Sleight problem

Great article Veritas.

So, let me get this straight.

The House votes down a bill. A bill in which democrats conspired with georgie to rob us blind. And then the Senate adds some changes, NOT for 'main street', but for MORE corporate tax breaks and loopholes FOR WALL STREET... And they pass it and tell all of us it is a 'rescue'.

And they had to give them more tax cuts and loopholes so EVERYONE would agree to it.

I am tired of these theiving sons of bitches.

They should all be pitchforked by angry mobs.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/01/pearlstein/index.html

Recapitalise the banking system
By George Soros
The emergency legislation currently before Congress was ill-conceived - or more accurately, not conceived at all. As Congress tried to improve what Treasury originally requested, an amalgam plan has emerged that consists of Treasury's original Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp) and a quite different capital infusion programme in which the government invests and stabilises weakened banks and profits from the economy's eventual improvement. The capital infusion approach will cost tax payers less in future years, and may even make money for them.

Two weeks ago the Treasury did not have a plan ready - that is why it had to ask for total discretion in spending the money. But the general idea was to bring relief to the banking system by relieving banks of their toxic securities and parking them in a government-owned fund so that they would not be dumped on the market at distressed prices. With the value of their investments stabilised, banks would then be able to raise equity capital.

The idea was fraught with difficulties. The toxic securities in question are not homogenous and in any auction process the sellers are liable to dump the dregs on to the government fund. Moreover, the scheme addresses only one half of the underlying problem - the lack of credit availability. It does very little to enable house owners to meet their mortgage obligations and it does not address the foreclosure problem. With house prices not yet at the bottom, if the government bids up the price of mortgage backed securities, the taxpayers are liable to loose; but if the government does not pay up, the banking system does not experience much relief and cannot attract equity capital from the private sector.

A scheme so heavily favouring Wall Street over Main Street was politically unacceptable. It was tweaked by the Democrats, who hold the upper hand, so that it penalises the financial institutions that seek to take advantage of it. The Republicans did not want to be left behind and imposed a requirement that the tendered securities should be insured against loss at the expense of the tendering institution. The rescue package as it is now constituted is an amalgam of multiple approaches. There is now a real danger that the asset purchase programme will not be fully utilised because of the onerous conditions attached to it.

Nevertheless, a rescue package was desperately needed and, in spite of its shortcomings, it would change the course of events. As late as last Monday, September 22, Treasury secretary Hank Paulson hoped to avoid using taxpayers' money; that is why he allowed Lehman Brothers to fail. Tarp establishes the principle that public funds are needed and if the present programme does not work, other programmes will be instituted. We will have crossed the Rubicon.

Since Tarp was ill-conceived, it is liable to arouse a negative response from America's creditors. They would see it as an attempt to inflate away the debt. The dollar is liable to come under renewed pressure and the government will have to pay more for its debt, especially at the long end. These adverse consequences could be mitigated by using taxpayers' funds more effectively.

Instead of just purchasing troubled assets the bulk of the funds ought to be used to recapitalise the banking system. Funds injected at the equity level are more high-powered than funds used at the balance sheet level by a minimal factor of twelve - effectively giving the government $8,400bn to re-ignite the flow of credit. In practice, the effect would be even greater because the injection of government funds would also attract private capital. The result would be more economic recovery and the chance for taxpayers to profit from the recovery.

This is how it would work. The Treasury secretary would rely on bank examiners rather than delegate implementation of Tarp to Wall Street firms. The bank examiners would establish how much additional equity capital each bank needs in order to be properly capitalised according to existing capital requirements. If managements could not raise equity from the private sector they could turn to Tarp.

Tarp would invest in preference shares with warrants attached. The preference shares would carry a low coupon (say 5 per cent) so that banks would find it profitable to continue lending, but shareholders would pay a heavy price because they would be diluted by the warrants; they would be given the right, however, to subscribe on Tarp's terms. The rights would be tradeable and the secretary of the Treasury would be instructed to set the terms so that the rights would have a positive value.

Private investors, including me, are likely to jump at the opportunity. The recapitalised banks would be allowed to increase their leverage, so they would resume lending. Limits on bank leverage could be imposed later, after the economy has recovered. If the funds were used in this way, the recapitalisation of the banking system could be achieved with less than $500bn of public funds.

