MARK LEVIN: Do Republicans not understand that the WHOLE DAMN THING IS GOING TO COLLAPSE?

Mark Levin reminds Republicans that while they are worried about preventing another government shutdown, the whole thing is going to shutdown and collapse because there isn’t enough money in the world to pay for the kind of spending that is going on right now:

We have over a 90 trillion dollar unfunded liability… And ladies and gentlemen, soon it’s 100 trillion dollars. You know what that means? That means our kids and their kids and every future generation is going to be destroyed. Because there’s not enough currency on the face of the earth to address that.

Then we have what’s called the fiscal operating debt. And I distinguish that from the unfunded liabilities, the entitlements, the fiscal operating debt built up from one budget after another – not even counting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It’s almost 17.3 trillion dollars. When my book came out in August it was 17 trillion. 17.3 trillion dollars.

And as a nation, we’re focused on 23 billion dollars over 10 years which is never going to happen? And the media running around talking about ‘wow, Washington actually works‘ and the Republicans saying ‘anything but a government shutdown.’

Do they not understand that the whole damn thing is gonna shut down and collapse? And it won’t just be 17 percent of the government. It’ll be your savings. It’ll be your mutual funds. It’ll be your pensions. It’ll be the value of your paycheck. It’ll be your college fund. It’ll be EVERYTHING. Because once the spiral occurs there’s no undoing it. Because man makes a situation that cannot be fixed until there’s an ultimate collapse. It’s called the laws of economics and they are as serious and real as the laws of physics.

There is much more and you can listen to the full clip below:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

134 thoughts on “MARK LEVIN: Do Republicans not understand that the WHOLE DAMN THING IS GOING TO COLLAPSE?

  1. Obama’s administration’s motto is “Don’t worry, Be happy”. Like the millions just like them on the dole.

  2. Start investing in Bitcoin. Start exchanging dollars for a stable currency. Without ENORMOUS Federal Agency elimination, spending will never be under control, Democratic or Republican. States will need to completely govern themselves again, the income tax repealed – replaced by a flat tax, and the Feds will be limited to National Defense duties. State and local governments will take care of the people.

  3. My Question – Do people finally realize who Paul Ryan is? do people understand why Romney picked him?

    Just Wait till you take your next plane ride.

    Want Boehner Gone? JD Winteregg is running against him. The Primary is May 2014. Help JD defeat John Boehner.

  4. Who gives a rat’s butt…let it rip….always has…and we’ll still be here. You people worrying about this need to get out more after taking a cold shower.

  5. Do Republicans not understand that the whole damn thing is going to collapse? THEY DON’T CARE! They figure that collapse is a long time down the road and they are only concerned with staying in office. They are pathetic!

    Mark Levin nails it again!

  6. The known politicians and their lapdog media apperatchiks aren’t interested in something that will occur in the long term. Long term is defined to be something that can’t happen until after the next election. In order to win the next election, the low information voters need to be supplied with lots of wealth transfers and related govt spending – ie; obamaphones, food stamps and welfare payments. Besides, when the system comes crashing down, the known politicians who are currently doing all the spending will be long gone.

    1. Except for Ryan, who is Mark Levin’s friend, which severely limits the probing questions that MUST BE ASKED in order to get the information we need to MAKE proper assessments. Mark, STOP your love fest with Ryan, please.

  7. Mark talks about how things are going to collapse, but when his friend Paul Ryan is on, someone who now beleves in open borders,someone who has now partnered with a big lib on a proposal to keep the government running without dranconian military cuts, Mark is too friendly with him to really get after him and show him the folly of the strategy. You know, in this weeks’s interview with Ryan, Mark rightly commented that the proposal by Ryan and his lib partner was “Mickey Mouse”, but eventually, Ryan pushed back and said “Elections have Consequences”. When Mark countered with a statement about previous Republican majorities that did nothing to bring down the yearly deficits and overall debt, Ryan really had very littlr to say but Mark did not press beyond that because Ryan is hus friend. Well, Ryan may be Mark’s friend, but really, we need harder hitting interviews to expose the futility of the RINO approach. If they fall back on “Elections have consequences”, like Ryan does, then we ave lost right out ofbthe box and Mark should tell his god friend as much. Ryan s also big on Amnesty. Mytripets, 24, who graduated from the University in 2012 with high honors and competetive degrees, have only been able to find part time work with no benefits. One of them, my son, gave up looking, got 176 of 180 on his LSATs and is now at Georgetown Law. He had been accepted at Harvard but scholarships were running out and tended to be awarded to minorities AND certain immigrant groups. In my mind, it is therefore a disgrace that Ryan s using “Religion” as the basis for his support of illegal immigrants just drives me crazy, and it frustrates me to no end that Mark is unable to fiercely challenge Ryan because of their friendship.

    1. Mark Levin is part of that Limbaugh wing of talk radio hosts that has been buddies with the GOP establishment for years. They’ve begun to see the light in recent years but still are reluctant to criticize for old times sake or something to that effect. That’s why Levin was so nice to his good friend Paul Ryan. Had it been John McCain (whom Levin has disliked for years) he might not have been so pleasant.

    1. Yes, economic collapse is inevitable. And its inevitable that the left will blame Republicans, Conservatives, and the Tea Party for it. And its inevitable that the left’s brain dead followers will believe it. And its inevitable that the America we knew will cease to exist.

      You don’t need a crystal ball to foretell America’s dark future!

      1. Legalizing millions of illegals along with this commie care is the destruction of America. That’s why all Americans should fight to stop all of it. This my friends is Agenda 21 and coming to a town near you. Educate yourself on it or we are done. Full implementation by 2029.

        1. dude, you are the only one I’ve seen mention this ultimate progressive goal and you are soo very very spot on. That UN proposal is what I believe at the forefront of the progressive elitist minds these days and we’re being run over by a speeding locomotive that too many people are completely unaware of or choose to ignore because of its unbelievable agenda. It may sound unbelievale but its real and its being implemented in full force by this creeps administration(see 0care, EPA as prime examples)). 99% of us have no idea how miserably fateful it is.

  8. It’s going to collapse all right, but Mark is oblivious to how it is going to collapse. I listen to his show a few times a week, but I haven’t heard him talk about what is happening in the East China Sea. While he lectures us about our financial problems it’s not entirely clear if the US is even going to be around in a couple of years. If you are dead, then having crappy healthcare via Obamacare doesn’t really matter.

    Perhaps Mark should devote a little of his time to things that could terminate us.

    1. Financial topics simply aren’t Mark Levin’s strong suit. He’s much more at home discussing the Constitution amongst other topics.

      1. Mark Levin is also in favor of a Constitutional Convention (con-con) which could cause a total re-write of our present Constitution. I used to like him until I saw his name on a list supporting the con-con.

  9. Well, that is the Alinsky model, collapse the economy and use the resulting chaos to take over. It’s all part of the plan.

    1. Yep, perfectly describes 2008-2009! Media and liberal supporters are too stupid to look at the big picture and realize – they aren’t doing a thing to make it better for the masses!

      1. The Honey Boo Boo voters don’t have a clue, but the prog media believe they’ll get a seat at the table after the takeover.

        1. “Honey Boo Boo” voters – I love it! Rush calls them “Low-Info” voters, but yours is so much more colorful!If the phrase catches on, Progressives might turn the tables and call us “Duck Dynasty voters”! Funny thing though – they won’t even realize they’re actually pinning us with a name that reflects spiritual conviction, strong moral standards, a great work ethic, etc.

          1. DDV’s, good one! Like Rush, I like to make my own little pet names and phrases when I can. We can expose the progs for what they are without getting vulgar. Not sure if I made up prog (prahg as I say it) or not, but it makes the libs sound as evil as they are.

  10. They call this imbecilic budget of 23 billion in cuts over 10 years a bipartisan achievement in the face of a 17 trillion dollar national debt, independent of other future entitlement liabilities, and ridicule anyone who asks how we will eventually pay for Medicare, SS, Medicaid, ObamaCare, pensions, military, infrastructure and services as the spin takes out the entire economy and consumes all commercial activity. Figures don’t lie but liars figure and if you don’t see the tragic finale of this fiscal and monetary insanity and prepare to defend yourself and your posterity then you should expect to be included in an economic Armageddon that will consume the entire developed world. These congressional dolts are unconscionable sociopaths.

  11. I believe there are things going on behind the scenes that are going to give us all the hope we need. I don’t believe that all the people in the Military are just going to sit back and allow America to be destroyed without doing something about it. These men’s brothers gave America their all, dying to keep this country a free nation. They will not sit back and allow their brothers to have died in vain.

  12. I’m to the point now that I say just collapse the damn system and get it over with.

    Then we can start to rebuild.

    1. You don’t collapse an economy this big in a short time and sometimes they rebuild in the wrong direction. I’ve got a real bad feeling about just how tragic the finale will be.

      1. catdoc — you are correct sir, I’ve felt this in my core for a long time, maybe even since I was a child. I think what’s about to come is going to be unbelievable – to a lot of fools.

        We are truly in a world of shit. After this happens it’s going to be every man for himself; this will be global, and our current generation(s) will never see how it truly turns out.

        I leave you with this prescient movie quote:
        Dr. Zaius: You are right, I have always known about man. From the evidence, I believe his wisdom must walk hand and hand with his idiocy. His emotions must rule his brain. He must be a warlike creature who gives battle to everything around him, even himself.
        Taylor, you may not like what you find.

    2. But those of us in our ‘twilight’ years will lose everything that we have worked our whole life to accumulate and there would be nothing to pass on to our children. And what would happen to our generation — as well as our children who are getting to old to start over — while the rebuilding takes place????

      1. I fear that the whole system will collapse, although I hope I am wrong. However, when/if it collapses the results will be the same no matter if it happens tomorrow or ten years from tomorrow.
        I am pushing 50 real hard, and trust me; I have no desire to see the people near and dear to me lose all they have worked for over the years. I just feel that if a collapse is eminent, better now when there are people who know how and are willing to rebuild than in 10 or 20 years when the entitlement generation will have to deal with it.

  13. the only way to climb out of a hole you’ve dug for yourself is to stop digging. The pompous jerks in DC think they know better than the people. Thing is, when they’ve dug us into bankruptcy they’ll still have their well fed lifestyle. if they can find a bunker.

  14. We Americans may as well get beyond the fog, smoke and mirrors of these corrupt 2 party politicians and their foolish despicable political gamesmanship and admit to ourselves there is no longer any other way to explain what happening other than a intentional total collapse of the nation.
    $17,224,595,700,000: U.S. National Debt Clock:
    and growing at a rate of, well just do the math.
    The cattle cars are nearly loaded and the plantation of rice field coming into to view. Hey the cattle gotta eat so somebody’s gotta work the fields either for pay or by force, right? When there’s no money market only one thing left for the king(s) to do, force labor. Hum where have we seen that seen played out before?
    Strange we don’t hear Mr Levin mention the rice fields as often as he once did, But I’m sure those fields are always on the back of his mind.

  15. here are my thoughts: if the dumb GOP thinks they are doing us a favor by funding more of this nightmare obamacare and this stupid budget
    then plan around the corner to push amnesty
    guess what? they thought no one showed up for Romney? well good luck getting the damn senate you idiots
    Boehner should resign………….no guts and liars all of them
    I am so done with all of this garbage
    they care less about US or this great country

  16. But yet Levin has such a problem with Ron Paul and other Austrian economists. Does he actually believe what he’s saying here or is he lying about his dislike? Logically, it can’t be both.

    1. They get in the way of his neocon militarism. He’s only interested in slashing the “welfare” half of the welfare/warfare state. If the US government can’t go around funding national secret polices and death squads, bombing civilians and creating new enemies, then how will he be able to justify the half of the budget he doesn’t want to cut?

    2. Quite a few people act irrational when it comes to not meddling in the affairs of other nations. Paul thinks that some countries can and should defend themselves without our money or military assistance and that they would be better off in the long run if they did so. When Levin introduced Rand on his show tonight he placed an emphasis on Sen. Paul’s fiscal bona fides. Levin knows that there may come a day when Rand may have the power to implement foreign policy which would not be much different than his fathers and Mark will go off the rails. I guess it is like being labeled a racist if you disagree with domestic welfare, you are an anti-semite in some circles if you are against foreign aid. Ron and Rand are not isolationists, they would go to war provided that it met constitutional criteria and whatever threat was posed to us they would eliminate without all all of the occupation or nation building agendas of past administrations. Ron Paul also had differences with Reagan because he felt that Reagan was not conservative enough but I cannot remember all those details off hand other than Paul may have left the party at that time in protest. Rand could actually prove to be a miracle worker if he could bridge the gap between the established “true conservatives” and the motley mix of less reserved libertarians who had aligned themselves with Ron Paul during his campaigns for the presidency.

  17. This thing is going to collapse, however this did not start last year or fifty years ago this started over 100 years ago. At the turn of the 20th century. Beginning with the 16th Amendment, every amendment since has not been ratified by the people but has been ratified by a proclamation by the Secretary of State. Article 5 of the Constitution spells out how an amendment is to be made, and no where in Article 5 is there any mention of a proclamation by the Secretary of State.

    This is pure Saul Alinsky overwhelming the system and everyone has fallen in the trap of this Chicago shyster. Look at how well the Left has destroyed this nation over the last sixty years. In the 1950 and early 1960’s a city called Detroit had the highest standard of living in the nation. New York City was the Financial Capital of the world. The Left has changed all of that starting with the Democratic convention in 1968 and they have not looked back since.

    1. I’m not sure where you get your information. Every Constitutional amendment from the 1st through the 27th have all been ratified by at least 3/4ths of the States – as required by the Constitution. It is the Duty of the Secretary State to merely certify that the Constitutional Requirements have been met and the Amendment is thus officially added to the Constitution.

      Explain to me what Saul Alinsky has to do with any of this discussion on the economy and the national debt!!

      Detroit had a very high standard of living because the unions were able to lift the auto workers up into the ranks of the middle class. The down fall of the Big Three was less a problem due to the unions than it was the inability of the auto companies to produce vehicles that people wanted to buy. They were consistently out-ranked by the Japanese and European vehicles in Consumer Report and every other ranking by various publications. Fortunately, better engineering and design work is now starting to turn that around.

      New York City is STILL the financial cap;ital of the world. At the same time, it was Wall St., the banking system and the independent mortgage companies which were responsible for the economic meltdown of 2008 from which we are still suffering.

      What has the Left done to change that great fortune of the U.S.? Nothing! the 1968 conventions resulted in 8 years of Republican Presidents, followed by 4 years of a Democrat Presidency, followed by 12 years of Republican Presidencies, 8 years of a Democratic one and 8 years of another Republican. That’s 28 years of Republicans in the White House vs 12 years for the Democrats. Yes, the Democrats have not looked back – they are looking forward! Republicans want to balance the budget based on present economic conditions. This would not provide the infrastructure, national security and services which our country so desperately needs. The Democrats want to build the economy and reform taxation so that federal revenues will meet the needs of the country. As a lawyer, Mark Levin makes a lousy economist – and Rand Paul should go back to being a doctor..


      1. Detroit destroyed Detroit via union unaffordable pensions and hours worked for renumeration received. Notice how Toyota and Nissan pay great wages without unions. Check out Detroit today compared to Hiroshima despite being bombed with a nuclear weapon when Detroit was at its’ peak. Unions are OK until they partnership with government just as religion is OK until it partnerships with government and then the conflict of interests between a minority and the citizens appears in terms of equal equality under the law. It becomes an insiders club which is a form of fascism which is nothing more than socialism for the wealthy such as for union higher ups and that often results in higher non competitive prices for the citizens that will then spend where better value becomes available for less expenditure.

        The banks bought the bait offered by the GSE Fannie Mae who rewarded them for giving loans to the unqualified that they formerly hated to give loans and resisted under the CRA statutes heavily reinforced by ACORN and AmeriCorps watchdogs. In fact Fannie used PAC money, provided by we, the taxpayers, to lobby the mortgage companies, the banks, the builders and the public. First time I ever saw something like this. Yet when Dodd and Frank were at their respective helms as heads of the Senate and House financial committees they supported Fannie and Freddie and Countrywide to the very end. It was Jimmy Johnson, still under the radar, that gave Fannie, with the help of Bill Clinton in 1986, the ability to become a profit generating machine for himself and others such as Franklin Raines and Jammie Gorelick. In those days republicans needed sixty senate votes to take away Fannie’s power, control and influence which is a far cry from the nuclear option just instituted by Reid that changed the Senate rules to allow a mere majority to do what they wish.

        George Bush spent money like I’ve never seen previously until this president but even liberal republicans saw the handwriting on the wall and tried, on numerous occasions, to rein in Fannie. They had zero help from the socialist democrats and when you add Barack Obama as a cure for such fiscal and monetary irresponsibility what is now left is far to painful for Americans and the world to tolerate without QE. This is a trait of human DNA. Ultimately the laws of economics will prevail.

        You don’t need Mark Levin or for that matter, Rand Paul, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell or Frederik Hayek to understand this. It is about arithmetic not Quantum Electro Dynamics.

        1. catdoc:

          Detroit was destroyed by the slowdown and then the breakdown of the auto industry. This has been a long time coming. The city of Flint became a wasteland decades ago with the closure of the Chevrolet factories there. The capital of Michigan, Lansing, has also suffered greatly with the closure of the Fisher Body plant and now the elimination of Oldsmobile from GM’s fleet brands. No one denies that the UAW’s contracts with the Big 3 decreased the profitability of the auto makers but it was the inability of the Big 3 to produce vehicles in the 70’s and 80’s which consumers wanted to buy which undermined them. At the time when the unions made their greatest demands there was little competition from foreign automakers during the late 40’s, 50’s and 60’s following World War II. I worked for Oldsmobile on the motor assembly line in 1954 and they were running three shifts, seven days a week in order to keep up with demand. The Japanese and Europeans became real competitors in the 70’s and the oil crises of 1963 which boosted the price of gas at the pump to (then) astronomical highs. Americans started to look for fuel efficiency but the Americans continued to produce their gas guzzling V-8’s while the Japanese and Europeans were coming in with fuel efficient 4 and 7 cylinder engines. The Big-3 finally wised up in the 80’s but American cars and trucks had developed a reputation for unreliability which again shrunk their market share. The Hey-Day of American dominance in the Automobile Market was over – due primarily to the Big-3’s management’s inability to adjust quickly. Union benefits were unaffordable because the manufacturers were not selling enough cars. The unions were quicker that Big-3 management to adjust and beginning with the 70’s started to make concessions in the benefits sections of contract negotiations. The idea of 30 hours of work for 40 hours of pay never got off the ground and is a moot point. You say that the unions getting too close and getting too much help from the government is a conflict of interest. How about when the employers get in bed with the government and pay out multi-millions annually for lobbiests and political donations to campaign funds? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Fair’s fair. Tit for tat – and every other old saying you can think of. Do you think there is NOT an insider’s club for the business interests? If the unions do it you say that it’s evil socialism. But if the business community does it that’s just good old American free enterprise and capitalism. Wow! I think you need to reorganize your thought processes a bit more logically. You should also know that the average compensation of union presidents is $344K while the average compensation package for the S&P 500 is $12.9 Million.

