Michele Bachmann fundraises on flap

Hi,

Lest you think that Bachmann is the only idiot republican politician we have here in Minnesota, read on:

I am attaching a letter which I wrote to the then Senators of Minnesota and my representative here in Wayzata back in 2006.

Note that Democratic Senator Dayton was powerless, in the minority at the time and left the senate a couple months after I wrote this letter. The other two were Republicans and they have no excuses.

It is proof that these people knew what was coming and how they could stop it.

This is a verbatim letter, including the typo of usary instead of usury.

I have several degrees in Finance, Accounting, and Management Information Systems and a minor in Economics.

I simply know how all of this works.

--------------------------

Wayzata, Minnesota 55391

July 4, 2006

Mark Dayton, US Senator For Minnesota

Metro Area Office

Federal Building, Suite 298

Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111

and

Norm Coleman, US Senator For Minnesota

320 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

and

Jim Ramstad, US Congressman

103 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Reference: Usary Laws, Bankruptcy Laws, and The Law Of Unexpected Consequences.

Gentlemen:

The federal government has the right to control national banks and federally chartered banks. Such banks are able to ignore state usary limits where they exist. It is these banks which are the subject of this letter.

Back in the 1960s it was considered a federal crime to charge excessive interest rates for consumer loans. Interest rates were capped under Usary laws. These laws were aimed primarily at the Mafia and were intended to deprive the Mafia of interest earned in loan sharking operations, but they applied to everyone. A side benefit of the law was that banks behaved responsibly, giving loans only to people who clearly could pay them back, therefore keeping loan default rates low and allowing banks to operate within the revenues they were able to charge. In other words, as a side effect, with a lower potential for default, the banking system benefited from the law by being more stable.

Eventually inflation became so severe that these laws needed to be fixed. Under pressure from the banks these laws in fact were repealed ,and thereafter banks could charge virtually anything that they liked. This worked for a long time because debtors could always threaten bankruptcy to reign in the powers of the banks and so they in effect never charged anything that they liked. In other words, the usary laws were repealed in name only, so we never experienced a world without usary laws.

But this government has chosen to deprive citizens who still have valuable assets from getting out of paying debt which is owed to banks, etc. The issues which have been raised in defense of these changes in bankruptcy laws were issues of morality and responsibility. Ok, fine, but each party has to act morally and responsibly, not just debtors. What the government has now done is to force debtors to now pay whatever the bill is that is presented to them.

Now we are about to see a world where there truly are no more usary laws. Not in reality, not in practicality.

One family missing a payment on a credit card which is charging 9% interest, only to find that it becomes 35%, is a small tragedy. Now multiply that by 20,000,000. This is a formula for a financial slowdown to spiral out of control into a financial meltdown, and God help us if it does.

I am a systems analyst by professional and the most valuable thing that I know about all systems is that "if it can happen then it will happen eventually". If a financial meltdown can take place and if you have set up millions of American families to take a fall at the hands of the banks, then it is going to happen as sure as the sun rises in the East. Just get out your lawn chairs, face East and sit awhile.

But in the short run, people will suffer in silence for a while, losing a house here, a farm there until the middle class is slowly eroded, but then, something really bad will happen like the Far East financial meltdown that occured in the 90s. Then the damage will be sudden and widespread. People will not suffer in silence, they will fill the streets and with nothing to lose they will bring more than their anger with them.

There are no insurmoutable problems here. The financial system in this country is out of whack and equilibrium must be restored before it is too late. If you wait for a financial meltdown to transfer the wealth of the many debtors to the few super wealthy debt holders then you are waiting to see what the French Revolution has already shown us in crystal clarity, that the oppressed many end up pissing on the graves of the oppressing few.

When you voted to deprive debtors of declaring bankruptcy while allowing usarous interest rates then it was like destroying the safety valve on a boiler. Yes, things will go fine for a while, but then start to expect the expected.

The solution is simple -- Federal Usary laws must be re-established. Interest rates must be capped at levels which are moral and which an ordinary American can support in the event of an American or Global financial meltdown.

No one will ultimately benefit from the imbalance of rights and responsibilities in the financial system as they exist today in the USA. Not the middle class which will desert the Democrats and Republicans for extremist parties. Not the wealthy who will be dragged into the street and stomped on.

This isn't a Democrat thing. This isn't a Republican thing. So just do it and do it for the best reason of all, do it because you are not stupid. Re-instate Federal Usary laws.

Ultimately there is no down side. Voters will thank you. The wealthy, after they first curse and then think about it long enough, will thank you. However, I note that since the Republicans control everything they will absolutely be blamed when it all falls apart. Can you Republicans say "Herbert Hoover" ? Give it a try.

So what do you want, a usary law or a law of unexpected consequences ? There is no either or here, you will get one or you will get the other.

If you fail to act, and there eventually will be a financial meltdown and everything happens that I predict, and then I am going to make sure you guys get all the credit. A copy of this letter will go to the media.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

I can't believe this McCarthyist is trying to raise money on her unthinkable comments on Hardball. She is a prime example of what is exactly wrong with American politics and needs to go. Being a veteran of war, I took the time to e-mail this weasle to give her a piece of my mind. Don't worry...I still have a little left. I would urge everyone to stand up and take the time to e-mail this poor excuse of a servant of Americans and let her know we are tired of this useless rhetoric.

Simply--ubelieveable!!

This was obviously a hit piece. Matthews kept pushing and pushing and I thought Bachmann resisted taking the bait. What's the controversy?

Already donated to the Tinklenberg campaign after watching her on MSNBC. She regularly appears on CNN. Her comments were not an accident, she is "Ann Coulter" in congress. To date, Tinklenberg has received over $1 million from 26,000 people all over the country since her comments, and it's growing. I might contribute again. No, money doesn't mean Tinklenberg is going to win, but it gives him a better chance. It's worth the money to see this woman lose.

To david do you understand what you saw if you dont I am a first grade teacher and I can use colors and shapes to help you out. This woman is the worst she was baited but she took it and said some things she shouldnt have McCain should have picked her

What's the controversy?

Posted by: david | October 23, 2008 11:09 AM

There is none when you share the same divisive gutter ideas as her. This McCarthyism you hold so dear is the most "unamerican" garbage and has no place in a presidential race. You absolutely ignore the fact that many brave men and women who may be "liberal", gave the ultimate sacrifice for this country and you do a great disservice to them with this slime politics. How dare you disgrace their service for your warped political views.

I wonder how outraged Bachmann gets when "[Conservative pundits and politicians do what THEY'RE] paid big bucks to do: Twist [liberals'] words and set them up for full-fledged distortion." "And, when the [conservative] blogs [get] hold of little clips ..., the spin machine really [kicks] into overdrive. ... They're motivated entirely by their hatred of [liberals and liberal] beliefs."

Obviously, this is a case of conservatives wanting to stop the lies, hypocrisy and hatred -- but ONLY when it's applied to them. When they lie and cheat, it's okay because it's being done by "REAL" Americans for the benefit of "REAL" Americans.

This lady deserves to lose, and lose big-time.

david is just stressed out because he is fighting for real Americans in Iraq. He's very fortunate to have some free time to blog in between his house to house terrrist huntin'. Clearly this Congresswoman regrets that so many people heard her true feelings. That is all the apology I need.

FYI, it is not not the "Democrat Farm Labor" party. The formal name is the "Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party." The Farmer-Labor Party had roots in the NonPartisan League and elected senators and governors in Minnesota in the 20s and 30s. It merged with the state Democratic Party in 1944. For obvious reasons, most folks here refer to it simply as the "DFL" (except for the many petty Republicans who say 'Democrat Party' -- even Senator Coleman used that appellation in his address to the RNC).

David -- Did you not hear the part where Chris Matthews asked, basically, how many of your colleagues do you suspect are anti-American? And she launched into her tirade of the media needs to do an expose into members of Congress and see who is pro-America and who is anti-America? There was no twisting of words there. She didn't "fall into a trap." It's people as narrow-minded as Bachmann who are destroying this country. This attitude of extremism, of if you don't hold the same beliefs as I do makes you anti-American and a potential terrorist is simply shameful. We went through this once before. We don't need to do it again.

"I can't believe this McCarthyist is trying to raise money on her unthinkable comments on Hardball."

Life rule # : Birds of a feather FLOCK Together.

There are many more Bachmanns out there, even if most of this board can't comprehend that statement and doesn't want to believe that others could.

"This was obviously a hit piece. Matthews kept pushing and pushing and I thought Bachmann resisted taking the bait. What's the controversy?

Posted by: david | October 23, 2008 11:09 AM
"

Please explain how he "baited" her? I know she SAYS that she was "baited" but how about offering up something specific? Like telling us HOW she was "baited" and how her words got "twisted"...

Liars.

Chris Matthews continuously attempted to get her to say Obama and others were anti American. She never said he was, only that he associates with those who have themselves indicated they have a significantly negative view of the country. People will hear what they want to hear based on the speakers political affiliation. Listen to the interview and identify the number of times Chris Matthews interrupts (some due to the delay of course) and asks if someone in particular is anti American. How many times does she reiterate that she believes Obama's associates are who she is attempting to discuss.

I wish Chris Matthews would put this much vigor into some interviews of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Perhaps if he were to do some research on the ones who make his legs tingle we could really make an informed decision in a few weeks.

Jake, you are right. People will hear what they want to hear. I saw this live and did not know it would turn into this. However, she could have very easily clarified her remarks at the time she was speaking. She did not! He kept pressing her to give SPECIFIC DETAILS to statements SHE was making. Listen again. Was he aggressive. Yes, he always his (he told a democratic strategist that he was "flat out wrong" on trying to defend Obama's decision to opt out of public financing after he said he would not) but in no way did he bait her to run her mouth the way she did. SHE STEPPED IN IT. it's her mess on her shoes and I don't believe anybody should help her clean the "stink" off.