Oh Please! Obama & Democrats Reconsider Buying “Bad Mortagages” with Taxpayor Money

The latest Plan(s) from the Obama Administrtion change quicker than the press can publish the reports ……. Read these two stories as an example:
UPDATE 1-US financial plan won’t include “bad bank” – CNBC – http://www.cnbc.com/id/29109451
UPDATE 2-US plan to have some form of “bad bank” – CNBC  – http://www.cnbc.com/id/29110755
Obama and the current Democratic Adminstration in Congress (The Same Democratic Administration that has controlled Congress these last 4 years and created this mess in the first place) have decided to create a plan to buy “bad mortgages” with Taxpayor monies and then, get this, reduce the mortagage principle owed on the original mortagage before reselling the mortage to the same party who defaulted in the first place.
That is right, while you struggle to make ends meet and pay your mortgage, your tax dollars will be spent to help purchase a home for someone who obtained a “NINJA” or “LIAR” loan they couldn’t afford in the first place and while your stuck with the “current value” of your home – the realestate scammers who brought this mess on will get the benefit of your tax dollars to “payoff” any loss on the “investment” they conned the bank out of in the first place.
Some of you may be thinking, “What the Hell is Obama talking about now? Didn’t he attack John McCain for suggesting the same thing just a couple of months ago?”. The Answer, yes he did!
It was a bad idea then, when McCain suggested it. It is a bad idea now when Obama wants to pretend he thought of it first!
October 9, 2008, 1:41 pm <!– — Updated: 1:58 pm –>

Obama Calls McCain Mortgage Plan ‘Risky’

DAYTON – Returning to some of his tough, pre-debate language, Barack Obama this afternoon condemned John McCain’s plan for the government to buy bad home mortgages as “McCain’s bailout” for risk-taking banks and lenders, and described his approach to the financial crisis as “risky” and “erratic,” a word Mr. Obama used twice. 

Obama calls McCain mortgage plan ill-advised

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Democrat Barack Obama told Ohio voters Thursday that Republican John McCain’s mortgage buyout plan would cost them billions of dollars and reward bad behavior.  Obama said McCain’s plan would force the government to absorb the full cost of renegotiating mortgages to keep borrowers from losing their homes. 
Obama rejects McCain’s plan to buy mortgages

McCain’s proposal to spend $300 billion in federal funds to buy distressed mortgages was a highlight of Tuesday’s presidential debate, and it seemed to catch Obama off guard. At first, Obama’s campaign said he had made similar proposals and there was nothing new in McCain’s remarks.

But after McCain aides offered more details Wednesday, Obama’s campaign shifted gears.

The plan would cause the government “to massively overpay for mortgages in a plan that would guarantee taxpayers lose money, and put them at risk of losing even more if home values don’t recover,” Obama economic adviser Jason Furman said in a statement. “The biggest beneficiaries of this plan will be the same financial institutions that got us into this mess, some of whom even committed fraud.”

McCain’s proposal would devote nearly half the $700 billion from the recent financial rescue package to buying troubled mortgages directly, rather than indirectly aiding the nation’s financial markets. The government would buy distressed home loans at their face value, said campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. Then it would pay the difference between a mortgage’s original value and its renegotiated, lower value.

McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said Obama’s objections suggested he would rather “support a bailout of Wall Street than rescue Main Street America.”


Sen. Obama went on the offensive today ripping into Sen. McCain’s mortgage buy-out plan in which the US Treasury would begin buying up bad mortgages and dealing with the homeowners directly.



Revised Stimulus Plan Still Contains “Health Care Rationing” Provision – Where are you Senator Specter?

Despite his repeated assuarnces on TV that the provision would be removed from the stimulus bill – it still remains.

Isn’t your word any good Senator?

The language in question isn’t even remotedly related to “stimulating the ecomony” in the first palce – so the language/spending has no place in this bill.

This item should make its way through the Congress in the normal fashion and be subject to open and agressive debate – not smuggled past the American public in the dead of night.

A brief review of the provision follows – excerpted form the National Review On Line – the full article can be reviewed here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2Y1ZTg5MDk4ZmE3MjU2MjBiMzk0ZjJhNTdiNmE5YmI=

The Stimulus and Health Care    [James C. Capretta]

The massive amount of spending in the so-called “stimulus” bill is startling, yes—but entirely predictable given the way the bill was set in motion.

There’s now $20 billion in new discretionary appropriations for HHS in the bill (not counting the HIT funding and Medicaid), and there is no real theme to any of it—other than more, pretty much across the board. $2.1 billion for Head Start. $0.5 billion for the NIH campus. $1.5 for university research facilities. $1.5 billion for NIH research grants. A $3.0 billion wellness fund. And on and on.

What’s just as troubling is the large number of far-reaching policy changes tucked away in the bill.

For instance, the Democratic majority is laying the foundation for government rationing of health care—and the public has heard virtually nothing about it.

The bill provides $1.1 billion for a new program of comparative effectiveness research. The idea is to study medical practice patterns, new products, and new technology to determine what is “cost effective.” In the UK, a similar program run by the National Institute for Clinical Evidence (NICE) is used to deny payment by the government for certain drugs and procedures that are said to be “cost ineffective.”

Democratic lawmakers will deny that rationing is their intent, but that is not credible. Why create a government program to study what’s cost effective if not to use the information to inform payment and coverage decisions? The problem is that this kind of research inevitably includes value judgments (how much is an extra year of life worth?) and interpreting the data is more art than science. In the wrong hands (like a distant government bureaucracy), so-called effectiveness research can be very dangerous indeed. (MCAULEYSWORLD: WORSE YET – MEDICAL DEVISE MANUFACTURERS OR MEDICATION RESEARCHERS CAN INFLUENCE THE SYSTEM WITH THEIR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST)

James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a health policy and research consultant.

Stimulus Bill Raises Concerns Over Government Rationing of Health Care
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Two provisions in President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan could give the federal government the authority to oversee the medical decisions made between doctors and patients, critics warn, which could result in the rationing of health care.
The bill provides $3 billion to computerize health records, a measure intended to cut costs and reduce medical errors. Language in the stimulus bill calls for “the utilization of an electronic health record (EHR) for each person in the United States by 2014.”
Further, the legislation also spends $1.1 billion to establish a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which would serve as an umbrella group for all federal health programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, and veterans’ care, with 15 members from various federal agencies making determinations about health care needs and cost-effective treatments. 
According to the bill, the secretary of Health and Human Services “shall seek to improve the use of electronic health records and health care quality over time by requiring more stringent measures of meaningful use” by health care providers.
The bill also indicates that a doctor who is not a “meaningful EHR user” in terms of using patients’ health records to provide the most cost-efficient coverage could face penalties

This will require the establishment of the office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. The new office ‘‘provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care,” according to the language in the bill.

One problem critics note is that the electronic medical records will be mandatory.
“I am not against electronic records,” Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, told CNSNews.com. “I am against coercing doctors to limit care. I certainly do not support vague guidelines. E-records are fine as long as they are not mandatory.”
McCaughey, an adjunct senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, told CNSNews.com there is “no question” that the goal is to ration health care to control costs. That is achieved, she said, by first putting every individual in a medical treatment database, and secondly by putting the new effectiveness council in charge of providing doctors with guidelines for how to most effectively treat those patients based on the data.
“The powers of the secretary of Health and Human Services are so vague as to raise constitutional questions,” McCaughey said. “The guidelines of what is cost effective could penalize doctors for providing too much care. Treatment decisions guided by the information in the database could determine if a doctor is providing inappropriate care, or excessive care, which would be defined as giving more care to one patient than other patients. This is harmful to patients.”

Though the bill, still under final revision in Congress, states that privacy of electronic health records will be protected, Sue Blevin, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, is concerned that there is not an opt-out for people who choose not to have their records computerized and entered into the national network.
“Without those protections, Americans’ electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health records network,” Blevin said in a statement.

“Unless people have the right to decide if and when their health information is shared or whether to participate in research studies, they don’t have a true right to privacy.”


Obama & Democrats Blow More Smoke Up Your Ass – Executive Pay/Bonus Limitations Dropped From Stimulus

So, after spending last weekend playing to the liberal media and launching a tidal wave of 10 second sound bites attacking the Bankers the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress continues to bail out – yes the same Democratic bankers who ran Fannie, Freddie, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and AIG ( Oh, you didn’t know they were Democrats, what a surprise, you must read the Main Stream Media)  – The OBAMA ADMINSTRATION AND THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS HAVE DROPPED EVERY PROVISION IN THE BAILOUT BILL 2 (Now called Stimulus 2) THAT WOULD LIMIT EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION OR BONUSES – That is right! Every single provision that would limit the Executive Compensation paid by your tax dollars, every provision that would limit Executive Bonus/Perk payouts or curtail the purchase or lease of Corporate Jets has been eliminated from the Stimulus/Bailout. THAT IS RIGHT – AFTER ALL THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS – EVERY SINGLE PROVISION HAS BEEN DROPPED BY OBAMA HIS ADMISTRATION AND THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS. So exactly what was all the chest thumping about while the cameras were on …. politics, pure poltics.  http://coloradoindependent.com/21333/executive-pay-cap-could-get-axe-in-stimulus-negotiations

Why did this happen? If you believe the bogus explanation “unamed” Democrats in Congress are offerring, it is because they, the Democrats, did not want to lose “the tax revenue generated by the payouts”. That is rich! 100’s of billions in bonus payments made out of trillions of dollars in tax payor’s money to collect a few million in taxes. Do you believe that expanation? Are you that stupid? 

The real reason – the people receiving the bonus payments made possible through our tax dollars are big name Democratoic Party Loyalists who grease the right palms come campaign contribution time.


Who pays? You already know who pays ………

Only 21 months to election day ……….. 


Executive pay cap could get axe in stimulus negotiations

 By Mike Lillis 2/11/09 10:49 AM

Citing unnamed Democratic officials, The Associated Press reports that there’s “pressure” on Congress to drop the executive pay limits for bailed-out banks as lawmakers reconcile the differences between the House and Senate stimulus bills.

The reason? It would cost taxpayers too much.


That’s right — the federal government has lent or guaranteed trillions to Wall Street firms, many of which remain reluctant to lend the cash, and Congress might drop the executive pay cap because the $10.8 billion it would cost in lost tax revenue over 10 years (as scored by the Congressional Budget Office) is too much.

So: No conditions on lending. No restrictions on executive pay. It looks more and more like The Onion got it right when it said this bailout cash is being dumped into a hole in New Mexico.


%d bloggers like this: