Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Are You Experienced? / Wall vs. Main Street

Obama supporters have been hyping Obama as the "next JFK."

JFK as compared to Barack Obama, service-wise:


1941-45: a lieutenant in the Navy in WWII, and a war hero.

1947-52: a US congressman.

1952-1957: a US Senator
1958: Re-elected Senator. Elected President in 1960.

JFK had 14 years of national experience: 6 in the House, 8 in the Senate before he decided to run for the presidency.


Barack Obama:

1997 - 2004: Illinois State Senate. (During this time, Obama also taught at the University of Chicago and worked for a Chicago law firm.)

2004: Obama elected to the US Senate. He declares for President 2 years later.


Sarah Palin:

1992: Wasilla City Council (4 years)
1996: Wasilla Mayor (6 years)
2003 - 2004: Chair of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
2006: Elected Alaska Governor.


I don't care how well-spoken Obama is or how nervous Palin is when speaking. Obama's less experienced than Sarah Palin when it comes to actually being in charge of anything. Though, Obama thought about running for president for a lot longer than she did, and so he has a lot more sound-bites at his disposal. The man has simply not put in his time and/or accomplished anything to warrant his being President. (I'll admit that Palin isn't particularly qualified to be President, either. However, the difference between Obama and Palin is that Palin is the VP choice---she didn't run for President, didn't presume to be at that level. McCain chose her for VP, so now she's cramming to catch up and rise to the occasion.)

Obama, on the other hand, himself decided that he was qualified. But, legislatively, he's been at the forefront of nothing and has contributed nothing nationally. In fact, he's been rather a well-spoken intellectual burden.

RE this current economic mess, for instance: John McCain warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their need for regulation years ago (in 2003 and 2005). At the same time, Obama was busy promoting, via the ACORN community-organizer group (which he once worked for in Chicago and maintains ties with), the cause of banks helping underqualified (i.e. "poor") buyers to purchase homes.

Who all do you think has been unable to make their house payments? The Obama Poor. The other part of the problem: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took up said poor-and-minorities' loans earlier after pressure from the Democrats. Greedy banks then thought, "Well, the sub-prime loans are guaranteed by the government, so we can gamble on them." As someone on CNBC today pointed out, for every $1 in actual capital, the banks were $100 in debt because of those extremely risky loans. The common-sense ratio---had things been regulated---should have been much more like $1 capital to $10 debt. And then when the credit risks couldn't make their mortgage payments--surprise!--the banks were screwed. And I don't mean "slightly" screwed---they were and are screwed to the point of major institutions shutting down and threatening every type of loan most middle Americans once took for granted: ranging from something as minor as a car loan, to something middling like a college loan, to something major like a home or business loan. The money ... just ... ain't ... there ... any ... more.

Why? The ACORN-lobbied/liberal Democrat-supported high-risk house loans to the poor. And the banks' willingness to lend to high-risk borrowers just because the government said, via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that it was OK.

None of this is OK.

No comments: