American Elephant, lumping people in a category and condemning them as a collective group, is not very wise. Maybe you forgot, that Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood actor.

To attack Sen. Obama for “Hollywood Fund Raising” while ignoring McCain doing the same with “Corp. CEO’s.

But unlike Hollywood actors, corporate CEO’s actually benefit America — and you have to be at least moderately intelligent to be one.

thanks

Question, Richard: have you automatically started paying an increased amount in taxes to the Federal government, taking money away from paying your employees more, making improvements, and producing a better product, because you believe you don’t pay enough?

Because Obama believes that about you and has publicly stated that he will increase taxes on your business. How do you think that will affect your plans for growth and hiring?

Having realized that my pathetic stock portfolio is taking a hit from the US shenanigans, Vince P’s mini-lectures have been excellent. Thanks, Vince.

Somewhere else, a pundit noted that Obama is the “ideal” Democrat candidate. It turns out that aside from being a Harvard grad and good looking (in a EAST African manner), and a lovely orator… he is also a snob. If I were a Democrat, I would be searching my own political soul. Blatant, unself-conscious will not win American votes.

The default position for Fannie’s defenders is that the giant mortgage finance company provides more affordable housing. At least that’s Fannie’s declared mission and that’s why the government offers it an implicit subsidy. But as study after study has demonstrated, Fannie does not provide homeowners with significant savings.

The Federal Reserve found that about half of the government subsidy going to Fannie and Freddie is retained by the company. The half that goes to homeowners amounts to seven basis points on mortgages. The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that Fannie and Freddie pass through 25 basis points to mortgage buyers, or about 60% of its estimate of the total subsidy. Both studies conclude that the tiny amount of subsidy that actually reaches borrowers does not increase homeownership.

The disconnect between Fannie’s rhetoric and its self-enriching practice was clear a few months ago when the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule to require Fan and Fred to purchase more mortgages from lower-income households. Currently, Fan and Fred must buy half their loans from people making less than the median income in a region. HUD wants to raise that target to 53% for next year and to 57% by 2008. It was a modest request, especially since HUD data show that Fan and Fred have lagged behind other mortgage lenders in financing such loans.

Well, you would have thought that HUD was proposing to kick poor folks out of their homes, not make it easier to buy them. Fan and Fred’s Congressional sympathizers (including some of the same Members who lavished valentines over Fan last week) sent a letter to HUD complaining against the new quotas. And you can bet the companies were egging them on behind the scenes.

To be sure, Mr. Franks is right that Fannie’s executive compensation is rich by any standards. When a government-sponsored company pays its top 21 executives more than $1 million each in 2002 (and three of them are lobbyists), that fact does bear some reflection.

And, aside from the evidence that Fannie was cooking its books to trigger big bonuses, there’s also the issue of performance. Mr. Raines’s 2003 compensation was over $20 million. That’s about $14 million more than the median for CEOs of very large companies. What did Mr. Raines do to deserve this giant sum? Not much. In the five years that Mr. Raines has been at the helm, Fannie’s cumulative shareholder return, including reinvested dividends, has been 4% compared with the 23% achieved by the S&P financial sector.

The evidence is overwhelming that Fannie only pretends to be a tribune of the poor. Not only does the company use its implicit subsidy to enrich its executives, some of that money is funneled into the Fannie Mae Foundation, which, no surprise, motors it back out to favorite charities of Fannie board members. It’s an odd sort of liberal principle that endorses private profits at public risk

Here’s a case of misplaced moral outrage if we’ve ever seen one. Mr. Franks is mad about the salaries when he really should be mad at the rigged political game that has made them possible. Fannie’s regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, has reported that Fannie has been cooking its books. Add that to the increasing evidence that Fannie has been ignoring its mission to provide affordable housing, and we wonder if Mr. Frank doesn’t need an eye checkup.

Ditto for the good liberals in the Congressional Black Caucus. Members of this group are often the loudest defenders of Fannie and her brother, Freddie Mac. Can it be that the annual donations made by the Fannie Mae Foundation to the Caucus have blurred their vision too?

