It is a great day when the United States Supreme Court makes a decision based on Constitutional Law --and actually upholds The Constitution!

McCain-Feingold limited the free speech rights of corporations, and private individuals by limiting how much money could be donated, or spent on ads and when those ads can be run.

The response from Obama is very interesting.

President Obama issued a statement calling on Congress to “develop a forceful response to this decision.”

“With its ruling today,” he said, “the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

I find it interesting that Obama is worried. It seems that Obama is angered that the industries his administration has tried to control are now going to have a larger voice. If the corporations are all "evil" and "marshaling power" why would he worry what they say, wouldn't they incriminate themselves? Besides; if these "evil" corporations are "marshaling power every day" already, what difference would it make if they can fund commercials?

Oh, and since when does the president threaten "a forceful response" to a supreme court decision? Obama has ruled against the United States Constitution, the same Constitution he has sworn to protect.

I think the democrat party is starting to erode. As it does; more and more of the truth is coming out. The democrats are in hot water now, because the entities they have demonized and used to polarize the general public will now fight back. Remember what happened to Humana when they explained the end result of the current health care legislation?

This is the letter sent to Humana. Humana was threatened by the government and told to stop telling the truth; it's this sort of "marshaling power" that the United States Constitution prohibits!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

John Stossel explains one of the most common misconceptions about Capitalism. Stossel is right on!

I can't figure out why the president is threatening to tax banks who award their employees with bonuses?

The "financial crisis responsibility fee" would target major institutions. It would be levied on those that were the main contributors to the financial crisis and the most significant beneficiaries of the extraordinary actions taken by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.

"My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed," Obama said. "We want our money back and we're going to get it."

Obama noted that Treasury has already recovered the majority of the funds provided to banks, but said that wasn't good enough.

"If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers," Obama said.

This is on of the largest problems with this administration. How are investers supposed to determine where to put money if Obama can single out companies and inflict damage (effect their profits)? Does anyone think this is a good idea?

It is easy to guess which companies are not going to be punished. Note: it has little to do with how much money they borrowed.

Firms subject to the fee would have to have more than $50 billion in assets and must be a bank holding company, a thrift holding company, an insurer or a broker-dealer. Smaller firms and community banks would not be affected, the official said.

The fee would be assessed on an institution's liabilities minus its domestic deposits and core capital, which is the firm's cushion against possible losses. It's designed to tax firms with the greatest leverage, which is a proxy for how much risk the firm is taking in the markets.

The fee would be approximately 0.15% of a firm's covered liabilities. So, for example, a firm with $1 trillion in assets minus $100 billion in core capital and $500 billion in deposits, would leave it with $400 billion in covered liabilities. Consequently the firm would be charged approximately $600 million for the fee. (0.15% x $400 billion).

The administration estimates that roughly 50 companies will have to pay the fee, of which 20 to 27 would be banking institutions, according to the official. Roughly 35 would be U.S. companies and the rest would be the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies.

Some major beneficiaries of the financial bailout will not be subject to the fee - namely, mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) and automakers GM and Chrysler.

In those cases, the administration didn't think the fee would be workable both because of the structure of those companies' assets and because of their current condition, the senior administration official said.

So, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM and Chrysler are not going to have to pay any fee. This is strange if you ask me. Let's go through the logic for a minute.

The TARP fund was designed to prop up large banks and holding companies which were effected by large losses. The TARP funds were there to allow these companies to loan and earn money again. Now that these compainies have become profitable again (the entire point of the TARP) Obama wants to punish them by asking them to pay back the TARP funds early?

The administration official said Obama wanted to accelerate a requirement in the existing TARP law that requires the president to seek a way to recoup unrecovered money in 2013, five years after the law was enacted.

"Look, the financial institutions collectively, particularly the larger ones, caused problems by their errors - their errors of judgment, their irresponsibility, in some cases their skating around dishonesty," said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass.

"I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the industry that, A, caused these problems more than any other and, B, benefited from the activity, should be contributing," he said.

So far, the Treasury has given $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion has been repaid and banks have paid an additional $11 billion in interest and dividends.

700 banks borrowed 247 billion and paid back 173 billion. So, 247 - 173 = 74. So, the banks owe the Fed 74 billion.

Obama wants the money back early, and Barney Frank says that large financial institutions should pay it back, because they are morally obligated.

Barney forgot what he himself said:

2005:

Congressmen Barney Frank(D-MA), Now chairmen of the house financial services committee:

"...The more people exaggerate, in my judgment, the threat of safety and soundness. The more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see - I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. And even if there were a problem the federal government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there - then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.

I don't understand. Fannie and Freddie borrowed much more than any of the private institutions, why are they not on the line?

The Office of Management and Budget released a report yesterday on the budgets and proposed overhauls of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that included the possibility of liquidating their assets. But don't get your hopes up.

The two government run mortgage finance companies have been scandalously costly for tax-payers, costing Americans far more in bailout money than they ever saved in cheaper mortgages. The OMB says that the two companies will need at least $92.2 billion more in fiscal 2010. This is on top of the $78.2 billion in aid they've received since they were taken over by the government in September.

The entire point of having Fannie and Freddie operate as government sponsored entities was that they could borrow at lower rates than purely private companies. This savings enabled them to make mortgage loans at lower rates, and allowed them to buy up or guarantee mortgages from private lenders at rates that would otherwise have been uneconomical. Over the years, Fannie and Freddie may have saved Americans as much as $100 billion in mortgage payments. Now the OMB says they'll need that much just to get through next year.

So, 700 banks owe the Fed 74 billion and Obama is jumping up and down because they made profits.

Meanwhile Fannie and Freddie are going to need 92.2 billion THIS YEAR! Where is the outrage? You have banks paying back what they have borrowed, but Fannie and Freddie get a free pass along with GM and Chrysler and they can ask for more money! Let's spread the wealth around...

Any Obama buyer's remorse yet?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The British Government is trying to cancel orders for Swine Flu vaccines. It appears that the H1N1 scare was just that --a scare.

Fewer than 5,000 people in Britain are thought to have contracted swine flu in the last week, and the numbers in intensive care are falling, although there has been a rise in those aged over 65.

Prof Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, who at one point predicted that up to 64,000 people could die from swine flu this winter, insisted that when the contracts were signed much of the news surrounding the pandemic suggested it was extremely dangerous.

“The information coming out at the time that the contracts had to be signed was from Mexico and was very alarming,” he said.

He added that predictions now suggested there would be no third wave of the swine flu virus this winter.

He said: “At the moment the modellers in this country … don’t think there will be a third wave following Christmas.”

A number of other countries including France have already announced plans to sell off their surplus vaccines.

Newly revised figures show that 360 people across Britain have died after contracting swine flu since April.

It's interesting how these things are blown out of proportion. They estimate 64,000 Swine Flu deaths and the real number is 360. Of course now you will have the "experts" coming out claiming that the vaccinations are what stopped the projected catastrophic outbreak. It will be just like the "jobs saved" numbers the Obama administration released.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Alexis de Tocqueville coined the term in his 1835 work entitled Democracy in America.

Basically freedom is taken away incrementally, so as to disguise its absence. Of course this is done without a war or civil war; hence the term soft tyranny. Sound familiar?

In the United States the incremental removal of our freedoms has been going on for quite some time, mostly under the radar. Politicians begin reducing freedom in areas that effect the smallest numbers of people first. Of course the logical place to start is at the top. If you punish those who have more, why would those with less care. Those at the top would just be brought down to the lower level right? As freedoms are reduced (for those at the top) those at the bottom often feel smug. I've heard many people say things like, "now they'll know how we feel."

The outcome to this is; there become fewer individuals at the top, usually as a reduction of freedom, there are more at the bottom. People are in-effect rewarded for doing less, and producing less. This is not sustainable. It's quite simple; you punish those who achieve and reward those who don't. The punishment of those who succeed is to prop up those who don't. It's this "fostering of dependency" which is hurting the U.S. economy right now. How can the government endlessly increase unemployment benefits when the country is already broke?

That being said, let's switch to the health care debate or lack there of. The health care "debate" is a shinning example of soft tyranny.

Even to those who pay little attention to politics can tell that most Americans don't trust this health care legislation. In fact polling data shows that most Americans don't want this "health care" legislation passed. I thought that our politicians were supposed to represent the people. What happened to that?

C-SPAN has been denied access to the (behind the scenes) health care debate. This is one of the most tyrannical things ever to happen in U.S. history. There is no health care debate. You just have a small number of people working on the legislation in secret. I thought the point of congress was public debate.

The United States refuses to be exceptional when it operates like a socialist oligarchy. Doesn't this make you want to go by an Obama bumper sticker?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.