Britain teeters on the edge of utter irrelevance

Not satisfied with Draconian recycling rules, bans on backyard grilling, and issuing to citizens, carbon credit cards, environmental busy-bodies in the once, but no longer, Great Britain, are actually considering WWII-style food rationing as a way to combat the farcical myth known as global warming. Apparently folks in Great Britain didn't get the memo that climate change is a natural, normal, and healthy Earth phenomenon.

People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change, a major new report warns.

The report, by the Food Climate Research Network, based at the University of Surrey, also says total food consumption should be reduced, especially "low nutritional value" treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.

By run-away climate change of course they mean global warming, a complete and utter fantasy conjured up in the fever swamps of liberalism and the intended result of which is not reduction of utterly harmless CO2, but dictatorial control of all human activities by the imperial State. One would think that at some point the Brits would stop their hysterical do-gooding long enough to see that everybody else is laughing at them the way everybody laughs at the fat kid who farts in class.....but then, one would be wrong.

Price gouging solves shortages

As most of you know, there are gas lines all across Atlanta ever since Ike damaged the production capacities of the refineries in the Gulf. There is panic buying as people fill up when ever the meter gets below 3/4, and they're haording by keeping all their vehicles filled to capacity and using them basically as storage facilities against the total unavailability of gas. In effect, the psychological panic of the possibility of shortages, resulting in panic buying and haording, has created actual shortages. If prices were allowed to rise naturally, rather than remain fixed because if moronic anti-gouging laws, in response to short supply and high demand, there would be less panic buying and more gas to go around for when people really, really need it. People couldn't afford to haord it. If gas prices were say $15/gallon, how many people would fill up when the tank read 3/4 full? How many people would fill up all three SUV's just to hedge against a shortage? Not many. This would decrease demand pressure on the stations and allow their underground tanks to get filled up before they ran dry. But at $15/gallon people wouldn't be buying gas even if it was plentiful. So the station owner would look around, not see any customers, and have to lower his price to draw them back.

See how shortages can be avoided by allowing the supply/demand/price dynamic to dictate behavior? But politicians are more than happy to pander to stupid, government-educated citizens who don't understand how it works, by passing populist anti-gouging laws.

At some point in the near future, if we haven't already, America will reach a critical mass of citizens who get their news from E-True Hollywood Story, Entertainment Tonight, and American Idol and who feel, not think, their way through life. These are the people who want the bail-out bill to pass. To them, the government, not the market, is the answer to all of life's problems. If you left it to the market, these morons might have to think about things and make some decisions. I fear we're already there.

What would it take for me to get on board?

As the Senate stands poised to vote on the bail-out bill, I thought of a short list of additions to the House version of the bill that would make it slightly more palatable to me.....

1-tax cuts for businesses to help make them more liquid and less needy of credit. This would relieve some pressure on the credit market.

2-a permanent suspension of the mark-to-market accounting policy of the Sorbanes-Oxley Act

3-a transparent, detailed, and immediate public accounting of where every single dollar of bail-out money goes. Who gets it and what precisely do they do with it?

4-an iron-clad method for returning this money to the taxpayers. And not in the form of government spending on earmarks and pet projects. To every taxpayer, a check should be scratched

5-severe limitations on CEO compensation in current and future companies who participate in any rescue at taxpayer expense

6-Justice Department investigations and prosecutions of CEO's who recklessly ran their companies into the ground and walked away with millions. Likewise, investigations into politicians who, in outrageous conflicts-of-interest, took money from failed companies they're supposed to regulate and then used their political positions to protect them, ie. Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Barack Obama

If the Senate bill include most or all of these provisions, I might get behind it, but I won't hold my breath.

Maybe the Bailout Should Have Happened Some Time Ago

I found this letter written 9 years ago. Seems like our current financial mess started around this time:

By STEVEN A. HOLMES Published: September 30, 1999 In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called sub-prime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called sub_prime market.''Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the sub-prime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallis on a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

M.O.A.B.-----FAIL!!!

