Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, September 30, 2016

If U.S. Representative Peter King (R-NY) is serious about pursuing the Republican nomination for president in 2016, then the GOP will have a real problem on its hands.

Congressman King’s interest in a White House bid was first reported on Wednesday night by Newsmax. The next day, the Long Island Republican elaborated on his plans in an interview with ABC News.

“I’m going to certainly give it thought. I’m going to see where it goes,” King explained. “My concern right now is I don’t see anyone at the national level speaking enough on, to me, what’s important – national security, homeland security, counterterrorism.”

“The big debate that Republicans seem to have in the Senate on foreign policy is whether or not, you know, the CIA was going to use a drone to kill an American in Starbucks,” he added, in a shot at Kentucky senator Rand Paul. “To me, we should be going beyond that and we should go back to being a party – whether it’s Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush – of having a strong national defense, and that should be, to me, an essential part of the presidential debate. And so far, that’s missing.”

Of course, if national defense has been missing from the presidential debate, it’s probably just because said debate won’t begin for another two years. But if King does insist on bringing the issue to the forefront of the Republican presidential primaries, then that’s very bad news for the GOP.

King’s positions on homeland security and foreign policy line up rather neatly with those of the George W. Bush administration (notably, former attorney general and noted torture advocate Michael Mukasey was the first Republican to go on record in support of King’s hypothetical candidacy). In other words, they are ridiculously unpopular. If voters were clamoring for a return to the Bush era, then Mitt Romney — whose diplomatic and national security teams were stacked with Bush administration veterans — presumably would not have been the first Republican presidential candidate in three decades to lose to his opponent on questions of foreign policy and national security (President Obama trounced Romney 56 to 44 percent among voters focused on the subject, according to exit polls.)

Making matters worse is King’s apparent inability to advocate for these positions without invoking startling racism. If the Republican plan to appear less hostile to minorities isn’t already completely dead by 2016, then a presidential campaign by a man who has declared that “we have too many mosques in this country,” and that “85 percent of American Muslim community leaders are an enemy living amongst us” — among many other racist broadsides against the Muslim community — would certainly deliver the coup de grâce.

Furthermore, a King candidacy would be sure to bring out the worst in his fellow candidates. With a lifetime 75 percent rating from the American Conservative Union, King would draw attacks from the right throughout the primaries; it’s not hard to imagine a fierce argument over King’s support for closing the gun show loophole, for example, becoming the 2016 version of “let him die!

And none of these issues with a potential King candidacy even touch his decades-long support for a violent terrorist organization.

Happily for Republicans, King is likely just floating a presidential bid as a way to raise both his own profile and money for his congressional campaigns. But if he actually does enter the 2016 race, it would result in another huge blow to the Republican Party’s already tattered brand.

  • midway54

    This blockhead habitually lays low until he determines the direction of the political winds in every significant event, and then comes out with his bilge. I think he would much prefer to become the chairman of a new House Un-American Activities Committee, in competition of course with another beauty, Darrell Issa, if mercifully King’s efforts to become president fail.

    • CPAinNewYork

      Are you aware that Peter King told his constituents that any New York Republican who gives as much as a dollar to the national Republican Party should have his or her head examined?
      He was reacting to the Congressional Republicans’ refusal to authorize Hurricane Sandy aid to Long Islanders. That doesn’t sound like a man who passively waits to see the direction of hte political winds before he takes on his own party. I think that it shows a fair amount of guts.

      • midway54

        Yes, I am aware of that. He could hardly support the plentiful supply of far rightwing nut jobs in his party. The first reaction to Snowden was overwhelmingly that he was a traitor but then it soon became mixed pro and con about the disclosure in terms of his behavior. The most recent polls which have been in effect for some time now show that the majority of those polled view Snowden as a whistle blower but not a traitor. When the strong political winds blew in huge numbers of critics shouting “treason” and “traitor” early on, there stood King beating his breast to demand treason charges against not just Snowden but also columnist Glenn Greenwald,an American living in Brazil, and to condemn for its conduct The Guardian of London newspaper, Greenwald’s employer. There was no mention of The Washington Post, however.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Is King a Christie wannabee? NJ’s Christie has to watch his butt…his refusal to accept the consequences of his policies on allowing continued growth of building in flood zones and then helping himself to federal tax dollars is going to bite him in his rather generous buttocks. As for King…there are 2 NYs. The poverty stricken northern part of NY state and the ritzy ditzies who pretend they can afford those $700 a pair shoes in the city. Can King explain this disparity? You bet not…The thing about GOP bull males in their vain efforts to secure ultimate control is one fact they cannot escape: GOP bull males decrease jobs…they NEVER increase them. GOP bull males always decrease salaries…they NEVER increase them…GOP bull male just don’t get it. When you savage the Middle Class, they turn on you big time.

    • montanabill

      Not that I disagree with your premise that King won’t be the GOP nominee, but while you disparage GOP bull males re: jobs and wages, I have to ask how many jobs you have created and, if so, what kind of salaries and benefits did you provide?

      • Eleanore Whitaker

        I live in NJ. I know a Big Oil boi won’t like hearing this…but…in NJ, the solar industry is creating huge jobs. In case you missed it, NJ ranks in the top 5 for the highest salaries and the most jobs available. Uh…now…let’s talk about Montana’s huge industries…In Cut Bank? In Chinook? In Great Falls? I won’t even mention Browning or East Glacier. The average salary in your state is $50K and that’s on the high side. Sure, if you are a Silicon Valley rich boi you might be able to buy a home in Whitefish or Kalispell….Try again.

        • CPAinNewYork

          Why don’t you move?

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            CPAin NOO YAWK…Why don’t you? Or is ostentatious BS what Noo Yawkahs pride themselves on these days?

          • CPAinNewYork

            Another inane comment from dipshit Eleanore. You see, dummy, the key to properly pronouncing New York is to imagine it’s spelled “N’Yawk.” Got it, dipshit?

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Awww Mr. Man’s raisins shrunk yet again…CPA…Stands for Certifiable Professional Ass.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Eleanore’s getting dirty again. Can’t utter a word without resorting to profanity.

            Are you homely and lonely, Eleanore? Having trouble getting dates?

        • montanabill

          And that’s just to pay your taxes!

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            MT Bill…When you state gets a lousy 61 cents for every dollar you pay in federal taxes let me know…Yours is a porker state like KY…$1.57 for every dollar KY taxpayers pay. MT gets about $1.32 cents…to our 61 cents. Do you want to admit WHY my taxes are higher and the reason is because your state takes more out of the federal kitty?

          • montanabill

            Eleanore, I will guarantee that your taxes don’t within two orders of magnitude what I pay. Now go find some data about how that money is actually spent and allocated, and quit believing cherry picked talking points.

        • InsideEye

          I live in NJ, sure salaries are higher but commuting is a thousand a month, taxes for the support of others are higher, Montana is definitely ok, but we are Changing NJ back to where it should be. ..it may take a century…. Then another storm!

        • CPAinNewYork

          You didn’t answer the question. How many jobs did you create?

    • CPAinNewYork

      Your references to “bull males” shows your prejudice clearly. You’re not interested in getting the best people in the national, state and local offices. You just want women in office. You’d probably vote for Sarah Palin over any male candidate.
      Your narrow minded anti-male tirades pathetically demonstrate your personal frustrations with the opposite sex.

      • Eleanore Whitaker

        No…You are quite correct. I am NOT NOT NOT interested in getting the best people in the national, state and local offices….Because they are rarely WOMEN…and you say I’m prejudiced? How about get off the rah rah bois routine? Smart women don’t vote for the Palins or the Bachmann butt kissing males. Those women are nothing more than a GOP bull male’s arm candy. The GOP bull males let them be mouthpieces because as so called “men” they enjoy putting a mouthy women with little more than experience in making babies out in public so she can show exactly what GOP bull males really think women are …Wrong again.

        • CPAinNewYork

          Interesting reply. You wrote that you’re “…not interested in getting the best people….because they are rarely women….” You probably meant something else, but your convoluted response confirms my suspicion that you just hate men and want women to run everything. Silly.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Women brought you men into the world…So yes…Go through labor and delivery and then come back and tell us what he men you all are. My response was read by a convoluted male…so you would naturally assume its convoluted. Men like you just never give it up. We are now and always will be your equals and in some cases …your superiors….Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Wendy David….remind you of anything? Testicles only make some men in testosteronies…limp and loose with their lips and not much more.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Not honest enough to admit your mistake, eh? You’re a male-hating piece of garbage.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            You should know that I NEVER make mistakes…ergo..never a need to admit to one. I never post that which cannot be proven in a court of law with a jury of my peers beyond a reasonable doubt. Now…shouldn’t you be seeking the advice of the Enron bois on how to rip off your customers? Or ..wow…better yet…There’s Madoff languishing in prison…he ought to be able to give you a century’s worth of accounting tricks to pad those CPA profits you all manage to accrue so mysteriously.

          • CPAinNewYork

            None of the miscreants you cite are CPAs. So, what’s your point?

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            And you are something intelligent women avoid like Bubonic plague…I doubt there’s a woman interested in your kind within a 2,000 mile radius. You can’t admit you hate women who are smarter than you because to you, no woman can be. Thing again oh Grand Pubbahs of Upper Butt Crack.

          • CPAinNewYork

            “Women brought you men into the world….” Well, yeah, Eleanor, but unless you’re asserting immaculate conception, you must acknowledge that they had help. That being the case, you have no point. Your argument is meaningless, as are all of your postings, which are based on misanthropy.

            Since you offered your personal accomplishments in a previous posting, I feel justified in asking if you are or have been married.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Wow…A man who acknowledges his role in procreation…I’m truly impressed. Most men are there to make the babies and then disappear for the next 20 years. My argument is lost on your ignorance. That being the case, it’s like arguing with a mental patient and trying to exact some sense of reason. Particularly when male superiority complexes are fundamentally gross insecurity. Sorry, not a misanthrope…that’s more the dictum of self-righteous males who cover the skeletons in their closets.

            You did manage to prove one thing…how utterly foolish men are to try and get the last word with a smart woman. But keep trying…you might make it yet. I was married. I traded him in when he became a “classic.” To me, men are like cars. They are great when new but by the time they are 12 years into marriage, they’re classics. After that? They’re antiques.

            Unfortunately for you, I had only brothers…5 of them to be exact, 1 ex-husband, 2 sons and I work in engineering…an all male field. My best friends are men and I detest marriage because it’s too confining. So please…all I know about men came from men.

          • CPAinNewYork

            I don’t believe that you have men for best friends because I don’t believe that you have friends. I suspected that you were married because you come across like a hate filled old woman that couldn’t make a marriage work.

            You also don’t impress me as a “smart woman,” but you do impress me as an egotist who has the gall to assert “You should know that I NEVER make mistakes…” in a posting.

            You said that you “traded in” your ex-husband when he became a classic, an antique. Maybe you’re the antique, a dried out, hateful old woman who’s spending what remains of her life pathetically spewing invective in online websites.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Just because you live in the CPA cocoon, doesn’t mean I do. I have some friends in some fairly high places. I frankly am not dependent on what you do or do not think of me. I know your kind better than you wish I would. You’re one of those bossy, overbearing, must have the last word males who simply grew up hating Mommy’s too much authority over her darling little snookums.

            You asked the question only so you could nitpick the answer. Try to keep up with my level of intelligence sugar pants. You may know accounting “tricks” but I know know men far better than you wish any woman to. Your kind always want women to be dependent, stupid and unable to extricate themselves from your addiction to control. Grow up little man…By the way, no…I’m not old and dried up…I still have admirers of many men half my age. I just don’t need men anymore to become my sole identity like McWifie does. And since you spend so much time on the computer attacking women like me, how do you have time to do all that double bookkeeping and tending to McWifie?

