The Obama administration knew about the foreclosure irregularities?
it appears that the Obama administration chose to tolerate the irregularities that now threaten the housing market and the financial industry because it preferred that banks use their limited resources to focus on giving breaks to folks who couldn’t pay their mortgages, rather than on handling foreclosures properly.
I don’t know whether the irregularities in question justify an extended moratorium on foreclosures. But if they do — or even if they don’t, and we still end up with such a moratorium — then it looks like the Obama administration will bear considerable blame for the consequences.
This is the same economically ignorant mentality that was displayed yesterday on Fox News Sunday by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, when she said that the highest priority was to “keep people in their homes.”
So the government creates the crisis by encouraging people to buy homes they couldn’t afford, and now it’s perpetuating it by insisting on keeping them in them, instead of allowing the market to finally clear. The country’s in the very best of hands.
I’m not sure that “seduced” is quite the right word. I agree with Instapundit:
Bending over for tyrants is a major aspect of today’s academic culture, even as the benders-over proclaim their own courage and independence, and demonstrate those by attacking those whom they need not fear, while fearing those whom they do not criticize.
Remembered. It’s a shame that it was only forty-three years ago that he met his well-deserved fate — it should have happened sooner. And it’s appalling that it’s still socially acceptable to wear clothing with his image. It’s a fundamental symptom of the failure of our educational system and academia.
A discussion over at Slashdot. As a commenter notes, it’s not very smart politics to go against the wishes of the incoming chairman of the appropriations subcommittee. I’d really like to know what the White House thinks. I think that it’s time for Charlie Bolden to go, though, as I’ve said, it will be tough to replace him, particularly in the current heated political environment.
At one point, he warned his crowd of supporters to get out to vote in order to prevent his own embarrassment in November: “Don’t make me look bad, now.” Since he is not up for reelection, apparently the president means that the slaughter of perhaps 50 Democratic congressional representatives and 8-10 senators will reflect poorly upon himself. Of course it will, but he might have instead phrased his dilemma in terms of worry about his supporters’ fates rather than his own, inasmuch as most all voted for his agenda, despite the fact that almost all elements of it polled poorly with the American people. After November, many will be out of a job, not he — and yet his concern seems to be the public perception of his own godhead, not their unemployment.
Have we ever had a president so self absorbed? Since Bill Clinton, that is?
Kirsten Powers has noticed who really hates women. It’s nothing new. Seventies feminism was largely a reaction to the male chauvinist pigs among the campus left.
Paul Spudis isn’t very happy with the NASA authorization bill. I don’t think it’s great, myself, but it’s much less disastrous than the House version would have been. I agree with Clark Lindsey’s critique of Paul’s post (and not just because he quoted me).
…from the IRS. Just typical rent seeking by big business, which doesn’t generally have any interest in free markets when it can bribe the government to shut down the competition.
This is the reason why the Founders wanted limited government.