Here’s a case of misplaced moral outrage if we’ve ever seen one. Mr. Franks is mad about the salaries when he really should be mad at the rigged political game that has made them possible. Fannie’s regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, has reported that Fannie has been cooking its books. Add that to the increasing evidence that Fannie has been ignoring its mission to provide affordable housing, and we wonder if Mr. Frank doesn’t need an eye checkup.

Ditto for the good liberals in the Congressional Black Caucus. Members of this group are often the loudest defenders of Fannie and her brother, Freddie Mac. Can it be that the annual donations made by the Fannie Mae Foundation to the Caucus have blurred their vision too?

Maxine Waters (D., California) cooed all over Mr. Raines, and Clay Lacy (D., Missouri) played the race card by calling the hearings a “political lynching” of Mr. Raines, who is African-American. Are CEOs not supposed to be accountable simply because they’re persons of color? By the way, Roger Barnes, the whistle-blower who was fired by Fannie after complaining about its accounting procedures, is also black. In a more consistent world — where political principles mean something — these liberals would be scorching a company that used a government subsidy to enrich its own executives. Instead, they’re defending it.

The default position for Fannie’s defenders is that the giant mortgage finance company provides more affordable housing. At least that’s Fannie’s declared mission and that’s why the government offers it an implicit subsidy. But as study after study has demonstrated, Fannie does not provide homeowners with significant savings.

The Federal Reserve found that about half of the government subsidy going to Fannie and Freddie is retained by the company. The half that goes to homeowners amounts to seven basis points on mortgages. The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that Fannie and Freddie pass through 25 basis points to mortgage buyers, or about 60% of its estimate of the total subsidy. Both studies conclude that the tiny amount of subsidy that actually reaches borrowers does not increase homeownership.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/16/mccain-and-babs/

Not “terrible.” Just hypocritical and shameless, Cecil. Obama sold thousands and thousands of books lecturing the rest of us on what’s wrong with our democracy and criticizing those politicians “held captive by their big money contributors.” According to your king of kings and lord of lords, this is the “story line that weaves its way into just about every analysis of what’s wrong with our democracy.” And last night, Obama didn’t hesitate to assume the hammiest protagonist’s role in that exact story line. I’m sure you see nothing wrong with this because…well, the rules just don’t apply to Obama–especially the ones that he decrees for the rest of humanity. But that doesn’t change the fact that the candidate you are supporting is a hypocritical, lying, condescending elitist of nuclear proportions with absolutely no principles and a detachment from mainstream Americans that would mortify even Marie Antoinette. That’s your guy. That is who you’re voting for and you are free to do so. But please, just support him and shut up about it and stop acting like the rest of us haven’t figured out what a dim-witted loser he is. And by the way, even if you idiots manage to get the clown elected, that will only mean he got more votes. He’ll still be a hypocritical, lying, condescending elitist. Winning the election won’t change the fact that he publishes books saying one thing and then does the exact opposite.

Personally, I’m thrilled that Obama decided to be the guest of honor at this celebrity-infested fu*k-fest where he could rub elbows with opinionated famous people who, in many cases, didn’t even finish high school. (I’m sure at some point in the evening Sharon Stone screamed at him to fetch her a bellini and a moist towlette or she would have him killed, assuming he was a waiter). It’s the perfect opportunity for McCain to make a sequel to his phenomenally successful ad comparing Obama to a vapid celebrity as the Presidency continues to slip through his fingers. The irony is that the event will raise a lot of money for Obama’s campaign while also stabbing it through the heart. It’s 2008 and liberals just haven’t gotten the message: BARBARA STREISAND is “the story line that weaves its way into just about every analysis of what’s wrong with our democracy.”

“So what does Barack Obama do after a hard day of defending the common man during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?”

Oh, I thought you were going to say, takes in more contributions than almost anyone else in both houses of congress from the corrupt institution, lead by Democrats, that in large part caused that financial crisis, picks the guy who caused the collapse of another major financial institution as his running mate, and opposes legislation sponsored by the Republican candidate to reform the Corruption at Fannie Mae three years ago.

But I like your answer too.