But First the Gallup poll as of 10/08/2008

Obama Has Largest Lead Ever over McCain, Poll Shows-"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has an 11-point lead over Republican presidential candidate John McCain, according to the latest Gallup poll. In poll results released Wednesday, Obama had 52 percentage points over McCain’s 41 percentage points, which marks Obama’s largest lead ever. Almost all the interviews conducted in the Wednesday report took place before the town hall-style debate Tuesday night."-Just as Big Media helped Obama win against Clinton so far it appears the same is happening here. However, this may only set up one of the greatest if not the greatest poll come back ever!!! We will have to wait and see!!!

Warning: My grammar is not the best and so if the below paragraph is to long winded feel free to skip by scrolling on down to the New York Times Articles of interest.

Since Big Media is not giving the otherside of the Mortgage Crisis story may I reemphasize it here once again. Below you will find 3 excellent articles (2 from the New york Times in 1999 and 2003 and one form The Boston Globe Late September 2008) that imply this otherside. Two of the below articles are well before this election year and thus not tainted with a politically motivated article between McCain and Obama and not laying any blame on anyone since the crisis had not happened yet!!!

This may be new news for some cause all that ABC, NBC and CBS have hinted at is what Obama says that this is due to Bush policies over the past 8 years with no real hard journalistic critical thinking or evidence for the claim. These articles present a different point of view that has been present since at least back to the dates of these articles to 1999 and then 2003 and even from the New York Times which is not exactly a conservative magazine. So why are we not hearing this side of the issue except on the internet?

One important note is that congress not the President had regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie Mae according to these articles (I encourage you to factcheck this fact!!!). Also, Barney Frank (D) of Massachusettes was quoted fo saying, ''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.'"

So when the Obama/Biden ticket and Big Media reports to the American public that all this is to be blamed on Bush policies they are not being strait up and honest with the American people. Actually McCain/Palin have it right on this issue. It is not just the private sector and Bush policies that are to blame. It actually is both the private sector and Government influence on the private sector by a Government Sponsored Enterprise (which Bush policies tried to reform its regulatory oversight but the Congress which was its regulatory oversight blocked it both Republicans and Democrats as noted above and in below articles) that was not subject to being responsible as the private sector is for its own risk to its investors by taking the risk and bad debt from the private sector companies thus taking away a naturally built in responsibility factor in the private sector that being their own investors for the private sector could pawn off the bad debt to Fannie and Freddie and keep their investors happy which actually Fannie and Freddie and Congress who had oversight of Fannie and Freddie encouraged the private market to do so to provide more risky low income loans!!! If this is confusing please do read the articles below and think thru it all yourself. Maybe you will come to differing conclusions but just see if whether or not there are some valid points that are missing in Big Media.

So it is both that need dealings with not just the private sector which is a McCain/Palin campaign point but ultimately a government created problem not a truely free market or private sector failure.

Now maybe I am wrong and I am no economist. This is only what I have gathered from these 3 articles that are not from conservative sources but none the less these are valid points of view that are in well known left leaning magazines like the New York Times and The Boston Globe that present a possible problem other then Bush policies. This point of view is being censored from the American public in Big Media which clearly shows a lack of information that favors one party over the other which clearly demonstrates Big Media Bias. Correct me if I am wrong but 90% of the stories that are done in Big Media on this issue (ABC, CBS and NBC) are stories of private sector failure, greed and fraud and thus the need for more Government regulation with hardly any stories at all about the two Government Sponsored Enterprises that have influenced the private sector by taking away their responsibility to their investors by buying up the risky business thus allowing the private sector to act irresponsibly like some use the wellfare system. This is not to argue that we shouldn't have wellfare or aide some to get home loans but it does give some evidence that if we are going to have government assistence programs that we have to find a better way to regulate those programs so that we don't find ourselves in irresponsible messes like this ever again.

Also, I think it is important to note that it is not the helping of low income individuals to obtain a loan that seems to be the issue it is rather the charting unknown risky ground at such a rapid pace that got out of control with no regulatory oversight of a Government Enterprise (which may have been due to bipartisan politics which Bush as you will see in the below articles tried to reform in setting up a regulatory agency as opposed to Congress having regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie) that seemed to fuel this crisis that now in the long run is not at all helping low income individuals obtain loans but rather doing the opposite and possibly creating more low income individuals across our land. So we may not have to abandon the good intentions all together of helping low-income individuals to obtain home loans but rather take safer steps into this area that effects our economy and learn from it. Which leads to the next point...

Now, Palin has dodged the issue of Global Warming being either man caused or seasonal and that it doesn't really matter. Her critics have pointed out that it does matter for the cause will help in knowing what the solution should be. Well in this case of the issue of the economy voters themselves should act responsibly and educate themselves on this issue that they can properly vote on who really is getting to the bottom of the cause so that we can try to provide the solution that fits that cause. Although, Obama and Big Media want you to believe that the whole cause rests on Bush policies and the private sector, not really getting into any critical analysis reviewing other points of view or any other detail on it what if their cause is off then so is their solution.

As a voter we, especially if we are going to vote the issue of the economy on the back of unborn children (I say this because Roe vs Wade could be overturned with one more pro-life judge as opposed to a pro-choice judge and this election may be the next step to saving the lives of millions of babies but it is up to us), should really be confident and positive that we are voting with information that justifies our vote. So this means it is very important that we get information from both sides of the isle and review the facts and make our best judgement on our vote. Go ahead and listen to ABC, CBS and NBC just about everybody knows their viewpoint. But do some personal analysis remembering that the headquarters of these Broadcasting Companies are in highly democratic states like New York and California and so to be fair we need to get points of views from other reputable sources for critical thinking and analysis and proper voting points outside of California and New York.

For me the economy of the unborn outweighs my own or at least I believe it should though I don't always act it. I should be doing alot more than I am, true. But if I can't just pick up a pencil and cast a vote for the unborn then I guess who am I to think I will do anything else. And not to mention what is God going to think of my vote. If God be for us who can be against us. But if God be against us who can be for us. So consider praying as you enter the booth asking God for His wisdom and get into His Word and see what impression He gives you on the issues always bearing in mind that God is always in control as we have seen Him in the scriptures even when there is a bad Pharoah in Egypt. Sometimes a bad Pharoah is only placed their for a great deliverance and so if the anti-life president wins then may it be only for a soon coming deliverance of the unborn.

The only reason why I got into checking into the economy was because this issue seems to be taken precedent over the economy of the unborn. And so for the sake of the unborn I decided to try to understand this issue. I, also, had a hunch that with the way Big Media treats the issue of the unborn as essentially a non issue and ignores reporting on alot of what is going on in the pro-life community of America (which is many millions and worthy to be reported on but never get the limelight) that Big Media was probabily not giving the whole story on this issue of the economy. And it so happened that the Big Media story that it's Bush's fault just conveniently favored Obama and democrats.

So with those pieces of concerns I checked into it and also, I do get email updates from different sources of information that make it easier for me to keep up to date on issues that are not as important to me as others but need to be dealt with for the sake of those other more important issues to me like the unborn. So for those that are more concerned for the lives of the unborn I type this paragraph to give a reason for why the economy and the Big Media bias on this issue is important enough to deal with!!!

For further study of this point of view and why it may be largely missing in Big Media: The Roe vs Wade of Europe. Obama's abortion reduction plan in doubt. The Economy. Fireproof is on Fire., The Economy and what Big Media is not telling you..., Obama's connection with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ignored in Big Media. The Fact that Bush tried to reform Freddie and Fannie ignored in Big Media. and Media is not giving you the whole Mortgage Crisis story: Fannie and Freddie is Enron x 19/Microsoft Sized Monopoly/Leading Compaign Giver and Lobbyist.

New York Times Articles

September 30, 1999 New York Times article well before the mortgage crisis

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending-"By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. (Interesting considering here we are today in 2008)

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' (See more on the AEI at wikipedia)

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants."

September 11, 2003 New York Times article well before the mortgage crisis

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae-"By STEPHEN LABATON

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. (Worth repeating!!!! "which now rests with Congress" Not the Bush administration. So who was determining whether Fannie and Freddie "are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios."? "Congress"!!! and what did Democrats in Congress say about this situation. Keep reading!!! And then tell me who should get the blame and all this from a New York Times article which is not admired for its conservative right leanings at all.)

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. (Investors were mislead!!!)

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan. (Take note that both Snow and Martinez were appointed by Bush who also tried to reform this foreseen mortgage crisis back in 2003)

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies." (You mean this fix disadvantage Bush's presidential power!!!)

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws." (This is one of the problems with a Government Sponsored Enterprise is that it disadvantages the private market but unfairly and now we are paying for it cause it can also be argued that this disadvantage caused the private market to do things that it normally would not do to compete!!! For more on this see other articles on this blog.)

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission. (So this means that the mission to help low income families obtain a loan was not changed in this reform by Bush so much so that the chief executive endorsed the Bush plan which then means that this plan was not against low income families.)

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators. (Clearing revealing themselves as Government Sponsored Enterprises as opposed to private sector free market enterprises. Thus the impact that these two agencies have had on our current economy are clearly Governmental Sponsored Enterprises as opposed a truely private sector free market enterprise. And thus any failure in our economy that is a result of these Government Enterprises are not free market or private sector failures.)

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. (Which Fannie Mae also was concerned about but as above notes were hashed out after "a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.")

''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."

A more recent Boston Globe Article that is consistent with above articles

September 28, 2008 The Boston Globe taking on the story largely repeated by Democrats and the Obama compaign

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco-"'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares:

"The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror."