Marcy Kaptur – an Ohio congresswoman puts a beatdown on Bush Bailout

The most breathtaking aspect about this week’s crisis, though, is that the life raft which Washington had only previously used to bail out the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is being handed out by a government whose party usually fights against any form of government intervention. The policy is anchored in its party platform.

I fear the government has passed the point of no return, financial historian Ron Chernow told the New York Times. We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams.

There will surely be an additional significant controversy re: how responsible is the accounting industry in this crisis. The purpose of required audits of public companies is to ensure that reporting is valid, that necessary disclosures are clearly presented. The accounting industry uses something called Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) which specifies required rules for reporting. There will be close scrutiny of the rules and how they may have prevented accurate presentation of all the failed banks’ positions.
It’s been mentioned a bit in MSM, but put on back burner in view of urgency of current situation.

And he is not even president yet.

http://tinyurl.com/4fnjwc

Q&O-Ed Morrisey at Hot Air provides the language in the bill which supports the point. It came from Chris Dodd’s proposal:
TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.

1. DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
2. USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)
1. 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and
2. 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
Got that? 20% right off the top is siphoned off and 65% of that goes to the Housing Trust Fund. Where does ACORN come in? The Heritage Foundation picks it up from there:

Just like any organized crime group, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has a long and established history of using fraud, deceit and intimidation to achieve its goals. ACORN uses intimidation to shake down corporations for operating funds, deceives its own employees into supporting causes they don’t believe in, and cheats the entire country by submitting fraudulent voter registrations.

ACORN is also adept at co-opting government power to fund and legitimize a criminal enterprise. It has been winning federal money since the Carter administration and routinely receives millions of dollars in federal grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In the 1990s, it began shaking down local business communities and has established local “Housing Trust Funds” in more than 300 states, counties, cities and towns. The funds funnel money through groups like ACORN to produce new homes and refurbish existing ones. The key to these trust funds is securing a dedicated source of public funds.

The Holy Grail for ACORN has been the establishment of a National Housing Trust Fund. During the brief economic downturn in 2001, ACORN pushed the fund as an economic stimulus. From 2003 through 2006 it pushed the fund as a solution to housing prices that were too high. Now liberals in Congress have included the National Housing Trust Fund in the latest housing bailout bill, arguing it’s needed because housing prices are too low.

Nuff said

The number of people I’ve seen telling me to vote for Obama because McCain takes money from the investment industry is worse – many even link to the page and tell me to look at line such and such when Obama is in the top five in taking contributions for *all* the different investment industry breakdowns. Did they think that I wouldn’t even look to see who the top five were, did they even notice, and if so how can they still say not to vote for McCain because he takes that money?

When their own data says, explicitly, the opposite of what they are telling you (and get quite angry when you note that Obama is in the top five – and do so with a non-aggressive way) saying something that can not proven or dis proven but doesn’t really make sense is a lesser amount of mental manipulation.