The no-political-stance rule applies both ways

• IRS to Church: Support Iraq War or Lose Your - Tax-Exempt Status!
  • The conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too...sm - Democrat
    • The no-political-stance rule applies both ways - on the other hand

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Eliot Spitzer wrote this editorial in the Washington Post 3 weeks before they politically assassinated him. 

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.

1. Homosexual marriage:  For it.  If homosexual couples are afforded other freedoms, I am for this one too.  If they are allowed to adopt children, they should be allowed to get legally married in the eyes of the state.

2. Welfare:  Not for it. I do, however, believe in subsidies to provide help for those in need.  Welfare needs an upgrade.

3. Abortion:  I am for the right of choice and the right to privacy on these matters.

Hope your poll helps clarifies things for you. 

for what I said above.  Government shouldn't have 80% of AIG.  They should have let AIG fall on its face.  They shouldn't have given them money in the first place. 

Here is a little blurp I've copied:  I will provide the link below.

On March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009.

You can read the whole article at this link:  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html

So this basically shows that these bonuses were pushed through by Dodd and so the government had its hand in giving out these bonuses and now they are going to turn around and take that away.  It is a contract.  I understand that AIG got butt loads of money from the government.....which was wrong in the first place.....but don't you see how scary it is for our government to have this kind of control and power.  To give and take away at the drop of a hat.  To null and void a contract that someone in government (Dodd) pushed through to make happen and then they turn around and want to tax it to death or just take it from them. 

Why in the he!! did Dodd get this slipped in there in the first place?  that is the real question.  This wouldn't even be an issue.  Dodd slips this in because he received the highest amount of money from AIG.  So of course he wanted to pay back the hand that fed him...so to speak.  And guess who had the second highest amount of contributions from AIG.....Barrack Obama.....   So Dodd slips this through and allows a loophole for the AIG execs to get their big ars bonuses and now that it has gone public and people are furious......now government wants to take control and make them give the money back.  Isn't it the governments fault in the first place....first for bailing them out and then for letting this loophole slip by to pay back AIG for contributions to campaigns. 

This is why our government sucks.  They don't care about Americans.  All they care about is getting money back to the groups, etc. who contributed money to their campaign.  That is why we can't get away from wasteful spending and earmarks.

 on politics. She forever tries to make a laughing stock out of everyone who doesn't share her views. I think she is ridiculous and I get a kick out of her when she cracks a "supposed funny" but no one laughs. She is he11 bent on views so much, she makes me sick. I don't see where or why she is part of that program. It's supposed to be open topics, but when someone she likes it on the program, she keeps her mouth shut. I just wish she would keep it shut more often.

Please note, these are from 2008 before the election, but I think they still hold true.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm

In fact, you can also check out Emanuel, Holder, McCain, Napolitano, Clinton, here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Immigration.htm#Headlines

Just saw on MSNBC they are polling Barack/Hillary agains McCain (who has the bigger leads).  Of course they only show PA, Ohio, and Florida (the 3 states she did better in). 

New rule - If they are going to show polls, they should show them for all states!  Not just the ones where one candidate is doing better than the other.

Homeland Security, the Keystone Stasi, Now Tracks and Enforces Local Police Warrants

June 20, 2006: For many years, those working to create a total surveillance state have employed the salami tactic of taking away our freedoms one slice at a time. Laws that directly challenge constitutional rights, like the USA PATRIOT Act, are the spectacular exception. Agencies like FEMA quietly prepare plans for martial law, and have built a Shadow Government for military rule without need of a written order. The Bush administration for its part has constantly tested the waters, establishing new realities by fiat (as in its creation of the enemy combatant category to justify unlimited detention without charges), or floating test balloons like the Total Information Awareness program (which was withdrawn officially, even as the NSA's telephone surveillance proceeded to implement its spirit behind the scenes).

Now we must all realize that at some point, the salami runs out. It no longer makes sense to say that our government is creating a police state. The fact is, that state has arrived, complete with One Big Database and the establishment of universal jurisdictions. In an editorial published this week in New York Newsday, Ray LeMoine tells a memorable story of how he was detained by Homeland Security for several hours because of outstanding local police warrants relating to his sale of unlicensed T-shirts (Yankees Suck, among others). We dare not dismiss this as a minor matter; it shows that there is nothing about us in electronic form that Homeland Security does not know. Though he is clearly a believer in the official story of 9/11, LeMoine doesn't let his humorous tone hide the true meaning of his story: Homeland Security, the agency set up to combat terrorism after 9/11 has been given universal jurisdiction and can hold anyone on Earth for crimes unrelated to national security... erasing the lines of jurisdiction between local police and the federal state. If we do not fight back, the day when Homeland Security can detain people for being behind on their credit card payments is not far off. A national ID card with a chip of our complete financial, health and criminal records seems almost superfluous. Once again, 9/11 was a useful pretext for those who exploit terror to wage war on freedom. (nl)

 do that phase strike a familiar note?

for healthcare workers who refuse to participate in performing abortions or dispensing birth control methods which disagree with their religious convictions.  So now a woman's right to choose whether to abort her unborn child trumps a healthcare professional's right to adhere to their religious convictions?  The article even mentions Catholic healthcare facilities as not being exempt, and we know how the Church feels about abortions.  Unbelievable!!! 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/politics/28web-abort.html

Dirty politics equals dirty water.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove13jun13,0,1520344,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

From the Los Angeles Times

EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove

The White House says the executive's appeal had no role in changing a measure to protect groundwater. Critics call it a political payoff.

By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writers

June 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — A rule designed by the Environmental Protection Agency to keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones was loosened after White House officials rejected it amid complaints by energy companies that it was too restrictive and after a well-connected Texas oil executive appealed to White House senior advisor Karl Rove.

The new rule, which took effect Monday, came after years of intense industry pressure, including court battles and behind-the-scenes agency lobbying. But environmentalists vowed Monday that the fight was not over, distributing internal White House documents that they said portrayed the new rule as a political payoff to an industry long aligned with the Republican Party and President Bush.

In 2002, a Texas oilman and longtime Republican activist, Ernest Angelo, wrote a letter to Rove complaining that an early version of the rule was causing many in the oil industry to openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity.

Rove responded by forwarding the letter to top White House environmental advisors and scrawling a handwritten note directing an aide to talk to those advisors and get a response ASAP.

Rove later wrote to Angelo, assuring him that there was a keen awareness within the administration of addressing not only environmental issues but also the economic, energy and small business impacts of the rule.

Environmentalists pointed to the Rove correspondence as evidence that the Bush White House, more than others, has mixed politics with policy decisions that are traditionally left to scientists and career regulators. At the time, Rove oversaw the White House political office and was directing strategy for the 2002 midterm elections.

Angelo had been mayor of Midland, Texas, when Bush ran an oil firm there. He is also a longtime hunting partner of Rove's. The two men first worked together when Angelo managed Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign in Texas.

In an interview Monday, Angelo welcomed the new groundwater rule and said his letter might have made a difference in how it was written. But he waved off environmentalists' questions about Rove's involvement.

I'm sure that his forwarding my letter to people that were in charge of it might have had some impression on them, Angelo said. It seems to me that it was a totally proper thing to do. I can't see why anybody's upset about it, except of course that it was effective.

Asked why he wrote to Rove and not the Environmental Protection Agency or to some other official more directly associated with the matter, Angelo replied: Karl and I have been close friends for 25 years. So, why wouldn't I write to him? He's the guy I know best in the administration.

White House spokesmen said Monday that the rule was revised as part of the federal government's standard rule-making process. They said the EPA was simply directed by White House budget officials to make the rule comply with requirements laid out by Congress in a sweeping new energy law passed last year.

The issue has been a focus of lobbying by the oil and gas industry for years, ever since Clinton administration regulators first announced their intent to require special EPA permits for construction sites smaller than five acres, including oil and gas drilling sites, as a way to discourage water pollution.

Energy executives, who have long complained of being stifled by federal regulations limiting drilling and exploration, sought and received a delay in that permit requirement in 2003. Eventually, Congress granted a permanent exemption that was written into the 2005 energy legislation.

The EPA rule issued Monday adds fine print to that broad exception in ways that critics, including six members of the Senate, say exceeds what Congress intended.

For example, the new rule generally exempts sediment — pieces of dirt and other particles that can gum up otherwise clear streams — from regulations governing runoff that may flow from oil and gas production or construction sites.

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), who joined five Democrats in objecting to the rule, wrote in March that there was nothing in the energy law suggesting that such an exclusion of sediment had even entered the mind of any member of Congress as it considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Moreover, Jeffords wrote, the rule violated the intentions of Congress when it passed the Clean Water Act 19 years ago.

White House and administration officials disagreed.

At the EPA, Assistant Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles said the rule responded directly to congressional action. He cited a letter from Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, endorsing it. He added that the rule still allows states to regulate pollution, and that it continues to regulate sediment that contains toxic ingredients.

Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for another senior lawmaker, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Monday that the rule was designed to hold oil companies accountable for putting toxic substances in the soil, but not for dirt that results from storms.

When it rains, storm water gets muddy, regardless of whether there's an oil well in the neighborhood, Miller said. Congress told EPA to do this, and now they have. If there's oil in the water, a producer has to clean it up. If it's nature, they don't.

The change in the rule occurred last year when staffers in the White House Office of Management and Budget began editing an early version drafted by EPA technical staff. The Office of Management and Budget oversees another division, the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy, which critics complain has served as a central hub in the Bush White House for making government regulations more business-friendly.

A spokesman for the White House budget office, Scott Milburn, said Monday that the White House's involvement in making rules was intended to ensure that agencies issue regulations that follow the law.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected the suggestion that Rove was involved in the rule change. Rove frequently receives requests, she said, and that he tries to reply and direct those requests to the appropriate people. She said that for environmentalists to accuse Rove of manipulating the EPA rule was a typical overreach by administration critics.

That is quite an overreach, when it was the United States Congress that passed the Energy Act in a bipartisan way to ask the EPA to undertake this rulemaking, she said.

In their March letter, Jeffords and his Democratic colleagues asked EPA officials whether the correspondence with Rove influenced the final rule.

A response written by Grumbles did not directly address the Rove question. But the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups assert that they know the answer.

We can't say that Karl Rove walked over to OMB and demanded these changes, said Sharon Buccino, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's land program. But it is clear that there was direction coming from the top of the White House, and this was a result of the thinking of the White House as opposed to environmental experts at EPA.

Buccino called the rule yet another example of the Bush administration rewarding their friends in the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment and the public's health.

In his letter to Rove, Angelo did not hide his political feelings. He thanked Rove for all you do, and added words of encouragement on another topic: The president has the opposition on the run on the Iraq issue.

His letter appeared to gain notice at the highest levels of the administration. Three months after Angelo sent it, a top EPA official wrote to tell him that the agency had decided to impose the temporary delay on the construction permitting rule for oil and gas companies.

The letter was copied to Rove, White House environmental advisor James L. Connaughton and then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.

Of course, it takes a reasoning fair minded person to do it.  And that is very rare, practically nonexistent anymore.  One of William Bennett's best friends is Thomas Sowell.  If he is a racist, explain that.  You can't, because he isn't.  You and others like you do more to divide the white and black peoples of this country.  Anything to drive a wedge in and portray the Democratic party as the saviors of the blacks.  They don't need saviors, you know. They are perfectly able to fend for themselves.  In fact, many blacks are coming to realize that they have been used as pawns by the Democrats.  It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.  And frankly I don't care if you do.  Just keep spouting your leftist propaganda.  People are listening and they are running the other way. 

Either she is a tough, experienced mayor and governor who has and will face down the big boy club, or else is an novelty, inexperienced candidate who must be sheltered from from reporters.  You can't have it both ways.