Politician, pardon thyself!

Pardon yourself!

On November 10, 2008, President Elect Barack Obama went to the White House and met with outgoing President George Bush. Obama was apparently offended by the offer of hand sanitizer. I wonder if George Bush would be offended by what may have been going through Obama’s mind.

What should be going through George Bush’s mind is the idea he needs to pardon himself and the top officials of his administration.

How wild is the thought that the new administration would indict the President?

All you have to do is go to Democrats.com and you can find a petition calling for the indictment of George Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes. The war crime? The liberation of Iraq.

The hard left has loved the idea of criminalizing conservatism since their glory days in the early 70’s, when they forced Richard Nixon from office. Their dream of seeing him frog marched into a Federal Courthouse and then off to Federal Prison was dashed when President Ford pardoned him.

91% of those surveyed on the Democraticunderground.com web site favored having George Bush indicted for war crimes. This is not an isolated thought in the realm of the liberal lunatic fringe. The idea that the Bush administration and Bush in particular should be put in prison for policy decisions is in the mainstream of thought and discussion in the Democratic Party.

So what does Obama do? Life was much easier when he was simply the junior senator from Illinois. Now he is the President-elect and soon to be the President. Does he really want that president set? I’m not sure. Obama, though he has not governed a single day, seems to be moving to the center with his appointments and comments. But he may have no choice but to appease the hard left in his party.

If Bush pardons himself and the senior members of his administration, which he should do today, not tomorrow; then the decision to prosecute Bush is taken from Obama and his justice department.

Many leftists in this country and abroad want Bush prosecuted in The Hague, for war crimes. For Obama, this could be a solution that lets him appease his left wing, without having to do the dirty work. One of the aims of George Soros and some of his ilk is to have America ‘derepublicanized’, somewhat like the de-nazification process in Germany after World War Two.

Given the unhinged hate that much of the national and international left has for George Bush, a pardon may not save him.

George Bush should be afraid. Very afraid.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Politician, pardon thyself!”

  1. As should you! We’re coming to get you, you know. You have no where to run, no where to hide. You life is over. Once we Liberal Devils get control of you, you’ll be waterboarded, stripped naked and piled up together with your conservative brethren, and watched no matter what you do. You won’t be able to make a phone call without us listening…

    Sound familiar? That’s because it already happened…and not by the intellectuals, bleeding hearts and squishes, but by you! You put George Bush in office. Shame on you! God WILL judge you for you sinful wickedness and you will know the torture of the damned.

  2. TNMama2Three Says:

    I think someone needs to give “amsron” his meds.

  3. Not at all. I”m just getting tired of the “liberals are what’s wrong with the world” creeps that can’t see beyond the ends of their noses. It’s been too long and too much has happened to let them/you all get away with it without calling it what it is…c**p!

  4. TNMama2Three Says:

    Amsron, I’m a conservative, not a Republican. The Republicans that have been in power since George Bush took office have turned me off to the Republican Party, so I withdrew my membership several years ago. I want less government involvement in my life, not more. Historically, the Democrats have grown our government, taxed us to death to pay for it and downsized our military to dangerous levels. The Republicans that were in power and in control grew the government in the last 6 years as much as the Democrats usually do. That’s when they lost me. The only thing George Bush has done since he took office that I agree with, is keep this country safe from another terrorist attack. I would think every American would be grateful for that. As for our economic downturn, you can thank the Democrats AND Republicans for that. The Democrats introduced the subprime fiasco into our culture and the Republicans did nothing to stop it, so, to me, they are both to blame. I’m willing to spread the blame around (where it belongs), are you?

  5. Actually for the first 6 years of the Bush administration, the Democrats had virtually no say in decisions made in any way shape or form. They were powerless to stop the carnage heaped on the country by the “freedom loving” Neo-conmen. To make matters worse, the Congress, led by Republican, Phil Gramm, repealed the Glass-Steagall act while doing nothing to regulate derivatives. That this was signed by Clinton probably had more to do with his Impeachment troubles and lame duck status than anything else. The bill would not even have reached his desk except that Republicans controlled Congress even then.

    YOU REALLY DON”T GET IT. It’s not the “Hard Left” that caused any of the problems but the hard right, which I notice you did not even mention in your diatribe. Read on.

    How Did This Mess Happen?

    I. Repeal of the Glass Steagall Act!

    Prior to the stock market crash in 1929, both investment and commercial banks took on too much risk, with depositors’ money by using those funds for active speculation in the stock market. These banks became greedy, taking on huge risks in the hopes of even bigger rewards. Banking became sloppy and unsound loans were made. Congress deemed that these banks had been the culprit in the crash. In 1933, the Glass Steagall Act was passed to separate investment and commercial banking activities.

    Now moving to the 1990s . . . after many years of investment bank lobbying, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in November of 1999  once again allowing the consolidation of commercial and investment banks into one entity.

    II. Now Let the Fun Begin!

    From 1999 to 2002, demand for houses and the ensuing price rises could be attributed to economic fundamentals such as low unemployment, expanding household incomes and population growth. Congress told both agencies, in 1999, to ease the credit requirements to low-income buyers. With the events of 9/11 and the Fed’s later decision to lower the discount rate to 1%, future home buyers were lured (by lower interest rates) into acquiring property sooner than they had planned. At this time, the biggest players (in home mortgages) were Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which actively issued and purchased conventional, conforming mortgage-backed securities.

    ♦ Loan volume grew to $5 trillion by 2002.
    ♦ Pay-Option ARMs represented only 3% of loans.

    In 2002, federal regulators found (in both companies) irregularities and mismanagement by senior officers, who later resigned. By 2003, regulatory and political factors forced both Freddie and Fannie overstated earnings by $9 billion, which significantly slowed down their future lending volume. With the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in place and demand for housing still increasing, the “new” investment banks created private funding in the form of mortgage and asset-backed securities, which replaced the standard conventional lending with looser underwriting standards. In 2004, these investment banks were successful in changing their reserve requirements on securities, which required $1 in reserves for every $12 loaned. The new reserve ratio became $1 to $40! Now new loan programs could be designed to meet the needs of the investment bankers’ clients, who were demanding higher returns. By 2005, loan volume had grown to $9 trillion.

    ♦ 68% of home mortgages were securitized
    ♦ 33% were non-prime loans
    ♦ Pay-Option ARMs grew to 30% of securitized non-prime mortgages.
    ♦ 40% of loans were low or no doc loans

    These new lending programs allowed less-than-credit-worthy borrowers to obtain loans. With rapidly appreciating home prices, home equity loans were added to the mix and the consumer was living large! Wall Street was now in love with their creation  Structured Investment Vehicles!

    Sources: Glass Stegall Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, UC Irvine’s Paul Merage School of Business, FDIC

    -1-

    III. The Structured Investment Vehicle (SIV)

    Even by 2005, charge-off rates for mortgages and home equity loans were well below the long term
    averages (0.05/0.10 versus the long term average of 0.15/0.20). This allowed Wall Street’s new credit
    environment to continue to offer looser lending standards and increased tolerance for riskier, high-yield
    loan products. The structured investment vehicle was designed to help diversify these risks.

    Their Structure:
    ♦ Sub-Prime, 8.3%; Alt-A ,6.7%; Prime, 13.3%; Residential Mortgage-Back Securities, 0.2%.
    ♦ Asset Backed Securities, 12.1%; Collateralized Debt Obligations, 15.4%.
    ♦ Collateralized Loan Obligations, 6.3%; Nonfinancial Corporation Debt, 0.2%.
    ♦ Commercial Mortgages, 7.7%; Financial Institution Debt, 28%; Insurance Debt, 1.8%.

    Ownership Participation:
    ♦ U.S./Foreign Banks, 59%; Hedge Funds/Sovereign Trusts, 28%; Insurance Companies, 6%.
    ♦ Pension Funds, 2%; Corporations, 2%; Mutual Funds, 2%; Others, 1%.

    What It Allowed Them To Do:
    ♦ Credit was made available to various types of borrowers (sub-prime, businesses, credit card users,
    leasing contracts, commercial loans, manufacturing, auto loans, etc.) who would otherwise have
    not been able to obtain such credit.
    ♦ Transferred risk to their off-balance sheets (OBSEs), to reduce reserves.
    ♦ Permitted exposure to remain mostly undisclosed to regulators and investors.
    ♦ Improved loan liquidity; generated fees; obtained relief from regulatory capital requirements.

    • From 1997 to 2006, U.S. home prices rose 85%  an historical high!

    Their Problems:
    ♦ Default rates exceeded earlier assumptions.
    ♦ The three main credit rating agencies were forced to make precipitous downgrades on a large
    number of these SIVs.

    • Freddie Mac’s Alt-A loans are 10% of its portfolio but more than half of its credit losses.
    • Option ARMs were 19.5% of loan volume in 2005 and 28.7% in 2006.
    • Freddie Mac had a projected model (risk factor) of price declines of 13.4%.

    ♦ To make matters worse, they made long-term loans with short-term deposits.

    Investors did not have a clear idea of what portion of an SIV they owned, with whom they owned it with,
    what portion (if any) was insured, what was their “tranche” position, and were any of the insuring
    companies covering any of the losses. Due to a lack of this knowledge, many investors withheld funding
    from these very complex structured products, even those with high-quality underlying assets.

    By the summer of 2007, the securitization market was dead and the credit crunch hit all aspects of the
    lending markets. With little money for refinances and rapidly falling housing prices, short sales and
    foreclosures began to dominate the market. Today, these types of sales contribute to almost 50% of all
    recorded sales in southern California.

    Sources: Federal Reserve, Standard & Poor’s, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

  6. TNMama2Three Says:

    Once again, the Republicans did not start this. The Democrats stuck their nose in the banking industry (where it did not belong) by requiring them to lower their standards for lending after years of only lending money to those who were deemed credit worthy. This was a Democrat initiative, not a Republican one. And where in the world did you get the idea that the Republicans controlled anything the first 6 years of Bush? They didn’t regain power until 2002, two years (and one terrorist attack) after Bush took office. It was after 2002, when they (Congress) continued to spend money like drunken sailors on leave that I got turned off to the Republican Party. Those were not the Conservative principles I vote on and I refuse to vote for anyone who is not for limited government. Our capitalist society works just fine as long as the government stays out. It’s when they decide to interfere in business that things really get screwed up (as in when they decided the banking industry should lower their standards for judging who should get loans). YOU, my friend, are the one who doesn’t get it.

  7. TNMama2Three Says:

    Watch this video and see where the blame lies:

  8. Quoting conservative sources to prove conservative lies…what are you, Fox News?

  9. TNMama2Three Says:

    No, I thought a cut and paste response was appropriate for your cut and paste post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: