The Three-Eyed Fish

Today, Wall Street soared mightily because Obama sent trillions of taxpayer dollars in gifts.

Yesterday, Obama accepted yet another invitation from 60 Minutes . This time Obama’s star turn did not include his muscular, scowling, lantern-jawed wife. She was busy with her own pretend garden of arugula.



The not serious Obama laughed heartily and repeatedly. Why not? He’s having a great time on TV and at dinners with $100 a pound steak paid for by American taxpayers and Chinese creditors.

Obama is not a serious man. Obama’s “plans” are not geared to help the economy, but rather aimed at political goals. When the bill arrives to be paid, like the $100 a pound steak, American taxpayers will once again have to pay.



* * * * *

Today Obama released the old George W. Bush Paulson plan on “toxic assets”. No surprise. Obama is the Third Bush Term. Franklin Roosevelt in the first couple of days completely restructured the failed finance system. Barack Obama is dedicated to band-aid the corrupt mess that passes for a finance system.

Today Barack Obama’s ventriloquist dummy and tax cheat, Tim Geithner, released a “plan” for Bad Bank Assets.

Paul Krugman, the former favorite Nobel prize winner of the Hopium addled, assessed the “plan” yesterday in a widely circulated blog post.

If the reports are correct, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy — specifically, the “cash for trash” plan proposed, then abandoned, six months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair.

Krugman measures the surge wall of Obama’s Katrina

And now Mr. Obama has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they’re doing.

It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. [snip]

Right now, our economy is being dragged down by our dysfunctional financial system, which has been crippled by huge losses on mortgage-backed securities and other assets. [snip]

And so the plan is to use taxpayer funds to drive the prices of bad assets up to “fair” levels. Mr. Paulson proposed having the government buy the assets directly. Mr. Geithner instead proposes a complicated scheme in which the government lends money to private investors, who then use the money to buy the stuff. The idea, says Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, is to use “the expertise of the market” to set the value of toxic assets.

But the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

Remember when Big Pink was mocked for the argument “Obama is the Third Bush Term”?

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, there’s something strange going on here. By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a new set of bells and whistles and claiming that they’re doing something completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.

Remember when Big Pink was attacked for the statement that Obama is a boob and a dud?

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact.

Big Pink is not alone in denouncing the TOTUS Boobery Tim foolery:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao softly announced a couple of weeks ago that his government, which holds nearly $700 billion in U.S. treasury bonds, was concerned about the wisdom of Obama’s policies.

Over the past week the combination of alarming economic news and lighter-than-air presidential showbiz appearances and gaffes has multiplied. Last Thursday the U.S. government announced a colossal $1.2 trillion bailout plan to rescue America’s banks. That same evening Obama appeared with Jay Leno on NBC’s “The Tonight Show.” The first sitting president ever to appear on the show made an unintentionally insulting gaffe, laughingly comparing his poor bowling skills to those of the physically disadvantaged competitors of the Special Olympics. The day before, on March 18, the president took part in the NCAA picks on ESPN. No sitting president has ever done that before either. [snip]

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who inherited the worst economic crisis in American history and eventually led the nation out of it, was famous for his joyous good cheer and infectious love of life. But his national media appearances, though many, were never trivial. FDR’s legendary fireside chats were all serious lectures to and engagements with the American people to discuss the nature of the many problems facing the country and explain why the president was taking the actions he regarded as appropriate to solve them.

Will the toxic Toxic Waste Plan work? NO.

Why cancel it? Because it won’t solve the problem and it will waste more taxpayer money. I know nothing about politics, but my hunch is that people won’t be too happy when they find out that more of their money is going to enrich further hedge funds and private equity firms whose partners make bigger bucks — one of them made $3.7 billion in 2007 alone — than the bankers who got $16 billion in bonuses from taxpayer pockets in 2008.

Obama is looting the economy to help his friends (remember when Big Pink was attacked for saying just that?):

Here’s what the toxic waste plan looks like to me. Three of the world’s wealthiest investors came up with an idea to use taxpayer money to enrich themselves even more. These three have already played the U.S. for suckers:

PIMCO’s Bill Gross who already talked the U.S. into bailing out his investments in Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) and now manages two big government investment programs,

Berkshire Hathaway’s (BRK.A) Warren Buffett whose 20 percent stake in Moody’s (MCO) makes him strangely mute about Moody’s role in giving toxic waste AAA ratings which fueled the financial crisis, and

Goldman Sachs Group’s (GS) Lloyd Blankfein whose firm got $12.9 billion in bailout money from American International Group’s (AIG) $170 billion bailout fund.

Their plan is simple: private investors get the profits from buying toxic waste and taxpayers cover the losses. How so? The FDIC would run an auction for a lender to sell, say, $10 million worth of residential mortgages. If the winning bidder — a hedge fund or private equity firm — paid $8 million, the FDIC would lend money to pay for those mortgages and then would cover 75 percent of the investor’s losses. Treasury would contribute 80 percent of the rest of the cost of the loans.

As I see it, this means that hedge funds and private equity firms will pay virtually nothing for the assets, the taxpayer will incur most of the losses and all the profits, if any, from buying these assets will go to the hedge funds and private equity firms. And since the FDIC and the so-called Public Investment Corp. — the public/private partnership that will buy the assets — can only buy $500 to $750 billion worth of the loans, you’ll create two other programs whose details have not been worked out.

The Toxic Plan, like Obama and Geithner, is toxic:

What’s wrong with this idea? Here are six things that come to mind:

It’s too small to buy enough of the toxic waste. If my estimate is correct, there is $13 trillion worth of toxic waste — mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations — that’s been issued. This $1 trillion program only buys up 8% of that total. This is not enough to make a difference.

It does not deal with the pricing problem. [snip] …it will leave taxpayers with an enormous loss. The pricing problem could make the whole idea a non-starter since neither buyer nor seller will agree on a price.

It’s a government program for the already wealthy. Berkshire Hathaway, PIMCO, and Goldman Sachs are already very wealthy and your program will grant such investors government contracts to manage these assets. And it looks like they could get to invest as well so there’s a good chance they’ll have inside information from their advisory role that they can use to enrich themselves further.

Taxpayers are likely to lose money. This plan is too heavily skewed to enrich the private interests who will invest in these assets. As the example above illustrates, the government will take the risk if private investors overpay and the collateral for the government loans is illiquid and likely to be worth little — therefore government loan losses will likely be high as well.

Lack of detail could spook investors. [snip]

Money that could be lent directly will go into a black hole. Perhaps the worst part of the plan is that it’s not going to get credit flowing into the economy. By creating new banks, the money being used to prop up the zombie banks could be lent directly to those individuals and businesses who would be in a position to use that money wisely and pay it back. Instead, the hundreds of billions of dollars from your toxic waste proposal will go to zombie banks that will not get enough toxic waste relief to boost lending.

Obama can’t be trusted and Obama is a boob.



Obama can’t be trusted and Obama is a boob. And as Democrats know – because we said it enough and yelled it enough – during the George W. Bush years: The fish rots from the top.

Obama can’t be trusted and Obama is a boob and Obama is toxic. It is not just the plans that are toxic.

Like a fisherman who pulls in a three-eyed fish from a toxic lake, the solution is to throw the corrupt Chicago crimelords, and Obama back into the slimy waters of Lake Michigan along with his lantern jawed, muscular, scowling, wife.

Share

165 thoughts on “The Three-Eyed Fish

  1. Great post, admin. You nailed it. I posted some of the following below, but will repost it here:

    This plan will NOT rein in Wall Street’s gamblers anonymous behavior, it will encourage MORE of it.

    Let’s say they were playing Blackjack, and going further in the hole with each hand. If they win, they win $1, and if they lose, they lose $1, and they’ve kept losing. Instead of holding pat with a 17 like reasonable gamblers, they’ve spent the last years saying “HIT ME”, repeatedly, and getting further and further in the hole, betting on these toxic mortgages. Debt upon debt, all piled on top of one mortgage, like an endless round of Blackjack.

    No one has stopped the game and made them take their losses yet. No one has has even tried to say “Hey, we are going to stop the game, make everyone cash out, and if the losses are too big for the economy to bear, we’ll even throw in and help bear some of it.” Because even THAT generous offer wouldn’t be enough for these greedy gamblers.

    No, what Geithner’s plan does is to tell them “Guess what? the game is still in session, no none has to cash out, and we’re going to fix it so that if you take another card and win, you get the profit from your $1 bet. If you take another card and lose, you only lose .20, and the taxpayer is covering the rest.”

    Sweet deal, huh? So what will a proven compulsive gambler do in that situation? Amend his ridiculously risky behavior, or step it up a notch, seeing an opportunity not only to cover his losses, but to make a killing? Good Lord, he’ll be saying “HIT ME!” when he’s holding a 19!

    That is precisely what they are doing. If YOU went to Vegas, and got told that you could bet all you wanted, all the wins would be yours to keep, and all the losses would be 80% covered by someone else, what would you do?

    Of COURSE Wall Street is thrilled with this news. Why wouldn’t they be? There is no downside for these private equity and hedge funds, and none for the banks. All the downside will come out of OUR pockets, and any gains made will go into theirs.

  2. So, Admin, does this mean I can arrange, through the government to purchase at least 3 properties that I see going under in my family, and if and when those values do not return to a higher level, I can walk away from those loans with the Government picking up the tab? If they increase, I can sell and pocket the profit.

    SOUND LIKE A WIN WIN FOR THE INVESTOR, AND A LOSE LOSE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Am I right in that the American people loan the money to the investor, and then the American people pay for the property again when the mortgage fails.

    Sorry I am so dense.

  3. NMF, peon smalltime investors like you and I will not be allowed a seat at the table for this gambling game.

    It’s a private high-rollers club, open only to the hedge funds private equity boyz.

  4. Great article Admin!!!

    What a nasty, nasty scheme. The people who caused this debacle, end up as winners, pay no penalties, and the American people are screwed once again.

    “Obama can’t be trusted and Obama is a boob. And as Democrats know – because we said it enough and yelled it enough – during the George W. Bush years: The fish rots from the top.

    Obama can’t be trusted and Obama is a boob and Obama is toxic. It is not just the plans that are toxic.

    Like a fisherman who pulls in a three-eyed fish from a toxic lake, the solution is to throw the corrupt Chicago crimelords, and Obama back into the slimy waters of Lake Michigan along with his lantern jawed, muscular, scowling, wife.”

    This administration is toxic, toxic, and only becoming more toxic.

  5. That is precisely what they are doing. If YOU went to Vegas, and got told that you could bet all you wanted, all the wins would be yours to keep, and all the losses would be 80% covered by someone else, what would you do?
    ***********
    The Bush/Cheney Republican business model…”Privatize the profits..Socialize the losses”

  6. well, you can’t even get into a hedge fund unless you have around 100,000 MINIMUM to invest, and some of them are higher. So no, Joe Average Investor will not get any of this action, since the ones being allowed to do this are all going to be hand-picked hedge funds and PE firms.

    Also, they are not just buying the original mortgages. They are buying the credit default swaps – which are like layers and layers of “side bets” made on that mortgage. Often the side bets amount to 10 or 20 times the value of the actual, real property. No way is any piece of property going to appreciate to 20 times its current value, not even if the housing market rebounded with a vengeance. With credit default swaps, they have made side bets on these mortgages, and all played bookie for each other, and one bookie will buy up the “bet” of another bookie, ad infinitum.

    The problem isn’t just the mortgages. The problem is that these bozos own a lot of “bookie slips” on bets they have made on the mortgages, and they’ve been playing musical chairs with them, selling and trading them back and forth with each other in the hopes that they are not the one left holding it when the game gets called and everyone has to cash out.

  7. Gotta love this quote from Admin “the muscular, scowling, lantern jawed wife. 😆 🙂 If this shit wasn’t so serious and all.

    I swear the more I see of that interview, I believe he was high.

  8. Isn’t this similar to what happened before the Great Depression? People were buying on margin, and when the bets were called in, everything collapsed?

  9. speaking of mortgages, I watched this program last night that made an excellent case for renting versus owning. I despise this place we just bought and I wish I had rented for a while first. We got this place under the appraisal but that was 6 months ago .. I don’t know if I’d even want to know what it’s value is now. I know this much, I hate this place. I dont’ even want to clean anymore. It’s a really nice home but I just hate the neighborhood.

  10. I find it kind of funny yet I find it kind of sad that during all the hoopla about the execs bonuses noone talked about how it became very very difficult for the average joe to file for bankruptcy. It’s a mad world.

  11. wonder where the saing “Lantern jaw” orginated? I’m feeling a little high this evening and I don’t drink or snort.

  12. i pray tomorrow night is just more of blah blah blah but I have a fear he is going to drop something big.

  13. yeah henry and the fact that these big ass companies are raising credit card rates and slashing credit lines for the “taxpayers” who are funneling their big bail out and bonuses. I hope they all take the shit tank myself. We owe some credit cards and have always had good credit and then I charged 68.49 and got my card cut from 7500.00 to 5000.00. Hadn’t used the card in ages and then they raised my rate. I’m paying the $68.49 and I’m writing them a nasty ass letter as well. I’d close the card except they say it hurts your credit rating. We’ve had that Chase card forever.

  14. hell Henry what else could he drop. Every American right now owes 120,000 to cover the bailouts. Just saw it on Fox news. I don’t have grandkids so I’ll take my part of the debt to my grave.

    What worries me is that a lot of people are putting faith in how the market goes … if it goes up they think the bad is over. Guy on Fox Business says we should be very, very careful.

  15. Well we know for a fact he’ll have Ole Teleprompter on hand. Without his MajicMan he’s a complete doofus. Or is that BOOB.

  16. don’t you just love the the New York Times is backpedalling on the ObamaLove(tm) right now.

    Of course Maureen Dowd thinks LanternJaw(tm) MEschelle should be in the Oval. (did I say I despise Maureen Dowd and would like to slap her silly)

  17. can you believe that Feinstein is complaining about putting solar plants in the desert? This shit just gets better and better. NIMBY

  18. dot48
    I am with you. I actually spent part of my day in common pleas court. Not fun but an experience I will be grateful to have had. How many people over the last ten years no make that 5 got the 6,000 loan check in the mail which all they had to do was endorse and deposit? If you are broke it is way to tempting so you do it, and how many companies over extended credit to people that in any other environment would have been told no. How many comuter companies or rather electronic stores jumped on the same bandwagon and then take a look at which bank was behind most of it– I don’t have any real data but everyone I know who got into hoc was over extended by hsbc. Who own them and why did they go hog wild three years ago with extending credit?

  19. dot48
    I meant big like he will be able to distract in capital letters from the fact that he is a putz.

  20. dot48 Says:
    March 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
    wonder where the saing “Lantern jaw” orginated?
    ********
    From the OED:
    Long thin jaws, giving a hollow appearance to the cheek. Hence lantern-jawed a., having lantern-jaws.
    [1362 LANGL. P. Pl. A. VII. 163 Hongur..buffetede the Brutiner aboute bothe his chekes; He lokede lyk a lanterne al his lyf after.] a1700 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Lantern jaw’d, a very lean, thin faced Fellow. 1707 J. STEVENS Quevedo’s Com. Wks. (1709) 372 A Lanthorn-Jaw’d Woman, with a Hatchet-Face. 1711 ADDISON Spect. No. 173 {page}5 A Plough~man..being very lucky in a Pair of long Lanthorn-Jaws, wrung his face into..a hideous Grimace. 1778 WOLCOT (P. Pindar) Poetic Ep. Reviewers Wks. 1812 I. 3 The censure dire my lantern jaws will rue. 1818 SCOTT Rob Roy vi, His lantern jaws and long chin assumed the appearance of a pair of nut-crackers. 1848 THACKERAY Van. Fair xxix, Drink yourself, and light up your lantern jaws, old boy. 1865 TYLOR Early Hist. Man. ii. 30 To give himself a lantern-jawed look.

  21. dot48 Says:
    wonder where the saing “Lantern jaw” orginated?
    ********
    From the OED:

    Long thin jaws, giving a hollow appearance to the cheek. Hence lantern-jawed a., having lantern-jaws.
    [1362 LANGL. P. Pl. A. VII. 163 Hongur..buffetede the Brutiner aboute bothe his chekes; He lokede lyk a lanterne al his lyf after.] a1700 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Lantern jaw’d, a very lean, thin faced Fellow. 1707 J. STEVENS Quevedo’s Com. Wks. (1709) 372 A Lanthorn-Jaw’d Woman, with a Hatchet-Face. 1711 ADDISON Spect. No. 173 {page}5 A Plough~man..being very lucky in a Pair of long Lanthorn-Jaws, wrung his face into..a hideous Grimace. 1778 WOLCOT (P. Pindar) Poetic Ep. Reviewers Wks. 1812 I. 3 The censure dire my lantern jaws will rue. 1818 SCOTT Rob Roy vi, His lantern jaws and long chin assumed the appearance of a pair of nut-crackers. 1848 THACKERAY Van. Fair xxix, Drink yourself, and light up your lantern jaws, old boy. 1865 TYLOR Early Hist. Man. ii. 30 To give himself a lantern-jawed look.

  22. I’d like to know how many of you all would be able to go to your bank and say “Hey, I wanna buy some BAD/TOXIC assets. Will you loan me the money?” We’d be friggin sent to the looney bin.

    And who the hell wants to own a fcuking BAD ASSET. I mean this whole definition screams “LOSS”.

    I hope I don’t own a friggin BAD asset. I don’t know of anywhere on the loan applications from my bank that asks for “bad assets” .. they wanna know what “assets” I own but BAD assets.

  23. henry, at one time the credit card companies went wild. We got cards from just about everyplace .. without even applying for many of them. I remember going to Sears to buy a big screen and the spill was get 10% off by putting the purchase on our credit card. Sticker shock came with the interest rate. I hope that something is done about the leechs

  24. yeah Bird, thats the shock of this! We are OWNING this shit and the AIGS and CITCORPS get the bonus. What is wrong with this picture. A lot of people just don’t understand this. I see a lot of people who are just tuning this out and figuring hey, it’ll fall on future generations and I just want to get by day to day. It’s awful.

  25. Business heads on Fox says that once realism sets in this week over this plan, the Dow will most like lose everything it gained today.

  26. wbboei Says:
    March 23rd, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    Your scenario assumes he will be successful and destroy the country. Others assume he will be unsuccessul and destroy the country. There is a third possibility that he will be unsuccessful and the country will survive.

    ================

    $10 on 3.

  27. henry Says:
    March 23rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    His laughter IMHO opinion was intentional. Far far too many people school this guy for him to make that big of a mistake and then after he jokes about it the freaking teleprompter of the country the stocks go up almost 7%. Lay money on the markets being up before his speech tomorrow too.

    ===============

    Hm. How much money would it take to make this kind of moves if someone was doing it to make Obama look good? (And could they do it without endangering their money?)

  28. dot48 Says:

    March 23rd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
    Business heads on Fox says that once realism sets in this week over this plan, the Dow will most like lose everything it gained today.

    ———————————————————————————————

    It is most likely a “dead cat bounce.” Nothing is propping it up.

    A dead cat bounce is a figurative term used by traders in the finance industry to describe a pattern wherein a spectacular decline in the price of a stock is immediately followed by a moderate and temporary rise before resuming its downward movement, with the connotation that the rise was not an indication of improving circumstances in the fundamentals of the stock. It is derived from the notion that “even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height”.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce

  29. What ever happened to the story on JP Morgan spending millions of dollars on new jets plus a hangar?

  30. dot48 said:
    Really though, he has no clue to whats happening and the laughter IMO fits his profile.

    ===============

    It’s how he’s deflected criticism ( or serious questioning) of himself for decades.

  31. Well…they can run but they can’t hide…lol…

    AIG starts makeover, changes sign at N.Y. office: Ailing insurer looking to overhaul name that has become scorn of America.

    NEW YORK – Workmen rolled up their sleeves at American International Group Inc this weekend to take down the most prominent sign at the downtown Manhattan offices of the embattled insurer that has become the scorn of America.

    A spokesman said the company had decided to replace the large AIG sign — outside the entrance to its property-casualty offices — as part of its plan to change that operation’s name to AIU Holdings Ltd.

    The move is designed to “distinguish these well-capitalized businesses from AIG,” said a second spokesman

    msnbc.msn.com/id/29834658/

  32. The Bush/Cheney Republican business model…”Privatize the profits..Socialize the losses”
    ————————–
    Accurate and succinct as it applies to Mr. Obama.

  33. turndownobama-com Says:

    March 23rd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
    dot48 said:
    Really though, he has no clue to whats happening and the laughter IMO fits his profile.

    ===============

    It’s how he’s deflected criticism ( or serious questioning) of himself for decades.
    *********************************

    He was probably trying to touch him too! He is always trying to do that I am in charge touch crap.

  34. David Gergen weasels his way around the question of whether or not the toxic plan will work:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/23/will-the-geithner-plan-work/

    …the stock market rallied sharply in the opening hours. But the real test will come over time: will the private investors actually come up and buy enough of the toxic assets? We may have to wait a number of weeks to know for sure.

    What we do know is that the Obama administration is offering extremely favorable terms to the potential investors. The government, as The New York Times reported this morning, would lend private investors nearly 95 percent of the money for an investment. (Here’s an irony: at the very moment we are trying to deleverage the economy, the government is now using the principle of leverage to revive it). Moreover, if the investment goes bad, the private investor is only on the hook for the small portion it put in originally – not for the full amount of the purchase. Yes, the government will share in profits, but if the toxic assets go up sharply in value – as the government hopes – the private investor could make piles and piles of money.

    Two questions immediately arise. The first is that raised by Paul Krugman, the Nobel-prize winning economist who has been slamming this plan unmercifully because he believes that Geithner has way too rosy a view of the underlying value of the assets. He thinks that investors, realizing that these assets aren’t really worth very much, won’t want to invest at the prices that the banks will insist on and the whole plan will ultimately fail.[snip]

    But there is a second question lurking that really only the President and Congress can answer: that is, whether private investors can have confidence that if they do invest, the lynch mob mentality we saw last week in Washington won’t come and plague them in the future. As the managing director of a major hedge fund told me recently, if this plan is good enough, our firm stands to make money. But then why should we invest if Washington is then going to get mad, take 90% of our profits from us retroactively and if I may be hauled up before Congress and vilified? Good question.

  35. …’they’, O and his Chicago thugs, and Wall St are robbing us blind…

    what little there is left to steal will be gone…gone with the wind…

  36. OT, but here’s a spot of humor: My 2-year-old granddaughter has taken to “reading”. Not just her books with pictures, but my own books, the older kids books, etc. She sits down, opens it up, runs her fingers along the text, and “reads” it to herself.

    So today she was doing this, and I went over to take a gander at what book she had. It was The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection From the Living Dead

    Ummm…coincidence, or does the 2-year-old know something about the economy? :-O

  37. Gerghen has a terminal case of Potomic Fever.

    A lynch mob mentality? Really?

    Or, perhaps legitimate skepticism about the merits of the plan, the equities and whether it will adversely affect their future. After all David they are the ones who will be paying for it.

    So do everyone a favor and step down off your high horse. If you want to be useful consider the following questions:

    1. do you really believe a trillion dollar payment will save the system?

    2. why should we enrich the people who caused the crisis?

    3. why is this heads I win tales you lose deal good for the taxpayer?

  38. HillaryforTexas,

    That is one smart granddaughter you have. Any chance you could convince her to run for potus??? 🙂

  39. HillaryforTexas: I think she knows more about the economy than obama and geithner put together. And of course she is not in the hip pocket of Wall Street.

  40. Dot,

    I thought he was on something also. It looks like he can hardly keep his eyes open and the way he laughed at something so serious, made me see red!

    Does anyone know if this was shown anywhere on TV? It should be.

    We aren’t going to be able to survive this joker for much longer. He needs to be impeached and soon.

  41. I haven’t seen the tv show with the laughter. But if Obama has resumed using cocaine or something like that … what will his handlers (Axelrod, Michelle, etc) do?

  42. Some say Bush was no tea totaller in the White House, the incident where he fell down comes to mind. I was really struck by the big smile also, as that is out of character for him, unless it envolves his family.

  43. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7851925a-17a2-11de-8c9d-0000779fd2ac.html

    China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

    In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”.

    Analysts said the proposal was an indication of Beijing’s fears that actions being taken to save the domestic US economy would have a negative impact on China.

    “This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

    Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.

  44. turndownobama-com Says:

    March 23rd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
    I haven’t seen the tv show with the laughter. But if Obama has resumed using cocaine or something like that … what will his handlers (Axelrod, Michelle, etc) do?

    ————————————-

    I dunno…maybe join him???

  45. Eric Cantor, the Republican House Whip agrees with Krugman:

    As described, the plan seems to offer little incentive for private investors to participate unless the subsidy is made so rich that it comes at the expense of the taxpayer. In its current form, Secretary Geithner’s plan is a shell game that hides the true cost of the program from the taxpayers that will be asked to pay for it. Six months after Congress debated the first TARP, it is inexcusable that taxpayers still have not been told their true exposure.

  46. Accurate and succinct as it applies to Mr. Obama.
    **********
    Obama=Bush third term

    Obama could have streamlined the process by keeping Paulson on.

  47. The “plan” might already be dead:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ay0Xgdn2tUK8&refer=home

    Investors should sell bank stocks after they rallied 12 percent today because the Treasury Department’s plan to buy toxic assets won’t stop profits from dropping, Bank of America Corp.’s Richard Bernstein said.

    Removing devalued loans and securities from banks’ balance sheets is a short-term solution that will delay the problem’s ultimate solution, which is bank takeovers, Bernstein said. The government won’t be able to inflate the prices banks receive for selling bad assets indefinitely, he added.

    “The history of bubbles shows quite well that financial sector consolidation is inevitable,” Bernstein, Bank of America’s chief investment strategist, wrote in a research note. “Financial stocks will be attractive when the government tries to speed up that inevitable process. However, to the contrary, the government continues to attempt to stymie that inevitable consolidation.”

  48. admin Says:

    March 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
    The “plan” might already be dead:

    —————————————————————————————-

    Doesn’t it sound like, Geithner”s plan is similar to what happened to Japan, in the “lost decade?” The Japanese economy started improving when the government stopped propping up the banks. One would think, the U.S. could learn from that experience.

    Wonder, if the market will go back down tomorrow.

  49. Admin, thank you for explaining this to us. I would have never understood this if it was not for you and the blog.

  50. So with confidence in obama, China is flexing it’s muscle in a potentially very dangerous powerplay.

  51. birdgal, they are pursuing exactly the same strategy that utterly failed in Japan and gave them a decade of recession. And our economy is starting out in worse shape than Japan’s was.

  52. My personal opinion is that Obama was selected to usher in the single monetary system. What would have happened had Hillary had to do it?? She would have been impeached. The puppeteers knew that America would not want to impeach the first black President. I think we will have a single monetary system to replace the dollar by the summer, anyone want to make a bet with me???

  53. Sen. Gregg: Obama Budget Will Bankrupt U.S.

    Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:03 AM

    Newsmax

    The top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee says the Obama administration is on the right course to save the nation’s financial system.

    But Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire also says President Barack Obama’s massive budget proposal will bankrupt the country.

    Gregg says he has no regrets in withdrawing his nomination to become commerce secretary. He pulled out after deciding he could not fully back the administration’s economic policies.

    The senator said Obama’s spending plan in the midst of a prolonged recession would leave the next generation with a country too expensive to live in.

    Gregg appeared Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

  54. China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.
    ——————————-
    I thought they might do this and have mentioned it here before. This is the shortcut to world government favored by globalists. It is the undoing of a constitutional system.

  55. March 21, 2009
    Too Clever by Half
    By David Warren

    It is now spring; the vernal equinox was reached Friday morning. To celebrate, Barack Obama sent a video of himself to Iran.

    This was one of several end-of-week media performances, as Mr. Obama went back into “campaign mode” after a break of several months. The message of the polls is that he had better start selling his policies harder, because they are showing signs of not going over very well. Moreover, the unpolled elites, including those within the Democratic Party, have started to ask questions aloud about whether their man is competent; and as we know from painful history, such uncertainties from an elite tend to “trickle down.”

    What the polls can’t say directly, and thus perhaps the White House can’t yet hear, is that the policies themselves are diminishing Mr. Obama’s appeal. There are indications of this in the polls themselves, but they are subtle. On one issue after another, from bail-outs to the environment, Medicare, life issues, foreign policy, the polls now tend to confirm what this pundit and a few other incorrigible reactionaries knew from the outset: that a plurality of American voters had embraced Mr. Obama not because of, but despite the policies he was signalling. They most certainly liked the man and his “temperament,” and they most certainly wanted the Republicans out. But it did not follow that they wanted their government to lurch to the left.

    To my analytical mind, such as it is, they wanted Obama the man, but not Obama the agenda, except for the uplifting rhetorical bits about “hope,” “change,” and so forth. The idea that the man could not be separated from the agenda never fully fixed; John McCain and company actually avoided riding home on this point, once the media made clear it would be reported as “scare tactics.”

    Again, to my mind — and it is the only one I have with which to write this column — we would be wrong to think of Mr. Obama as an ideologue. I think he was perfectly sincere in denying that he was anything of the sort, and in claiming that he would be looking for bipartisan consensus. I also think he is sincere in proceeding with an agenda — on bail-outs, the environment, Medicare, life issues, foreign policy, etc. — that leaves most Republicans, and quite a few of the more conservative Democrats, utterly aghast.

    How to explain this apparent contradiction? I’m afraid it is easy. As I mentioned during the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was seriously unqualified for the job of president. He had no practical experience in running anything, except political campaigns; but worse, his background was one-dimensional.

    All his life, from childhood through university through “community organizing” and Chicago wardheel politics, through Sunday mornings listening to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to the left side of Democrat caucuses in Springfield and Washington, he has been surrounded almost exclusively by extremely liberal people, and moreover, by people who are quick and clever but intellectually narrow.

    He is a free soul, but he is also the product of environments in which even moderately conservative ideas are never considered; but where people on the further reaches of the left are automatically welcomed as “avant-garde.” His whole idea of where the middle might be, is well to the left of where the average American might think it is. To a man like Obama, as he has let slip on too many occasions when away from his teleprompter, “Middle America” is not something to be compromised with, but rather, something that must be manipulated, because it is stupid. And the proof that it can be manipulated, is that he is the president today.

    It is at this point that the phenomenon known as “too clever by half” sets in. Technically, it is indistinguishable from arrogance and hubris, but it is unnecessary to stress the point. Sixty days into his first term (and I begin to doubt there’ll be a second), he would seem already to have dug a hole from which no rhetorical skill can lift him.

    The video to Iran is the latest catastrophe. Mr. Obama simply does not understand how his “olive branch” will be received, not only by the mullahs in Iran itself, but wherever else on the surface of the planet the United States has enemies. It “reads” — to people who do not share anything like America’s aspirations — as an unambiguous confession of weakness. He has moved the American position towards Iran from offensive to defensive, for no defensible reason.
    otiosus@sympatico.ca

    © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

  56. blue Says:

    March 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
    March 21, 2009
    Too Clever by Half
    By David Warren

    It is now spring; the vernal equinox was reached Friday morning. To celebrate, Barack Obama sent a video of himself to Iran.

    This was one of several end-of-week media performances, as Mr. Obama went back into “campaign mode” after a break of several months.
    *********************************

    I don’t believe he ever stopped.

  57. And Blue, that in a nutshell, is the most terrifying bit of it all…
    *************************

    The video to Iran is the latest catastrophe. Mr. Obama simply does not understand how his “olive branch” will be received, not only by the mullahs in Iran itself, but wherever else on the surface of the planet the United States has enemies. It “reads” — to people who do not share anything like America’s aspirations — as an unambiguous confession of weakness. He has moved the American position towards Iran from offensive to defensive, for no defensible reason.

  58. Is that doublespeak?
    ——————–
    I think so. It is a classic republican positon. Save the banks and reduce government spending. But in this instance I do not think either side of the equation works. I do not think this plan will save the banks. And I think the budget has too much government spending for political boondoggles and too little government spending for the right reasons like energy, infrastructure etc.

  59. wbboei Says:

    March 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
    China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.
    ——————————-
    I thought they might do this and have mentioned it here before. This is the shortcut to world government favored by globalists. It is the undoing of a constitutional system.
    *******************************************************

    I am afraid you are right. Things are happening so fast my head is spinning. The Fraud has been in office such a short time and caused such destruction of the American way of life. I am sure most people don’t have a clue and unfortunately so many koolaid drinkers really think we are just one world and “can we all just get along”. They don’t understand the World, it’s complexities and dangers. They understand nothing of the sacrifices that our forefathers and mothers slaved for to give birth to this country and to maintain it.

    Jesus, we are sunk.

  60. All his life, from childhood through university through “community organizing” and Chicago wardheel politics, through Sunday mornings listening to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to the left side of Democrat caucuses in Springfield and Washington, he has been surrounded almost exclusively by extremely liberal people

    ====================

    This leaves out the donors in the back rooms: the Wall Street types. Scarcely liberal, though willing to finance a phoney liberal to keep the real liberals pacified.

  61. Make no mistake about it: this move by China to replace the dollar with a new reserve currency and controlled by the IMF is a vote of NO CONFIDENCE in Mr Obama.

    Likewise, the refusal by German Chancellor Merkle the emerging leader of Europe to go along the global stimulus proposed by the Administation is a vote of NO CONFIDENCE in Mr. Obama.

    And there aint a fucking thing big media can do about it except invent other reasons for these independent and otherwise unrelated actions. They can invent all they want, but there is one thing they cannot deny: neither of these things happened until Obama became POUSA.

  62. Obama fills key treasury posts

    By Corbett B. Daly and David Alexander

    WASHINGTON, March 23 (Reuters) President Barack Obama on Monday moved to fill the leadership vacuum at the Treasury Department, tapping former Treasury official Neal S. Wolin as Secretary Timothy Geithner’s number two and former White House aide Lael Brainard for the top international job.

    Obama also announced that Stuart Levey would stay on as Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, a position he has held since 2004.

    Wolin and Brainard must be confirmed by the Senate. Levey does not require reconfirmation to stay. If the Senate approves of Wolin and Brainard, the only remaining vacant Undersecretary position would be for Domestic Finance, the administration’s ambassador to Wall Street.

    reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN2326354620090324

  63. Obama nominates federal housing commissioner

    By ALAN ZIBEL , 03.23.09

    President Barack Obama on Monday named a longtime real estate industry executive to head the Federal Housing Administration, which during the U.S. housing market’s bust has become the main provider of loans to borrowers with weak credit.

    The White House on Monday named David Stevens as assistant secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    The position requires Senate confirmation and would put Stevens in charge of the FHA, the government-run mortgage-insurance program. In the wake of the subprime lending market’s collapse, the FHA has become just about the only source of loans to borrowers with poor credit records and low down payments.

    forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/23/ap6202255.html

  64. This leaves out the donors in the back rooms: the Wall Street types. Scarcely liberal, though willing to finance a phoney liberal to keep the real liberals pacified
    ——————-
    liberal? I think of them more like nihilists, terrorists and racists. Each of these groups advocate the overthrow of the status quo either by violence or by actions which come perilously close to it. And as with other extremist groups they practice their own form of intolerance, bigotry and tyranny if they get into office.

    “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.”

    – Missionara Protectiva,Text QIV

  65. Obama nominates deputy at the Treasury Department

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Monday moved to fill three top jobs at the Treasury Department to help Secretary Tim Geithner manage the federal bureaucracy charged with helping the nation’s struggling economy.

    In nominating Neal Wolin to be deputy treasury secretary, Obama now has named or nominated four of the five top jobs at the department, where critics said the new administration has been slow to fill major positions. Wolin, who will require Senate confirmation, is a Clinton-era official who previously was the department’s general counsel. The other two announced Monday were Lael Brainard, a Clinton-era official, to be the Treasury Department’s top official for international affairs, and Stuart Levey, who will stay on as the top counterterrorism official at the department.

    “I am grateful for the service of these dedicated and talented individuals and have the highest confidence that, under the leadership of Secretary Geithner, they will serve the American people well as we tackle the challenges ahead of us,” Obama said in a statement released Monday evening announcing his intention to nominate them.

    Part of the reason these top jobs haven’t been filled is some people who were on track to be nominated withdrew their names, including Lee Sachs, who now is counselor to Geithner, a position that does not require Senate confirmation. Others under consideration withdrew under scrutiny or pressure — something Obama himself bemoaned in an interview that aired Sunday. “You know, this whole confirmation process, as I mentioned earlier, has gotten pretty tough. … It’s gotten tougher in the age of 24/7 news cycles,” Obama said on CBS News’ “60 Minutes.” “And a lot of people who we think are about to serve in the administration and treasury suddenly say, ‘Well, you know what? I don’t want to go through some of the scrutiny, embarrassment, in addition to taking huge cuts in pay.”

    When asked whether his administration had offered jobs to people who had turned them down, Obama replied: “Absolutely. Yeah. And not because people didn’t want to serve. I think that people just felt that, you know, that the process has gotten very onerous.”

    Those nominated Monday have Washington experience. Wolin most recently served in the White House as a deputy counsel focusing on economic policy. Before that he was president and chief operating officer for casualty operations at The Hartford Financial Services Group. During President Bill Clinton’s administration, Wolin worked as National Security Council lawyer, assistant to the national security adviser and a Treasury Department lawyer. He also worked as an assistant to three CIA directors, as a private lawyer at a Washington firm and as a part-time professor at Harvard University.

    Brainard, who will have the title undersecretary for international affairs, most recently founded the Global Economy and Development Program at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. She was a deputy national economic adviser for international affairs during the Clinton administration and has taught economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    President George W. Bush nominated Levey as the nation’s first undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, a job that put him in charge of the department’s effort to monitor and break up the flow of money to people intending harm to the United States. He previously worked at the Justice Department on counterterrorism activities. He worked as a private lawyer and clerked for a U.S. appeals court judge. Levey does not require Senate reconfirmation.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFq5mQwD2WgvSNoX3BqKSSD_yw_AD9742IA80

  66. Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.
    *******
    Frank had that one called correctly; it also came out as “Power doesn’t corrupt; Power attracts the corruptible.”

  67. ADmin will you embed please…..

    American Tea Party Anthem (with words) by Lloyd Marcus

    youtube.com/watch?v=q1byTDgu7iA

  68. Wolin, who will require Senate confirmation, is a Clinton-era official who previously was the department’s general counsel. The other two announced Monday were Lael Brainard, a Clinton-era official,

    ================

    Yay, Clintonistas!

  69. Frank had that one called correctly; it also came out as “Power doesn’t corrupt; Power attracts the corruptible
    ———————————–
    Good job. And I did not even mention the author, but you knew it.

  70. Suggesting eligibility proof gets congressman scorned
    Faces comments including, ‘Take the Reynolds Wrap off your head’
    Posted: March 23, 2009
    10:05 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    U.S. Rep. Bill Posey

    A new member of Congress arrived in Washington to a flood of questions from his constituency about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president: Was he really born in the United States, and was he qualified under the Constitution’s requirement that the office be occupied only by a “natural born” citizen?

    So U.S. Rep. Bill Posey did what most congressmen would do regarding a subject of grave concern to their voters: He proposed a bill that would require future presidential candidates to document their eligibility. And that has earned him scorn and ridicule.

    “What you should do is stop embarrassing yourself and take the Reynolds Wrap off your head,” MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann suggested to Posey.

    U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, has gone so far as to suggest that Posey’s judgment is skewed.

    “It’s one thing to try to be responsive to your constituents, no matter how marginal,” Abercrombie told the St. Petersburg Times. “I understand that. But to take it to the point of putting it into a bill — you open yourself up, then, to having your judgment questioned.”

    Abercrombie said legislation generally is to “address common issues or concerns.”

    “The citizenship of someone who has reached the point of running for president of the United States is not really an issue,” Abercrombie said.

    worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92705

  71. We need a good political cartoon of Geithner down in a hole, with leading economists like Krugman portrayed as Lassie:

    “(woof!) What’s that you say? (woof!) Timmy’s stuck in the well??”

  72. ” I think that people just felt that, you know, that the process has gotten very onerous.”

    ==============

    And why has Obama let the process become so onerous? The FBI grilling people about meetings years ago? Who added all these procedures? Daschlell’s and Judas’s problems were obvious. Geithner got through regardless of some (minor imo) tax problems. Why is the process tightening up on these later nominees?

    Is he scared of being embarassed by more nominees being turned down by the Senate? But isn’t it even more embarassing to have the seats go empty?

    And the Senate might still go along, thinking that getting the seats filled and some work done, is more impratant than embarrassing Obama. (Obama will provide many more opportunities for embarassment.)

    Ftm, don’t the Dems have the votes to confirm anyone they want to?

  73. Turn Down…….

    How about this for a reason……. LESS EYEBALLS ON GEITHNER’S HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR THIS WAY

  74. AND!!!!!!!!!! it gives them the excuse of being short handed and poor timmy couldn’t and can’t be held responsible for
    EVERYTHING BY HIMSELF………that wouldn’t be Fair etc etc

  75. diia, my money has always been on that they wanted fewer eyes and ears at Treasury UNTIL they got their dirty deeds donw and the money laundering and backscratching of the banker boyz set up.

  76. Saw that someone mentioned Krugman is on Charlie Rose tonight – also on with him are Andy Sorkin and Joe Nocera.

  77. Courtesy of SPEGA. Now I know how Rodney Dangerfield felt:
    ————————————————————

    ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

    WITNESS: No.

    ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?

    WITNESS: No.

    ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?

    WITNESS: No.

    ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

    WITNESS: No.

    ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

    WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

    ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?

    WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

  78. Does it seem strange at all to you that Bambi would be announcing the new appointments to Geithners Treasury Department–including the number two man, rather than letting Geithener make those announcements himself. Whose staffing decisions are they and does this breach of protocol signal that he is fixing to throw Geithner under the bus? In the corporate world it typically would. In that case we need to know a hell of alot more about this number two man. He served in a number of roles in the Clinton Administration but I am not sanguine that his last billet was as deputy White House Counsel because his boss would have been Craig and the Judas who worked in the Clinton Administration, defected to Obama and ran his mouth that Hillary as First Lady lacked the foreign affairs experience to be president. Craig is a treacherous maggot. Let us hope that none of his leprosy has rubbed off on Wolin if he replaces Geithner and Hillary has to work with him.

  79. The DNC this evening announced a commission to look at the primary calendar for 2012, to be led by South Carolina’s Jim Clyburn and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill. The most prominent Iowan is Attorney General Tom Miller, a very early Obama supporter.
    ———————————————–
    Why this? Why now? Are they worried about a second term? Do they expect a primary challenge? Is this merely an honorarium for people who have no honor? It seems anal retentive at this point.

  80. I have thought about it further. They want to rig the primary. Again. So they have selected two of the biggest thieves in congress. That pair belongs in the movie Deliverance. They can try to put the procedural apparatus in place but it will be worthless if the economy is in shambles.

  81. wbboei quoted:

    The DNC this evening announced a commission to look at the primary calendar for 2012,

    ===============

    At the DNC convention in August, Obama got them to pass a measure calling for a commission on primary reform, to meet this spring. They were instructed to strengthen the caucuses iirc, and certainly to weaken the superdelegates.

  82. wbboei Says: They can try to put the procedural apparatus in place but it will be worthless if the economy is in shambles.

    ==================

    Hm. Obama was able to pack the caucuses last year partly because Hillary’s issues appealed to people who could not caucus (sick,old, etc). If they held caucuses today, I bet a lot of people would show up with teabags.

  83. Hm. Obama was able to pack the caucuses last year partly because Hillary’s issues appealed to people who could not caucus (sick,old, etc). If they held caucuses today, I bet a lot of people would show up with teabags
    ————————-
    Turndown: and the ACORN THUGS would learn first hand that nothing so fixates the mind as the imminent prospect of being hanged. And we must be sure to save a place at the gallows for Gerghen. Tell him its a necktie party and he will rush in hoping to meet Oscar de la renta.

  84. Turndown

    “They” were able to pack the caucuses after the first three weeks of the primaries because HRC campaign had no extended plan for caucuses in particular, and not much else planned beyond the middle of February except for the showoff states.

  85. Investors should sell bank stocks after they rallied 12 percent today because the Treasury Department’s plan to buy toxic assets won’t stop profits from dropping, Bank of America Corp.’s Richard Bernstein said.

    Removing devalued loans and securities from banks’ balance sheets is a short-term solution that will delay the problem’s ultimate solution, which is bank takeovers, Bernstein said. The government won’t be able to inflate the prices banks receive for selling bad assets indefinitely, he added.

    “The history of bubbles shows quite well that financial sector consolidation is inevitable,” Bernstein, Bank of America’s chief investment strategist, wrote in a research note. “Financial stocks will be attractive when the government tries to speed up that inevitable process. However, to the contrary, the government continues to attempt to stymie that inevitable consolidation.”
    ———————————————
    Admin: you may well be right that the Obama plan is D.O.A.

    More than half the taxpayers dont want it, many in congress dont want it and if bernstein’s view at BOA is representative of the industry, then the banks dont want it either. Which means that only bambi, geithner and summers want it. If this raise the wreck of the Mary Deare from Davey Jones Locker through a taxpayer susidized auction plan fails, then it will cease to be the Obama plan, it will become the discredited Geithener plan and it will be castigated by the new Secretary of Treasury Wollin. Then the nationalization of banks proposed by Taipan can proceed apace, which will hasten the globalization process.

    Bernstein believes as we do that this rally is the dead cat bounce. I wish I could believe otherwise. But the fundamentals arent there and no amount of hopuim from bambi can change that. The more he tries to talk things up the more the market runs screaming from the room.

  86. LAT: DNC’s Kaine picks panel to reform Democrats’ entire nominating process EASY POST
    chop the number of superdelegates, reform the caucus system and change “the window of time” for caucuses and primaries.

    http://

    h…../ no w’s
    latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/03/obama-kaine-dnc.html
    EASY POST. No login. Delay for moderation.

    [ This story has much good info: members of the commission, etc. ]

  87. At the DNC convention in August, Obama got them to pass a measure calling for a commission on primary reform, to meet this spring. They were instructed to strengthen the caucuses iirc, and certainly to weaken the superdelegates
    ——————————————–
    I doubt this effort will get very far for three reasons. First, if there is to be an overhaul of the primaries they need to investigate the fraud, intimidation and bribery which occurred in 2008. They are afraid to do that I am sure. Second, I dont know what they mean by strengthen the caucuses. They are anti democratic and need to be abolished. Or else everyone should come armed to prevent what occurred he last time. Third, I do not see how they can weaken the superdelegates without weakening the clout of the elected officals. In sum. I think the process should be reformed but lowlife people like Cly-burn and Ma Barker are incapable of it. They are far too corrupt and I will tell them that if the occasion ever presents itself.

  88. wbboei,

    Sorry, ‘strengthen the caucuses’ was my phrase, my opinion, from my memory of the story in August about Obama’s setting up the commission.

  89. The next time we have those caucuses we need to have off duty policeman present to prevent the kind of fraud, intimidation and bribery which occurred the past time. Also, Dr. Lynette Long’s work should be widely disseminated so they cannot hide these tactics under the cloak of darkness like they did the last time. Next time our people need to get right in their faces and take pictures.

    During the Texas camaign, I went to Laredo. The precint I monitored was very peaceful and there were no problems. Howvever, all hell broke loose at the adjacent one. The state party officials who were responsible for running the thing locked the voters out for an hour. The voters broke down the door. The police were called in. And there was attempted fraud and corruption. Fortunately, we had a strong poll watcher there for Hillary–a lawyer from California and peace was restored. I was sent there after I finished my job and by then the police had arrived. Obama people were leaving and cursing loudly. These causcus things are chaos, and sooner or later somebody is going to get hurt or killed. 2000 complaints in Texas alone–never investigated by the DNC. These things should be done away with, or supervised or everyone bring a gun. An armed caucus is a polite caucus.

  90. emjay,

    Multiple causes. Even late in the campaign when Hillary was really trying to get her people to come out and caucus, they couldn’t make it. Wrong demographics.

    Only caucus successes iirc were Texas (Hispanics) and NV (smart move coming as union groups to the special precinct near the workplaces).

    I’m guessing that Obama wants to make it easier in 2012 to do the same thing he did in 2008. Hillary’s long hour workers couldn’t come (nor sick nor old nor needing childcare etc). If caucuses were tomorrow, a bunch of strong unemployed workers might show up as a Tea Party.

  91. turndownobama-com Says:

    March 24th, 2009 at 3:46 am
    wbboei,
    ———————–
    Thanks turndown. That may not have been the word they used but I have no doubt it is what they meant. It gave me a chance to vent, and to remember why I have no use for Obama or his merry band of thugs. It is coming up on a year now and my feelings have not abated. It was fraud, and it vitiates any claim to legitimacy by Obama. Next time we have to be organized. When I think of low life scumbags who ran the 2008 caucuses I say never ever again.

  92. If caucuses were tomorrow, a bunch of strong unemployed workers might show up as a Tea Party.
    —————————–
    Revenge is a powerful source of motivation. When it comes to intimidation, two can play that game. I think we have a pretty good docier on this now–who did it, which prescints, and what to do next time. We should go to the press with the Lynette Long video and the police to make sure there is no repeat. We also know it does no good to go to the dnc with complaints. Therefore, we should go to the police, the press and the district attorney.

  93. Obama will not get a second term. He will go from American Idol to
    Personal Non Grata in the next two years. His fall from grace will be spectacular if things proceed the way I think they will.

  94. Admin: you are right. Same trajectory as Bush. But is will be compressed into four years as opposed to eight. Reason: the financial crisis will affect everyone, and Obamas approach to it will be seen for what it is: counterproductive.

  95. Clinton to spearhead anti-drugs drive in Mexico

    WASHINGTON (AFP) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will on Wednesday travel to Mexico to spearhead a high-level drive to curb growing drug violence that has raised alarm in Washington.
    Clinton’s trip paves the way for a flurry of visits culminating in one in April by President Barack Obama, who analysts say is breaking with predecessor George W. Bush’s drug-fighting approach by focusing on blunting US consumer demand.

    The Obama administration is also trying to share more of the counter-narcotics burden with Mexico than its predecessor while also aiming to beef up security on the border, they said. “They are putting a lot of the cabinet on this, including the president himself,” Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center, told AFP. “And I think that is a statement of how seriously they’re taking the relationship,” he added.

    Clinton — whose two-day trip includes stops in Mexico City and Monterrey — will be followed in a week by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

    Obama is to travel to a summit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon on April 16-17 after having met him eight days before taking office in January. Calderon has stressed the drug problem is a common one, rather than a Mexican one. The series of visits — which follow one earlier this month by Admiral Mike Mullen, the top US military officer — underlined the new administration’s alarm over the escalating violence, which is spilling over the border. Experts say the bloodshed is fed by easy access to guns and drug profits in the United States. But analysts say the Obama administration is taking a different approach to the Bush administration, which focused on helping the Mexican government defeat the drug cartels. “They see this as an actual shared responsibility, that we have to actually do something about consumption, the money and the guns on our side of the border,” Selee said.
    “I think that is a change in focus, actually.”

    Vanda Felbab-Brown, a counter-narcotics expert at the Brookings Institution, said it could take years before the administration reaps benefits from its new approach to blunt consumer demand, which she calls the “crux of the problem.” In the meantime, she expects Clinton and others to cooperate more on choking off the flow of weapons from thousands of weapons stores on the US side of the border, even if she doubts how effective it can be. “There are many other sources apart from the US, from which the cartels or the trafficking organizations could acquire weapons,” Felbab-Brown told AFP. “But I think diplomatically it’s very important that the US makes an effort to show to the Mexican authorities as well as to the Mexican public that we share responsibility,” she said. “Just like we share responsibility for demand, we are aware that we are the source of weapons and we take efforts against them,” she added. Even with plans to beef up law enforcement on the border, she said, it is “excruciatingly difficult” to find weapons when, for example, only one or two of them are hidden in the chassis of a car.

    Christopher Sabatini, a top analyst at the Americas Society and Council of the America, urged the administration to challenge the National Rifle Association gun lobby over the weapons supply stores. They should “go to the mat on it with the NRA,” he said.

    Clinton’s talks fall under counter-drug cooperation under the Merida Initiative, a program by which the United States has shared intelligence with its southern neighbor and provided it with training and equipment.

    Sabatini said he believed that the administration, because of “the enormity of the problem,” will have to push Congress to reverse funding cutbacks for the initiative that was launched under the Bush administration.

    Calderon launched a wide-ranging crackdown on drug cartels soon after taking office in late 2006. The cartels in turn hit back with ever-higher levels of violence and intimidation. Some 5,300 people were murdered in drug violence across Mexico in 2008. Cocaine is produced in South America, but the Mexican cartels control most of the multi-billion-dollar trade.

    During her trip, Clinton will also discuss the North American Free Trade Agreement and preparations for an April Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, US officials say.

    google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j1T40Vj7vU7YT4BzEOsAerl4yelQ

  96. Obama Continues To Set Records For Incompetence

    By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
    Monday, March 23, 2009

    There are growing indications that the Obama administration is melting down, unraveling and falling apart. The clearest indication is Barack Obama and his treasury secretary failing to come up with a plan to fix the bank/credit crisis. He is proposing solutions for every social problem ever identified by liberal Democrats, but doesn’t seem to be dealing with what should be his No. 1 priority. The bank fix is supposed to be announced by Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, during this week.

    Nero fiddled while Rome burned, but the early days of the Obama administration will be remembered for his picking NCAA basketball tournament winners, appearing on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and making fun of special needs children — while the American economy is burning.

    If the public fully understood President Obama and the Obama administration, there would be endless calls for his impeachment. Of course, the U.S. Constitution does not make incompetence, radicalism, socialism, the abandonment of American values and world-class lies and hypocrisy impeachable offenses. So all of these disillusioned Americans will have to satisfy themselves with calling for his resignation. Mr. Obama has done the impossible — proven he is a worse president than even his vice president, Joe Biden, would be.

    During the election, this column stressed then-Sen. Obama was a world-class phony, hypocrite, liar and a few other choice descriptions. Then we added incompetence to our long and growing list. I’m afraid my opinion has not only been vindicated since the election, but more and more pundits are finally taking the same tack. Consider the charge of incompetence. Dick Morris now says our president is not only a socialist, but also an incompetent socialist. Howard Fineman, of Newsweek, one of the bastions of Obamania, now says the establishment now thinks Obama isn’t up to the job. This is of special significance as it suggests even people at Newsweek, almost a campaign adjunct of the Obama headquarters, are finally seeing the light. You’ll remember Newsweek was being called Obamaweek and had a picture of Mr. Obama on front-page cover after cover. It treated him as a Messiah, not an inexperienced, untested, unvetted, radical with a parade of questionable associates and all kinds of unknowns in his biography.
    On March 10, Mr. Fineman wrote, “But in ways both large and small, what’s left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.”
    Mr. Fineman cataloged a long list of criticism coming from the establishment. Here is some of that criticism:

    “The president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with the “stim” [stimulus law] but the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks.” Mr. Fineman is a bit too kind. First what he calls the stim is also loaded with pork and involved him breaking a whole series of his campaign promises. Mr. Obama not only gave up the moral high ground, but also showed his most important promises are broken and broken in a hurry. Why should anyone trust him again? He showed he was not a new kind of politician, but one just as bad or worse than the old kind, what you might expect from someone who rises from the sewer and slime that is the Chicago Democratic machine. All the perfume of pretty speeches will not ride Mr. Obama’s breaking of campaign promise after campaign promise in record speed. “The failure to call for genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical claim that everyone would have to ‘give up’ something.”

    This is just typical Obama, with rhetoric never matching reality. He says one thing (I’ll be bipartisan) and does the opposite (hyper-partisan ship led by Dead Fish Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, who earned that title when he sent a dead fish to a political adversary).
    “A willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial details, from the stim to the vague promise to ‘reform’ medical care without stating what costs could be cut.” As usual, Mr. Fineman and Newsweek are slowly catching on, but are still soft-pedaling Mr. Obama’s fundamental failures. For example, on the stimulus bill, he turned the whole thing over to those out-of-control liberals in Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid. This was not “willingness to give too much leeway.” This was total abdication of his responsibility to craft the first major piece of legislation of his administration and perhaps one of the most important.

    Our presidents do not turn over the responsibility of drafting the most important legislation of their term to Congress — except for Obama. He is not paying attention to basics and seems more interested in flying around the country to give speeches in front of cheering audiences and participating in ceremonies. Even a basketball coach at Duke had to tell him to fix the economy before he worries about his NCAA basketball brackets. After all, at this writing, he still has not come up with the final proposal for fixing the banking/credit crisis and his Treasury Department, the key spot in government at this moment, is in total disarray. Yet he has time to fly out to Los Angeles to be interviewed by comic Jay Leno and come up with a presentation for ESPN on his basketball picks. As one Congressman put it, it’s fitting he’s on Leno at this time, as the previous weeks have been like a comedy show.

    • “A treasury secretary who has been ridiculed on ‘Saturday Night Live’ and compared to Doogie Howser, M.D., Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in ‘Home Alone’ — and those are the nice ones.” Here again, the criticism is devastating, but all too kind. This was, perhaps, his most important appointment at a time he claimed we were in our worst crisis since the great depression and he comes up with a total incompetent and tax-cheat. The man who is supposed to inspire confidence in the business community and the rest of America is inspiring exactly the opposite. As Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla., pointed out, everything this man has done has failed (even before he was appointed, as he was involved in the bailout as head of the Federal Reserve of New York) and everyone has lost confidence in him. He is considered a joke on Wall Street where he is referred to as Tiny Tim. Mr. Fineman still thinks Mr. Obama has the support of the American people, but warns he better be careful “that the gathering judgment of the Bigs doesn’t trickle down to the rest of us.” It will trickle down and it would do so a lot faster if the mainstream media wasn’t running interference for him.

    If that doesn’t show you the drift of how Mr. Obama is being perceived as incompetent, even Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., one of the most liberal members of Congress, has started criticizing him for not knowing what is going on with the bonuses. And she is one of the most liberal members of Congress. Of the AIG bonuses, she said, “Maybe the president is not up to speed …” This bonus scandal is a major issue according to Mr. Obama, yet he doesn’t know about what’s going on in his own administration. The evidence is stacking up even if it always doesn’t get into mainstream media reporting. We’ve already seen the parade of high-level appointments that turned out to be tax cheats or to be carrying other disqualifying baggage (such as being under investigation for corruption a la Gov. Bill Richardson or virtually being an agent for China and Saudi Arabia a la Charles Freeman. This inability to get first-rate appointments is best symbolized at Treasury, where it appears an incompetent has appointed another incompetent, and a tax cheat at that, to head the IRS. And don’t forget he still doesn’t have even one of the 17 top political Treasury appointments lined up. That’s no wonder. Perhaps as Groucho Marx said in another context, anyone who would accept an appointment to serve under Mr. Geithner isn’t fit to be in government. There are already calls for his resignation. It is clear no one has confidence in him. Rep. Mack is at the head of the line for those calling for his resignation and that line is growing. Mr. Geithner was involved in the AIG retention bonuses almost from the beginning in his capacity as head of the New York Federal Reserve, that the Obama administration is now condemning. This suggests high levels of incompetence on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury, the President and his staff.

    The level of hypocrisy here is beyond unbearable. The right to the bonuses was in the bonus bill engineered by the White House. The stimulus package permitted the bonuses at the request of the Secretary of Treasury himself. It is also clear the Secretary of the Treasury knew about the bonuses last year in his capacity as head of the Federal Reserve of New York. The bonuses have Mr. Obama written all over them, but he complains loudly about them as do the rest of his top lieutenants. This, in one grand story, shows Mr. Obama and his team are incompetent liars, hypocrites of the first order, and phony as a $3 bill.
    The latest twist in the AIG bonus fiasco comes with the discovery that 13 of the companies owe about $220 million in federal taxes. This came out in hearings before Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. Now to try to cover-up their mistakes in legislation and leadership, the Democrats in Congress are trying to pass legislation to subject the bonuses to a 90 percent federal income tax. Of course, this kind of tax provision may be an unconstitutional bill of attainder, prohibited by Article 1, section 9, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
    It is a form of legislative punishment directed at one person or a small group. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., has already condemned the bill as unconstitutional. David Boies, the famed attorney that represented Al Gore in the election case before the U.S. Supreme Court, disagrees but says the matter could have been handled by a conventional lawsuit for violation of fiduciary duties.
    The whole flap about the bonuses is a diversion from much larger issues. But it does serve to reinforce some important lessons. When you rush a bill and pass it without reading it (as was also the case with the stimulus bill and the 90 percent tax bill), you are courting disaster. It is clear those who passed the stimulus bill and advocated it, including the President, didn’t bother to read it and that’s why a provision permitting the bonuses became law.
    Bankers have criticized this punitive tax as another move that will hurt America’s position as a leader in the financial world. One Wall Street executive said, “There are three big industries where the U.S. has global leadership: financial services, media and technology. Introducing this 90 percent tax is like taking one of those industries out the back and shooting it.”
    If Congress wants to use the taxing power to punish, it ought to start by a 90 percent tax on all those who voted for the stimulus package. Then they should vote a 90 percent tax on people like Rep. Barney Frank,D-Mass., and Sen. Chris Dodd,D-Conn., for defending Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and resisting efforts of reform that might have avoided the great financial crisis. And they should put a 90 percent tax on the big recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. That would include Sen. Dodd and President Obama at the top of the list.
    There is another disgraceful aspect of the AIG bonus fiasco. Congress passed the new tax provision despite its likely unconstitutionality. What’s worse, this kind of behavior is designed to impair a contract entered into legally by AIG and even sanctioned by Congressional legislation. At a time when there is already a loss of confidence in the financial system, the last thing you want to do is shake confidence further by putting into doubt the validity of contracts. And to further rattle the system, warnings are going out to banks to watch their compensation arrangements. Again, at a time like this, we should not start to paralyze management by all kinds of new warnings and regulations.

    But the most important recent development involves President Obama’s proposal to have veterans wounded in combat pay with their own health insurance for their own medical care received at VA facilities. Anyone with even one-half of a non-functioning brain would know this proposal would never fly and it would be rejected almost universally by Congress, veterans’ groups and the public. When a president even proposes this kind of a dagger-in-the-back of battle-wounded veterans, the proposal should have a P.S. reading “I’m incompetent as demonstrated by this asinine proposal.”
    Yet, Mr. Obama and his people were so incompetent as to propose this betrayal of our veterans. He not only proposed it, but also kept pushing it. For example, he had a meeting last Monday, with the national commander of the American Legion, who said, after the meeting, the President “intended to move forward” with the proposal. Finally, on Wednesday, his press secretary announced, “The president has instructed that its consideration be dropped.” The outrage at the proposal should have been easily predicted. For example, here are some of the comments found in published reports:
    Eleven veterans’ organizations, in a letter to the president, wrote the proposal is “a total abrogation of our government’s moral and legal responsibility” to treat service-connected medical problems. An Amvets spokesman said the proposal “flew in the face of the government’s covenant to care for all service-connected needs of our veterans.” A Congressman said, “Our budget cannot be balanced on the backs of our nation’s combat-wounded heroes.”
    As far as I’m concerned, this proposal, backed personally and advocated personally by Mr. Obama, shows the incompetence of the White House from Mr. Obama on down.

    And we had another demonstration of that on the “Tonight Show with Jay Leno” on Thursday, when in discussing his bowling score, President Obama said his 129 had been “like the Special Olympics or something.” This was interpreted as a disparagement of the kids who take part in the Special Olympics. Later, his press secretary apologized for the insult, telling reporters the president “made an offhand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics.” He also called Special Olympics Chairman Tim Shriver to apologize for his comment, even before it aired. Everyone can make a stupid mistake, but this one is especially instructive: Now you know why he has to be on teleprompter whenever possible. That’s because, with all due respect to his supporters who think he is the smartest man on the planet, when he is off the teleprompter he is as gaffe-prone as Vice President Joe Biden. That led to a cartoonist putting Mr. Obama in bed with his wife and his teleprompter, with the caption of Mrs. Obama saying the president should put his teleprompter away and go to bed.

    Incidentally, if he is really so brilliant why can’t he talk without a teleprompter? When criticized for taking time off from the White House to be on the Jay Leno show he tried to defend his trip to California by saying critics are wrong who say that “I can handle that [appearance on Leno show] and the economy at the same time.”

    I’m afraid, Mr. President, any observer who is not afflicted with Obamamania, will conclude you can’t handle either one of those, together or separately. And he knows little about presidential history, so he doesn’t know that even competent presidents have trouble handling more than one major issue at a time.

    Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the Obama administration is its willingness to pass any law and utilize any procedure even if it seems to violate our most important Democratic values and our usual governmental processes. For example, the Democrats are backing the card check bill, officially called the Employee Free Choice Act, which for all intents and purposes abandons the secret ballot in union election. They are also flirting the Fairness Doctrine to kill conservative talk radio. And now they are considering the reconciliation process for passing such legislation as health-care reform. That would essentially freeze the Democrats out of the legislative process and severely limit debate. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee described the reconciliation route as “very dangerous.” This all suggests the Obama administration has lost its fundamental bearings and is willing to put political power ahead of its principles.

    Beware when an apparent incompetent radical, both inexperienced and untested, starts to implement the greatest governmental transformation in history within his first two months in office. But you need not wait for the results. Just observe what is going on now. This is especially disturbing, as it is coming from a president whose background and record are little known and understood. As Judicial Watch has pointed out, “No president in modern times has received as little scrutiny on matters of ethics and corruption as Barack Obama. … But because of our dogged tenacity in asking ‘Just who is Barack Obama?’ his ethical lapses and links to possible corruption are still very much in play.”

    Too many questions remain unanswered and what we know by itself is very bad enough. Americans better be prepared to fight the Obama proposals if we want America to look like America four years hence, or for that matter, if we want America even to survive.

    thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/23/herb_denenberg/doc49c6f7ccaf164641312510.txt

  97. The Artful Dodger, is a character in the Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist. The Dodger is a pickpocket, so-called for his skill and cunning in that respect. As a result he has become the leader of the gang of child criminals, trained by the elderly Fagin.

    Does this remind you of anyone? Hope, change, and– I did not say that, and even if I said it you misunderstood me and even if I said it and you did not misunderstand me I did not intend what I said, but I take full responsibility for the fact that a misunderstanding occurred since I am president and the buck stops somewhere.

    Big Media: what a thoughtful man. What a candid man. What a courageous president we have. (Hey Immelt: I told the great unwashed he was devinna, and deloverly three (3) times against all the evidence. That rates me three stars on my MBO. You better keep putting feeding sugar pellets to this rat or I am out of here.)

    Dimocratic Leadership: the country be damned. Who cares about the country. All that we care about is the Party. He is good for the Party because he is our cash cow. The Party uber alles. If this means we must bankrupt the country then so be it. With or without the country there will always be a party. And the corrupt shall inherit the earth or whatever is left of it.

  98. Having attended the caucus in IOWA, and having conducted a Caucus in NM I totally agree with what has been posted here. I loving refer to my caucus as the caucus from HExx. In stark contrast, the Reps in this state had a primary election run by the state, which cost them no money, and was much better run.

    When did the Democratic Primary system become so corrupt?

  99. When did the Democratic Primary system become so corrupt?
    —————————
    When Dean became head of the DNC, and Soros got his foot in the door.

  100. The fact that Dean would now become a lobbyist tells you more about the man than anything else. It proves that all the crap he peddling about reform and grass roots participation was a devils lie. And, nota bene he was not chosen for a cabinet position even though Health and Human Services was open and he is supposedly a doctor. You may find it strange he was not considered. In this administration, his corruption would have been no problem for the flawless transition team. So why praytell was he passed over?

  101. Here we GO!

    Obama is making an end run around the US press and the voice of the American people promoting his covert plans with the UK all over Europe for Globalization. This is the primer for the World Banks take over at the G-20 Summit!

    huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/obamas-global-op-ed-a-tim_n_178331.html

  102. Tammy was the former head of the Los Angeles Chapter of NOW. She is pretty objective, and never was constrained by the forces of social control otherwise known as political correctness.

    Ariana Huffington is not what one might call a staunch advocate of womens rights. The first book she wrote was a repudiation of the womens rights movement. She is the same kind aging groupie as Dowd.

    Tammy on the other hand tells it like it is. After this Pygmalion make-over of Meeeeeeesh. The latern jawed, forever scowling first lady of hate who now tends the new White House poppy garden.
    —————————————————-
    Tammy Bruce, guest host for Laura Ingram’s radio show, had some harsh words for First Lady Michelle Obama.

    Discussing the first lady’s visit to a Washington D.C. classroom last week, Bruce incredulously recalled Obama’s story about wanting to get A’s in school and called out her use of a “weird, fake accent.”

    “That’s what he’s married to,” Bruce said. “…You know what we’ve got? We’ve got trash in the White House. Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic…categories. You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash, are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy…”

  103. I find it incredulous that Huff would find the statement incredulous. In fact much of what Huff says it incredulous. Including that First Hundred Days bunting that adorns her site and forewarns the reader of its pornographic content.

  104. Obama is making an end run around the US press and the voice of the American people promoting his covert plans with the UK all over Europe for Globalization. This is the primer for the World Banks take over at the G-20 Summit!
    —————
    The only US newspaper this appeared in was the Chicago Tribune. No dissenting voices to speak of in that venue. Land of the Combine.

  105. Wow, Tammy Bruce nails it. Michelle Obama may be a woman of personal achievements, but she has done nothing for anyone else. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who came into the White House with a long list of accomplishments on behalf of others – most notably women and children – Michelle Obama’s accomplishments have all been entirely for the advancement of herself and her husband (and through the latter for herself again). This is why whenever I hear some Oborg tell me that my dislike for the current First Lady is just like the Right’s hatred of Hillary Clinton – I have an intense desire to bitch-slap them. These are the same people who dug out every Right smear against both Clintons during the primary.

  106. I read the Obama statement on G-20. It is a proposal for coodinated stimulus, which Germany seems to oppose. It is an attempted assertion of continuing American leadership, which is backed by the relative size of our economy, but challenged by China’s call for a world reserve currency in lieu of the dollar. But it is not a call the IMF to set regulatory framework. We need to dig deeper. What are the issues to be discussed at G-20 and what are the specific proposals.

  107. But it is not a call the IMF to set regulatory framework
    ———————————-
    I just skimmed it, is that where this process will lead. His remarks could be construed that way. And then he could say it wasnt me it was the world community. Someone should post the article so we can all take a look at it. I will be out for a few hours, and will post it when I get back if someone has not done so in the interim.

  108. Brad Sherman D/CA, one of the few speaking truth to power…tries to nail Tim G and Tim G squirms, so obvious there is no transparency, no oversight, just bankers and Wall St protecting bankers and Wall St…the O admin is selling us out…

    where is the outrage from the left? such a bunch of stupid hypocrites…

    ***************************
    Lupica, a supporter, nails O on being overexposed…

    nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/03/22/2009-03-22_hey_president_obama_the_campaign_is_over.html

  109. OLD NEWS…ALL THE WAY BACK FROM SATURDAY:

    Joel Nocera says below, “Now I’m worried that the political response is making the crisis worse”, and he then ticks off three main talking points.

    Here’s the link:

    nytimes.com/2009/03/21/business/21nocera.html?_r=2&sq=Why%20Flogging&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1237644604-glTqLGxk4L35VaNDeeJT+A

    The Problem With Flogging A.I.G.
    ———————————————–

    By JOE NOCERA
    Published: March 20, 2009

    Can we all just calm down a little?

    Yes, the $165 million in bonuses handed out to executives in the financial products division of American International Group was infuriating. Truly, it was. As many others have noted, this is the same unit whose shenanigans came perilously close to bringing the world’s financial system to its knees. When the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, said recently that A.I.G.’s “irresponsible bets” had made him “more angry” than anything else about the financial crisis, he could have been speaking for most Americans.

    But death threats? “All the executives and their families should be executed with piano wire — my greatest hope,” wrote one person in an e-mail message to the company. Another suggested publishing a list of the “Yankee” bankers “so some good old southern boys can take care of them.”

    Or how about those efforts to publicize names of individual executives who received bonuses — efforts championed by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York and Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. To what end?

    How does outing these executives fix skewed compensation incentives, which have created that unjustified sense of entitlement that pervades Wall Street? No, it’s mostly about using subpoena power to satisfy the public’s thirst for blood. (In light of the death threats, when Mr. Cuomo received the list of A.I.G. bonus recipients on Thursday, he promised to consider “individual security” and “privacy rights” in deciding whether to publicize the names.)

    Then there was that awful Congressional hearing on Wednesday, in which A.I.G.’s newly installed chief executive, Edward Liddy, was forced to listen to one outraged member of Congress after another rail about bonuses — and obsess about when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner learned about them — while ignoring far more troubling problems surrounding the A.I.G. rescue.

    Oh, and let’s not forget the bill that was passed on Thursday by the House of Representatives. It would tax at a 90 percent rate bonus payments made to anyone who earned over $250,000 at any financial institution receiving significant bailout funds. Should it become law, it will affect tens of thousands of employees who had absolutely nothing to do with creating the crisis, and who are trying to help fix their companies.

    Meanwhile, the real culprits — like Joseph J. Cassano, the former head of A.I.G.’s financial products division— are counting their money in “retirement.” Nobody on Capitol Hill seems much interested in getting that money back. (And the bill does nothing about bonuses that were paid before 2009, meaning that most of those egregious Merrill Lynch bonuses, paid at the end of last year, will not be touched.)

    By week’s end, I was more depressed about the financial crisis than I’ve been since last September. Back then, the issue was the disintegration of the financial system, as the Lehman bankruptcy set off a terrible chain reaction. Now I’m worried that the political response is making the crisis worse. The Obama administration appears to have lost its grip on Congress, while the Treasury Department always seems caught off guard by bad news.

    And Congress, with its howls of rage, its chaotic, episodic reaction to the crisis, and its shameless playing to the crowds, is out of control. This week, the body politic ran off the rails.

    There are times when anger is cathartic. There are other times when anger makes a bad situation worse. “We need to stop committing economic arson,” Bert Ely, a banking consultant, said to me this week. That is what Congress committed: economic arson.

    How is the political reaction to the crisis making it worse? Let us count the ways.

    IT IS DESTROYING VALUE During his testimony on Wednesday, Mr. Liddy pointed out that much of the money the government turned over to A.I.G. was a loan, not a gift. The company’s goal, he kept saying, was to pay that money back. But how? Mr. Liddy’s plan is to sell off the healthy insurance units — or, failing that, give them to the government to sell when they can muster a good price.

    In other words, it is in the taxpayers’ best interest to position A.I.G. as a company with many profitable units, worth potentially billions, and one bad unit that needs to be unwound. Which, by the way, is the truth. But as Mr. Ely puts it, “the indiscriminate pounding that A.I.G. is taking is destroying the value of the company.” Potential buyers are wary. Customers are going elsewhere. Employees are looking to leave. Treating all of A.I.G. like Public Enemy No. 1 is a pretty dumb way for a majority shareholder to act when he hopes to sell the company for top dollar.

    IT IS, UNFORTUNATELY, BESIDE THE POINT Even on Wall Street this week, I didn’t hear anyone condoning the A.I.G. bonuses. They should never have been granted, and Mr. Liddy should have been tougher about renegotiating them. (A rich irony here is that any nonfinancial company in A.I.G.’s straits would be in bankruptcy, and contracts would have to be renegotiated. The fact that the government is afraid to force A.I.G. into bankruptcy, despite its crippled state, is the main reason Mr. Liddy felt he couldn’t try to redo the contracts.)

    But there is a much bigger issue that has barely been touched upon by Congress: the way tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money has been funneled to A.I.G.’s counterparties — at 100 cents on the dollar. How can it possibly make sense that Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup and every other company that bought credit-default swaps from A.I.G. should be made whole by the government? Why isn’t it forcing them to take a haircut?

    What’s worse, some of those companies are foreign banks that used credit-default swaps to exploit a regulatory loophole. Should the United States taxpayer really be responsible for ensuring the safety of European banks that were taking advantage of European regulations?

    The person who has made this point most forcefully is Eliot Spitzer, of all people. In his column for Slate.com, he wrote: “Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn’t we already give Goldman a $25 billion cash infusion, and aren’t they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash?” Mr. Spitzer told me that while “there is a legitimate sense of outrage over the bonuses, the larger outrage should be the use of A.I.G. funding as a second bailout for the large investment houses.” Precisely.

    IT IS DESTABILIZING How can you run a company when the rules keep changing, when you have to worry about being second-guessed by Congress? Who can do business under those circumstances?

    Take, for instance, that new securitization program the government is trying to get off the ground, called the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility — or TALF. Although it is backed by large government loans, it requires people in the marketplace — Wall Street bankers! — to participate.

    This program could help revive the consumer credit market. But at this point, most Wall Street bankers would rather be attacked by wild dogs than take part. They fear that they’ll do something — make money perhaps? — that will arouse Congressional ire. Or that the rules will change. “The constant flip-flopping is terrible,” said Simon Johnson, a banking expert who teaches at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Business.

    A.I.G. offers another good example. Not all the employees who face the possibility of having their bonuses taxed out from under them work for the evil financial products division. Many of them work in insurance divisions. Very few of them pull down million-dollar bonuses, and none of them brought A.I.G. to its knees. (And employees who bought the company’s stock are already hurting financially, having seen its value virtually wiped out.) They are the ones the company badly needs to keep if it hopes to sell those units at a healthy price. Taking away their bonuses — after they’ve already put the money in their bank accounts — hardly seems like the right way to motivate them. And demonizing them in Congressional hearings doesn’t help either.

    In previous columns, I have been an advocate of nationalizing big banks like Citigroup. But after watching Congress this week, I’m having second thoughts. If this is how Congress treats A.I.G., what would it do if it had a bank in its paws?

    What the country really needs right now from Congress is facts instead of rhetoric. Instead of these “raise your hand if you took a private jet to get here” exercises of outraged populism, we need hearings that educate and illuminate. Hearings like the old Watergate hearings. Hearings in which knowledge is accumulated over time, and a record is established. Hearings that might actually help us get out of this crisis. It’s happened before. In 1932, Congress established the Pecora committee, named for its chief counsel, Ferdinand Pecora. It was an intense, two-year inquiry, and its findings — executives shorting their own company’s stock, for instance — shocked the country. It also led to the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other investor protections. One person who has been calling for a new Pecora committee is Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, a Republican and key member of the Senate Banking Committee.

    “As we restructure our regulatory system, we need to be thorough,” he told me. “We need to understand what caused it. We shouldn’t rush it.”

    Meanwhile, the House Financial Services Committee has scheduled a hearing on Tuesday featuring Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Geithner. The hearing has been called to find out only one thing: what did the two men know about the A.I.G. bonuses, and when did they know it?

    Is that Nero I hear fiddling?

  110. OBAMA IS A SPACE CADET BOOB

    The half-hour call came as the astronauts were relaxing after the third and final spacewalk Monday. Shuttle Discovery and its crew of seven will pull away Wednesday.

    Middle school students who gathered at the White House with the president wanted to know whether the astronauts can play video games in space. They also asked what the astronauts eat and whether they’ve found any life forms up there.

    Discovery astronaut John Phillips said he occasionally played a video game when he lived on the space station for six months in 2005. But he noted spare time is rare in orbit.

    One of the two former schoolteachers who flew up on Discovery, Richard Arnold II, said the food was pretty good, consisting mostly of dehydrated fare and military-style ready-to-eat meals “that a few of us ate last year when the hurricane came through Houston.”

    “You guys still drink Tang up there?” Obama asked with a laugh. He said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who flew on a space shuttle in 1986, told him it had been taken off the menu. Nelson was one of the members of Congress who took part in the call.

    “By the way, before the time of you young people, we used to drink Tang,” Obama said.

    As for other life forms, the astronauts said they haven’t found anything yet. “I think we’ll have much more success at finding new types of life and different structures when we go to places like moon and Mars,” said astronaut Sandra Magnus.

    Obama couldn’t resist asking Magnus — the only woman on board — whether she was tempted to cut her hair, which floated in every direction, while she was in space. She said no, and the president called it “a real fashion statement.”

    There was no mention of NASA’s No. 1 job, empty since Obama took office. The president has yet to nominate a new NASA chief.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h1W8dcUP9H70AmlSfDSenPteDT9gD974G3580

  111. DYB said:
    I hear some Oborg tell me that my dislike for the current First Lady is just like the Right’s hatred of Hillary Clinton

    ================

    I’ve noticed a pattern of dislike for Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary, Teresa Kerry, and somewhat for Nancy Reagan and Mrs. McCain. Haven’t seen much dislike for Laura Bush … or the rest, whose names I can’t remember. Maybe that’s why.

  112. turndownobama-com Says:

    March 24th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
    ————————————————————————————

    People seem to dislike strong, assertive, and accomplished women. Why else would Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary, Teresa Kerry, Nancy Reagan and Cindy McCain be on the list? Laura Bush was the antithesis of these women.

  113. birdgal

    Laura Bush and her MIL and other women who are the antithesis are strong and assertive, but they do it through men. This has always been my complaint. Many Women historically have called the shots, but they do it behind the scenes.

  114. NewMexicoFan Says:

    March 24th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
    birdgal

    Laura Bush and her MIL and other women who are the antithesis are strong and assertive, but they do it through men. This has always been my complaint. Many Women historically have called the shots, but they do it behind the scenes.

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Yes, this is very true.

  115. birdgal

    This is why they say that Hillary is sexless. If she shows her sex, she is too female, and not worthy of leading, and if she behaves sexless or more male, there is something wrong with her.

    They have women both ways, and the women’s organizations in the Primary played right into it.

  116. NewMexicoFan Says:

    March 24th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
    birdgal

    This is why they say that Hillary is sexless. If she shows her sex, she is too female, and not worthy of leading, and if she behaves sexless or more male, there is something wrong with her.

    They have women both ways, and the women’s organizations in the Primary played right into it.
    ————————————————————————————————-

    I really hate that double standard, and it is disgraceful that women’s organizations play right into it. Oh, and don’t forget about showing emotion. That is the worse thing that a woman can do.

  117. “This is why they say that Hillary is sexless. If she shows her sex, she is too female, and not worthy of leading, and if she behaves sexless or more male, there is something wrong with her.”

    ——————————————-

    And jealous, insecure men along with jealous, insecure women are the worst….brazile, pelosi, et al… are just as responsible for pushing this message. Hillary runs circles around all of them but of course a woman isn’t allowed to be both brilliant and “female” at the same time.

    So what did we end up with? a stupid, racist man and his stupid, racist wife.

  118. NewMexicoFan Says:

    March 24th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
    birdgal

    This is why they say that Hillary is sexless. If she shows her sex, she is too female, and not worthy of leading, and if she behaves sexless or more male, there is something wrong with her.
    &&&&&&&

    I think she’s very attractive, and I know few people “her age” who look as fit and alert and vibrant.

    “Hill, *call me*.

  119. rgb44htc

    I really think that the image she developed during the primary was true to her and her best features. If you look at her nerdy image during the early years, you know that HRC has always been interested in how she researches, and thinks over anything else. However, for the primary and general she had to develop the way she looked. She had obviously worked on it during the White House and Senate years.

    I wish this culture was less hooked up on look, and more into what our candidates knew and how they performed.

  120. If you look at her nerdy image during the early years, you know that HRC has always been interested in how she researches, and thinks over anything else.
    *************
    She was derided for that also….”She didn’t look like what a “proper” wife of a governor should look like.

  121. One of the things that made me know 0bama was a complete sham and narcissist from the get-go, who did NOT want to do the president’s job, but wanted the position and the trappings and the adulation, was this little insight into his character from a journalist, David Mendell, at the 2004 convention.

    I read it way back when, and said to myself, “this guy will go far in politics, but for all the wrong reasons”.

    he’s walking around the outside of the Boston FleetCenter arena. He was in this real cocky strut of his, which you can see quite frequently. He was like an athlete gearing up for the big game, and he kind of looked like that. …

    I said, “You seem to be doing fine this week. Everybody seems to really be taking to you well.” And he said: “I got some game. I can play at this level. I’m LeBron, baby.” He was comparing himself, obviously, to LeBron James, the phenom in the NBA at that point.

    That little window into the soul right there told me all I ever needed to know about this man’s character and motivations.

  122. NewMexfan
    months ago someone here said poitics are for those to ugly to make it in Hollywood. With the exception of a few who have dedicated thier lives to the betterment of humanity I gotta say agree. Name a politician who could be on the cover of a mag. or kicks i looked at the 200 plus house persons and even with I quartr of vodka in me I could not find a one I WOULD SLEEP

  123. game with friends played with a gun to your head gotta sleep with an obama pick. Absolutely 100% with the answers being revealed after—- everyone said HRC. Stupid game which only serves to make a group of people who had no differences 25 years ago be able to connect.

  124. “The video to Iran is the latest catastrophe. Mr. Obama simply does not understand how his “olive branch” will be received, not only by the mullahs in Iran itself, but wherever else on the surface of the planet the United States has enemies. It “reads” — to people who do not share anything like America’s aspirations — as an unambiguous confession of weakness. He has moved the American position towards Iran from offensive to defensive, for no defensible reason.”

    ———————————————————–

    Blue,

    This “president” (and I use the term very loosely) is an amateur playing politics with world peace. He is trying to negotiated with “moderate terrorists.” The guy is a menace.

  125. Congress tries to divert the taxpayers’ attention

    Published Tue, Mar 24, 2009

    Beneath the hullabaloo over AIG’s bonus payments lies a hidden, self-righteous indignation from Washington. Backed by media hype, our Congress and Senate seek to punish AIG and those executives who received outrageous and exorbitant bonuses from bailout money. Right or wrong, it is clear that our government does not want any competition doling out taxpayer money. Put another way, largesse is the domain of our government.

    To make this issue more clear, a recent article in this newspaper quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as saying, “We want our money back now for the taxpayers.” Notice she said “our money,” not your (the taxpayer’s) money. Like many politicians in Washington today, Speaker Pelosi considers our money her money.
    Again referring to The Beaufort Gazette article, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., condemned AIG’s actions as “corporate greed and arrogance.” He also was quoted as saying, “These bonuses represent a squandering of the people’s money.” Are you kidding me?

    Wake up, folks. It isn’t corporate America that’s squandering our money. Nor was it corporate America that forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to turn good renters into bad homeowners, which started all this mess.

    The politicians, through the media, now are viciously attacking AIG executives. This diversion is interesting. Watch closely to see how all this plays out. In particular, watch how the politicians divert your attention away from themselves. You gotta love it.

    beaufortgazette.com/181/story/739735.html

  126. I think this quote by H.L. Mencken from 1920 deserves to be brought up once a week:

    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

  127. UPDATE FROM ORLY TAITZ TODAY:

    USDOJ: Office of Solicitor General AND SCOTUS!

    Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. just received a phone call from Karen Thornton at the Department of Justice. She stated that all of Orly’s documents and filings have been forwarded to the Office of Solicitor General, Elena Kagan. That includes all three Dossiers, the Quo Warranto Easterling v. Obama aka Soetoro. Please show your support that we want these matters and investigations looked into immediately, 202-514-2203.

    Coincidently, after Dr. Taitz called me with that update, she received another call from Officer Giaccino at the Supreme Court. Officer Giaccino stated both pleadings have been received and being analyzed now. Also, Justice Roberts must be back because the Officer also stated that all the documents that were given to Chief Justice Roberts at Iowan University are now at the Supreme Court and are also being analyzed. We will be notified tomorrow after 1:00pm EST as to whether they will be on the docket at the Supreme Court.

    defendourfreedoms.us/

  128. NY TIMES GRUMBLEFUSSING ABOUT “THEIR GUY”

    Two editorial page pieces, one questioning his approach, and the other questioning his will:

    1. nytimes.com/2009/03/24/opinion/24tue1.html?ref=opinion

    The Bank Rescue
    ————————

    President Obama’s long-awaited plan to revive the banks could work if certain assumptions about the future are right. But there is not much, beyond faith, to believe those assumptions will pan out — and even if there were, it is hard to see how the plan is the best way to go.

    In the near term, the plan would provide financing to buy $500 billion of banks’ bad assets — and possibly up to $1 trillion over time. Most of the financing would be in the form of low-cost government loans and loan guarantees for private investors who buy the troubled assets.

    The first assumption is that those battered assets will recover handsomely, thus allowing the government loans to be repaid with interest. There has, however, been no independent assessment of the assets or their underlying collateral, so there’s no way to know that they will recover by much, if at all from their beaten-down state.

    The Times has reported that investors are currently offering 30 cents on the dollar for certain toxic assets. Banks are unwilling to sell at that price, but that doesn’t mean the offer price is too low. It may only indicate their fear that taking such losses might render the banks insolvent. With government subsidies, investors will presumably offer a price that is more to the banks’ liking. But that, in turn, could expose the government to big losses. Government loans are huge compared with the sums that investors must put up, so even a modest decline in the value of the purchased assets would endanger repayment of the loans.

    Even if we assume that the assets do increase in value, allowing the government to be repaid, there are still unsolved problems.

    Successful sales will rid banks of some of their toxic assets, but not necessarily all or even most of them. To restore the banks to health, the sums expended would have to be enough to balance the banks’ assets and liabilities, and provide a reasonable cushion to resume lending and absorb future losses. No one knows with any certainty how much that is, though some estimates put it north of $2 trillion, much more than what the administration is contemplating.

    And even if you assume that the sums put up by the government are enough to cleanse the banks entirely, restoring the banks to health by throwing money at them — even with a sheen of private capital — would not be fair. It would be one big transfer of wealth from the government to bank investors. That would be better than an apocalyptic crash, but it is a near complete socialization of losses, with little value flowing to taxpayers.

    A better way would be to base the rescue on current reality, not assumptions about the future. What would an examination of the banks’ assets reveal about their value? What is the size of the hole in the banking system? In the absence of good-faith measurement, taxpayer-financed purchases of bad assets could court huge unnecessary risks.

    In other banking crises, both in this country and abroad, resolution of a systemwide problem has sooner or later involved separating solvent banks from insolvent banks. In the end, there is no getting around firing the executives at failing banks, acknowledging the losses, wiping out the shareholders and then deciding how the government can best restructure the institutions. The Obama administration has yet to explain why its approach is better than that.

    2. nytimes.com/2009/03/24/opinion/24tue3.html?ref=opinion

    Obama Flinches on Immigration
    ——————————————-

    In a little-noticed act of political faintheartedness, the Obama administration has pulled back from nominating Thomas Saenz, a highly regarded civil-rights lawyer and counsel to the mayor of Los Angeles, to run the Justice Department’s civil rights division.

    Mr. Saenz, the former top litigator in Los Angeles for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or Maldef, was privately offered the job in January. The floating of his name led to fierce outbursts from anti-immigrant groups and blogs, which detest him for being so good at what he does.

    He was a leader of the successful fight to block California’s Proposition 187, an unconstitutional effort to deny social services and schooling to illegal immigrants. He has defended Latino day laborers who were targets of misguided local crackdowns, from illegal police stings to unconstitutional anti-solicitation ordinances. An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily slimed Mr. Saenz by calling him “an open-borders extremist” and said Maldef wanted to give California back to Mexico.

    None of it was true, but it was apparently too much for the White House. Mr. Saenz was ditched in favor of Maryland’s labor secretary, Thomas Perez, who has a solid record but is not as closely tied to immigrant rights.

    Immigrant advocates are stuck with the sinking feeling that Mr. Obama’s supposed enthusiasm for immigration reform will wilt under pressure and heat. Representative Luis Gutiérrez of Illinois, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, found it sadly unsurprising that a lawyer could be rejected for the nation’s top civil-rights job because he had stood up for civil rights. “In what other position do you find that your life experience, your educational knowledge and commitment to an issue actually hurts you?” he asked.

    Mr. Obama may have avoided a nasty fight this time. But if he is ever going to win the battle to put 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, he will to have to confront and dismantle the core restrictionist argument: that being an illegal immigrant is an unpardonable crime, one that strips away fundamental protections and forgives all manner of indecent treatment.

    The Constitution’s bedrock protections do not apply to just the native-born. The suffering that illegal immigrants endure — from raids to workplace exploitation to mistreatment in detention — is a civil-rights crisis. It cannot be left to fester while we wait for the big immigration bill that may or may not arrive under this president.

    Mr. Saenz would have been an ideal candidate to reaffirm values that have been lost in the poisoned immigration debate, had Mr. Obama dared to nominate him.

    &&&&&&&&&

    From the second one, “In a little-noticed act of political faintheartedness…”. If they wanted a fighter, that there Jr. Senator of New York certainly seemed to show a LOT more …ahem….balls.

    From the first, “…but it is a near complete socialization of losses, with little value flowing to taxpayers.” Again, if they wanted a REAL Democrat to fight for REAL CHANGE and FAIRNESS (rather than a RE-FAUX-MER), they should have seen it coming that Obama was too much in the pocket of big monied interests, while Hillary made her fair share of enemies because of policies she pursued over her lifetime.

    Hillary was certainly not some “Washington outsider” like a Nader or Gravel or whomever, and she certainly knows weatlhy people, and she’s had her fair share of pork barrel politics and the like. But overall, she IS and WILL BE a formidable figure on the national horizon, and we look forward to giving her even more control. Her competence, achievements, and trustworthiness make her deserving of weilding power.

  129. Secretary Clinton Travel to the Netherlands
    Robert Wood

    March 23, 2009

    At the invitation of Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to the Netherlands to attend the “International Conference on Afghanistan: a Comprehensive Strategy in a Regional Context” in The Hague on March 31. Building on the achievements of the Conferences held in Bonn, in London and, most recently, in Paris last year, The Hague Ministerial should reaffirm the solid and long-term commitment of the international community to supporting the Government of Afghanistan in shaping a better future for Afghanistan and its people. Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke will accompany Secretary Clinton.

    The ministerial discussion will be co-chaired by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan Kai Eide, Afghan Minister of Foreign Affairs Rangin Dadfar Spanta and Foreign Minister Verhagen.

    While in the Netherlands, Secretary Clinton will also have a bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Verhagen to discuss issues of mutual interest.

    state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/03/120814.htm

  130. Brawl over Obama budget brews in Congress

    Tue Mar 24, 2009
    By Richard Cowan

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Barack Obama is preparing for one of the toughest fights of his young presidency as Congress begins work on a budget that may trim his spending plans but back his healthcare, energy and education proposals. Obama will meet fellow Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday to try to shore up support for a budget blueprint that likely would increase the deficit more than initially estimated by the White House — it was forecast at $1.4 trillion for next year.

    The House Budget Committee will begin a marathon session on Wednesday to write its version of the budget plan, followed a day later by the Senate Budget Committee’s unveiling of its budget plan for fiscal 2010 and the four subsequent years. Republicans say Obama’s budget plan expands government and raises taxes on the rich and small businesses at a time when the country is mired in a deep recession. Obama, for his part, is trying to keep fiscally-conservative Democrats on board.
    Democrats, who control Congress, are looking for ways to shave some of the spending requests in a bid to persuade enough fiscally-moderate members of their party to support a $3.55 trillion budget next year.

    “I’m hopeful we can have a majority of the House and Senate support” a budget plan, said a cautious-sounding House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Democrats, said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, a senior member of the Senate Budget Committee, want to “put the middle class first and bring the country out of the recession.” To do that, Murray told reporters, Congress must invest more in education, healthcare and alternative energy to create jobs, while shoring up domestic programs that she said were largely ignored in the eight years of the Bush administration. “Now is not the time to sit back and criticize,” Murray said in a open warning to Republicans.

    But criticize is exactly what Republicans promise to do over the next two weeks as the House of Representatives and Senate debate and try to pass a non-binding budget resolution that will set national priorities for the next five years. The Obama budget “changes the course of our nation in a fundamental way,” said Senator Judd Gregg, the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. Gregg said he and his fellow Republicans will offer a series of amendments that, taken together, would result in much lower annual budget deficits and a smaller increase in a skyrocketing federal debt that is expensive to finance. Republicans would like bigger increases in military spending, a freeze on non-defense domestic programs and tax cuts, including the estate tax. Like some Democrats, Gregg also noted the need to control spending on the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs.

    reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52G3OX20090324

  131. blue Says:

    March 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
    March 21, 2009
    Too Clever by Half
    By David Warren

    (snip)
    To my analytical mind, such as it is, they wanted Obama the man, but not Obama the agenda, except for the uplifting rhetorical bits about “hope,” “change,” and so forth.
    &&&&&&&&&&&

    If they wanted popularity back in 1932, they might have recruited Babe Ruth to be president.

    Or maybe Seabiscuit.

  132. But criticize is exactly what Republicans promise to do over the next two weeks as the House of Representatives and Senate debate and try to pass a non-binding budget resolution that will set national priorities for the next five years. The Obama budget “changes the course of our nation in a fundamental way,” said Senator Judd Gregg, the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.
    ————————-
    If Obama had a clue what he was doing he would never have left himself open to this. A competent democratic president like Hillary would have been the one setting the national priorities, and would not raise taxes during a recession. Every negotiator faces this problem at one time or another–a conflict in your own priorities. Those with an IQ above room temperature usuall figure out that timing can be your friend or you enemy but Rome was not built in a day. But then again there has never in all history been a man like Messiah Obama. He is the stuff of legends, and a mere conflict in priorities is not a problem. Just tell Peter X and Paul not X, take a long puff and everything will be . . . marvelous . . .

  133. wbboei

    O is not a negotiator. He does not like that personnel interaction. He prefers to bully you into everything that he wants, and ignore you or throw you under the bus. People who have worked with him in the past have pointed this out.

  134. O is not a negotiator. He does not like that personnel interaction. He prefers to bully you into everything that he wants, and ignore you or throw you under the bus. People who have worked with him in the past have pointed this out.
    ——————-
    I agree he is not a negotitator, but he is facing a negotition problem. He cannot achieve his objectives without the concurrence of other people whose interests diverge from his own. Futhermore, his relationship to them is continuing as opposed to transactional. And his power is far from absolute. In fact, it erodes a little every time he opens his mouth. So I think the observation is fairly accurate. Besides there is only so much room under the bus, and sometimes they rise from the dead like werewolves to bite the driver.

  135. The person who has made this point most forcefully is Eliot Spitzer, of all people. In his column for Slate.com, he wrote: “Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn’t we already give Goldman a $25 billion cash infusion, and aren’t they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash?” Mr. Spitzer told me that while “there is a legitimate sense of outrage over the bonuses, the larger outrage should be the use of A.I.G. funding as a second bailout for the large investment houses.” Precisely.
    ***************************************

    Ok, I am a bit dense. Could someone explain to me how the larger outrage should be the use of AIG funding as a second bailout for the large investment houses? What does that exactly mean?

  136. gonzo, AIG is not a bank, they are an insurance company. They insured a lot of the toxic waste of the other banks. So those banks got a bailout, THEN turn around and collect from AIG for the bad paper that AIG insured.

    They double-dipped.

Comments are closed.