Screw the Banks and Investment Firms

[Apollonaris Zeus]

I heard today that some of these executives received over 2 billion in bonuses while stockholders took a loss last year.

I guess you can call that the Pre-bailout before they bailed out!



AIIZ

[Box Burner]

Remove currency and go back to the barter system and you will see who the working class is.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JACKIE CALMES and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 23, 2008

WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Stephan Savoia/Associated Press

The disclosure undercuts a remark by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae

And lets not forget McCain's statement were he contradicted himself later that day!

"The fundamentals of our Economy is Sound"

to

"The Fundamentals of our Economy are at Risk!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4KY39jLdu4

He's out of touch

AIIZ

[Apollonaris Zeus]

there seems to be a fight with McCain and the Republicans about the issue of the Democrats wanting the tax payers to have an equity in the buyout so that is the buyouts are successful that the tax payers will profit and maybe pay off some debt. But the Republicans are wanting an sell off or collapse of of the institutions first whereby assets are sold at discount prices to the wealthy vultures lining up and say the democrat's plan amount to socialism.

The problem with the economy is government and brokers need to focus on the balance sheets!

I see it as a way to pay off the the republican created national debt by them slashing tax revenues and increased spending on the bush administration's imperialistic iraq war, failed economic stimulus plan and deregulation of financial institutions.

I have to balance my income to debt it's time for the Republicans to do the same!

Damn those tax cut and spend Republicans!

AIIZ

[Toolmaker]

[wonderphil]

lets kill all of the bankers FIRST, and then all the lawyers.

(except for paul addis, he had nothing to do with this)

You will be killing your allies, as the ambulance chasing lawyers for the most part support your dumocrat party.

As do the unions,

welfare slackers,

anti gun advocates,

Black power advocates and white guilt liberals.

Environmental wackos of all sorts,

Socialists, Pinkos, commies and other left wing nut cases.

All encompassing, big government control supporters protecting us from all dangers.

Criminals of all sorts.

Fags of all sorts

all other sniveling, dumb ass cockroaches .

I have left some supporters out because I agree with the position.

What group(s) aboive do you belong or fit into?

[Simon of the Playa]

i'm a burner, phil, what the fuck are YOU?




oh wait, let me guess...

[can't sit still]

Some years ago, Sweden went through the same problem. They bailed out the banks but took partial ownership. After the dust had cleared, they sold off the assets at a fair price. It cost the taxpayers almost nothing when it was all done. As Zeus mentioned, the vultures are already lined up.

[ygmir]

Some years ago, Sweden went through the same problem. They bailed out the banks but took partial ownership. After the dust had cleared, they sold off the assets at a fair price. It cost the taxpayers almost nothing when it was all done. As Zeus mentioned, the vultures are already lined up.

The detail/devil as I see it:

Will our government watch out for us, and, try to emulate Sweden, or, give their buddies a super deal on the banks, etc, and then let them make the profit, paid by our tax money.........

I know my guess......

[jkisha]

Some years ago, Sweden went through the same problem. They bailed out the banks but took partial ownership. After the dust had cleared, they sold off the assets at a fair price. It cost the taxpayers almost nothing when it was all done. As Zeus mentioned, the vultures are already lined up.

The detail/devil as I see it:

Will our government watch out for us, and, try to emulate Sweden, or, give their buddies a super deal on the banks, etc, and then let them make the profit, paid by our tax money.........

I know my guess......

I'm going to try and be a bit less cynicle and, assuming the democrats take over power, they will take the high-road on this. Now if Bush or McCain were to be in office, all bets would be off.

JK

[Ugly Dougly]

I know that they will continue to take our money, no matter who we vote for, or how much we moan.
They will pretend to reduce taxes, but they won't; they will always find a reason (right or left) to stick their hands in our pockets.

[ygmir]

Some years ago, Sweden went through the same problem. They bailed out the banks but took partial ownership. After the dust had cleared, they sold off the assets at a fair price. It cost the taxpayers almost nothing when it was all done. As Zeus mentioned, the vultures are already lined up.

The detail/devil as I see it:

Will our government watch out for us, and, try to emulate Sweden, or, give their buddies a super deal on the banks, etc, and then let them make the profit, paid by our tax money.........

I know my guess......

I'm going to try and be a bit less cynicle and, assuming the democrats take over power, they will take the high-road on this. Now if Bush or McCain were to be in office, all bets would be off.

JK

How openly myopic of you.........

[ygmir]

I know that they will continue to take our money, no matter who we vote for, or how much we moan.
They will pretend to reduce taxes, but they won't; they will always find a reason (right or left) to stick their hands in our pockets.

UD:
I'm with you on this.........

[wonderphil]

Take a guess which party pushed this shit bill through congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions.



The CRA was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community.[1] Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act.[2] The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB).

The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market.[3] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[4]


[edit] Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.

These revisions[5] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.[citation needed]

Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. [6] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. [7] [8]

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. [9]

[can't sit still]

I've got a joke for you'all and it's not the slightest bit funny. The banks say that they need $700 billion and that will fix things. The punch line is that the banks are borrowing $188 billion a day from the FED. http://www.gata.org/node/6679
WTF difference is $700 B going to make? The article appears to be authored by Reuters and I don't believe that it is bogus. I've got a pretty good understanding of this financial stuff, but I'm having a hard time getting a perspective on exactly what the numbers imply.
If the banks are trying to get GOV to carry the whole weight of $1.300,000,000,000 "worth" of instruments that are failing, we only have days until GOV collapses. Maybe , I'm mis-interpreting something. I hope that y'all don't think that I'm pessimistic. I just haven't seen any good news.
Dan

[ygmir]

well, Dan.......
I fear you're right, and, hope you're wrong......
But,
we may all be on playa for a long time if you're correct.......
I'll be at my retreat.........
Say you're from Eplaya, and, the guards will let you through......

[Simon of the Playa]

thats it phil, blame the poor people. Blame the Clinton administration. Blame the democrats.


i blame your mom. She must have done something terrible to you as a child...

let me guess, you didnt get to breast feed for long enough, thats what usually causes this type of dementia and inner hatred.

[MikeVDS]

Clinton was the one who started it, but I think Phil has an agenda considering the parts quoted.

George W. Bush Administration Proposed Changes of 2003

In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [10] This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."[11]

[edit] Changes of September 2005
This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.(September 2008)

Among banks and the regulatory agencies, there was a consensus that data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements imposed a heavy burden on small community institutions. As a result of a 2002 review of the CRA regulations, and revision of an initial Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposal following a public commenting period that was largely negative, the FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), made substantive changes to the implementation of regulations for the CRA for banks (not thrifts).

Previously, all institutions over $250 million in assets were subject to a three-part CRA test that covered lending (including community development loans), qualified investments, and services (including community development services) to their assessment areas. Institutions less than $250 million were subject only to a lending test.

I'd say read the whole article if you're going to pay any attention to the snippets quoted. Clinton's changes were great but the whole thing was allowed to grow into a big bubble. In California, where the bubble appeared to start, we've been talking about this for years. Redlining should still be outlawed, it is not the removal of "redlining" that had anything to do with it, it was everything else about the situation and banks buying and selling these things assuming they are worth their inflated value. When the value deflated, all of this money the banks thought they had and acted like they had, just disappeared. We want lower housing prices. We want young people to be able to afford their own place. The drop was good but the way our financial system works, our dollars are worth more if our assets are worth more.

[Toolmaker]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx_VGaAf-7A[/youtube]

[wonderphil]

Maybe screwing the banks are not such a good idea. Although if you look at the bond and stock values they have ALREADY screwed themself. Wanting to screw the banks anymore is kind of like shooting yourself in the foot


This is only one opinion of many - also not pointing blame - just fix the fucking problem before we all have to go buy a lot more bullets and go live in a cave- I know some of you might think you would like that.

Listen Up Washington: Rescue Package Is NOT Optional
Respected managers agree that doing nothing is a recipe for disaster.



http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/ ... ?id=254460

[wonderphil]

Clinton was the one who started it, but I think Phil has an agenda considering the parts quoted.

Yes , I admit I was pointing out that the democrats started this program that was the root cause of the financial problems we have been in for some time. Clinton did not start it as you said, read what I posted again. I also left the part about what happened during the bush admin as other stuff that followed. This was partly to hold down the size of my posts to more of a sound bite size which may be more easily for people who get bored easily to comprehend. In addition since the reforms the Bush admin recommended DID NOT HAPPEN I did not post that part. However now that I look at it again.

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."[11]


Please read the part you posted about Bush again you will see it supports my position. Republicans never wanted Freddy and Fanny to be GSE's in the first place. They wanted to change the program in 2003 and said at the time that the GSE's were a big financial problem waiting to happen .

The dumbocrats failed to see that as should have been expected, duh they have dumb in their name don't they?

George W. Bush Administration Proposed Changes of 2003

In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [10] This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."[11]
[edit] Changes of September 2005
This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.(September 2008)

Among banks and the regulatory agencies, there was a consensus that data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements imposed a heavy burden on small community institutions. As a result of a 2002 review of the CRA regulations, and revision of an initial Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposal following a public commenting period that was largely negative, the FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), made substantive changes to the implementation of regulations for the CRA for banks (not thrifts).

Previously, all institutions over $250 million in assets were subject to a three-part CRA test that covered lending (including community development loans), qualified investments, and services (including community development services) to their assessment areas. Institutions less than $250 million were subject only to a lending test.

I'd say read the whole article if you're going to pay any attention to the snippets quoted. Clinton's changes were great but the whole thing was allowed to grow into a big bubble. In California, where the bubble appeared to start, we've been talking about this for years. Redlining should still be outlawed, it is not the removal of "redlining" that had anything to do with it, it was everything else about the situation and banks buying and selling these things assuming they are worth their inflated value. When the value deflated, all of this money the banks thought they had and acted like they had, just disappeared. We want lower housing prices. We want young people to be able to afford their own place. The drop was good but the way our financial system works, our dollars are worth more if our assets are worth more.

I agree, redlining should NOT be outlawed. If the person meets reasonable qualifications they should be able to get financing. I don't think redlining was the problem maybe the implementation of the rule prohibiting redlining contributed to it.

The reason I posted the post in the first place was I saw democrats Harry Reed and Dodd on CNBC Friday. Reed was pointing a hell of a lot of blame at the Republicans when if he really wanted to find fault for the problem he should have ALSO been looking in the mirror and at the guy standing next to him that pushed this bill through congress. I am not claiming it is the only cause, just the root of the problem.

I could write another page about what you said about "and banks buying and selling these things ..." but this post is too long already

[Simon of the Playa]

There are 250,000 fewer Japanese men every year.

so there is a silver lining after all.

[joel the ornery]

What the hell is the matter with all of you people? I've worked on Wall Street for years, and yes, I am a millionaire. So what? If it wasn't for those of us who actually pay taxes, the rest of you slackers (and vertually everyone who works for the BMOrg's DPW) there wouldn't be an event like Burning Man. Can I prove that? Well, no. But considering that in Barbie Death Camp alone there must be no fewer than six or seven millionaires, and all the wine we give away, I should think you people would be happy! Goddamn liberals.

forgive them Doc, for they talk out of their asses.

btw, while i am not a millionaire, i have certainly lived like one.

so have most of you reading this...

[ygmir]

There are 250,000 fewer Japanese men every year.

so there is a silver lining after all.

Well,
there goes the sumo diaper industry...............

[MikeVDS]

I agree, redlining should NOT be outlawed. If the person meets reasonable qualifications they should be able to get financing.

Did you mean to say that? I think there is a typo. Redlining is where they refuse someone, not based on their actual qualifications but purely on where they live as the ONLY qualification. If you outlaw redlining you prevent companies from making maps where they refuse to even look at an application based on where they live. I don't think looking at only where someone lives is really looking for "reasonable qualifications", and I don't think that is what you meant.

I do think Dems hold a huge part in the whole thing but the Repubs as well. Do you remember who held congress in 2003 and 2005? If it was really "along party lines" then the Republicans would have got their way. For those congressmen who pressed for the changes, bravo, but for the rest...

[wonderphil]

I agree, redlining should NOT be outlawed. If the person meets reasonable qualifications they should be able to get financing.

Did you mean to say that? I think there is a typo. Redlining is where they refuse someone, not based on their actual qualifications but purely on where they live as the ONLY qualification. If you outlaw redlining you prevent companies from making maps where they refuse to even look at an application based on where they live. I don't think looking at only where someone lives is really looking for "reasonable qualifications", and I don't think that is what you meant.

I do think Dems hold a huge part in the whole thing but the Repubs as well. Do you remember who held congress in 2003 and 2005? If it was really "along party lines" then the Republicans would have got their way. For those congressmen who pressed for the changes, bravo, but for the rest...

Yes thank you, it was a typo, I fully agree with you that Redlining is wrong.

As far as your other comments, after some more research, I agree with you on that too.

The 2003 congress was controlled by republicans 51 to 48 with one independent in the senate
The 2003 House was controlled by republicans 229 to 204 with one independent

I tried to Google the actual vote on the proposed reform of 2003 and did not find any conclusive results. What I found below says that the bill did not even come to a vote in the senate which was nearly a tie as to control. What I do know is that Freddy and Fanny were giving a lot of money to lobby congress. In this case I assume they bought off enough republicans to prevent the reform bill to pass . That people can be corrupted is not a big surprise to me no party or government that I know of has ever been immune to corruption.


Doom
Party line vote by Democrats killed bill in Committee
Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:09AM
75.67.133.75


Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''


http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion. ... hics%20BBS

http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion. ... hics%20BBS

Doom
Regulations can't prevent collapse of faulty economic models
Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:34AM
75.67.133.75


Democrats are trying to sell this latest blivit...more regulation will stop the bleeding,more controls in the market will solve the problems associated with housing collapse. Most of this blather is a diversion from the key economic reality....providing loans to folks with poor credit records NEVER WORKS....see,they don't pay their bills which is why they have poor credit records! That's the root cause of the Wall Street problem..no amount of regulation can fix that problem...because the underlying premise is wrong.

BTW..a blivit is 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag


http://community.livinglakecountry.com/ ... ilout.aspx

</p> <p>2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>2005 - legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>2005 - a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets. </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The Opposition?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd.

Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,

second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The Outcome?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue.

Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.</p>
__________________
Life brings so many more questions than answers

[Toolmaker]

[lurker]

Bush likes the bailout. Most Dems like the bailout. Most Reps like the bailout. Get it? They're ALL gonna screw you. NO ONE stands for the 'little man. NO ONE.

There's a tiny cabal of some reps and some dems that wanna fight it--but I think they're rep led, so I suspect that they're assholes, too, right? And it sounds like they're gonna cave anyway.

And you can put whatever spin on it you like, but when the government demanded that banks make questionable loans, you can't deny that it was a bad idea--no matter how many poor people were 'helped'--they sure aren't 'helped' now, are they?

Remember, government exists to secure the continued existence of government.

[lurker]

Hey, can anyone actually respond to that video? I mean, it shows legislation, policy statements, articles and everything is checkable. Can anyone show that it's factually wrong?

[jkisha]

Hey, can anyone actually respond to that video? I mean, it shows legislation, policy statements, articles and everything is checkable. Can anyone show that it's factually wrong?

It has been my experience that those sort of videos are usually inaccurate, using either mis-stated facts, or correctly stated facts that draw erroneous conclusions. Usually no one has time to actually research them, so they tend to be accepted as truth.

I am one of those poeple with no time to check it out either, but I did have time to submit it to factcheck.org. When/if I either hear back personally or see their review posted, I will definately post the link.

JK