide on a state by state basis. The best case for the pro-abortion side is that nothing happens at all.
This election may result in the appointment of at least two new SC judges. If so, the question that will most assuredly be asked during nomination will be, "do you think Stare Decisis applies to Roe v. Wade". The question that I have is, why does the left always invoke Stare Decisis (settled law) when it comes to killing babies, but not when deciding who the participants are in a marriage? Any thoughts?

Happyg
Jul 12, 2008 | 10:41 AM

What little we do know about Obama is disturbing to normal Americans. He comes out of the city of Chicago long known for it's ties to organized crime and union manipulation. His associates have been known to speak disparagingly not only about white Americans, but about our government as a whole. Some in the past, have even been considered "terrorists" against this nation.

Mr. Obama's years in the Illinois Senate showed him to be pro-abortion, even in the third tri-mester and that he favored gun control. Although he now seems to favor the right for citizens to bear arms, but only if certain cities can remain gun-free zones(?) Go figure???

 I could go on to the FISA Bill that he swore he would oppose, yet just recently voted for; or his "firm" committment to END THE WAR IN IRAQ IN SIX MONTHS, which now also appears to be just more hype. Or just say "No" to drilling. But what I "fear" the most about Barack Obama is his 130 "present" votes while in the Illinois Senate. His recent recantations, coupled with his history for not being able to take a position, leads this reasonable man to believe that Mr. Obama cannot make a sound decision under pressure that he will not waver on. Our country is at war and our enemies only understand violence. His thoughts of using rhetoric, with the threat of increased rhetoric as a way of defending this nation was tried during the 90's. It was a miserable failure. And so too, would be an Obama Administration.

Considering that this post was already pulled down once at Foxboston, I guess the original title is quite appropriate. Rarely Seen In Our Media..... Jun 24, 2008 | 01:28 PM PST
Category: Political Report This Post

Rarely Seen In Our Media.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

Everytime I hear a Democrat talk about protecting pensions, as a union member, I know they aren't talking about me. You see, while our Democrat "friends" are more than willing to harness the free labor and lucrative funds that our union leaders reap upon them, when it came to protecting our rank and file union member's pensions, they didn't feel that our union pensions deserved at least the same oversight and accountability standards that they demanded for all other Americans. Don't believe me? It's all in our US Congressional Record. (Dated July, 10, 2002, Senate pages- Sarbanes/Oxley debate) After hearing about HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN UNION PENSION FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 2002, each and every Democrat Senator voted against extending Sarbanes/Oxley to cover our union pensions. Senator Sarbanes stated that 'we already have in place what we consider adequate safeguards. A year in jail, and or a ten thousand dollr fine. Democrat politicians like unions alright. Oh, not the rank and file, just the mob bosses that fill their coffers with member's monies while they steal the rest.

So the next time you hear a Democrat politician talk about protecting Americans pensions, if you're a union member, remember, they're not talking to you.