Mann to Man

The American Condition Politically, Culturally, Economically

My Photo
Location: Williamsburg, VA, United States

Raised in rural Greenbrier Co. WV, BS Chemistry WVU, PhD Chemistry, GA Tech,Chemistry Faculty, GA Tech, 1965-1969, Dir R&D BASF Fibers 1969-1982,Sr.Exec. R&D, Burlington Industries, 1982-1986,Owner/CEO Mann Industries (formerly BASF fibers)1988-1995, CEO/Owner The Mann Group Consultants, 1987-2009, wife Carol, daughters Leigh, Susan

Tuesday, March 29, 2016


Hillary Clinton for president?? The best among us no longer present for elective office and American voters willfully vote for the worst who do.”

Hillary Clinton is, frankly, a disgusting person. Bill Clinton is little better, if any. Neither fundamental honesty, nor good character nor intellectual integrity define them. And, Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite to be elected president. I am totally saturated with their dishonesty, corruption, their feeding at the troughs of government, businesses and academic institutions. The effect of their presence in the American political arena is not positive. Oh how far they have strayed from the personal doctrine of Harry Truman who declared he would not use his fame and his office for personal monetary gain. And, he lived by that declaration. Both Clintons are the antithesis of Truman. They use their government positions, past and present, to siphon 100's of millions of dollars from businesses, academic institutions and from whomever wants to use them to access the feeding trough of the US government and and institutions where Clinton influence can be beneficial.

Both are serial liars. Harsh word but justifiable. Hillary Clinton lost jobs early in her career allegedly for lying. She has been deep in scandals most of her public career and is so immersed currently for what surely appears to be deliberate malfeasance, possibly criminal, in her position of Secretary of State. Yet the probability of her being the Democrat/”Progressive” Party's nominee and of her becoming President of the United States is quite high. While she is under investigation by the FBI, I doubt she'll be indicted in spite of any evidence that would justify it. Both Clintons always manage to avoid accountability for their malfeasance.

Bill Clinton continues too speak utterly disingenuously about past economic conditions, including both those during his presidency as well as the conditions of G. W. Bush's time. As he did in the 2012 election, Clinton rails about the failed policies of the past. Most recently he has re-claimed the left-wing mantra, “trickle- down economics.” He's not telling the truth about any aspect of past economies, not much truth at all. The economy during his administration was largely good, not because of his actions but more because he was held in check by a Gingrich-led Congress. This is not meant to imply that he was overall a “failed” president. He did well in some ways such as welfare reform. But, his action on the home mortgage business, his bastardizing of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 to be exact, was the precursor to the economic melt-down of 2008. The economic effect was, and is, hugely negative. However, most do not know that Clinton was complicit, the precursor in fact, and are reluctant to admit it when revealed to them. Media have been loathe to publish anything negative about Clinton. So, how was Clinton's action a precursor to the economic meltdown?

In 1994, Clinton with assistance of Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, an executive from the large money center banks and 26 years at Goldman Sachs, finally as co-chairman, pushed for mortgages for about any buyer who applied for one. Qualifications were minimized and even eliminated in some cases. No document (“no doc”) loans were common. Some traditionally conservative banks were pushed hard, even intimidated, to grant mortgages to unqualified home buyers. Some more aggressive banks got into the game seeing it as a way to grant mortgages with low initial interest rates that could, in months, be raised to much higher rates with what would be large financial returns. That is, if borrowers did not default! But, they did! Some banks even granted bonuses to loan production people to bring bad credit to the banks.

In 1995 mortgages were granted at 2.5 times the number in 1994 and 4 times any previous year, prior to the qualification changes. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac absorbed these mortgages and took huge losses. But, ultimately, taxpayers paid the highest price for the financial malfeasance!

To complete the malpractice in finance, Glass Stegall, the statute that prevented commercial banks from participating in business other than banking, was repealed. Glass-Stegall prevented banks from
doing business in securities investments. Repeal of Glass-Stegall paved the way for investment banks, like Rubin's Goldman Sachs to participate in any aspect of banking. The bill to repeal Glass Stegall was carried in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm and Representatives Tom Bliley and Jim Leach. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law in 1999. Only someone in denial would not think Robert Rubin, the investment banker, was involved in this repeal. Anyway, it paved the way to complete the debacle of granting mortgages to unqualified home owners. Bill Clinton never acknowledges his complicity and his compliant sycophantic media give him a pass.

Absent the constraints of Glass Stegall, money center investment banks bundled aforementioned “bad” mortgages into what they named Structured Investment Vehicles (SIV's) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO's). That is, huge investment vehicles without asset backing. Stability and any return to investors depended entirely on the individual loan holders in the bundle not defaulting. People who had no qualifications and some with no employment defaulted in large numbers, as should have been expected. The “house of cards” came tumbling down.

All of these actions were precursors to the economic melt-down of 2008. Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin were responsible for using the CRA as justification for expanding the mortgage/banking to unreliable buyers and the whole US economy virtually collapsed. Taxpayers and the nation paid the highest price when forced to bail out banks. To be fair, it should be noted that President Bush, while not a party in the financial scheme, did endorse it with the “house for everyone” notion he put forth.

Bill Clinton is being utterly intellectually dishonest when he speaks of failed “policies of the past” and does not admit his own complicity.

Now we have Hillary Clinton feeding heavily from the banking troughs at more than $220K per speech, plus and equal amount in expenses, to Wall Street banks, $675K from Goldman Sachs alone. She also charges similar fees to speak to colleges where cost to matriculate at most is becoming prohibitive for many.

It's also reported, by the venerable Dr. Charles Krauthammer for one, that the Clinton's company in Canada is nothing more than a money laundering operation. The two Clintons, and their daughter, have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it under the guise of the Clinton Foundation. Millions of foreign dollars flow through these operations. Who can assert that this money, including foreign sourced, does not flow into Hillary Clinton's campaign.

With the misdeeds of both Clintons elucidated, none should ignore the factors as disqualifying her for the presidency? Unfortunately, millions of “Progressive Democrat” voters will ignore the facts and are likely to elect her. Seems each election finds us sinking to a new low. We do, too often, elect the worst who present for elective office.

How far we have strayed from the founders' vision that accomplished people, those of achievement in private life would lend themselves, their knowledge, skills, and proven expertise to the masses, the public, for a period of time and then return to their private life and enterprises. Today demonstrated achievements are not considered necessary. Who's to blame? Voters!

For extensive details, please enter in the search block of this blog - "ECONOMY OF THE 90s" June 11, 20122 and

Tuesday, March 8, 2016


Response to a reader who downed the 2-party system while promoting European proportional representation ignoring true cause of our American problems today.

Once again confusion of cause and effect, essentially equating them. Did we become the greatest nation ever by copying the blueprint of others, some of which failed long ago? No. Have we destroyed much of what we created by trying to copy these others, even failed ones? YES. And the march goes on with profound, unjustified bias and with ignoring root cause of problems, many of which are based in the misguided philosophy that the disciples of said philosophy still promote. And, so goes the cultural revolution as we march to perdition apparently wanting it so. Took me a long time to realize that the decadence, loss of primacy and diminished supremacy in the world are the goals of the revolutionaries. I once thought I could help stop the losses, alas it's seemingly impossible. The farther we fall at 980.665 ft per second per second (gravity), the harder we hit and the greater the destruction (perdition).


This post is a response to a friend who posited that the 2-party system is a failure and that all should simply think and do what is "best for America." Who can argue with the latter part of that?? However, analytical problem-solving methodology will identify what we did right and what we've done wrong since we created the greatest nation on earth and have been destroying it for many decades. This post will be expanded later.

It's inarguable that if we had Utopia, all would be good. I remember the beginning of the cultural revolution that "we'll all get along" and all will be well. That evolved very quickly to mean that if we all join the revolution, driven largely by the sub-culture, and all agree to their demands we will have Utopia. What we've gotten is not Utopia but the death of traditional America, the one with the principles that you and I grew up with. So, again without analyzing what made us the greatest nation and what destroyed that greatness is ignored if we don't analyze what we did right and what we did wrong. To jump way ahead of the argument that I try to write about as "The American Condition," it's not the party system or the republic form of government that failed for systemic problems, it's the quality, lack of it, of people who have "led" us for many decades. I have a quote floating around the world now that says, "The best among us no longer present for elective office and American voters willfully vote for the worst who do." Our current elected people (not leaders at all) epitomize that starting with the "president." When George Washington was approached to be our first president he asked, "Have I not done enough for my country yet?" Of course he had, but he relented and did more. At the beginning of the cultural revolution, John Kennedy admirably admonished, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Reagan saw the "shining city on a hill" and governed accordingly while getting excoriated, and still does, by the counter-culture. And now Obama. "We are the people we have been waiting for. " And, "We are 19 days away from transforming America and then we'll change the world." After election he went on his "disparagement of America campaign." I'm writing too much, so I'll close this out by saying, The party system once worked, although it has problems and we created a great nation when we had credible leaders and a culture that lasted from our founding until about the 50's. We have strayed so far from the founders' vision based upon electing accomplished people to key offices who would lend their knowledge, talents etc. to the people for a period then retreat to their roots and let another accomplished person lead. How far we've strayed as we have truly bred mediocrity and a state of societal decadence that most choose to ignore and don't look back and understand what we did right and what we did wrong. BTW, nowhere is this failed policy more evident than in the ACA (aka Obamacare).