Did John McCain vote for banking de-regulation? Google “Senate Bill s.900” or Click Here Answer : No, but JOE BIDEN DID VOTE FOR BANKING DE-REGULATION and William Jefferson Clinton signed it. (Yet, Obama and his acolytes will not share this information with you – As it might it dash your HOPE!)
Did John McCain support regulation of Fannie Mae? Google “Housing Reform Act of 2005” or Click Here Answer: Why Yes as a matter of fact he Co-sponsored the Bill!
(Yet, Obama and his acolytes claim that the republicans started this economic crisis and housing meltdown – CHANGE uh, is that why Sen. Obama was seriously considering keeping Paulson?) oh, by the way the Democrats blocked that bill (see the video in the Audacity of Hope-crisy post)
Also google “New Agency to oversee Fannie Mae” or Click Here– What do you know Bush tried to over haul Fannie and Freddie Mac in 2003!!! This is what his opposition said:
‘'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''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 Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''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,'' Mr. Watt said.
Did Barack Obama support sex education for Kindergartners? Google “SB99 Illinois” better yet let me save you the time:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0099&GAID=3&LegID=734
Answer: Yes, he does! So as you see “shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV” –WHAT? How is that age appropriate Sen. Obama?
Do Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden really care about the middle and under class? Well, lets see google “Joe Biden Charitable donations or Click Here Now google Barack Obama Charitable Donations or Click Here (Not quite as bad as Biden – but da-yam didn’t they tithe to Trinity United being that they were 20 year members?)
Sidenote: John McCain give 26% of his income to charity.
Is Barack Obama really a candidate for the people? Google “Barack Obama’s Top Contributors” or Click Here Answer: Emphatically NO!!! Barack Obama has been bought and paid for by investment firms and lawyers.
Google "Barack Obama lawyers and lobbyists" or Click Here lobbyist love Barack Obama too and here's why:
“Obama, on his Web site, has listed every earmark he's requested – but not necessarily received – since he came to the Senate in January 2005. The total, including earmarks in which he joined with other senators in making the request, is $931.3-million. Since he took office in January 2005, Obama has been a senator for about 930 working days, defined as Monday through Friday. That's right about $1-million per working day, though we do realize McCain didn't say 'working day' in his speech the way he did in the mailer” - Source
That’s about $ 1 million per day!!!! (Still think he is the people's candidate?– pah-leez!!!)
“They want to raise taxes on savings and investments, meaning the people with money will not save money. Our savings rate is near zero. One man’s savings is another man’s mortgage! So how will we get a decent Mortgage if people stop saving ? We can’t. This isn’t voodoo economics it is assisted suicide and they are our economic dream team – The Mouthpeace
What A Team, uh?(Makes me all goose-pippley thinking of the "Change")
Does John McCain really vote with Bush 90% of the time? Google this “McCain Bush Vote Count whole story? Or Click Here Answer: Emphatically NO. Let me reiterate:
So what about Obama? In 2006, the last year he was present for at least 95 percent of the votes on issues in which Bush took a clear position, Obama voted with the president nearly half the time. (His total Bush presidential agreement tally is 40 percent.)
Here’s another twist. According to WashingtonPost.com, since 2000, McCain has voted with a majority of his fellow Senate Republicans an average of 82 percent of the time. That’s only slightly less than the average for all Republican senators, who toed the party line almost 87 percent of the time in the same period. Meanwhile, Obama voted with a majority of Senate Democrats more than 95 percent of the time in both of his congressional sessions, while the average for Democratic senators was 87 percent. (Yeah, that’s change for ya! Barack Obama has voted 95% of the time with the most unpopular congress of all time!)
So, here are but a few facts and I have only just scratched the surface! I admonish you my friends to do some research of your own and please do share with me. Comments are not moderated -- full disclosure and transparency here folks.
6 comments:
On a talk forum this morning, I was directed to that YouTube video pertaining to Joe Biden's charitable donations last year, or the lack thereof.
Bob wrote,
"As for that article you posted from the Huffington Post,none of that even checks out at all.It's just talking points for Obama.
Now,I have a good You Tube link that brings out documented proof about Obama,the person even tells you exactly what to Google so you can check it out for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/themouthpeace ...."
After watching the video, I responded:
"Bob, that YouTube site didn't have a lot of facts that I could check out. It was mostly music and sound effects and was designed to appeal to its audience's emotions, rather than their intellect. I did google "Biden charitable donations" and saw that he was recorded as giving $369 yearly to charity, but all that that tells me is that:
A.) he isn't using charitable contributions as a tax deduction
AND
B.)that any deductions he may be making over $369 per year are not a matter of public record."
Three hundred sixty-nine dollars a year... what a piddly amount. Charities and such are a big deal in Washington, socially and politically. Certainly someone of Biden's stature can afford to give more, and Joe's been in politics long enough to know that money given to charity is money well spent, when it comes to raising oneself in the eyes of one's peers and the voting public.
But maybe Joe doesn't care what people think. Maybe that's because he's such a tightwad that he only gives away $369 yearly and doesn't care who knows it or what that will do to him politically, or maybe he doesn't care because he's obeying Jesus's instructions regarding charitable giving:
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: Mat 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
@CJ~If he has given to charity and not claimed it on his income tax forms (which I doubt) then he certainly is not a good steward of his own money! Matthew 6:2-Seriously, do you think he is that virtuous? Hardly, he wants tax payers to be generous (as do most democrats) so he won't have to exercise personal goodwill towards those in need. Why would we trust him to be second in command where he could potentially be a steward of our money.
A good book to check out:
"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223492657&sr=1-1
Again, some people just can't handle the truth and choose to ignore it or get angry about it. It's called cognitive dissonance.
GREAT post and true....ironically enough the very first banking deregulation Bill the 1980 DIDMCA was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by Carter...the 1977 CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) another Carter-era debacle, was re-tooled in 1994 by a Dem Congress and signed by Bill Clinton to force banks to make more "subprime" loans - SUBPRIME refers to subprime or uncreditworthy borrowers NOT the loan rates.
Bush and McCain supported TWO Bills to rein in Fannie and Freddie (in 2003 and AGAIN in 2005) and BOTH were stifled in Committee by the most senior members of those committees (Dodd in the Senate and Frank in the House).
The current credit crisis is NOT a "failure of the free market" (for one thing, we DON'T HAVE a free market, we have a highly government-regulated economy), it IS a failure of OVER-REGULATION, coupled with some very TOXIC REGULATION.
The media's being complicit in disemminating misinformation is keeping a lot of people from understanding the nature of the crisis and that leads to blaming the wrong things (for instance, the non-existant free market) and people (for instance, Bush and McCain).
Things look like they're about to get a lot worse.
Thanks Zabeth I'll check out that read.
@jmk - I know things are going to get worst. The only upside is that Barack Obama will take the blame -- or maybe not...
"I know things are going to get worst. The only upside is that Barack Obama will take the blame -- or maybe not..." (CBW)
<
<
Well, things'll have to get pretty bad for Barack Obama and the Dems to get blamed, because the media is very much in the Liberal-Dem's corner.
Consider this, the Misery Index (the unemployment rate added to the inflation rate) was a whopping 21% in 1980 (Jimmy Carter's last year)! Carter had presided over the WORST four-year average Misery Index - 17.6.
That WAS, without question, "The worst economy since the Great Depression," and yet, when the Clinton's ran against George Bush Sr. (who was himself, no Ronald Reagan) claiming that Bush-I had presided over "The worst economy since the Great Depression," not one MSM person took them to task for that lie...NOT ONE.
So, things'll probably have to get pretty bad for the MSM to turn on the Dems.
Well, thank God for the Internet.
Post a Comment