[tomder55]

Haven't seen it but will look for it . I think Maggie Smith is fantastic.

[speechlesstx]

If you like quirky British comedies you'll enjoy it.

Michelle Malkin has the new recovery logo...



She's also reporting that HUD spokesman Adam Glantz is telling entities that neither asked for or have a use for "stimulus" funding they're going to get that "we hope and encourage these new grantees to develop creative strategies" to use their porkulus funds.

What the heck, just get creative and find a way to spend your grandchildren's money.

[tomder55]

Here's another version

[George_1950]

It wasn't deregulation that caused these problems. It was OVERREGULATION that caused them. There should never have been a Fannie Mae and a Freddie Mac. There should never have been a Community Reinvestment Act. There should never have been a deliberate push to create a market for a product that didn't develop naturally...

In short, if Fannie and Freddie didn't exist, and if there had never been a CRA law, there never would have been a mortgage crisis. It was government regulation that created Fannie, Freddie and CRA, and thus created the problem.

If CRA still exists and if Fannie and Freddie still exist, there is still a market for bundled sub-prime mortgages, and there is still a market to "insure" those mortgages in the form of derivatives. That form of "deregulation" didn't change the market forces created by the government's intervention in the housing market.

It wasn't deregulation that caused the problem. It was overregulation...

Elliot

And this negative, destructive behavior is being bailed-out and our future as a free nation is being further imperiled. As I posted on another topic: In 2005, Greenspan said, "After his prepared testimony, in response to a question about the GSEs' portfolios, Greenspan noted, "We have found no reasonable basis for that portfolio above very minimum needs." He then proposed "a $100 billion, $200 billion--whatever the number might turn out to be--limit on the size of the aggregate portfolios of those institutions--and the reason I say that is there are certain purposes which I can see in the holding of mortgages which might be helpful in a number of different areas. But $900 billion for Fannie and somewhat less, obviously, for Freddie, I don't see the purpose of it." Greenspan then articulated his reasons for limiting the GSEs' portfolios: "If [Fannie and Freddie] continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road." He added, "Enabling these institutions to increase in size--and they will, once the crisis, in their judgment, passes--we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." AEI - Short Publications - Regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

[speechlesstx]

Have you read Jim Cramer's response to being on the White House enemy list? It's worth the read. It's too long for here but here's the close...

To be totally out of the closet, I actually embrace every part of Obama's agenda, right down to the increase on personal taxes and the mortgage deduction. I am a fierce environmentalist who has donated multiple acres to the state of New Jersey to keep forever wild. I believe in cap and trade. I favor playing hardball with drug companies that hold up the U.S. government with me-too products.

But these are issues that we have no time for now, on the verge of a second Great Depression. This is an agenda that must be held back for better times. It is an agenda that at this moment is radical vs. what is called for. I am proud to have voted for the Obama who I thought understood the need to get us on the right path, and create jobs and wealth before taxing it and making moves that hurt job creation -- certainly ones that will outweigh the meager number of jobs he's creating.

Most important, I believe his agenda is crushing nest eggs around the nation in loud ways, like the decline in the averages, and in soft but dangerous ways, like in the annuities that can't be paid and the insurance benefits that will be challenging to deliver on.

So I will fight the fight against that agenda. I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there. And when they get there, if times are good, we can have them give back or pay higher taxes. Until they get there, I don't want them shackled or scared or paralyzed. That's what I see now.

If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists -- tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and who get poorer by the day.

[George_1950]

I appreciate Cramer's response: "To be totally out of the closet, I actually embrace every part of Obama's agenda, right down to the increase on personal taxes and the mortgage deduction. I am a fierce environmentalist who has donated multiple acres to the state of New Jersey to keep forever wild. I believe in cap and trade." But, I don't understand how he can look at himself in a mirror. Cramer reminds me of the story, The Gingerbread Man: The Gingerbread Man

[ETWolverine]

Frankly, I don't think that Cramer qualifies as a general of anything. I disagree with the White House's criticism of him, but that he's wrong at least as often as he is right in his predictions. I could buy him as a Master Seargant or another military NCO, but he doesn't have the vision to be a general.

[Stringer]

I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh but what's up with this??

Your slogan on anti-Rush billboard : The Swamp

Chicago Tribune 3/7/09

[speechlesstx]

I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh but what's up with this ???

Your slogan on anti-Rush billboard : The Swamp

Chicago Tribune 3/7/09

Obama said in his inaugural address "that the time has come to set aside childish things." I guess he didn't really mean it. "Just words."

[Stringer]

Obama said in his inaugural address "that the time has come to set aside childish things." I guess he didn't really mean it. "Just words."

All that and possibly a 'distraction.. ':confused:

[speechlesstx]

Patterico notes a 2006 poll in which a full 51% of Democrats said they did not want Bush to succeed. More Democrat hypocrisy... and I'm tired of them getting away with it.

[speechlesstx]

The Obama administration is now pushing for a global stimulus plan. Meanwhile, the NY Times wonders if Geithner is in over his head. But who cares? We got priorities, destroy Rush and all other enemies of the agenda.

[George_1950]

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;1593804]The Obama administration is now pushing for a [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655587029066001.html"]global stimulus plan

Thanks for the cite: "By BOB DAVIS
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. will press world leaders to boost emergency government spending to lift the global economy, risking a rift with European nations more concerned with revamping financial regulation."

What a fallacy, stealing from Peter to pay Pam.

[Stringer]

I seriously do not have any grudges against any particular group as a whole but tell me what you think of this?

New Islamic mortgages now available in Minnesota

[speechlesstx]

It's an outrage, just as Connecticut trying to regulate the Catholic church and the UN's appeasement of Muslims.

[Stringer]

It's an outrage, just as Connecticut trying to regulate the Catholic church and the UN's appeasement of Muslims.

I swear, I have major concerns with both party's but lately it seems that you have to have a 'swivel neck' to keep up with all this craziness coming out of the woodwork...