Tag Archives: Recession

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis endorses socialism in leaked video

Video here. (H/T Verum Serum)

Morgen at Verum Serum writes:

While labeling liberal Democrats and other progressives as “socialists” now invites an instant loss of credibility (even amongst many conservatives), it is a designation easily understood to mean someone who clearly does not believe in the primacy of individual responsibility and limited government. And so when a notable progressive publicly aligns themselves with the socialist cause, it presents a rare opportunity to demonstrate to the broader American public the core philosophy and the long-term agenda which underly so much of the “progressive” political platform.

ACORN, you remember, is Barack Obama’s former employer. He trained them in community activism. Community activism may mean suing banks to force them to make loans to people who cannot afford homes, wrecking the economy. And later, they can be bailed out by Obama, with your money. Bertha Wilson endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Related posts

MUST-READ: Wall Street bankers gave Obama millions in campaign contributions

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner reports on Obama’s new bank bailout bill.

Excerpt:

President Obama likes to say we need to clean up Wall Street.  But let’s be clear: He is pushing a job-killing bailout bill for Wall Street that benefits his top financial contributor from the 2008 campaign – a firm that just happens to be under investigation by the SEC for defrauding investors.

Despite the President’s rhetoric, his support for the Democrats’ bailout bills gives big Wall Street banks a permanent, taxpayer-funded safety net by designating them “too big to fail.”

[…]Goldman Sachs, recently charged with defrauding investors, was President Obama’s top Wall Street contributor during the 2008 election cycle, donating nearly $1 million to his campaign.

  • Securities & investment firms in general were the fifth largest contributor to President Obama’s 2008 campaign, donating nearly $15 million.
  • Big banks also donated more than $3 million to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

And some details about what the new bank bailout does:

  • The Dodd Gives Wall Street a Pre-Existing $50 Billion Bailout Slush Fund. Sen. Dodd’s financial bailout bill would create a $50 billion ‘orderly resolution fund’ ($150 billion in Rep. Barney Frank’s bill) that could be repeatedly replenished from industry assessment.
  • The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street a Treasury-Backed Credit Line.  The FDIC would be authorized to borrow from Treasury up to the amount of cash left in the ‘resolution fund’ plus 90 percent of the value of the assets of any and all too-big-to-fail firms in its control.
  • The Dodd Bill Provides a Government-Guaranteed to Wall Street Debt.  The FDIC would be authorized to guarantee the debt of any solvent bank, bank holding company, or affiliate in any amount subject only to an aggregate debt limit set by the Treasury Department.
  • The Dodd Bill Institutionalizes Unlimited Wall Street Bailouts.  The FDIC, as the resolution agency for too-big-to-fail firms, would be given wide latitude to use resources to make payments to anyone in any amounts, at their own discretion.

Now let’s hear more about the rich bankers from Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs

This Newsbusters article explains Goldman Sachs’ connections to the White House:

  • White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used to work for Goldman Sachs.
  • Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner used to work for Goldman Sachs.

And the Washington Examiner reports that:

  • Former White House counsel Greg Craig is now employed by Goldman Sachs.

Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs are often filled with Democrats.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

And don’t forget that the government-backed companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run by Democrats, and they were also bailed out by the Democrats.

Excerpt:

Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.

A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.

Now remember, he’s only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn’t afford them.

Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration’s White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama’s VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Political contributions and bailouts. Is there a connection?

Is the United States of America becoming a European welfare state?

Rep. Paul Ryan

Rep. Paul Ryan, writing at Real Clear Politics.

Excerpt:

…an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood.

All told, 60 percent – three out of five households in America – were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama’s budget last year will raise this “net government inflow” from 60 to 70 percent. Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus – through government – supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous.

[…]Just to return to where we were at the end of 2007, 8.4 million jobs have to be created. To reduce unemployment to its pre-crisis level of 5 per cent by the end of President Obama’s term, our economy needs to create 247,000 new jobs per month. But we are headed in the wrong direction … except in one field: the government is growing at breakneck pace in expanding federal payrolls.

Although millions of private sector jobs have been lost since the recession began, Washington is on track to add about 275,000 more people to the public payrolls – a whopping 15 percent increase. And we aren’t talking minimum wages here. More federal workers make over $100,000 than those earning $40,000 or less. The average government worker’s salary in 2009 was 21 percent higher than private sector salaries. The average federal worker’s compensation package, including benefits, was nearly $120,000 in 2008, twice the private sector at $60,000. One study shows the private sector benefit package averages $9,900 while the federal package averages almost $41,000. Now the Administration wants Congress to privilege federal workers by writing off their unpaid student loans after ten years. People in productive private sector jobs would keep paying for twenty years. Progressivists would really like everyone to work for the government.

Once you start to pay 50-60 percent of your income to your neighbors who are not working, you don’t try to have a family any more. What is the point? Working harder to provide for them doesn’t get you anything.