Social Engineering

Government is Not Your Daddy
Free will. Free market. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Social Engineering as Economic Policy

What we are witnessing today is not a failure of the free market. It is the failure of social engineering as economic policy. And
it’s a disaster of epic proportions.
Nobody’s disputing that this disaster was precipitated by irresponsible lending practices, or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
were at the root of the whole debacle, though the ramifications have now spread far beyond them. What people are arguing about
is the interpretation of the events that led us here, what should have been done differently, and what should be done to contain the
fallout now that the pyramid scheme has blown up.
Hard core free market proponents, like me, will say that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a mistake from the beginning. The
government should have kept its nose out of the home mortgage industry, and not attempted to manipulate the market to enable
people who couldn’t afford houses to buy them. On the other hand, proponents of the “government is good” and “more is better”
philosophy will say the problem was that there wasn’t enough government manipulation. (Could there ever be?)
But, curiously, in 2005, when Alan Greenspan told Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “placing the total financial
system of the future at a substantial risk,” and the Senate Banking Committee proposed a reform bill requiring tighter regulation
of those two entities, the Democrats opposed it, on a strict party line vote, crushing the bill before it got out of committee. Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Christopher Dodd all voted against it. (John McCain, incidentally, was one of the co-sponsors of the
bill.)
Huh? Democrats voting against more regulation? Republicans voting for it? One would expect Republicans to favor less
regulation, as regulation is antithetical to a free market. But, in this case, it already wasn’t a free market. A free market has its
own natural checks and balances. Once the government has removed or impaired any of those natural checks and balances, the
market loses its equilibrium and bad things can happen. What the Republicans were attempting to accomplish by proposing
tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was to artificially restore the natural constraint that had been removed by
shifting the risk from the lenders to the taxpayers.
In a free market, the desire for profit is counterbalanced by the aversion to risk. If the risk incurred by an investment or loan
outweighs the profit potential, it’s not in the investor’s/lender’s best interest to participate, so the transaction doesn’t occur.
However, when the government removes the risk associated with a bad transaction, by assuming the risk itself, then the natural
constraint of risk aversion that would apply in a truly free market is eliminated, and investors will take risks that would otherwise
be unacceptable. That’s what happened in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The taxpayers assumed the risk, and Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac made unsound investments.
In today’s mortgage industry, mortgages are always packaged up and sold to aggregators, who sell them to bigger aggregators,
with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the top of the pyramid as the granddaddies of all aggregators. Because Fannie and Freddie
had no risk aversion, lenders further down the chain were free to take risks they wouldn’t otherwise take, knowing the
aggregators would buy up the high risk (subprime) mortgages anyway. This was intentional.
Affordable housing is a euphemism for making home loans available to people who would not qualify for a loan under a free
market system. The reason someone would not qualify for a loan in the free market is because they present too high a risk. In
other words, they can’t afford to pay off the loan. Fannie and Freddie represented a wide scale experiment in social engineering.
It was an attempt to use federal policy to “level the playing field” so anybody could “afford” to buy a home whether they could
actually afford to pay for the home or not.
When the Republicans wanted to tighten the reins on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and preclude them from making excessively
risky investments, it would have meant they could no longer fulfill the mission of making homes “affordable” to those who
couldn’t afford them. That’s why the Democrats opposed the bill. And that’s why we’re where we are today.
The great experiment in social engineering has now failed. Dramatically. And, because the experiment was backed by the full
faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer, it is our money, and our future, that is getting called in as collateral for this grand social
experiment.
Anybody who blames this failure on the free market is either dishonest or naive. It was liberal social policy masquerading as
economic policy that got us into this mess. If you want to see more of the same in the future, there are plenty of Democrats still in
Congress. And there’s one running for president, too.
Bookmark/Rate this post:
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
http://notyourdaddy.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/social-engineering-as-economic-policy/ 08/11/2009
z The September 17, 2006 edition of Economics and Social Policy
Ads by Google
Free Expert Debt Advice
Write off Substantial Debt Today. Find out if You Qualify in 1 Minute
www.HarringtonBrooks.co.uk
Career Development Loan
Get online advice and information on loan eligibility at Directgov.
direct.gov.uk/PCDL
Small Firms Loan Scheme
now called EFG - raise up to 1M 95% Application Success Rate!
www.BusinessAdviceBureau.com
Controlling Systemic Risk
How can we increase transparency in the financial system? Join us.
www.FICO.com
Published in:
z America
z conservative
z economics
z free market
z government
z libertarian
on September 26, 2008 at 5:55 pm Comments (32)

Tags: Alan Greenspan, bailouts, Clinton, Congress, debt, Democrats, Dodd, economic policy, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
McCain, mortgage crisis, Obama, pyramid scheme, social engineering, subprime
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://notyourdaddy.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/social-engineering-as-economic-

policy/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
32 Comments Leave a comment.
1. On September 26, 2008 at 9:07 pm Max Said:
Well put. However, as with many such things, there’s a potential upside: the hundreds of billions of dollars required for the
bailouts will likely reduce the amount in the pork barrel for funding billion-dollar projects such as light rail and other
experiments in social engineering.
Reply
2. On September 26, 2008 at 10:34 pm NotYourDaddy Said:
But the reason we object to pork barrel funding is the cost to the taxpayers. If they’re going to soak us anyway, we might as
well get something for it — like maybe an extension of the O&C safety net funding, since they won’t let us cut our
timber…
Or better yet, why don’t they keep their pork, let us have our timber, get their hands out of our pockets, and leave us alone!
Reply
3. On September 26, 2008 at 11:41 pm Mister Guy Said:
“Nobody’s disputing that this disaster was precipitated by irresponsible lending practices, or that Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac were at the root of the whole debacle”
Nobody in the Right-wing that is.
“But, curiously, in 2005, when Alan Greenspan told Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ‘placing the total
financial system of the future at a substantial risk,’”
Ahhh, the Right-wing opinion piece by the likes of Kevin Hassett…a senior economic adviser to the McSame campaign &
coauthor of “Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market”, which was
published back in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst (it was a book that predicted that the Dow Jones industrials index
would rise to *36000 within three to five years*–i.e., 2002 or 2004). What a surprise that he’s absolutely clueless…I
wonder how his AIG stock is doin’??
I swear that you guys on the Right must all go to the same meetings…lol…
“yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms”
Hmmmm…was that before or after both he & the Bush Regime pushed ARMs so hard?? Oh yea, it was after…and we’ll
just ignore the fact that McSame’s campaign manager used to lobby for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as well…sure, sure…
“John McCain, incidentally, was one of the co-sponsors of the bill”
Yea, and do you know when he became a “co-sponsor” of that bill?? Some 14 months AFTER it was introduced…now
that’s what I call real leadership…real bad leadership that is…
“One would expect Republicans to favor less regulation, as regulation is antithetical to a free market.”
And one would be correct in that expectation. This crisis was caused by a complete lack of regulation & oversight of the
whole financial system of the USA (a position championed by the GOP for *decades* now). The GOP was in control of
Congress for almost 13 years in a row, and in control of the Presidency since 2001…what have they done to stave off this
coming disaster?? Absolutely, positively nothing, period.
“A free market has its own natural checks and balances.”
Only in your own mind it does…worship at the altar of the “free market” on your own time GOP…not on taxpayer time.
“Affordable housing is a euphemism for making home loans available to people who would not qualify for a loan under a
free market system.”
No, affordable housing is what it sounds like…housing that average people with average incomes can afford to live in,
period. We are not all serfs yanno.
Oh, and heaven forbid that the govt. champions any form of mass transportation, like light rail…lol…give me a break,
please!
The market that developed for mortgage-backed securities, which were backed by pools of shaky mortgages, was one of
the keys to this fiscal disaster. That nonesense should have never been allowed to happen. The term “subprime” refers to
loans that do not meet Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines in the first place…so it’s kind of hard to blame them for that
kind of stuff eh? Some lenders obviously engaged in predatory lending practices…just look at the rates (~99.9%!) that
were offered for the so-called “payday loans”. These types of loans have cripped thousands, including many military
personnel. According the Wall Street Journal of all places, in 2006 61% of all borrowers receiving subprime loans had
credit scores high enough to qualify for prime conventional loans! Many subprime borrowers also took out ARMs, which
were pushed heavily by the former Fed chairman & the Bush Regime.
Really, I was happy enough to let you spin your wheels endless on this issue NYD…since we’re getting a bailout whether
you & your Right-wing cronies want one or not…but you just protest too much…it’s all just silliness…
Reply
4. On September 27, 2008 at 1:42 am DJ Said:
“…what should have been done differently, and what should be done to contain the fallout now that the pyramid scheme
has blown up.”
As long as the Democrats are in power, you can bet the pyramid will be built up again.
The continued belief by the left in this country that people are “entitled” to houses, and health care ensures another
implosion in the not to distant future. One would think a failure of this magnitude would be enough evidence that social
engineering does not work in a “free” country.
Reply
Mr, Guy, I wasn’t quoting Kevin Hassett; I was quoting Alan Greenspan. You’re the one who quoted Kevin Hassett.
I don’t know about McCain’s campaign manager lobbying for Fannie Mae, but I do know that Obama himself has received
more campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other politician, with the single exception of
Christopher Dodd.
The subprime loans may not have met Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines “in the first place,” but Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac did become the key driving forces behind the mortgage-backed securities fiasco by being the primary
customers of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools.
You can spin it all you like, Mr. Guy, and resort to retorting with vague ad hominem cliches like “nobody in the Right
wing, that is” and “only in your mind” (you forgot “says you”), but the facts are still facts, and your glib attempts to
dismiss them do not refute them.
Reply
“I wasn’t quoting Kevin Hassett; I was quoting Alan Greenspan. You’re the one who quoted Kevin Hassett.”
LOL…so now it’s gamesmanship time?? You WERE quoting what Hassett wrote about what Greenspan had said. You
even used Hassett’s bogus opinion piece as “eivdence” in the other thread on this topic…please…you can’t worm your
way out of this one…
“I don’t know about McCain’s campaign manager lobbying for Fannie Mae, but I do know that Obama himself has
received more campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other politician, with the single
exception of Christopher Dodd.”
And the Right-wing noise machine rumbles on. The vast majority of Fannie & Freddie political contributions to Dodd &
Obama, especially in Obama’s case, were from *individuals* (people that merely worked at those institutions) and not
from PACs. A look at the next 3 top beneficiaries of Fannie/Freddie donations were Republicans, and their donations were
mainly from PACs. Two of those three, by the way, were named in a later program as intrinsic to the House’s bailout
negotiations – Spencer Bachus & Roy Blunt.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
“but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did become the key driving forces behind the mortgage-backed securities fiasco by
being the primary customers of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools.”
And, as I said before, these “pools” should have never been allowed in the first place by the GOP. The cause of this
subprime meltdown that is cascading through the global economy was the repeal of key New Deal-era regulations of the
financial markets, most notably the Glass-Steagall Act. Its explicit intent was to prevent a “repeat of the 1920’s era scams
in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors
with the blessing of the bank.” Sound familiar? And guess what law repealed that Glass-Steagall Act? It was the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Yes, the same Phil Gramm that said that we’ve become “a nation of whiners”; the same Phil
Gramm that is the head economic advisor to John McCain; the same Phil Gramm whose legislation led to the Enron
scandal; and the same Phil Gramm who is likely to be the new head of the Treasury if McSame is elected.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_bubble_economy
“the facts are still facts”
You have little to NO facts in your ideas on this subject NYD…it’s all just more Right-wing hot air…deal with it…
Reply
Mr. Guy, Alan Greenspan’s quote is all over the Web. Google it and see.
I guess it doesn’t strike you as curious that so many “employees” of Fannie and Freddie decided to contribute so much
more to Dodd and Obama than to any other politicians. (You’re not a very curious fellow, are you?)
And the fact does remain a fact that, in a free market, this could not have happened. It could not have happened without
government interference removing the risk from the lenders and transferring it to the taxpayers.
No lender would ever make the kinds of loans they were strongly encouraged to make by the CRA if they had to risk their
own capital to make them. And that’s at the very root of the whole debacle. Everything that came after that would never
have occurred had it not been for the fact that the government instituted a social engineering policy for the purpose of
making sure people could get mortgages who could not get them in the free market because they were bad credit risks.
That’s where this story began. Where it will end is still hanging fire. But we’re all going to end up paying dearly for this
failed social experiment, one way or another.
And, if you really believe this happened without intentional government manipulation, try Googling Bill Clinton’s
National Homeownership Strategy. Here’s an article from last February in BusinessWeek for a start, and here’s one in
Investor’s Business Daily.
Reply
A look at the next 3 top beneficiaries of Fannie/Freddie donations were Republicans
Oh, really? When did John Kerry change parties? (He’s next on the list after Dodd and Obama.)
Reply
9. On September 28, 2008 at 1:48 pm DJ Said:
This truly is a SAD day in America. The CRA and Barney Frank have screwed the American people! The events of the last
several days have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the members of the DNC have no concept of what a FREE
MARKET ECONOMY is. This over-regulated, monstrosity will (more than likely) weaken the dollar, and decrease the
spending power of each and every American. I (for one) am very disgusted with the piss poor performance of the Pelosi led
Congress. Harry Reid is an abomination in the Senate. The “conservatives” in the house had a chance to redeem the
Congress-it appears they failed! I find it VERY hard to vote for ANY incumbent!
My apologies for venting NYD!
Reply
10. On September 28, 2008 at 5:58 pm WeatherOutpost12 Said:
[...] Social Engineering as Economic Policy notyourdaddy.wordpress.com [...]
Reply
11. On September 28, 2008 at 7:37 pm Jim Said:
Three words. NO ONE CARES.
I love your space here and agree with everything you say, but have come to a private conclusion that trying to educate
people about the thievery, Marxism, and anti-religion going on in front of their faces is a futile effort.
To better come to grips with this confusion I have likened them (the self-aware liberal, MoveOn, Open Society Institute
types) to extreme Islam, in that I was trying to educate and inform people who simply would not change their perception as
it is an integral part of their identity.
Nothing short of shipping most of these folks to various countries in, oh say, Africa, and leaving them to fend for
themselves is going to change the minds of the enemies of reason, spirit, and economic reality.
Raum Emanuel just got done telling me how this financial crisis was a clear demonstration of “an ideology out of control.”
How do you counter that?
To them, there is ONLY government. It is who they are.
Reply
“I guess it doesn’t strike you as curious that so many ‘employees’ of Fannie and Freddie decided to contribute so much
more to Dodd and Obama than to any other politicians.”
Please…as if the PAC supporting a candidate and a few individual people supporting a candidate are the same thing…I
guess it’s intellectual dishonesty time too eh??
“And the fact does remain a fact that, in a free market, this could not have happened.”
I wouldn’t expect you to waver from your religious belief in the “market” NYD…facts be damned!
“No lender would ever make the kinds of loans they were strongly encouraged to make by the CRA if they had to risk their
own capital to make them.”
In favor of “redlining” then?? According to the current Fed chairman, the Bush Adminstration put LESS restrictions on
CRA loans in 2005. Approximately half of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were
not regulated by the CRA and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. These mortgage companies
made subprime loans at *twice the rate of CRA banks*. Another third of the major subprime lenders were regulated but
had very little CRA involvement.
“Bill Clinton’s National Homeownership Strategy”
You mean the one that NEVER gained approval?? IBD editorials are nothing more than a part of the Right-wing noise
machine, period.
Here’s some more about McSame’s buddy Phil Gramm’s actions though:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/15/100-year-crash-mccain-advisor-spurred-62-trillion-derivatives/print/
“When did John Kerry change parties?”
Keep spinning NYD…the GOP members got waaaay more from the PACs than the Dems, period.
“To better come to grips with this confusion I have likened them (the self-aware liberal, MoveOn, Open Society Institute
types) to extreme Islam”
Right, because we’re the ones trying to force our religious beliefs down the throats of the American people…oh wait, nope,
that was the Religious Right…
Reply
13. On September 29, 2008 at 6:20 pm What the Bailout Proves - The Right Opposition Said:
[...] manner. Such is the case with a post at Government is Not Your Daddy. The post is entitled Social Engineering as
Economic Policy. I invite you to slowly read and digest what the author is saying. Here is just a brief portion of [...]
Reply
Please…as if the PAC supporting a candidate and a few individual people supporting a candidate are the same
thing.
You can spin it until you get dizzy, but those “few individual people” contributed more to Dodd and to Obama than the big
powerful PAC, plus all the individual contributors combined, contributed to any other candidate. I wonder who these “few
individuals” might be, and why they felt the need to contribute so much…
Opposing strongarming lenders into making high risk loans is not the same as supporting redlining. That’s the kind of spin
liberals typically use to bully people into agreeing with them. Basically, it goes back to the same old argument we
discussed before: If you don’t agree with me, you must be a racist. Try fighting facts with facts, instead of innuendo. It’s
more seemly.
If you have a link to your source of information about half the banks that made subprime loans not being subject to the
CRA, please post it. I haven’t seen any figures on that yet, and would like to see that data.
“When did John Kerry change parties?”

Keep spinning NYD.
You were the one who said “The next 3 top benefiiciaries of Fannie/Freddie donations were Republicans.” I just looked it
up in the source to which you linked, and found that the next top beneficiary was John Kerry. It’s your quote and your
source. Who’s spinning now?
Reply
“those ‘few individual people’ contributed more to Dodd and to Obama than the big powerful PAC, plus all the individual
contributors combined, contributed to any other candidate.”
First of all, you apparently don’t know how to do math anymore. Second of all…so, now we’re against individuals having
the right to give small amounts of money (there ARE limits yanno) to a candidate of their chosing?? Please…you are
twisting yourself into knots again NYD…stop it…
“Opposing strongarming lenders into making high risk loans is not the same as supporting redlining.”
I don’t think that I’ve ever called you a racist NYD…I might have come close back when you were advocating sterilization
of “certain types” of people though. No one was being “strongarmed” to make, for instance, ARMs…frequently lending
institutions on their own were making more in commissions on such deals, which is why a lot of people that qualified for a
fixed rate got an ARM instead…it’s called predatory lending for a reason.
“If you have a link to your source of information about half the banks that made subprime loans not being subject to the
CRA, please post it.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Controversies
“Who’s spinning now?”
You still are, because…my minor typo aside, the point is that the PACs were supporting the GOP members and individuals
were supporting the Dems, period.
Here’s some more info on McSame’s many, many lobbyist links as they relate to this current crisis:
McSame’s economic policy shaped by lobbyists –

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24844889
McSame’s campaign manager on the doll to Freddie Mac -

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561/output/print
McSame’s campaign manager STILL on the payroll for Freddie Mac – http://www.rollcall.com/news/28629-1.html
Reply
Mr. Guy, I’m not “against individuals having the right to give small amounts of money to the candidate of their choice,”
and nothing I’ve ever posted could be interpreted (by any rational person) to suggest as much. But keep spinning. You’ll
make yourself dizzy before you succeed in confusing me, or anybody else reading this. I only pointed out that it’s curous
that so many “individual employees” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed so much to Dodd and Obama that they
outstripped the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions to any other candidate — regardless of whether they came from
PACs or individuals.
As for racism, you were the one who accused me of being in favor of redlining. And, just for the record, I did not advocate
sterilizing “certain types” of people. I advocated making tubal ligation a viable option for women seeking abortions, and
promoting that option for women seeking abortions at government expense. Today, it is not an option for most women. I
never suggested anybody should be sterilized who didn’t want to be. That was your spin.
Reply
17. On October 2, 2008 at 3:36 am Mister Guy Said:
“I’m not ‘against individuals having the right to give small amounts of money to the candidate of their choice,’”
Then why openly question the motives of the people that gave money then (as you did above with the “I wonder who these
‘few individuals’ might be, and why they felt the need to contribute so much” baloney)??
I’m not out to “confuse” anyone…your motives here are very, very clear…to pin the meltdown of the Bush economy on
anyone other than the people that were repsonisble for it…”personal responsibility” be damned. You’re NOT getting away
with it either, and the American people are *more* than onto you guys…finally…
“I only pointed out that it’s curous that so many ‘individual employees’ of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed so
much to Dodd and Obama”
Give me a break here…what do Dodd, Obama, and Kerry all have in common over the period from 1989-2008?? They all
ran for President, and ALL Presidencial candidates get lots & lots of money from individuals, period. Do I have to point
every little thing to you NYD?? Hillary Clinton ran as well, and she got a lot individual contributions as well. That’s the
way our current (flawed IMO) campaign finance system works, and there ARE limits on how much one can contribute at a
time yanno.
“As for racism, you were the one who accused me of being in favor of redlining.”
And you’re the one that’s completely opposed to the The Community Reinvestment Act that merely requires banks and
savings & loan associations to offer credit throughout their *entire* market area. The act prohibits financial institutions
from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as “redlining.” The purpose of the CRA
is to ensure that under-served populations can obtain credit, including home ownership opportunities & commercial loans
to small businesses. I wish that an Act like this wasn’t necessary, but it still is IMO.
The record is clear in this blog about what you “advocated” before AND where the history behind that kind of policy
comes from.
Reply
18. On October 2, 2008 at 11:50 am NotYourDaddy Said:
Mr. Guy, the purpose may have originally been to eliminate redlining. It’s the methods I question. The means they used to
implement their lofty goal required lending institutions to make high risk loans. That’s what I object to. That’s what got us
here today.
As far as your innuendo about what you think I may have advocated, if you have something to say, say it. If you want to
accuse me of something, state it in a forthright manner so we can debate it with hard facts and cold logic. I don’t deal in
innuendo.
Reply
19. On October 3, 2008 at 10:04 am DJ Said:
“state it in a forthright manner”
Really, NYD, Do you, for one moment think Comrade Guy or ANY other Socialist is capable of this? I applaud your
optimism sir.
Reply
20. On October 3, 2008 at 5:33 pm Mister Guy Said:
“The means they used to implement their lofty goal required lending institutions to make high risk loans.”
No one was asked to make any “high risk loans”. These institutions did that on their own and then bundled them up to sell
them in a market that was only allowed to exists after deregulation. What was done was wrong, and the record is quite clear
on it.
I’m not interested to re-debating issues that have already been discussed in this blog at some length before. One only needs
to look up the thread in question to see what each side said.
Reply
21. On October 3, 2008 at 9:44 pm NotYourDaddy Said:
No one was asked to make any “high risk loans”.
You’re in denial. This is well docuemented.
Reply
“This is well docuemented.”
Not by the likes of you or anyone else NYD.
Reply
23. On October 15, 2008 at 7:24 pm Wamba son of Witless Said:
Mister guy is treated with more tolerance on this blog than a right winger would ever get treated on a leftist forum. I know.
“I’m not out to “confuse” anyone…your motives here are very, very clear…to pin the meltdown of the Bush economy on
anyone other than the people that were repsonisble for it…”personal responsibility” be damned. You’re NOT getting away
with it either, and the American people are *more* than onto you guys…finally…”
Tell me Einstein, who is the troll?
Reply
No troll feedings over here either troll…bye-bye now…lol…
Reply
25. On October 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm Wamba son of Witless Said:
I tried to post this address before and it disappeared. Since no one can tell me where universal health care has succeeded,
such as the Democratic Party advocates, I would like to post where a version of it has crashed and burned.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/ap_on_re_us/child_health_hawaii
Reply
26. On October 18, 2008 at 8:36 pm NotYourDaddy Said:
Wamba, I rescued your comments from the spam bin.
BTW, there are posts about universal health care on this blog. You can find them using the Search function. Please try to
keep your comments relevant to the post on which you’re commenting. Thanks.
Reply
27. On October 19, 2008 at 9:54 am Wamba son of Witless Said:
Not Your Daddy,
Sorry for shoehorning my posts in to your forums. I’ve accumulated a number of anti-socialist items, which unfortunately
are difficult to match precisely in to your boards. My bad.
Reply
“Please try to keep your comments relevant to the post on which you’re commenting.”
LOL…trolls don’t have the ability to do this! This troll especially has a history of changing the subject whenever he feels
that he’s losing an argument, which is quite frequently BTW. Good luck enforcing that…sheesh…
Reply
29. On October 21, 2008 at 10:07 am DJ Said:
Comrade Guy has a history of changing the subject whenever he feels that he’s losing an argument, which is quite
frequently BTW.
Reply
30. On October 22, 2008 at 3:03 am Mister Guy Said:
More utter nonsense from you “DJ”…what a surprise eh?? Still rooting for that loser McSame?? LOL…
Reply
31. On November 1, 2008 at 5:38 pm vegas art guy Said:
NYD the only mistake you made was talking about the 2005 attempt. The bill made it out of committee on a party line vote
but the democrats told the GOP they would filibuster the bill if it went any further effectively killing it. The GOP tried at
least two other times to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but every time the dems killed it.
Reply
32. On March 31, 2009 at 2:37 am Taxpayer Tea Parties All Across the Nation « Government is Not Your Daddy Said:
[...] created this economic crisis by establishing social engineering as economic policy, and now they’re pretending to get
us out of it the same way they got us into it – by [...]
Reply
Leave a Comment
Name (required)
E-mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Submit Comment
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
z About
{ Welcome to Government is Not Your Daddy
z Recent Posts
{ Delivering the Goods
{ How to Undermine the Economy
{ Entitlement, Dependency, Control
{ Rise Up and Take a Stand
{ Freedom is Not a Pendulum
{ Tea Party Sign Ideas
{ Criminals for Gun Control (Video)
{ Taxpayer Tea Parties All Across the Nation
{ Economics Lessons for Liberals: Inflation
{ Looting the Economy
{ No Stimulus
{ If You Live in Oregon, Check this Out
{ No! Don’t Do It!!
{ Depression-Era Values and a New New Deal
{ Why is Our Nation So Obsessed with Race?
z
z Search
z Archives
Select Month
z
z Click for RSS Feed
z Oregon State Motto
z Blogroll
{ BlogNetNews
{ Drudge Report
{ Little Green Footballs
{ Naked Liberty
{ Observation Deck
{ Pajamas Media
{ RightyBlogs
z Conservative Oregon Blog Roll Alliance
{
{ A Boy Named Sous
{ Anti-Hippies
{ Born Again Redneck
{ Chas’ Compilation
{ DANEgerus Weblog
{ Daniel’s Political Musings
{ Dead Fish Wrapper Watch
{ Eugene Rant
{ Gazing at the Flag
{ Government is Not Your Daddy
{ It’s a Dog’s Life
{ Jim in KFalls
{ John Eyler
{ Marine Corps Moms
{ MAX Redline
{ McCainiac
{ Mover Mike
{ Northwest Conservative Underground
{ NW Republican
{ Oregon Catalyst
{ Oregon Guy
{ Oregon Republican League
{ Oregon Watchdog
{ Resistance is Futile!
{ Right Minded
{ RINO Watch
{ Robin’s Nest
{ Teapot Tantrums
{ The Cheezer
{ The Write Idea Online
{ They Call Me Vonski
{ Think It Through
{ Troutdale Councilor Canfield
{ Upper Left Coast
{ Victoria Taft
{ Where’s your brain?
{ You are not the boss of me!
z government watch
{ Americans for Prosperity
{ Citizens Against Government Waste
{ GovTrack
{ Right.org
z home state
{ AFP JoCo Show (YouTube)
{ Cascade Policy Institute
{ Conservative Majority Project News
{ Oregon Tax News
z home town
{ AFP Josephine County
{ I Love Grants Pass
z Recent Comments
Alan Scott on Delivering the Goods
Mister Guy on Delivering the Goods
Mister Guy on Delivering the Goods
Nonny on Tea Party Sign Ideas
tuco on Delivering the Goods
Smile on Delivering the Goods
Richard Walters on Delivering the Goods
Get a free blog at WordPress.com | RSS 2.0 | Comments RSS 2.0 | Theme: Quentin.

Social Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Government is Not Your Daddy

Free will. Free market. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Social Engineering as Economic Policy

Bookmark/Rate this post:

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

on September 26, 2008 at 5:55 pm Comments (32)

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://notyourdaddy.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/social-engineering-as-economic-

RSS feed for comments on this post.

32 Comments Leave a comment.

1. On September 26, 2008 at 9:07 pm Max Said:

2. On September 26, 2008 at 10:34 pm NotYourDaddy Said:

3. On September 26, 2008 at 11:41 pm Mister Guy Said:

Nobody in the Right-wing that is.

“John McCain, incidentally, was one of the co-sponsors of the bill”

“A free market has its own natural checks and balances.”

4. On September 27, 2008 at 1:42 am DJ Said:

5. On September 27, 2008 at 2:49 pm NotYourDaddy Said:

6. On September 27, 2008 at 8:38 pm Mister Guy Said:

“the facts are still facts”

7. On September 27, 2008 at 10:16 pm NotYourDaddy Said:

8. On September 27, 2008 at 10:41 pm NotYourDaddy Said:

A look at the next 3 top beneficiaries of Fannie/Freddie donations were Republicans

9. On September 28, 2008 at 1:48 pm DJ Said:

My apologies for venting NYD!

[...] Social Engineering as Economic Policy notyourdaddy.wordpress.com [...]

11. On September 28, 2008 at 7:37 pm Jim Said:

Three words. NO ONE CARES.

How do you counter that?

To them, there is ONLY government. It is who they are.

12. On September 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm Mister Guy Said:

“Bill Clinton’s National Homeownership Strategy”

“When did John Kerry change parties?”

14. On September 29, 2008 at 8:23 pm NotYourDaddy Said:

“When did John Kerry change parties?”

15. On September 30, 2008 at 7:24 pm Mister Guy Said:

“Who’s spinning now?”

McSame’s economic policy shaped by lobbyists –

McSame’s campaign manager on the doll to Freddie Mac -

16. On September 30, 2008 at 9:04 pm NotYourDaddy Said:

17. On October 2, 2008 at 3:36 am Mister Guy Said:

18. On October 2, 2008 at 11:50 am NotYourDaddy Said:

19. On October 3, 2008 at 10:04 am DJ Said:

“state it in a forthright manner”

20. On October 3, 2008 at 5:33 pm Mister Guy Said:

21. On October 3, 2008 at 9:44 pm NotYourDaddy Said:

No one was asked to make any “high risk loans”.

You’re in denial. This is well docuemented.

22. On October 4, 2008 at 7:59 pm Mister Guy Said:

“This is well docuemented.”

Not by the likes of you or anyone else NYD.

23. On October 15, 2008 at 7:24 pm Wamba son of Witless Said:

24. On October 16, 2008 at 5:03 pm Mister Guy Said:

No troll feedings over here either troll…bye-bye now…lol…

25. On October 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm Wamba son of Witless Said:

26. On October 18, 2008 at 8:36 pm NotYourDaddy Said:

Wamba, I rescued your comments from the spam bin.

27. On October 19, 2008 at 9:54 am Wamba son of Witless Said:

Not Your Daddy,

28. On October 20, 2008 at 10:10 pm Mister Guy Said:

29. On October 21, 2008 at 10:07 am DJ Said:

30. On October 22, 2008 at 3:03 am Mister Guy Said:

31. On November 1, 2008 at 5:38 pm vegas art guy Said:

E-mail (will not be published) (required)