          The GSE’s (Fannie and Freddie) did not offer any bait for the banks to undertake fraudulent activities. The banks and mortgage companies did this on their own when they discovered they could bundle the good loans with the bad and sell them to investors at a high price. In the end however, even the GSE’s succumbed to the temptation and bought many of the sub-prime mortgages bundled along with solid mortgages. It is the role and purpose of both Fannie and Freddie to provide loaned funds to banks in order to increase the amount of funds available for mortgage lending. They have set standards under which mortgage loans should be made but the banks and the mortgage companies, like Country Wide, lowered the standards in order to increase the number of mortgages which they could bundle and then sell to investors on the market. The bubble finally burst and sent the economy world wide into a tailspin. That is why you are now seeing so many banks paying out Billions of dollars in fines for their fraudulent, past activities. And it’s not over yet. People will be going to jail. But the idea that ACORN had anything to do with it is pure poppycock. The use of taxpayers’ funds for political purposes such as a PAC is a criminal offense and it did not happen. GSE’s, by definition, are also publicly owned and any donations to PAC’s would have had to come out of the private investors’ part of the profits. While the the ethics of such actions might be questionable – it is not illegal. Jimmy Johnson was nominated as the Vice-Chairman of Fannie by George H. W. Bush in 1990 and then again by Bush as Chairman and CEO of Fannie in 1991. zI believe that both Johnson and Raines committed criminal acts and should be in prison. But I guess the prosecutorial minds felt that the criminality would be too difficult to prove so they both remain so they both remain free. And all that was done without any assistance or intervention by Clinton.

          The “nuclear option: put into effect by the Democrats was only to change the Senate Rules by specifying that It was limited to require only a majority vote to approve judicial nominations and certain political appointees. It will have no effect on the operations of either Fannie or Freddie.

          George W. Bush had two wars to fight and the Medicare Prescription Act which accounted for the Trillions he added to the national debt. He should have increased taxes to pay for the wars which, in the past, has been standard procedure. Obama had one war to fight and one war to wind down. Plus he had the TARP and stimulus funds which were badly needed in order to forestall our recession from becoming a depression. Raising taxes for the later endeavor would have been counter-productive – even though he did raise taxes on the wealthy – which was way past due., The hand-writing on the wall which Bush (and all of the regulatory agencies – including the FED under Greenspan) failed to see was the fraudulent actions by the banks and the mortgage companies – as well as the minor part in the end played by Fannie and Freddie. Just where did the “Socialist” Democrats come from? I’m a Democrat and I’m not a Socialist. I do believe that the Socialist Party is however:-) Obama had little choice on fiscal matters due to his responsibility to prevent the country from falling into a depression. I personally fault him for not spending enough which otherwise would have had a greater effect on reducing unemployment. Industry and the service sector responds when money is being spent and goods and services are procured. That is the law of economics which will prevail. I am a Keynesian in that regard. Neither Congress nor the President can affect monetary policy. That is the sole function of the Federal Reserve and neither the Congress nor the President can intervene.

          1. Wall Street was not the genesis of our current recession. It inherited the tools. It all started in Washington, which still functions under the radar, camouflaging itself as part of a solution to a problem it not only created but continues to promote.

            Prologue to “Reckless Endangerment”

            “More Americans should own their own homes, for reasons that are economic and tangible, and reasons that are emotional and intangible, but go to the heart of what it means to harbor, to nourish, to expand the American Dream.” —WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, forty-second president of the United States, November 1994.

            The president of the United States was preaching to the choir when he made that proclamation in 1994, just two years into his first term. Facing an enthusiastic crowd at the National Association of Realtors’ annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Clinton launched the National Partners in Homeownership, a private-public cooperative with one goal: raising the numbers of homeowners across America.
            Determined to reverse what some in Washington saw as a troubling decline of homeownership during the previous decade, Clinton urged private enterprise to join with public agencies to ensure that by the year 2000, some 70 percent of the populace would own their own homes.
            An owner in every home. It was the prosperous, 1990s version of the Depression-era “A Chicken in Every Pot.”
            With homeownership standing at around 64 percent, Clinton’s program was ambitious. But it was hardly groundbreaking. The U.S. government had often used housing to achieve its public policy goals. Abraham Lincoln’s Homestead Act of 1862 gave away public land in the nation’s western precincts to individuals committed to developing it. And even earlier, during the Revolutionary War, government land grants were a popular way for an impoverished America to pay soldiers who fought the British.
            Throughout the American experience, a respect, indeed a reverence, for homeownership has been central. The Constitution, as first written, limited the right to vote to white males who owned property, for example. Many colonists came to America because their prospects of becoming landowners were far better in the New World than they were in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe.
            Still, Clinton’s homeownership plan differed from its predecessors. The strategy was not a reaction to an economic calamity, as was the case during the Great Depression. Back then, the government created the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which acquired and refinanced one million delinquent mortgages between 1933 and 1936.
            On the contrary, the homeownership strategy of 1994 came about as the economy was rebounding from the recession of 1990 and ’91 and about to enter a long period of enviable growth. It also followed an extended era of prosperity for consumer-oriented banks during most of the 1980s when these institutions began extending credit to consumers in a more “democratic” manner for the first time.
            Rather than pursue its homeownership program alone, as it had done in earlier efforts, the government enlisted help in 1995 from a wide swath of American industry. Banks, home builders, securities firms, Realtors—all were asked to pull together in a partnership made up of 65 top national organizations and 131 smaller groups.
            The partnership would achieve its goals by “making homeownership more affordable, expanding creative financing, simplifying the home buying process, reducing transaction costs, changing conventional methods of design and building less expensive houses, among other means.”
            Amid the hoopla surrounding the partnership announcement, little attention was paid to its unique and most troubling aspect: It was unheard of for regulators to team up this closely with those they were charged with policing.
            And nothing was mentioned about the strategy’s ultimate consequence—the distortion of the definition of homeownership—gutting its role as the mechanism for most families to fund their retirement years or pass on wealth to their children or grandchildren.
            Instead, in just a few short years, all of the venerable rules governing the relationship between borrower and lender went out the window, starting with the elimination of the requirements that a borrower put down a substantial amount of cash in a property, verify his income, and demonstrate an ability to service his debts.
            With baby boomers entering their peak earning years and the number of two-income families on the rise, banks selling Americans on champagne hopes and caviar dreams were about to become the most significant engine of economic growth in the nation. After Congress changed the tax code in 1986, eliminating the deductibility of interest payments on all consumer debt except those charged on home mortgages, the stage was set for housing to become Americans’ most favored asset.
            Of course, banks and other private-sector participants in the partnership stood to gain significantly from an increase in homeownership. But nothing as crass as profits came up at the Partners in Homeownership launch. Instead, the focus was on the “deeply-rooted and almost universally held belief that homeownership provides crucial benefits that merit continued public support.” These included job creation, financial security (when an individual buys a home that rises in value), and more stable neighborhoods (people don’t trash places they own).
            In other words, homeownership for all was a win/win/win.
            A 1995 briefing from the Department of Housing and Urban Development did concede that the validity of the homeownership claims “is so widely accepted that economists and social scientists have seldom tested them.” But that note of caution was lost amid bold assertions of homeownership’s benefits. “
            When we boost the number of homeowners in our country,” Clinton said in a 1995 speech, “we strengthen our economy, create jobs, build up the middle class, and build better citizens.” Clinton’s prediction about the middle class was perhaps the biggest myth of all. Rather than building it up, the Partners in Homeownership wound up decimating the middle class. It left Americans in this large economic group groaning under a mountain of debt and withdrawing cash from their homes as a way to offset stagnant incomes.
            It took a little more than a decade after the partnership’s launch for its devastating impact to be felt. By 2008, the American economy was in tatters, jobs were disappearing, and the nation’s middle class was imperiled by free-falling home prices and hard-hit retirement accounts. Perhaps most shocking, homeownership was no longer the route to a secure spot in middle-class America. For millions of families, especially those in the lower economic segments of the population, borrowing to buy a home had put them squarely on the road to personal and financial ruin.
            Fueled by dubious industry practices supported by many in Congress and unchecked by most of the regulators charged with oversight of the lending process, the homeownership drive helped to plunge the nation into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
            Truly this was an unprecedented partnership.
            But what few have recognized is how the partners in the Clinton program embraced a corrupt corporate model that was also created to promote homeownership. This was the model devised by Fannie Mae, the huge and powerful government-sponsored mortgage finance company set up in 1938 to make it easier for borrowers to buy homes in Depression-ravaged America. Indeed, by the early 1990s, well before the government’s partnership drive began, Fannie Mae had perfected the art of manipulating lawmakers, eviscerating its regulators, and enriching its executives. All in the name of expanding homeownership.
            Under the direction of James A. Johnson, Fannie Mae’s calculating and politically connected chief executive, the company capitalized on its government ties, building itself into the largest and most powerful financial institution in the world. In 2008, however, the colossus would fail, requiring hundreds of billions in taxpayer backing to keep it afloat. Fannie Mae became the quintessential example of a company whose risk taking allowed its executives to amass great wealth. But when those gambles went awry, the taxpayers had to foot the bill.
            This failure was many years in the making. Beginning in the early 1990s, Johnson’s position atop Fannie Mae gave him an extraordinary place astride Washington and Wall Street. His job as chief executive of the company presented him with an extremely powerful policy tool to direct the nation’s housing strategy. In his hands, however, that tool became a cudgel. With it, he threatened his enemies and regulators while rewarding his supporters. And, of course, there was the fortune he accrued.
            Perhaps even more important, Johnson’s tactics were watched closely and subsequently imitated by others in the private sector, interested in creating their own power and profit machines. Fannie Mae led the way in relaxing loan underwriting standards, for example, a shift that was quickly followed by private lenders. Johnson’s company also automated the lending process so that loan decisions could be made in minutes and were based heavily on a borrower’s credit history, rather than on a more comprehensive financial profile as had been the case in the past.
            Eliminating the traditional due diligence conducted by lenders soon became the playbook for financial executives across the country. Wall Street, always ready to play the role of enabler, provided the money for these dubious loans, profiting mightily. Without the Wall Street firms giving billions of dollars to reckless lenders, hundreds of billions of bad loans would never have been made.
            Finally, Fannie Mae’s aggressive lobbying and its methods for neutering regulators and opponents were also copied by much of the financial industry. Regulators across the country were either beaten or lulled into complacency by the banks they were supposed to police.
            How Clinton’s calamitous Homeownership Strategy was born, nurtured, and finally came to blow up the American economy is the story of greed and good intentions, corporate corruption and government support. It is also a story of pretty lies told by politicians, company executives, bankers, regulators, and borrowers.
            And yet, there were those who questioned the merits of the homeownership drive and tried to alert regulators and policymakers to its unintended consequences.
            A handful of analysts and investors, for example, tried to warn of the rising tide of mortgage swindlers; they were met with a deafening silence. Consumer lawyers, seeing the poisonous nature of many home loans, tried to outlaw them. But they were beaten back by an army of lenders and their lobbyists. Some brave souls in academia argued that renting a home was, for many, better than owning. They were refuted by government studies using manipulated figures or flawed analysis to conclude that homeownership was a desired goal for all.
            Even the credit-rating agencies, supposedly neutral assayers of risks in mortgage securities, quelled attempts to rein in predatory lending.
            All the critics were either willfully ignored or silenced by well-funded, self-interested, and sometimes vicious opposition. Their voices were drowned out by the homeownership trust, a vertically integrated, public-private housing machine whose members were driven either by ideology or the vast profits that rising homeownership would provide.
            The consortium was too big and too powerful for anyone to take on. Its reach extended from the mortgage broker on Main Street to the Wall Street traders and finally to the hallowed halls of Congress. It was unstoppable.

            1. catdoc

              You said that I am entitled to my own opinion but not my own facts (I have no right to facts?) and that I have ignored the real culprits in the 2008 economic meltdown ((I had previously said that I thought both Johnson and Raines should be in jail). Yet all you have provided me in return to bolster your own arguments is one article by some unnamed author and a prologue to a book written by Morgenson and Rosner. While each of these pieces produce many, probably verifiable, pieces of allegations against Jimmy Johnson,the CEO of Fannie Mae from 1992 to 1999, neither of them provide any concrete evidence of causality between his self-serving actions and the 2008 meltdown. They are both deficient in providing a rational analysis of the time-line of events in this history and tie it in concretely with their allegations.

              Those who write opinion pieces and books always start with a theory and are invariably able to come up with a plethora of “facts” which supposedly prove their thesis. Likewise, people with certain beliefs are often able to come up with a long list of like-minded people and their writings. However, in the instance under discussion, those who refuse to believe that the banking and unregulated mortgage community could possibly have been guilty in bringing about the crisis are vocally much more numerous and their wrutteb defense of this article of faith much more prolific. I have therefore had to turn to a more neutral resource, Wikipedia, to get at the historical facts of the matter.

              A little history: Fannie Mae was established in 1938 (FDR) as a government agency. In 1954 (Eisenhower) it was transformed into a “Mixed Ownership Corporation” in which the government held preferred stock and private investors held common stock. In 1968 (Johnson) it was converted into a privately held corporation in order to remove it from the federal budget. At the same time, a new agency, Ginnie Mae, was split off from Fannie and remained a government agency with the mandate of supporting FHA and VA loans. In 1970 (Nixon) Freddie Mac was created to provide competition to Fannie in the secondary mortgage market. (Note: Jimmy Johnson had no control over Freddie which was his competitor).

              In the 1990’s the Clinton administration began a push to help less well-served people (primarily blacks) whose inner-city areas had often been “red-lined” by banks and could either not get mortgages or were offered mortgages at extremely high, and often unaffordable, interest rates. The GSE’s tried to comply with this push by agreeing to buy back mortgages issued to people with less than stellar credit history and ratings – but with no lessening of other standards such as income verification and complete financial profiles to ensure that they would be able to pay back their loans.

              In 2007, in testimony before the House committee on Financial Services, Daniel Mudd said: “We also set conservative standards for loans we financed to ensure home buyers can afford their homes over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the sub-prime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to the under-served.”

              In 2001/02, financial institutions had experienced high earnings due to unprecedented refinancing because of low interest rates. When interest rates began to rise in 2004 the financial institutions sought to maintain their earning levels by turning away from the GSE’s and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated securitization entities operated by investment banks. As these mortgages were much more risky the move away from GSE’s required expanding the borrower pool by using even lower underwriting standards.

              As the GSE’s began to lose market share they came under pressure from their shareholders to compete with the private label securitizers for market share which caused the GSE’s to loosen even further their underwriting standards. As a result, in 2008 Fannie reported that 60% of its third quarter losses were from these 2007/07 loans. During this same period, Ginnie Mae maintained its standards and lost market share as a result.

              By 2006 there were an increasing number of foreclosures and a decline in home prices. By 2008 the shares of both Fannie and Freddie had lost 90% of their value.

              Morgenson, Rosner, et. al., would have people believe that Jimmy Johnson was teaching his eager students on Wall St. and in the private mortgage companies like Countrywide how to engage in skulduggery to increase their, and his, profits. To the contrary, the people on Wall St. needed no coaching and could have taught Johnson a thing or two – or three. It is clear, after clearing away all of the innuendo and explosive language, that the record is clear as to where the responsibility for the 2008 economic debacle which is still affecting us to this day really lies.

              You are, of course, free to question my source but in doing so you must also show where the facts which I have presented are false.

              You may have noticed that Bank of America recently paid Fannie $11.6 Billion for mortgages it sold to Fannie during the housing boom and in July of this year Citigroup paid Fannie nearly $1 Billion for mortgages it sold to Fannie between 2000 and 2012. This kind of money is not paid out by innocent parties. There are undoubtedly more but I haven’t taken the time to research them.

              I believe the original mistake made by the federal government was to begin the privatization of Fannie in 1954 and to complete it in 1968. Private company loyalties lie only with their investors and the bottom line of their quarterly statements (not to mention the compensation packages of their top management). The loyalties of a government agency lies with the American people and the purpose for which it has been created..

              I have no doubt that I will not have convinced you in the slightest. That being the case I will give you the last word – unless you say something really egregious:-)

          2. The point is that without Fannie Mae and Jimmy Johnson none of this could have happened. Fannie was around for years but it was Bill Clinton and his Clintonesta’s that made affordable housing. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts and you have never ever bothered to lay a dimes worth of guilt on the real culprits. There are real players involved. men and women with names that are related to policies that they created to enrich themselves.

            Johnson retired as vice-chairman of Fannie Mae in 1999, almost a decade before the financial debacle took hold. But Johnson’s command-and-control management of the mortgage finance giant and his hardball tactics to ensure Fannie Mae’s dominance amid increasing calls for oversight are crucial to understanding the origins of the worst financial debacle since the Great Depression.

            Little known outside the Beltway, Johnson was the financial industry’s leader in buying off Congress, manipulating regulators, and neutralizing critics, former colleagues say. His strategy of promoting Fannie Mae and protecting its lucrative government association, largely through intense lobbying, immense campaign contributions, and other assistance given to members of Congress, would be mimicked years later by companies such as Countrywide Financial, an aggressive subprime mortgage lender, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and others.

            Perhaps more crucial, Johnson’s manipulation of his company’s regulators provided a blueprint for the financial industry, showing them how to control their controllers and produce the outcome they desired: lax regulation and freedom from any restraints that might hamper their risk taking and curb their personal wealth creation.

            Under Johnson, Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among the banks whose loans the company bought. A Pied Piper of the financial sector, Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the credit crisis of 2008. It took more than a decade to assemble the machinery needed to create the housing mania. But it took only a year or two for the juggernaut to collapse in a heap, destroying millions of jobs and retirement accounts, and devastating borrowers.

            After years of crisis coverage in the media, multiple government investigations, and numerous books on the topic, Johnson’s role in the mortgage maelstrom has escaped scrutiny. Remarkably, his reputation as a mover and shaker in both business and government remains largely intact, even after the September 2008 taxpayer takeover of an insolvent Fannie Mae, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

            Johnson’s involvement in the mortgage crisis goes far beyond receiving low-cost loans from Countrywide and its chief executive, Angelo Mozilo. Former colleagues say that Johnson, during his years running Fannie Mae, was the original, if anonymous, architect of what became the disastrous homeownership strategy promulgated by William Jefferson Clinton in 1994. Johnson, after becoming chief executive of Fannie Mae in 1991 and under the auspices of promoting homeownership, partnered with home builders, lenders, consumer groups, and friends in Congress to transform Fannie Mae into the largest and most influential financial institution in the world.

            Johnson is still viewed as a D.C. power broker, respected corporate director, and philanthropist. He enjoys a luxurious life, splitting time between homes in such glamorous locales as Ketchum, Idaho; Palm Desert, California; and a penthouse apartment atop the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood.

            Johnson continues to hobnob with highly placed friends in government and industry—indeed, before Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, Johnson hosted a party to honor the candidate at his $5.6 million Washington apartment.

            Some of Johnson’s past associations did come back to haunt him in the summer of 2008, however. Obama had asked Johnson to help sift through possible vice presidential candidates but just weeks after he began the search, details emerged of sweetheart mortgage deals Johnson had received from Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest purveyor of toxic subprime loans during the lending boom. Johnson was forced to resign quickly from the Obama team.

            “Clinton was clearly coordinating with him—they had the same goals at the same time,” said Edward Pinto, former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, who is a consultant. With other high-level Democrats on his side, Johnson beat back all attempts to rein in Fannie Mae’s operations or growth plans.

            Johnson’s many peers in the financial and homebuilding industries watched closely as he remade the government-created and -sponsored Fannie Mae from a political lapdog of housing policy into an aggressive, highly politicized attack dog. In the meantime, he created enormous wealth for himself and his executives even as the company took on outsized risks.

            Fannie also funneled huge campaign contributions to supporters in Congress. Between 1989 and 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Fannie Mae spent roughly $100 million on lobbying and political contributions.

            Johnson’s most crucial win was making sure that Congress was the company’s boss, not the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), a regulator created in 1992 to watch over the company. With Congress as his de facto overseer and with millions of dollars to hand out to lawmakers, Johnson could be confident his company would always receive the support it sought on Capitol Hill.

            Daniel Mudd, a former Fannie Mae executive, wrote in an e-mail after Johnson’s departure from the company: “The old political reality was that we always won, we took no prisoners, and we faced little organized political opposition.”

            Interesting is that Maxwell, former Fannie head, did his best to prevent Reagan from privatizing Fannie, an event that would have prevented the 2008 meltdown. It was as though he anticipated a worse case scenario.

            During the transition from Maxwell to Johnson, a young man who was looking to start his career recalled lunching with Fannie Mae’s new chief executive at the Metropolitan Club in Washington. Johnson’s laserlike focus on how he planned to monetize the company’s government ties was remarkable, he said. There was little talk of Fannie Mae’s social purpose; it was all about how much he would make if he came to work at the company.

            As soon as Johnson took over Fannie Mae he began to demonstrate his mastery of political patronage and populist spin. Hoping to tamp down a controversy that erupted after the disclosure of Maxwell’s $27 million retirement package, real money in 1991, Fannie Mae announced that Maxwell had agreed to contribute his final bonus payment of $5.5 million to the Fannie Mae Foundation. It, in turn, would dispense the $5.5 million to low-income housing projects. When Johnson took over, the tone at the top of Fannie Mae began to change.

            This was partly because the political spotlight was trained on the company, insiders say, and partly because the new chief executive was such a political animal. Maxwell had run the company as a sleepy utility that facilitated mortgage lending, as its charter required. But under Johnson, Fannie’s primary goal changed to protecting—at all costs—the company’s government ties and the riches that sprang from them.

            Protecting the company’s federal sponsorship was all the more crucial, insiders say, because Johnson intended to expand Fannie’s portfolio and balance sheet significantly. Along the way, he and his lieutenants would be able to enrich themselves on the government’s dime.

            Fannie Mae was on sound financial footing when Maxwell retired in January 1991, in spite of the massive losses the company had suffered in the savings and loan crisis. Maxwell told a Post reporter “it would take an event of such cataclysmic proportions as to result in a change of our form of government to put this company under.”

            The cataclysm was, in fact, just fifteen years away

    1. Our public servants (lol) in DC make me realize that large prisons only have the second highest concentration of criminals. Prisons have guards.

    2. HOW???? Do you really think your vote counts now? Elections are completely fraudulent now, NO sovereign elections, they are predetermined “selections.” The press is GONE, pure propaganda – ONLY ONE WAY – going to happen . . . . I doubt it.

      1. No, but the power of Individual people always counts. Even if the Law and public says otherwise.

        Being Individualistic is always a threat to anyone with an Elitist mindset regardless of Social Status.

        While some have succeeded in quelling it, the human mind is quite powerful and adaptable.

  18. There is no country left only the idea of a country that we will have to fight for to get back. In the Ukraine brave souls march and tear down icons of Lenin and Stalin and in America, Obama builds communist monuments and tears down every icon of Liberty and Freedom. We are a people at war with a Communist regime that has taken over branches of government and with no thought or respect for the laws of our country, dictates the cadence and modality of the destruction of The United States of America. As THEY use force to destroy our Nation, they leave us no choice but to fight back for the very survival of our free souls and the last hope the world has to fight global tyranny. Our system of government and the voting booth itself is so corrupted that WE THE PEOPLE HAVE NO CHOICE but to fall back on the powers and rights granted to us in the foundation of our Republic. The right to defend this country from all enemies.

    1. TVexecutive has been reading to many of the Right-Wing extremist blogs which spew nothing but mythology.

  19. Mark, they have their bolt holes sorted
    Why should they care?
    That’s their heart thoughts
    Traitors all

  20. This exactly what the founders were afraid of, concentration of power. All those power hungry Republicans are soo stupid that don’t understand the basic law of physic. Every action always produces equal or greater reaction. If they think, they will get away with this ponzi scheme, they are fooling themselves.
    You can stretch an elastic band up to its limit when crosses it snaps. The same thing is true in economics.
    Sooner or latter this house of cards will collapse, at this rate it will be much sooner than anyone expects

    1. You’re precisely right. But, “The People” have elected these tyrants over the years, so its harder to get them out of power.

      Both sides have their fair share, and the only difference is how they sell their ideology to the general public.

      The Monarchy and the Aristocrats in England had a similar mindset to many of today’s politicians, and some wealthy people with Elitist attitudes- “the rules are what is best for you, because we’re more qualified to make them by virtue of status” and “if you obey us, we’ll take care of you”.

      Tyranny is the same no matter the era or the justification.

      1. It seems all the elite can learn from history is how to lose their heads over and over – and over – again.

        “Let them eat cake!”

        I don’t know why it’s presumed that Marie Antoinette (or whomever it was that said it first) was being malicious or cruel. I’m almost certain that if they took her advice, they wouldn’t have lost their heads.

  21. Forwarding another’s comments that I agree with

    Love this.

    Progressive = Marxist Because America is a Representative Republic, not a democracy, and because most Americans believe the Constitution is our LAW, those of us who are going to ratify the liberty ammendments are given the authority to do so by James Madison, who wrote the second form of amending the Constitution, in case we had an Imperial President (we do) who doesn’t follow the laws as signed, which is his constitutional duty. Instead he uses Executive Orders to subvert LAW, CHANGE LAW (Obamacare), and he is using agencies to attack the people based on their political beliefs (IRS, EPA, DHS, NSA ABUSE). The majority of the people in America would throw out Obama since it has been proven that he only won re-election by lying to the entire country. You progressives need to be afraid. You are a minority. You are ruining our country by your support of unsustained DEBT, support of despots around the world, and your basic collectivist ideals which do not fit in a country whose law is in support of the INDIVIDUAL NOT THE GROUP. I am a free woman. Because of men like Limbaugh and Levin, they have not soiled civil discourse, but instead have informed a public whose journalists lie, obsfuscate, don’t investigate, and don’t inform but one point of view: The left. You folks are just scared because in your world you think government is your master and tell you what kind of toilet paper in which to wipe your ass. Folks like me, who feel the BURDEN and the PRESSURE and the DISCRIMINATION of a Buracracy Gone Wild, Over Regulation, and so much WASTE that our very fabric is in danger of economic collapse. Nothing is getting better. Obama uses fake numbers, lies about his past, and our patsy journalists who made the man, ignore the very destruction of the same constitution that REQUIRES them to investigate and be honest to the American People. It is a constant stream of MALPRACTICE being put upon the American people and James Madison ensured that the PEOPLE, the INDIVIDUAL could change and amend and get rid of the garbage that inhabits Washington D.C……..see the Tea Party was formed by individuals and have created a web of millions of middle class Americans, working class Americans, who know our Constitution, are taxed enough already, and now we have a network in every state to get this ball rolling………what do you have? OWS, who shit on police cars, loot businesses, sit on their asses with their hands out while mommy and daddy pay for their Ivy League Educations. Yes Daily Kos, you should be very afraid of a true movement percolating in every corner of America. You people are no different than supporters of Imperialism, where our government is the King. We peasants out here are rising up. You should be afraid. When we are finished with you, politically, you will be lucky if you can even show your faces in public.

    1. You’re forgetting the Republicans in name only who willingly collaborate, but spout off messages of Personal Responsibility and Fiscal Conservativism, instead of fighting against it.

      They are no different- power hungry monsters who would rather maintain their Senate and House seats than stand on principles they claim to Represent.

      I trust neither side, so I’m a Libertarian- attempting to get as close to our Founder’s values as humanly possible.

    2. If aznative believes that Obama has committed so many unconstitutional acts she should look for the deep pocket people, like the Koch brothers, to finance court cases against him – right up to the Supreme Court which is empowered by the Constitution to rule definitely on Constitutional matters. It would be a fool’s errand however and highly unlikely that she would get any backers because they are smart enough to know that no violations of the Constitution have been committed. She believes that the “main stream media” is corrupt and only serve as propaganda machines for the Left. This is because she only listens to Limbaugh and Levin and only reads the Right-Wing extremist blogs She should read such publications as the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times before making such statements. aznative believes that we on the Left are afraid of the extremists. We are not afraid but we are very concerned because they represent a real danger to American democracy. I have read so many comments, both here and elsewhere, by such people who advocate using their guns to “take back their country”. What they fail to understand that such action would be pure, unadulterated treason. A rebellion against the legitimate government established by our founding fathers. The ballot box is the sole mechanism established by the Constitution for selecting the President and members of Congress. No aznative, we are not blind followers of a Democratic govenment and, whatever transpires, are always proud and willing to show our faces in public. After all – we are the majority in this country.

      1. Uh Herb?
        Did the right throw God from our schools?
        Did the right establish a law enabling people to kill innocent children, because they’re inconvenient?
        Did the right destroy the fabric of the black family with their “Great Society” welfare?
        Did the right start the KKK and agree with them?
        Did the right destroy our educational system by replacing the 3 R’s with so many social, feel good programs?
        I could go on and on about the failings of the democrat party, about the way the democrat party has been systematically trying to replace America’s system with some form of socialism for 100 years, even though history has PROVEN, beyond all doubt, that socialism has destroyed the very people it’s supposed to help. So Herb, keep living in the dream world where everything is free, no one has to work, and close your eyes while this country is left to the same dustbin as the USSR, PRNK, etc. etc.

        1. johnfromjersey (or is that joisey?

          1. No one has thrown God from our Schools. There has just been general agreement among thinking people that a Christian God should not have a special place in public schools attended by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Deists, Hindus, Animists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Confucianists, Taoists, etc. It should be agreed that there is ample opportunity for people of whatever faith to conduct their devotions in their churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc., where people of like faith gather – as well as in the family homes where parents teach their traditional values to their children. What is unacceptable, and objectionable to parents of non-Christian faiths – or no faith at all – is that their children be forcibly exposed and forced to sit through the teachings of a faith not of their own in a classroom which they, as taxpayers, support, Perhaps Republicans can not understand that this is form of intolerance which is at odds with our melting-pot culture.

          2. I have no idea who established a law enabling people to kill innocent children because they’re inconvenient. Do you? In fact, I had no idea that such a law existed. Please educate me on the wording of such a law.

          3. No, the Great Society advances did not destroy the fabric of black families. The fabric of black families – in the inner-cities – has been destroyed by the blacks themselves. Just ask Bill Cosby who has been lecturing on this throughout inner-cities all across the nation. At any rate, welfare is hardly a program which allows one to live in the lap of luxury. It is far below even the poverty level. The only ones who can lift the inner-city blacks out of their predicament is the blacks themselves. In the meantime, whether we agree with the thesis or not, are we going to allow innocent children go hungry and malnourished just because they are inconvenient to the taxpayers?

          4. No, the Right did not start the KKK – nor did the Left. It was started by a group of racists in the deep south following the Civil War and continued by these same racists up to the present. The Republicans love to proclaim that they are the party of Lincoln and it was they who emancipated the slaves. In truth, only Abraham Lincoln himself can lay claim to this historic and seminal act in American history. The Democrats and Republicans of the 1860’s have nothing in common with the parties of today. From before the 1860’s up to the 1960’s when the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were signed into law, the South was solidly Democratic. However, the Civil Rights legislation pushed by Lyndon Johnson, himself a southerner, so enraged the racist Democrats in the South that they almost all became Republicans – and remain so today. But down inside, they are the same people as they were when they were Democrats. Likewise, the Republicans of the 1960’s, primarily in the North, were by and large moderates as exemplified by Senators Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller from New York and Everett Dirkson from Illinois. Most of their successors are now Democrats. So the tables have completely turned and the 1860’s are irrelevant to the present day. I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the fights, and murders, which accompanied the Civil Rights struggles of the late 1950’s and 1960’s.

          5. I was not aware that the Three R’s had been replaced! I have 3 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren in elementary school and 1 grandchild in middle school. They all seem to be doing quite well with the Three R’s. I have 4 children who graduated from High School and the Uhiversity and all are quite adept with reading, riting and rithmetic. I also have many nieces and nephews ans well as grand nieces and nephews who have graduated from High School and the University – some of whom are adherents of the ideology which you cling to. So I have to ask myself; how did they manage to escape the brainwashing which the extreme right believes they are being subjected to?

          6. Yes, I’m sure that you could go on and on – just as I am sure that I could continue to knock any of your new arguments down. So the Democrats have been systematically trying to replace America’s system with some form of Socialism for the past 100 years! I was unaware of that. So I am led to believe that you think that Social Security and Medicare are a conspiracy to destroy our way of life. PURE Socialism has no place in the U.S. – nor in any country. In fact it has never existed. In those countries where different degrees of Socialism are in practice, such as the Scandanavian Countries and in Iceland the inhabitants of those countries couldn’t be happier with their system of government. And in certain European countries where lesser degrees of Socialism are in practice such as France, Germany and the Netherlands, The citizens of those countries are equally happy with the governmental system they have. You cite the Soviet Union and North Korea, etc.,as countries which have been left in the dustbin of history because of failed Socialism. You may be surprised to know that, despite their claims to be Socialist countries, these countries were, and are, never anything but tyrannical dictatorships. It is not Socialism which had, and will, destroy these countries but the lack of political involvement by the common citizenry in a democratic society. And, you should also know, that there is nothing inherently contradictory between Socialism and Democracy.

          7. So johnfromjoisy, you can be assured that I am not living in a dream world where everything is free and nobody has to work. I have been working since I was 11 years old beginning with paper routes, to grocery store clerk, to real estate salesman, to automobile assembly line worker to coast-to-coast moving van driver. I am a veteran of the U.S, Army. I worked my own way through college. I spent 30 years in my career as a Foreign Service Officer for the U .S. Government – serving overseas in Laos (back during the day) and in Africa. I now draw a pension from the government plus a small amount of Social Security and the proceeds from my own IRAs. I am a beneficiary of Medicare (for which I pay a premium) and my secondary health insurance (for which I pay an even higher premium). My oldest daughter is retired from IBM and my youngest daughter is a Senior Vice President with a major bank. My oldest son is a Major in the Army and served in Desert Storm where he was awarded the Combat Infantryman’s badge, the Bronze Star and the Army Commendation Medal. He has subsequently had one year tours of duty in Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan – and is scheduled for redeployment to Afghanistan in this coming March. My youngest son is the Director of IT for Student Affairs in a major university. And I should mention that my Father served as a navigator on a troop transport ship during World War II, I had two Great-Grandfathers who fought for the Union in the Civil War – plus numerous Uncles, One of my many Great-Grandfathers was a Minute Man during the Revolutionary War. My ancestry goes back to the 1600’s in Massachusetts Bay and Old Plymouth Colonies. I am a Mayflower descendant. I am a lifelong Democrat and will match my patriotism and love of country with anyone No, I do NOT live in a dream world.

  22. Frank pallone d New Jersey

    Is a big fat lying senator.

    He is making fun of Americans because we hate obamscare. And the cost too high, deductibles too high.

    Sebelius is a joke. She is talking about adding people to verify everything, something that should have been part of the process from the beginning. This is why congress is no longer needed or this corrupt radical administration. The costs and lies continue at our expense. They don’t care what we think. They think they own us.

    Millions have lost their plans. This Aca is neither legal or affordable.

    We know what our founding fathers would have done to these piece of shits now holding office. These people are enemies of our nation. Socialist.

    This is just sickening.

    1. Making fun of your opponents/making them look weak/evil unless they agree with you, is an underhanded propaganda tactic which has been used for a long time.

      Many people are not informed of what is going on- they either don’t care because they feel they have no real power of their own (which they do, they have learned to feel otherwise), or more and more frequently, honestly believe those who promise to make life “fair” not only have the capability to do so (which they don’t, and have NEVER possessed), but SHOULD.

      It’s often justified with various emotional and psychological manipulation and rarely with any conclusive proof they are truly capable of genuine leadership, rather than merely telling people what to do.

  23. Watching Aca hearing: my concerns

    How do these people sleep at night?

    I will tell you our nation has been overthrown by a radical Muslim socialist coup and if everything we’ve seen isn’t cause for alarm and arrest of these people than our nation isn’t worth saving.

    The fact that members of the Muslim brotherhood frequent OUR White House. A radical terrorist group. No matter our military has been replaced by the illegal and corrupt DHS.

    Sitting here watching the f-ing piece of shit Waxman lie like the radical he is. It is our lives and our business. And our freedom of choice. Waxman you are enemy of everything this nation stands for. We don’t want the federal government involved in anything period. Time to abolish and arrest these criminals and traitors now.

    The demoncrats invoking the nuclear clause speaks volumes that this nations enemies are running our nation. Houston we got a real problem. The list of high crimes and treason is long.

    God help us.

    1. aznative: God help you.

      The assertion that the U.S. has been taken over by a radical Muslim socialist coup is the biggest lie and pile of BS that extremists like you have spreading around the internet for years. Its past time for you all to chill out and get a grip on reality. You call the ACA socialized medicine because you don’t really understand what socialism is. Putting health care in the hands of the private sector insurance companies is hardly my idea of socialism.

      Members of the Muslim Brotherhood do NOT “frequent” the White House. President Mossi was invited because he was the legitimate President of Egypt elected by a democratic vote. Egypt is an important country for us in the Middle East and it is important for our foreign policy to maintain close communications and friendship with the country irrespective of the leadership.

      So the DHS is both illegal and corrupt? Do you have any evidence to back up those allegations? The DHS was established by George W. Bush and is constitutionally very legal. It has NOT replaced the military which has nothing to do with domestic concerns – and, in fact, is legally prevented from doing so.

      You don’t want the federal government involved in anything? Better think long and hard about that. If the government wasn’t there you would be one sorry ass and bitch and moan because such and such service wasn’t being provided.

      Just how has the “nuclear option” going to ruin our nation? Is the fact that a long list of judicial nominations being blocked by the Republicans will now finally come up for a confirmation vote and our many vacancies in the court system will finally be filled going to ruin our nation?

      Please give us a SPECIFIC list of the high crimes and treason which you allude to. I seriously believe that you will be unable to do so..

  24. Of course “they” realize all this. Do you believe “they” haven’t taken steps to be prepared for the collapse? Those in power, the ruling elite, have prepared for this and are ready. You and I, the peasants, will be living under a Feudal system very soon.

    1. We’ll only live in a Feudal system if too many people are too cowardly. Even people in the USSR and Nazi Germany fought back.

      In 1776, a group of brave men and women across backgrounds and class lines decided otherwise, even though it meant the possibility of bloodshed and suffering.

      You give our would-be Kings and Aristocracy FAR too much credit.

      You can destroy a person or a group, but you’ll NEVER completely weed out what they stand for.

      1. You can if the ruling elite is stockpiling all the regulatory agencies (run by Muslims, Marxists, communists, and Obominations political appointees)……. those, who even now are presently quashing the economic free enterprise system, confiscating property and land holdings by fiat and nationalizing every industry with government overseers, with enough military might, arms and ammo to wage war to overkill against any citizen force willing to fight them in the streets. They’ve waited decades for this moment and they are, sadly, certifiably crazy enough to go for it……….

        1. Yes, that may be, but some are crazy enough to fight back, even if it means risking their own safety and possibly their life.

          Not everyone is a coward who wishes to be ruled over in exchange for security and promises of equality.

          Of course people like that try to crush that spirit out of people, but it can and will never be crushed completely.

  25. Moving money around like the way Paul Ryan & Patti Murray suggest (notice how no one in the media is criticizing Murray over this bad deal) is akin to convincing people that they are filling up a swimming pool by scooping water in a bucket from the shallow end and pouring it into the deep end.

    1. Doubt it. The entitlement types will go gladly and peacefully on their march to tyranny. The rest are too worried about what the Kardashians are wearing and the latest episode of reality TV to really give a crap.

      1. I hate to agree with you, but something like Nazi Germany where the general public gladly goes along with it peacefully is more likely than a war.

        People are not independent enough any more, where as in Russia before Revolution, many people were, which is why the Reds had such a terrible time fight the Whites.

        1. I didn’t mean a revolution. I know how gutless conformists are made terrified of not being deemed to be “normal”. I meant the US will need to put that $1 trillion per annum it spends on weapons of leaching to good use and reset the financial system somehow. What alternatives do they have?

  26. Our grandchildren and great grandchildren are having a socialist nation and its impending debt and doom handed to them right before our very eyes. They will bear witness to the fact that elections have such dire consequences as does tyranny.

      1. Look at Gen Y. Most of us blindly believe in Authority and the government and knowing the place you were pigeonholed into in school.

        Most of it is NOT true, but it doesn’t matter. It’s true if you believe it enough.

        Very few members of Gen Y are Libertarian or Conservative. Most are Obama supporters.

        It’s MUCH worse for people younger than us. Yesterday’s Hippies are today’s establishment and far far more evil than their “Square” parents and grandparents.

  27. I once heard a top economists talk about how human beings tend to shrug off a problem rather than confront it. He wasn’t talking about little problems, he meant a huge one that will alter every aspect of your life. Our current fiscal dilemma too vast and all encompassing; easier to shrug it off than face it.

    1. As John Locke wrote prior to our Constitution:

      ( taken from Mark Levin’s “Ameritopia”)

      “Such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur” (19,225). Besides, he observes that “the people who are more disposed to suffer than right themselves by resistance are not apt to stir. People are not so easily got out of their old forms, as some are apt to suggest. They are hardly to be prevailed with to amend the acknowledged faults in the frame they have been accustomed to” (19,223).

      “But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected…” (19,225).

      ***In other words, people will tolerate injustice for a long time but when the time comes that they begin moving in unison, WATCH THE “F”:OUT!

  28. Thanks Scoop, yes another great program this evening stating clearly the impending catastrophe awaiting us unless these sad fools stop rearranging the chairs as they approach the iceberg.

    1. I missed the first 90 minutes so I will be listening to his show on the rewind tonight. The Titanic and the iceberg are definitely on a collision course. And I don’t know how these fools will look themselves in the eye if they don’t do what they can to stop it. They know it’s happening but I can’t make myself believe all of them are okay with it.

          1. Yes it’s rather remarkable how selfish independence and need-free self-sufficiency got conflated with selfless imposition and needy malicious self-destruction. One imagines there may be some erosion of Self going on in early childhood development.

            1. Of course there is! It’s nothing new, but it has become progressively worse.

              Many parents believe that psychotherapists, teachers, and others “know what is best” for them and their kids. They’ll obey without question or be persuaded easily that their kid has a disease, and needs to be treated with drugs/therapy.

              It’s usually middle class and poor kids who aren’t good at blindly obeying Teachers or other Authority figures, which is the point of education- to reward obedience and conformity and punish you if you don’t- unless you are privileged or labelled gifted of course.

              An Authority figure wouldn’t dare to pigeonhole an Upper Middle Class or Wealthy Child. Who would provide for everyone else if they felt their kids were taken advantage of?

              I grew up with “I am the Master, you’re the Slave. Obey me”. Which is what this mindset really is about.

              I was pigeonholed. My parents also were weak-minded enough to buy it. (Both worked for Unions)

              I see it for what is- Authoritarian and Totalitarian doctrine masquerading as “compassion” for the poor and middle class.

              1. Yes we live in an infantilized world of self-defeating, needy geniuses who already know all of knowledge already so you can’t tell them anything. They lie to convince and use force to persuade and are liable to scream at a mean word and or get physically violent with whomever they imagine is hurting them inside their tortured imaginations.

                But they’re not crazy, because they’re normal. And everyone knows conformity is sane.

                No doubt it’s power keeping the populace reduced but children are subjected to irrational, terrifying levels of shaming for biological purity. We’re all wearing clothes. That can’t have been good for us (made to feel worthless inside our own skin as toddlers).

                1. Someone who needs to control others or manipulate them underhandedly to get what they want is not a genius.

                  They’re a bully who needs to destroy others to prop up their unhealthy sense of self-esteem.

                  Dealing with others and finding a way to create win-win situations or just walking away is a lot harder and requires far more intelligence and patience to achieve.

                  Anyone can bark an order, justify it with threats, and command someone to do something they think as being beneath them, or that they have no personal stake in.

                  Bringing out the best in someone, and asking them to do something you yourself have done, and wouldn’t do unless you yourself were willing to do it- that’s leadership, and real leaders are few and far in between.

                  A real leader would be out on the front lines, or close enough to witness things and participate. A bully would be cowering in his tent living in luxury, expecting others to do all the work for them.

                2. Sorry I should have put geniuses in italics or something. I was referring to people so dull, they are certain that they already Know everything they’ll ever need to know. No one can tell them a damn thing or help them grow in any way because they already Know Best (subscribers to religious dogma, wife-beaters, my mother, myself at 14, etc). All constructive criticism is taken as a direct assault on the Personal Myth they’ve constructed to substitute for a severely eroded or non-existent Self. They’re not really geniuses, of course; but they believe they are. Their Personal Myth rests on their continued denial of the reality which terrifies them (being powerless in an environment they cannot control).

                  You are correct that they are bullies but only because they cannot perceive the optimality in respecting the Right of others to exercise their free will in choosing to have nothing to do with them. They struggle to accept that “No” means No, probably because their choices were never respected as a child. They perceive the world in very rigid, binary terms where they’re always Right and everyone who disagrees is Wrong; they’re obsessed with coercion, manipulation, deception or plain old-fashioned violence to force people to do things their way. It seems insane, on some level (perhaps every level bar one). I suspect we may have religion to thank for people like this.

      1. Just like Soros, those who know the time and nature of the collapse will profit handsomely.

        The question is are we prepared to make them pay the price. It is after all, only we sovereign citizens who can reclaim the Republic. The DC establishment will not give up the greatest power in the history of the world. They must be choked and starved of it.

  29. As much as I hate to admit it, Levin is correct. I am old. I have argued this for years. Even standing before the death panels, I will feel sorrier for my children, grandchildren on down. From the greatest generation to the worst.

      1. I only said that, because in the back of my mind, I have a glimmer of hope that somehow my offspring would not have to suffer.

      2. No, he is very reasoned in his opinions. Glenn Beck has been showing the escalating numbers on this for 5 years. People like to think he’s a crazy man, but he thinks outside the box and is ahead of the curve on most things. He has made a few bad calls here and there, but for the most part he has seen this train wrecking before the passengers boarded the train.

        1. I think he’s alarmist in some cases, but he does bring up valid points.

          It is important to be prepared for the possibility that our government really is that corrupt and that our currency could collapse.

          This amount of corruption and financial ruin has occurred before.

          See Weimar Germany. What scares me far more than an economic collapse is someone like Adolf Hitler filling the power vacuum, and the greatly entitled masses believing someone like this can fix everything (no one person or group can).

          After all, tyrants always promise paradise and fairness for the poor and the working class, and are inclined to do the opposite.

          1. Very valid points and it seems both Levin and Beck agree as they both spend a lot of time talking about educating ourselves and our families. Because that is where change begins in all of us. And there will need to be strong, sane leaders to help the clueless find the right path should bad times come.

            1. There-in lies the problem-

              True leaders are rare, and FAR too many people blindly look to other for guidance.

              This blind follower mindset is not something I understand.

  30. No one wants to admit the party is almost over. The check is on the way to the table and no one wants to be the one to pick it up.

  31. They understand.

    Their guilded parachutes, pilfered from the American taxpayers, are strapped firmly to their backs.

  32. The reason for this bill is because democrats are insane, sinister, or stupid and too many republicans are too cozy being Washington insiders, are cowards or lack the clarity of focus necessary to make a proper argument against what is happening.

    Politically the GOP fears the fact that the media has built certain narratives that the GOP is always the unreasonable side of any disagreement and they fear the media and Democrats will use any serious opposition on their part to hammer them as being obstructionist or racist or whatever. The hope within the GOP is to let Obamacare crash and burn the democrat party in the mid-terms and win enough seats to be able to then control the legislative agenda BEFORE making any serious attempts to deal with the Debt, Obamacare, etc..

    If the GOP manages to ever get control over both houses of congress again that will be the real test of whether or not they can call themselves conservative.

    1. The reason for this subversive bill is that there is no substantial difference between the GOP and the democrats, other than the scripts they read in DC Kabuki Theater.

      There will be no “enlightenment” of the elephants to the Constitution. They despise the rule of law. It will be a battle to reclaim Congress one seat at a time.

    2. Indeed, that worked out so well under Bush 43 did it not. Listen to the whole of Levin’s monologue.

      1. We need conservatives in the primaries, but until there is a law that says there must be run-off elections if no candidate receives a majority of the vote, any third party efforts are very likely to simply divide us for the conquering by Democrats as was clearly the case with Perot when Bubba won with only 42% of the vote.

        If we fracture now, we’re cooked. This is the worst possible moment to tear apart the only political coalition for limited government that currently exists.

        1. We are cooked – we have GOP house leadership pouring fuel on the financial fire and getting ready to push amnesty.

          Division is necessary because the GOP has long abandoned its responsibility to fight all the forces attacking the Constitution and rule of law. It has joined them.

          There are conservatives running in the Republican primaries and the local, county and Federal levels. The GOP party machinery abandons them, discredits them, or destroys them should they win (Allen West).

          The party is deeply committed to this so a split is essential. It will be ugly but now Progressive Republicans like Boehner are selling our sovereignty just as the Progressive Demcrats are. Only the speeds and feeds vary.

          The primary battle is now. It is in the GOP machinery not with the Democrats. America needs us all to join the fight – at our local level and national levels.

          1. I think we’re on the same page there. We need a full blown takeover within the GOP, but if there are GOP politicians who are “moderate” then until the next election we should use them to pass conservative legislation just like the democrats use their “moderates” to pass liberal legislation.

            The best way you “use” these people is by forging alliances and that is best done under a banner, in this case the GOP party I.D.

            I think that system sucks, but it is what it is and we have far more pressing problems to worry about besides trying to fix human nature.

            1. Greg Brannon talks about this. He believes that just as in any battle, when a leader reads the riot act and turns the troops back to the front, some will respond.

              With no doubt many like Rubio will simply change their colors. And with equal certainty, the likes of Boehner, McCain, Cantor and McConnel will continue to sabotage the Republic if they remain.

              It will be ugly.

          1. Name the politicians you know of who support or who even claim to support limited government and tell me what party they are in.

            If you can’t name ANY at all then there is no point to anything and we might as well give up altogether.

            1. Claiming to support limited government and not doing anything about it is just bs, and we both know that.
              When the GOP nation wide is legislating a woman’s health care, that isn’t smaller government. When Reagan decided to have the StarWars armament, that wasn’t small government. When G.W. Bush decided to fund two wars on a credit card, while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest, that wasn’t small government either.
              Wether or not we agree on abortion or birth control isn’t the issue either. For me the issue is that those men in State government Houses of Representatives (etc) don’t have a medical license to practice medicine. It’s the GOP run states (like Texas)that are passing these laws restricting access to women’s health care. That isn’t smaller government.
              That’s why sanity won’t prevail, the GOP is no longer sane.

              1. Some talk others act. This is just the nature of things. There’s a fair amount of both that occurs. And while Reagan did indeed increase government in some areas he also managed to reduce it in others.

                With regards to abortion I think you may be on the wrong site as people around here don’t take too kindly to that sort of talk, but I’ll parry with you. 🙂

                I personally believe, and I think most limited government types do in fact believe there is a role for government to play in protecting an individual’s rights to life, liberty and the fruits of liberty’s labor (property).

                With regard to protecting life the question becomes “when is a person considered to be an individual alive and thus deserving protection from those who might take that life away?”

                For many (and if we are quite literal) life is actually at the cellular level and thus human life begins at conception. While I respect that opinion, I and others take it to a different level by asking “when does fetal viability begin?”

                If the line between personhood and abortion is merely the difference of being inside or outside of a woman’s womb then that hardly seems a legitimate standard.

                So the question of where to draw the line is a completely legitimate one and the determination of that line is fully within the prerogative of government in the interest of protecting human life.

                1. Ok. one more time into the breach……..If, in fact, neither sperm nor ovum are viable then life cannot be brought into existence. therefore life is a continuation of same at conception, and taking that life at any point thereafter can be stated undeniably as MURDER! 55 million in the last 3 decades…… Query: How many great minds, in addition to “legal” citizen voters has the Marxist left prevented by design, from coming to our aid in the voting booths of the greatest country the world has ever known….?

              2. Constitutionally, the Federal government is supposed to have very few responsibilities. National defense is really the main one and should be the main expense in the budget… but it isn’t. Star Wars has produced many benefits for our defense, so I don’t see how this is some kind of GOP hypocrisy. GW Bush is was/is a neocon big government Republican and I’m not really into defending him, but the Afghan War was a moral imperative. The Iraq war I was not really a fan of.

                All that said, the defense portion of the budget is still dwarfed by the entitlement items which are also “on a credit card”.

                As far as the abortion issue, that’s not my particular battle since I’m not religious about it. I do think it’s very hypocritical that Democrats try to come off as caring about people but have no problems with killing an 8 month old baby (sorry, I think the preferred dehumanizing term is “fetus”)

                From the state GOP perspective, though, they want to protect life. Protecting life is definitely a part of the responsibility of state government. So once again I don’t see your point.

              3. Killing your unborn child is “healthcare”?

                Now who’s insane?

                Indeed, the world is upside down.

Comments are closed.