|
Sunday September 21, 2008 19:57 |
On issue after issue after issue Democrats take up the side that weakens America while consistently opposing the side that strengthens America.
 
Democratic Crises After examining issue after issue this year I was struck by one thought. Democrats seem to always support policies that weaken America while opposing policies that would strengthen her. While spending considerable time trying to figure out why this would be, I think I’ve come upon a theory that explains everything. The thing that made this such a mystery was my ability to accurately predict what stand the Democratic party would take on any given issue simply by asking which position would hurt America and which would help. Democrats consistently choose the policy that would most hurt America. Using this standard it is easy to predict which position Democrats will take on a wide variety of seemingly unrelated issues. For instance, two unrelated issues: home mortgages and oil. On the surface these two issues have nothing in common, yet if you examine the results of policies Democrats favored and implemented, you will see that those policies have three things in common: they both failed, it was knowable in advance that they would fail and their failure was devastating to America. | | | | | Policies Democrats Oppose that would strengthen America: - Drilling for oil
- Nuclear power
- Lower Taxes
- Making Life Difficult for terrorists
- Anti-Missile Defense
- Teacher-control of the classroom
- School Choice
- Photo ID when voting
- Protect the borders
- Environmental policies that put people first
- Strong military
- Strong CIA
| | In the 1990s Democrats supported policies that would strong arm banks into giving mortgages to less-than-creditworthy individuals so they could buy homes. These people had little ability to pay back the loans and traditionally would have been considered bad credit risks. But through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration assured the banks that was no problem. When a bank makes a mortgage loan these quasi-governmental agencies purchase the loan, providing liquidity to the banking system by providing banks with a fresh infusion of capital that they then turn around and use to make more mortgage loans. As primary purchasers of mortgage loans Fannie and Freddie had the clout to set the credit standards banks would use in making loans. If Fannie and Freddie demanded that banks lend only to customers with excellent credit, then that's what banks would do. If they loosened their standards and agreed to purchase mortgages made to less creditworthy individuals, then the banks could loosen their standards and make even more loans. Since the banks turn around and sell their mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, they have no real stake in whether the borrower actually pays the loan back. So they base their credit requirements on whatever Fannie and Freddie will allow. As far as the banks are concerned, if Fannie and Freddie will purchase mortgages made to less than creditworthy individuals - it's good for them because it allows them to make loans to more people, thus helping their bottom line. At the heart of this problem is the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were directed by the Clinton administration to "liberalize" their credit standards so that people with credit scores less than what was traditionally acceptable could get mortgages. The stated intention was to make home ownership possible for more people. However, conservatives at the time often pointed out that this would eventually come back to haunt us as the less than credit-worthy borrowers defaulted and the taxpayer would have to bail everyone out. | | | | | |
|
Read more...
|
Liberal Lunacy 