It's official now, 227 NAY, 206 YEA, 1 Not Voting. The House version of the bailout bill has failed as representatives heard the unmistakable sound of unemployment coming 'round the bend in about 40 days if they voted for it. The debate now moves to the Senate where my Senator, Richard Shelby, will be the big voice in opposition. Do us proud Dick!

The bill failed and guess what? The sky hasn't fallen. I haven't heard of any traders throwing themselves out of buildings. And as far as I know, there are no dogs and cats living together. The DOW is down only 4.89% so far. The world isn't ending people. And don't let the MSM tell you it is.

M.O.A.B.

Over at Michelle Malkin, she's doing regular updates as the House debates the M.O.A.B.(Mother of all Bailouts). According to her, what was 3 pages on Thursday, has now swollen to 43 pages. What in the world do you think that means? Earmarks, no doubt.

She's also got the most comprehensive collection of articles and analysis of the MOAB I have seen. If you want to know what in the heck is going on, head on over and check it out.

Who's to blame?

I found this video production over on Boortz. It's a fast moving but very clear indictment of who is really to blame for this whole financial mess. It turns out, the Obamessiah's finger prints are all over it. It's about 10 minutes long and you may need to use the pause button as it moves kind of fast but, watch it and then recommend it to everybody you know who votes.



If you were under any illusions as to whose side the media are on in this election, this should pretty much clear that up for you. Barack Obama is at the center of this thing, yet nobody's willing to say it. Unbelievable!

A few thoughts on the bailout......er, buyout

-Newt Gingrich has steadfastly opposed the bailout, correctly pointing out that to centralize the power of $700billion into the hands of one political appointee, who is professionally conflicted and who is demanding it so stridently, is simply un-American. Now, Newt is reluctantly on board.....I'm not sure what to make of that.

-Given that Treasurey Sec. Henry Paulson came from Wall Street and in 4 months will return to his job on Wall Street, how can we fork over any money at all to him to give to his friends there? He's been screetching from the rooftops like Chicken Little about how the apocalypse will happen if we don't give him, and him alone, $700billion. I'm sorry, it just doesn't pass the smell test.

-Apparently all the earmarks for corrupt liberal orgainizations like ACORN that Pelosi and Reid tried to sneak in, have been stripped from the original bailout bill. That's good.

-Why aren't Chris Dodd and Barney Frank being investigated on corruption charges? They both received huge cash donations from Freddie and Fannie at the same time John McCain first rang the alarm bell, then they blocked Congress from taking the very actions that would have prevented this collapse. Am I the only one who sees this obvious conflict of interest?

-The bill is now being called a "buy out" rather than a "bail out" because there's a remote possibility that the taxpayer could actually make money on this "investment". Here's the wafer-thin reasoning: at-risk mortgages are practically worthless right now so the taxpayers will be getting them at bargain-basement prices. Then when the market corrects in a few months or years after the bailout, those homes will be sold or auctioned off at what will certainly be much higher prices, reaping huge profits for the taxpayer. That'll be great if we taxpayers receive a big fat check as a dividend on our investment, but let's see a show of hands of those who think that's how it'll work? That's 1.....2.....ok, none. Right you are. With democrats in control of Congress, there's no way they'll give us our money back. They'll tell us that they know better how to spend that windfall profit than we do, then they'll blow it on vote-buying schemes.

-The one thing I'm glad they included is the limit on CEO compensation if that company gets even a penny of taxpayer money.

-The MSM is absolutely refusing to point the finger of blame at democrats where it belongs. They'd rather blame Bush, it's what they do.

-Finally, is this just the beginning of private companies who've made stupid decisions, demanding taxpayer money to help them out of financial jams?

What's the dealio?

I was talking with a friend last night about the debate and he asked me if there was a clearing-house website exposing inaccuracies and lies that candidates tell so the regular voters can know the truth, ostensibly without political bias.

So I did some checking and the best one I can find is FactCheck.org. They usually correct the "mistakes" candidates make pretty soon after they make them, so the public knows what's what. You should go there regularly and keep tabs on the b.s. you're being fed.

GO YOU HAIRY DOGS!!! SIC 'EM!!!