Political

There it was – "The banks are bad, ripping off people. Making them take mortgages they couldn't repay. Making them sign papers they did not understand"

I personally don't think that anyone in Congress is going to respond to this, so here goes.

It seems to me that if the Government mandates that banks "lower their lending standards", it means that you don't any longer (if you are a bank) have the right to make sure people have enough income or good enough credit to get a loan. It was as though the Government in it's zeal to give every American a "piece of the pie" was out to make sure it happened.[more] They wanted banks and lenders to be like car dealers. "What's it going to take to get you to drive it home today?"

At a car dealership, when you answered that, they came back with a counter-offer, and eventually, you are whittled down and sign the papers and drive out with your monthly payments that go on and on and on. Granted, not all car dealers are bad, but they had a multitude of credit options. The best deals were for people who always paid their bills on time, had worked at the same place for several years, etc.

Then came the "American Dream", and everyone wanted a piece. In stepped the government with plans to make that affordable, and "you will find ways to make that happen." (If I am wrong Congress, then send me the proof that you (The Government) did not mandate banks lower their lending standards.)

Now, they are back saying that they are going to fix that mess and help out all those people who couldn't afford their homes and refinance their mortgages. My question is, "if they can't afford it now, what good is refinancing – it still has to be repaid?" A local bank (which is not in financial trouble) recently refused to take money from the Government Bailout Fund, because the string attached to their taking the money was that they would have to "lower their lending standards." My eyes almost fell out when I saw that in the local newspaper.

Enough venting! Just thought that you might want to go check out how we got where we are and what they seem to want us to do. Even if you disagree with me, I challenge you to check out the facts for yourself. What I have said does not mean that I am in favor of giant bonuses for Execs, but look at the "perks" that go with your job. To some people, those are giant bonuses too.

By the way Congress – forget flying on those corporate jets. If the executives of those companies are ripping off the American public by having them, then how the heck do you, Congress, get away with using them? Why can't you fly coach like the rest of us?

Beware Mr. Obama. You will be held to a higher standard than any other President in American history. Not because of the financial markets or the crisis it has created in unemployment. Throughout America's history, people of color (see, I can be politically correct) have been held to higher standards.

Doesn't make any difference whether you are African-American (Black, Negro or those other words), Chinese or Japanese. Those groups always had to be better to get recognized. How good did Jackie Roibinson have to be to get recognized as a ball player good enough to play on "white" teams? How good did Tiger Woods have to be to get on the "Pro" circuit?[more]

Then, if we add women to this mix, the world's (not just America's) bias shows up even more. We can't just be good enough to convince people to vote for us, we have to be way better. So much better, that no one can catch us – nor can they lay a snare.

Okay, so maybe African-American pilots in WWII did not have the latest planes – those went to the "real" flyers. That did not stop men like my uncle from proving that they were the best at what they did. Witness the "Red Tails" who escorted bombers and never lost a bomber. They were so good that eventually, the bomber pilots asked to be escorted by those (black) fighter pilots, because "we want to get home alive."

So, Mr. Obama, as you stick your neck out there, just remember that while there are people who look like they are helping you, their name doesn't go down in history as the person who signed the "Stimulus Bill." You do! They may present you with ideas, but when you are no longer President, they will still be in Congress or lobbying for more money because you didn't fix it (whatever it is).

You said you came to make a "change." Well, then do it! Really get bipartisan – sit down with a Republican or Independent or Liberitarian without all your Democrat supporters or staff around. Really talk to someone from "across the aisle." And if you want to talk to me, an African-American Republican on Social Security who remembers "back in the day," you can give me a shout.

Or you can just drop in next time you are in the area.

Almost like I put my foot in my mouth. There were several inaccuracies in my post called "Hard For Business", about how Congress is dragging it's feet on E-Verify.

I had said that there were no businesses opposing this, but that was an incorrect statement. Seems that leading the charge (after the doltish Congress) against E-Verify is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They will get my wrath in a separate email. Suffice it to say that their opposition is over "what it will cost businesses to implement e-verify."

Well, I tracked down what E-Verify is all about and based on what ALL businesses are required to do, the burden for E-Verify is a drop in the bucket. There is no charge to get on E-Verify, and there are no equipment requirements other than "internet acceess via a web browser." E-Verify is in addition to the "I-9" form that IS required of ALL employers. You hire somebody, they have to fill out an I-9, and you have to make an effort (of some kind) to verify that the person you have hired is "eligible to work." [more]

Actually has nothing to do with immigration, but whether the new employee has all the papers that make them eligible to work – Social Security, Green Card, H1-B, etc. As an employer, you have to get them to sign the I-9 then do some kind of check to make sure they can work for you. E-Verify can only be done after you have hired the person and set a date when they will start work for you. Per the USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), "The employer must initiate the query no later than the end of 3 business days after the new hire