          • CPAinNewYork

            If you know men so well, why did your marriage fail? Was it because you’re a man-hater and can’t get along with any male? You probably can’t get along with any females, either, except those misanthropes who think as you do.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            “MY” marriage didn’t fail. “HIS” marriage to me failed. Nice that you take the bias route. As a young woman in the 60s, I realized that I simply could not waste my or my two children’s lives with a man who valued booze more than he valued family. And don’t bother to go there. He was a closet drinker before I ever met him. Unfortunately, some men become Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde when they drink too much. He died in 2006 from renal kidney failure likely from drinking since age 12.

            I get along just fine with men. Why? Because I am hugely astute at knowing their “achilles heels” and because I know that predictability where men are concerned is the deadly weapon men use to get their way.

            You ASSume too much. As all men who believe they know it all always do. Big mistake. You open yourselves to every hugely willful women who are experts in the art of turning the tables on men with bloated egos. These kind of males are chewed up and spit out like yesterday’s ham bone…right down to the marrow. I am willful to the max and totally independent on no man. I came into the world on my own and I’m going out the same way.

            There are many men I take the trouble to respect and admire. Gandhi, Eisenhower, Einstein, Hawking, Nietzsche, Buffet, Tchaikovsky, Martin Luther King, Chekov and of course, our brilliant, Barack Obama. Their brain power comes from deep within and their ability to play fair is more than obvious. Your kind don’t know how to play fair with your own gender…So..any woman who’d deliberately ingratiate herself with that kind of man is a fool and gets what she deserves.

            As for women…three women in my lifetime helped me to be reach the success I now enjoy immensely…my mother who taught me to fight for what I believe is right, my first dance coach who taught me that life without beauty is a life wasted, and my first employer and mentor, a woman who stood toe to toe with any man fearlessly and without reservation and taught me that being a woman doesn’t mean being a door mat to bully males.

            Let me know when you can properly process this.

          • CPAinNewYork

            I processed your posting and I think that you’re a liar. I believe that you’re so full of anti-male hatred that you can’t help yourself. In my imagination I equate you with Medusa.

            The garbage that you spout is nothing more than barely veiled profanity. You’re a miserable individual who has reduced her life to venomous diatribes against men. Your advocacy of Hillary Clinton is predictable. If a female dog were on a ballot for president, you’d vote for her.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            OF course you think I’m a liar. Most men who are grossly insecure never trust their own mothers to tell the truth. I equate you with fish wrap. Useful only for my own personal amusement. By the way, how does it feel to be “used” by a woman you don’t even know? Your posts have made you look the foolish man you truly are. You can’t lick Hillary Clinton boots…even if you could grovel that “high” you’d still be used by women and still be the same bossy, overbearing, autocratic dullard women avoid like the plague. But it was nice to use you to prove my point of how far a man will go just to have the supreme high and mighty last word. If I’d known you’d be this easy to “use,” I’d have taken bets with some of my female and male friends at how fast a foolishly insecure male could show his achilles heel. Now do be a dear little CPAkins and grow up.

      • S.J. Jolly

        Maybe you’d be more accepting of “alpha males” ?

        • CPAinNewYork

          I accept voting for the best person for the job, male or female.

          Pushing for an all-female ticket just to get women in the position is ridiculous.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            CPA What a liar you are….You wouldn’t vote for a women if she paid you to. You’re one of those men with a superiority complex that hides gross insecurity and can’t EVER abide the idea that a woman would dare tell you what to do even when she has that right. Some mothers raise men…other mothers raise belligerent spoiled, overindulged little Aholes.

          • CPAinNewYork

            You are a lying piece of crap. You know nothing about me, yet your anti-male fantasy conjures an entire posting that is devoid of any semblance of truth.

            I’ll bet you’re a joy to work with. You’re probably the office bitch.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            I know a lot of CPAs…and I know for a fact having worked with one as an accounting manager that CPAs are not all that honest and do their level best to make a profit by hiding and padding numbers to look sweet to the IRS…You want to deny that? I am a joy to work with. I have a full time and 2 part time jobs…Keep up please…all you CPAs do all day is play with numbers and truth.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Ah, now we see poor Eleanore’s problem. She probably works for a CPA who ignores her and she’s pissed off about it. Wants to be noticed, but doesn’t know how to go about it.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            I have NO problems. And no…I don’t work for a CPA….In fact, I’ve worked for 23 years in environmental engineering and am planning to semi retire. I’m also an SEO copywriter part-time with 3900 articles ghost written for business blogs…and tah dah…I’m a published author of two suspense novels. Please learn to keep up. I don’t need to be noticed…I spent my younger days as a professional dancer and a pro business owner….Out of breath yet? Then, I wouldn’t want you to suffer cardiac arrest by reading my very qualified resumes…take your choice…my business resume, my literary resume or my professional SEO resume…As I say…do keep up…Your ASSuming and male need to have the last word is pathetic. But I do enjoy your broadcasts of gross insecurity immensely.

          • CPAinNewYork

            You’ve had a few professions or more accurately jobs in your life. Did you just have trouble making a go of any of them or did your co-workers and bosses get tired of your act and force you out of the organization?

    • howa4x

      Christie took 75 million in shore relief funds and diverted them to make those stronger than the storm commercials featuring him and his family during an election year

  • Dominick Vila

    Please let this be true. Can you imagine a King/Palin ticket, or Ted Cruz, against the likes of Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren? Maybe we should consider donating money to King’s campaign…

    • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

      We can only dream of that dream ticket. Don’t wake me up. The tea party really knows how to pick em.

      • montanabill

        I personally like Clinton/Schumer for the Dems. Now there is a ‘dream ticket’ especially if you like the direction the country is going.

        • BillP

          Well damn you are right. Who wants to live in a country where housing values are going up, there is job growth for over 24 straight months, anyone with retirement accounts have seen their values increase over 50% in the last 4+ years, and consumer confidence is up. So let’s turn this country around, bring back W he can ruin the economy really quickly.

          • montanabill

            Housing values going up? A partial truth. Up from where and why? When the effects of quantitative easing (printing money) hit (and they will), then you’ll see housing values go up, along with everything else except wages.

            Job growth? Full time jobs are down. Only part time jobs are showing any increase. I’ll let you ferret out the reason.

            Retirement accounts? You mean the stock market rise which is the initial product of quantitative easing inflation. I hope you know a bubble when you see it. The Dems and Barney Frank didn’t when they over-ruled W’s warning on the housing bubble. No kudos to W, though, for not stopping the nonsense before the Dem’s took control of Congress.

          • BillP

            Well in markets across the country housing values are up, in my town in NYS values are up 15-20%, in other areas 10% or more are occurring. In California there are bidding wars for homes. NYC has seen the same in Condo and Coop sales, people paying over the asking price to obtain a home. Maybe in Montana prices haven’t gone up much, probably because you live there.
            There are full time and part time jobs being created, but tell me how the president can tell companies to hire full time when they don’t want to. This will come back top bite these companies when they really need people.
            Of course the stock market is all smoke and mirrors, I guess all of these money manager and investment people are fooled by the qei. It has nothing to do with companies recording record profits. There will be some corrections to the market as always happens but there is no bubble.
            As for W he gloated how housing ownership was rising every year during his administration. The housing bubble was due in large to mortgage companies and banks issuing mortgages to people without due their du diligence on the qualifications of these buyers. Hedge funds were packaging mortgage pools that contained many mortgages that were underwater and sold these mortgage pools to the investment industry.

          • montanabill

            On the contrary, multi-million dollar homes are selling quite well in Montana. However, today’s news regarding the housing market across the country wasn’t that optimist with interest rates rising.
            There is actual data on jobs. It is not that employers don’t want to hire full time people, it is that Obamacare is on track to make it way too expensive. We would rather have full time employees because part time people rarely feel any loyalty. But you do have to make a profit (bad word, I know) and the requirements and costs of Obamacare are significant. In my case, I will have to pay penalties for having insurance that is too good.
            Yes, W did point with pride to home ownership, but then realized what was happening and tried to stop it before the bubble burst. It was Barney and the Dems that stopped him. Look up Barney’s famous words on the subject. Banks weren’t stupid. They knew the loans were bad and enlisted the financial companies to package them as an investment to try to get them off their hands. They were trying to make lemonade out of lemons. Had no chance of working since millions of people were taking out mortgages they simply couldn’t afford on over-priced homes.

          • BillP

            Well in NY all prices of homes are selling from 250k on up. The news today was mixed, sales down but still up when compared to last year. Prices are up, check the national real estate council notice. You are wrong profit is a good word, my business is making a profit and we provide health care to my employees. In NYS the exchanges are causing health insurance companies to have competitive prices, don,t republicans like competition?

            So the banks and hedge funds packaging mortgage pools that they knew had a lot of bad mortgages in them was something good? My values look at this as cheating your customer, not a good way to run a business. The millions of people you refer to could not have taken these mortgages out without help from banks or mortgages companies. These companies didn’t run income checks on these millions, a basic process in running a mortgage business. Unless you are willing to cheat your customers, that was mighty Christian of them.

          • montanabill

            Conservatives like the competition of a ‘free’ market, not a government controlled market.
            No doubt banks and financial houses knew they were packaging bad goods. But those bad goods were forced on them by government and they were trying to spread the liability. The mortgage companies didn’t run background checks because of the demand of government to give loans to everyone. There was punishment for those who could be seen as withholding loans to people. No lending company in their right mind would loan money to people who couldn’t pay it back, unless they were forced to do so. And they were.

          • BillP

            So the whole problem of bad mortgages was due to gov’t pressure. Boy that’s a big stretch of the facts. Companies like Countrywide had agents getting mortgages for people who were put into mortgage instruments that were not suitable for them, variable rates with big balloon payments, interest only mortgages that left people with mortgage balances greater than their houses values. That was private business displaying their true values, profit at any cost. You make a lot of claims like people being punished for witholding loans, where/when did this happen? I guess companies like Countrywide, National Mortgage and a number of banks collapsed after the hosuing bubble burst. You keep making claims that you don’t back up with factual data. I know a number of people who were in the home mortgage business and they were never forced to issue loans by the gov’t.
            Saying something multiple times doesn’t make it true.

          • montanabill

            The factual data is easily available, now and then. You have to ask yourself if it makes any sense for financial institutions to make loans to people they know cannot afford the payments. Would you loan to someone who you knew couldn’t pay you back? Would you loan to millions of people you knew couldn’t pay you back? Banks and financial institutions suddenly changed their lending requirements to do exactly that. Why?
            Do you think they wanted millions of repossessed properties? Billions of dollars in lost loans? Your answer doesn’t pass the smell test, let alone a rational explanation. There is one reason and one reason only, why conservative financial institutions would take that kind of risk. Government coercion and the hope that government would back the potential losses.

          • BillP

            You seem to be skipping over the “fact” that many mortgage companies and banks don’t hold onto the mortgages but are sold in a secondary market. These mortgages can then packaged into mortgage pools that are then sold through the bond market. Read a book called “The Quants” it’s about a number of math whizzes who worked at different hedge funds. They packaged these mortgages into various tranches supposedly rated based on the quality of mortgages in the pool. These pools were sold with the knowledge that there large amounts of bad mortgage. I guess these hedge funds were coercied into doing this.

            Stop blaming the gov’t for everything. People were wrong for getting into mortgages they didn’t understand or were qualified for. The mortgage companies and banks were wrong for issuing these mortgages. According you these companies made bad business decisions because the gov’t threatened them!!

            Guess who is now buying large numbers of these foreclosed houses – gee can you say hedge funds. They are trying to win on both ends of the deal.

          • montanabill

            That brings us back to my original premise. Mortgages were, as a matter of normal course, usually sold to secondary companies, but those were normal, credit checked, mortgages. When companies had to issue mortgages to anyone who applied, the bundling process was created to try to make lemonade out of lemons. I know they were pretty sure the results wouldn’t be good, but it was the only option they had to try to save themselves.

          • BillP

            Maybe I don’t understand what you are saying. Mortgage companies and banks only option was screw unaware investors. That’s a great moral view to have. The people who package these mortgage pools knew exactly what they were doing, they included mortgages that were in bad shape, hardly normal ones. In some cases the companies packaging the pools were also making investments against these pools, see Goldman Sachs.

          • montanabill

            Yes, you are correct. But, my point is that the only reason that there was so many bad mortgages in the first place, was pressure that Congress and, in particular, Barney Frank were putting on lending companies to approve loans for people who couldn’t qualify. Had that pressure not been there, banks and lending organizations would have continued with their required down payment and credit requirements.

          • BillP

            We differ on what was the cause of the housing bubble. You believe the gov’t pressured mortgage companies and banks into making mortgage to all sorts of people – qualified and non-qualified. I think that these companies were motivated mainly by making as much profit as possible by issuing mortgages to candidates without income verification checks, something I believe has been dealt with by these companies being able to compare income levels claimed by an aplicant to their federal tax returns.
            Let’s end this dialogue now, one of the things I liked was that there was no name calling, thanks.

          • InsideEye

            Montana is correct. . Barney Franks openly stated eveyone is entitled to nave a mortgage….house. The government did allow people of dubious credit background to obtain mortgages, the banks gave them out and were getting commissions on fast they can put them out….even if they were sold off to third parties, it was backed up by the US ….these were third party Banks holdings as well. .then all of a sudden there was a rush of defaults and the banks were holding futures with no future. There was the begging by perpetrators for financial bail out to save face…save ass…..bank jobs of CEOS AND ATTACHED POLITICOS. Now the tax payers had to pay till the banks were cash heavy again…..now they do not lend as readily….Barney and Dodd should be in the slammer.

          • CPAinNewYork

            We need a law that mandates health insurance for employees regardless of how many hours they work.

          • montanabill

            Exactly why? It is not a Constitutional requirement that government either provide and require healthcare. I’m perfectly capable of paying for my and my family’s healthcare, so why can’t I have a health saving plan instead of forced insurance or a tax supported government program? Do you have any idea how many jobs would be lost with such a mandate?

          • CPAinNewYork

            No jobs will be lost, just as no jobs were lost when Congress enacted the Social Security and Fair Labor Standards Acts.

            The purpose of such a law will be to stop employers from putting most of their employees on a part time basis to avoid paying for benefits. Scumbag companies like Papa John’s Pizza will be reined in and forced to get with the program.

          • montanabill

            You don’t have a clue about creating, building or running a business of any size, CPA or not. Go back and get a degree in economics, then start a business that produces something.

          • CPAinNewYork

            You’re a typical asshole who reverts to personal insults when he cannot offer a cogent argument.

            I imagine any business that you could run would be so small and simple that it wouldn’t even justify having a set of books.

          • montanabill

            Some are small, but none the less, require books or something as simple as Quickbooks. But others require that I hire CPA’s. Why? Not because the business accounting is so complex, but because the tax laws are. GAAP wouldn’t exist without our crazy tax codes. Couple that with doing business in all 50 states and a few territories through branch offices and you have the need for a really good comptroller and a good tax firm.

            Here’s your argument, not that you shouldn’t have figured it out yourself. Most small businesses run on very small margins. Any additional costs must be passed on to their customers. They have difficulty enough competing with large companies and any increase in their prices can be enough to price them out of their market niche. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of small businesses.

          • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

            Up from where they were when W’s economy crashed. I remember it well. I will take the Obama economy any day. Never, ever bring a Bush back.I

          • montanabill

            I never tire of reminding the left, that Congress was in total control of the Dems during the last two years of Bush’s term. That is the time when they were warned the housing bubble could break and Barney Frank pooh-poohed the warning. That was also the time when they were on a deficit spending spree. They were in control of the finances, not Bush. He could have vetoed some of the spending and his failure was that he didn’t.

          • InsideEye

            It went up from , a 30% drop, now going up to where it dropped from. Certainly many are out of good paying jobs, now are having to work 2 jobs to make up for past earning levels.

      • CPAinNewYork

        More like a nightmare for the Democrats.

    • CPAinNewYork

      Your adulation of Hillary Clinton is inappropriate and surprising for someone who has generally written well thought out postings. I agreed with your positions until I read your advocacy of a Democratic ticket composed of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. It won’t fly, Orville.
      There’s no better way to ensure a Republican comeback than for the Democrats to put Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren on the same ticket. Those panting for such a travesty are letting their emotions over rule their reason. They’re so anxious for a “women’s ticket” that they’ll sacrifice the common sense that pushed the Republican Party out of the White House and kept it out of the White House since 2008.

      • InsideEye

        I thought Elizabeth Warren was born an Indian, therefore a sovereign nation into itself , not an American …is she eligible!! It made her eligible for Harvard I guess and Obama. A bit o levity here.:)

        • CPAinNewYork

          Warren’s an Indian, from India? If she is, then, unless she’s the daughter of American citizens living in India, she’s probably not eligible to be president. If you’re concerned about it, Google it and find out where she was born.

          • InsideEye

            She claimed to be an American Indian.. Not really concerned.

          • CPAinNewYork

            If that’s the case, then why did this even come up?

          • InsideEye

            The point is that there are advantages for minorities. If she is indeed of Native American ancestory then fine, she can rightly state that in documents. However, if she is not and has no real proof then she lied…and the ONLY reason to lie about your heritage IS to get special recognition. What puzzles me is that she didn’t have any proof or that ancestry, unlike Obama who was immediately candid and provided records . I noticed that Some politicians like to pander to get votes it seems, it prompts questions of honesty in other matters.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Elizabeth Warren doesn’t look like an Indian, American or Asian.

            Something is not right here.

          • InsideEye

            That is the point, she placed the American heritage on her application to Harvard to get some extra attention I guess. She was not able to offer any proof when challenged. But that is how it goes…..not important otherwise.

          • CPAinNewYork

            It’s very important because she’s being touted as a running mate for Hillary Clinton. Two of the contributors to this forum are strong backers of Warren. If she misrepresented her background, then it should be recognized as an indication of her ethical standards.

  • Catskinner

    He’d be great, if he could get elected, but the race-baiters would never allow that to happen.

    • jointerjohn

      But congressman King is a race-baiter, he just happens to be the kind you like.

  • montanabill

    Mr. King can daydream all he wants. He will never become the GOP nominee.

    • InsideEye

      He is an opportunist, crying about the slow in coming Sandy relief , when it was being held up because of outrageous earmarks attached it. This was a unique bill for an emergency situation and it was still laden with earmarks. He said he did not read the bill……what an outrage…..another Pelosi ” lets pass it and find out what is in it” same with Obamas unaffordable ACA., same with 2000 page earmarked Immigration bill….which had been written years ago but not enforced, use staff and money for enforcement…..so simple.!!!!

  • Allan Richardson

    I’m a Democrat and I hope not. With enough money to fool 51 percent of the voters, this disaster is not impossible. And with an even kookier running mate, he would be protected against impeachment even if we elect a rational Congress (like Bush/Cheney, McCain/Palin, or Romney/Ryan).

    • InsideEye

      Obama/Biden .

  • howa4x

    Peter King talks a tough game. Typical republican red meat stuff, but how can he actually say that Obama is soft on terror. After killing our public enemy # 1 Bin Laden, he followed up with killing Al Awakyi. Under his leadership the top of Al Qaeda is decimated and isn’t even considered a threat. Bush can only count 2 unfunded wars that he left as a bleeding wound on our treasury. Maybe King will outflank McCain and advocate the invasion of Syria or Iran. That will go over well with a war weary public. He ought to just stay in his safe district and stop these delusions of grandeur