A revised emergency legislation could also provide more help to homeowners. It could require the Treasury to provide cheap financing for mortgage securities whose terms have been renegotiated, based on the Treasury's cost of borrowing. Mortgage service companies could be prohibited from charging fees on foreclosures, but they could expect the owners of the securities to provide incentives for renegotiation as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are already doing.

Banks deemed to be insolvent would not be eligible for recapitalization by the capital infusion programme, but would be taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC would be recapitalised by $200bn as a temporary measure. FDIC, in turn could remove the $100,000 limit on insured deposits. A revision of the emergency legislation along these lines would be more equitable, have a better chance of success, and cost taxpayers less in the long run.

The writer is chairman of Soros Fund Management

Greenwald makes, of course, an obvious point. Why not just buy up the bad mortgages, and either offer terms to current owners that would allow them to pay off their debts on more reasonable terms (say 40 year terms instead of 30, and 30 instead of 15) or rent the property for the foreseeable future?

If the mortgages were suddenly no longer delinquent, then these bonds would again have value.

This would be an illustration of bottom-up economics. But no one with any clout is proposing it, with a general election now 33 days away.

Senator Maria Cantwell says bailout bill before Congress is flawed to its core
Minutes ago, the United States Senate voted seventy four to twenty five to pass fundamentally flawed legislation that would bail out Wall Street's mistakes to the tune of nearly three fourths of a trillion dollars.

Ken posted the roll call earlier.

Voting yes were Senators Patty Murray, Larry Craig and Gordon Smith. Voting no were Senators Maria Cantwell, Mike Crapo and Ron Wyden.

Senators Obama and McCain voted yes.

The following is the text of Senator Cantwell's unprepared remarks (delivered earlier this evening on the Senate floor) calling for a redesigned solution that addresses the causes of this financial crisis - a solution that safeguards America's common wealth and holds Wall Street accountable.
Mr. President, I don't think 5 minutes would possibly be enough time for me to explain all the things I would like to say. I am sure I could spend an hour talking about credit default swaps. I am sure I could spend 2 days talking about the lack of transparency in the financial markets.

I am sure I could spend a lot of time explaining what I think is the right thing we should do to put as much liquidity into the markets as possible. So I will try to be succinct.

I came to the Senate knowing what it is like to take a tough vote. To make the decision that is right for the American public. It’s most important to do the right thing. I also know what it is like to see millions of dollars in the stock market go away and watch a stock bubble burst.

I also know what it is like to stand on the Senate floor, as I did 3 years ago, when someone tried to cram legislation in the Defense authorization bill to open up drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and I said then that is was the equivalent to legislative blackmail.

I am not going to vote for this legislation tonight based on whether someone crams in tax credits, for which I actually have fought so hard. I am going to render my decision based on what I think is important for the American people.

I think there is something that is missing in our discussion. I applaud Chairman Dodd who has worked hard on the Banking Committee. I applaud my colleague who just spoke, who spoke eloquently about the need to do something.

But the problem with the legislation before us is that it is choosing winners and losers in corporate America. It is inserting the Federal Government in a role in which they decide, along with the private sector, exactly how funds should be allocated.

I am for the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government backing these institutions. What I am not for is turning the keys to the Treasury over to the private sector.

There is much we could agree on tonight. We could agree on the new changes to the FDIC rule. We could agree on mark to market accounting changes and to bringing better marketing and accountability to the system.

We could agree on the up-tick rule and other predictability measures that help the market understand that there is a broad commitment by this institution to do something to help stabilize the markets.

But I am very concerned about the "pick here, pick there" approach that has transpired in the last several weeks.

I ask you to just think of one institution, in my State, Washington Mutual - which I would not necessarily applaud for its subprime lending rates or for its use and backing of credit default swaps, but I would ask you to consider the fact that as that institution was forced into sale by this Government.

Who were the winners and losers in that?

JPMorgan got the assets of that institution and benefited from that. In fact, JPMorgan predicted to me on a conference call the night they acquired Washington Mutual that after one year with their investment, they would have an over $500 million on that investment. That is a 27 percent returned in one year.

The FDIC got some money out of that, too. And then to say nothing about the over 60,000 shareholders who were wiped out.

My complaint is: where is JPMorgan - who should be standing up for the retirement plans, the deferred compensation plans, and other packages that the employees at that company were due?

It is very convenient for us to now choose that we are going to add to JPMorgan's bottom line. In fact, if we would instead do what I am suggesting, we could have an equity proposal instead of having TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as the roof over America.

Instead, we could have an equity program where the United States would leverage our capital and spur ten to twelve times the private sector investment at the same time, our Nation would be better funded, better prepared, for the onslaught of trouble that is still going to remain after we pass this legislation.

I could not even get my amendment to be considered.

So, so much for the transparency of the Senate.

I am going to continue to work for this idea, for equity, for a more leveraged position, and that we do the traditional role that Government has done time and time again: to use our equity to leverage the private sector to secure our economy.

Thank you Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
We at at the Northwest Progressive Institute strongly applaud Senator Maria Cantwell for her courageous vote.

She is a dependable champion for the public interest, and her speech tonight (which was not prepared in advance) is filled with uncommon sense.

Barack Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership would be wise to listen to the very serious concerns that Senator Cantwell raised.

If this bailout bill is supposed to be a cure, it's almost worse than the disease that caused it. This is not the timely, deliberative reform that America needs.

(from Matthew at NW Progressive Institute)

Sorry for the language on this photo.

V--excellent article. And you're right. It's what I've been saying all along. (To myself anyways.)

I also want to point out that here in my state there has been a 35% drop in manufacturing jobs--manufacturing jobs pay more than nonunion service jobs. So those people are doubly screwed.

I pointed out to a few that people didn't enter these mortgages intending to bailout later. But under this admin, the loss of jobs, the loss of good paying jobs, AND added to that the falsely inflated costs of ALL HOMES for the past 8 years has created this crisis for us.

Wall Street can go blow. Give the money to mainstreet Americans. Hey, I know many many people (probably including me) who overpaid for the house they're living in. Unless something dire happens, that money is loooooooong gone. The banks rachetted up the cost of everything: land, lumber, etc which allowed the bubble to grow. They approved those loans and those amounts knowing the bubble would burst.

My husband and I researched before we built. But we were told the house would be a good investment.

Maybe it still is but ONLY if we get good paying jobs back here!

Otherwise, who knows what will happen. Right now, every house built between 2000 and 2008 is over-inflated and the owners are stuck with houses that won't sell for 1/2 that. So if they declare bankruptcy, then the banks will be stuck with another bad loan because they dealt with the people in bad faith.

Stocks decline on unemployment, factory reports
By TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - Stocks tumbled and credit markets remained tight Thursday after plunging factor orders and a seven-year high in jobless claims stoked fear that the government's financial rescue plan might not be enough to ward off a recession. The Dow Jones industrials fell more than 300 points, their fourth straight triple-digit move.

Stocks fell at the opening, then gathered downward momentum after the government reported that the number of people seeking unemployment benefits rose last week and that demand at the nation's factories has fallen by the largest amount in nearly two years.

The market is interpreting the Commerce Department report on factories as a sign that tight credit conditions are hitting manufacturers.

This economic crisis between Wall Street and Main Street is another example on why those joining forces with the anti-life-pro-lifers is totally messed up.

They're going to turn all of us into this and what parent, child, or adult wants to live like this:

Sorry for the graphic. But when we can't afford to eat or feed our families. And when we can't put a roof over our head. But people think that a fetus is more valuable than sound policies for a real-honest-to-goodness-breathing-human being?

Did I mention they should all be pitchforked?

Sparrow,

Your picture should also remind us that even with our screwy economy, we are certainly not living on less than $1/day.

Many of our "needs" are manufactured by an advertising industry that realizes in a developed country where basic needs are met, they aren't going to sell many products unless they convince us we "need" them.

Family Values????

October 3, 2008
Parents Give Up Youths Under Law Meant for Babies
By ERIK ECKHOLM
OMAHA — The abandonments began on Sept. 1, when a mother left her 14-year-old son in a police station here.

By Sept. 23, two more boys and one girl, ages 11 to 14, had been abandoned in hospitals in Omaha and Lincoln. Then a 15-year-old boy and an 11-year-old girl were left.

The biggest shock to public officials came last week, when a single father walked into an Omaha hospital and surrendered nine of his 10 children, ages 1 to 17, saying that his wife had died and he could no longer cope with the burden of raising them.

In total last month, 15 older children in Nebraska were dropped off by a beleaguered parent or custodial aunt or grandmother who said the children were unmanageable.

Officials have called the abandonments a misuse of a new law that was mainly intended to prevent so-called Dumpster babies — the abandonment of newborns by young, terrified mothers — but instead has been used to hand off out-of-control teenagers or, in the case of the father of 10, to escape financial and personal despair.

The spate of abandonments has prompted an outcry about parental irresponsibility and pledges to change the state law. But it has also cast a spotlight on the hidden extent of family turmoil around the country and what many experts say is a shortage of respite care, counseling and especially psychiatric services to help parents in dire need.

Some who work with troubled children add that economic conditions, like stagnant low-end wages and the epidemic of foreclosures, may make the situation worse, adding layers of worry and conflict.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/03omaha.html

Blacksville #2 Mine Idle After 440 Workers Stay Home

UMWA Workers Took Memorial Day in Protest

BLACKSVILLE -- Coal production at a mine in Monongalia County came to a halt today when every union miner stayed home, as part of a political protest.

It was an idle day Monday at the Blacksville #2 Mine.

More than 440 workers who are members of the United Mine Workers of America took what's called a Memorial Day instead of going to work.

Union officials say they took the day to protest after a film crew from the National Rifle Assocation showed up at the Consol mine last week to interview union workers.

They say the crew tried to get union coal miners to speak out against Barak Obama.

The UMWA has endorsed the democratic presidential nominee.

"This was a surprise visit," explained VP Local 1702, Safety Chairman Eric Greathouse, "and a lot of the miners felt this was a direct slap in the face of the union because they were trying to coerce our people into saying things against Barck Obama."

"Consol doesn't let anybody on their property - never," said Safety Committee Member Mark Dorsey, "And for them to let the NRA come on the property and solicit our membership was totally uncalled for. We made our endorsement to our political process and we didn't bother them and they shouldn't be harassing our membership over this."

The workers will return to work at 12:01 Tuesday morning.

A spokesperson for Consol said the company is not issuing any comment on the day.

http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=44752&email=1

Did yall see Medicaid will no longer be paying for the treatment of 'medical errors'..?

Unfreakingbelievable.

Ok - so WHY is Obama supporting this? And encouraging others to support it? Bring on the pitchforks!

Thanks V - excellent overview.

Obama is supporting this because it is T minus 32 days to a General Election. If he opposes it, he gets accused of attempting to scuttle "important legislation that could deliver America from financial ruin".

The good news is that only $350 billion of the originally proposed package will likely be used under a Bush Administration - and it is theoretically possible that the government might eventually even recoup much of this money. Now, $350 billion is a LOT of money, a LOT OF MONEY. But at this point, a "good" program is probably not possible. It will take a new President, and large Democratic majorities in Congress, to push through the kind of program that might make a meaningful difference. And there's no chance for any of that until after Obama becomes President.

I bet two tacos she starts to cry.

Hit Her Joe! Hit her HARD!

Palin is awful. Just awful.

Ok. So what does uninformed people think of tonight's debate. I saw only the closing.

Also, I saw that while the debate was occuring, Congress is vote -switching on the bailout.

I can't find the link right now.

Hello everyone, I've been away for the past several days, during which I visited Busan, South Korea's No. 2 city, for the second time.

My first visit was three years ago, when I had the misfortune of sharing the city with W. I went to the house where W met with 20 other heads of state back then, and had a chance to stand in his footsteps. I flat-out refused.

I have some thoughts from Seoul regarding the economic mess in the US, what caused it, and how South Korea, under a new Christian conservative government, is copying what the US has done for the past three decades. Please check my latest blog entry:

http://rachelkso.blogspot.com/2008/10/economic-doldrums.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/2/23218/9925/941/618430

Please rec and comment...

Huffington Post Ex-Bush Officials: Biden Won The Debate: Said Torie Clarke, who worked with McCain back in Arizona and with the Bush Administration's Department of Defense, had the following remarks on ABC: " I think Joe Biden had his best night tonight. He came with one mission, and that was to go after John McCain, and he did it, backed up by facts. I think he did a better job tonight of tying McCain to the Bush administration than Obama did last week. Matthew Dowd, who worked for George Bush's communications team while in the White House, followed Clarke and he too agreed that the Delaware Democrat took the evening.

ABC Dowd 10:52 PM: “I think fundamentally the American public came away with this tonight, just like they came away with the debate last night, saying, you know, I'm leaning in Obama and Biden's corner, and this didn't change my mind.”
Gibson: I'm amazed that we have agreement from all three of you.

CNN David Gergen 10:05 PM: People underestimating how good Biden was, Biden “was really good”

CNN Alex Castellanos 10:38 PM : "The second part of the debate, you know Republicans aren't going to win debates on Iraq, I don't care who you put on that stage tonight, we're not going to win debates on Iraq and we didn't tonight. But overall, we've had a rough week as Republicans. You know, this has not been our best week."

CBS Bob Schieffer 10:35 PM: “I must say, I thought Senator Biden had a very good night. He seemed comfortable with the facts, it was clear he has dealt with these issues over the years, I thought he put his experience on display in a very good way.”

MSNBC Chris Matthews 10:35 PM: "Not only did she say I'm not going to do any more interviews, it seemed, but she was saying, I'm not going to listen to uh Gwen Ifill tonight. She said I'm not going to uh give the answers the moderator wants to ask for. What an extraordinary statement. I'm not going to play by the rules and when I get elected I want more power in the office than it's had before. Hmm.. Not too much humility here."

CBS Bob Schieffer 10:35 PM: “I must say, I found it a little disconcerting, time and again, Governor Palin would just choose not to answer the question and launch into some dissertation, sometimes talking points, and not really address what Gwen Ifill had asked her.”

PBS David Brooks 10:39 PM: "When he talked about his family and the death of his wife, that is a moment people remember, what they remember about the debates is the moment when you think you see the person and that was a moment where I thought you saw Joe Biden."

MSNBC Andrea Mitchell 10:38 PM: "She didn't answer the questions. And, in fact, she would say, I want to talk about taxes, which hadn't even come up."

FOX News Frank Luntz 10:44 PM: With the Luntz Polling Group was in the Anheuser-Busch Headquarters, When Asked Independent Voters Their Reactions One Voter Said, “she had a presentation about her, but that also annoyed me, too. She catered to kind of an adorability and lacked substance.”

Washington Post (Eugene Robinson): Exactly an hour into the debate, Joe Biden began an answer by saying, "Facts matter, Gwen." To him, maybe. To Sarah Palin, maybe not. The pattern, so far, has been one of Biden presenting facts and Palin countering with… saying stuff. Sometimes she throws in a fact, but mostly she seems to be offering a string of approximate policy positions, encomiums to the American spirit, disputed interpretations of Barack Obama's record and anecdotes from Alaska.

Washington Post (Chris Cillizza): Go Biden Go! Again, very good moment for Biden. The more he talks "Bush=McCain" the better.

Philadelphia Inquirerer (Will Bunch): Biden points out that Ahmadinjad isn't the surpreme ruler of Iran -- how come people don't bring that up. Hammering McCain on the Spain issue -- the McCain camp really screwed up on the way it handled that one.

Salon (Joan Walsh) How Sarah Palin blew it: Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were talking to two different Americas Thursday night. Actually, that's unfair to Joe Biden; he was trying to talk to everyone. I can say for certain, though, that Sarah Palin was talking to – and winking at – her own private Idaho, and for long stretches of the debate, it was an unnerving experience.

Washington Post: (E.J. Dionne Jr.) McCain's Dicey Gamble: Gambling with his presidential candidacy is McCain's right. Gambling with the country McCain says he puts first is another thing entirely. And last night's vice presidential debate took place at precisely the moment when a majority of American voters decided that having Palin in line for the presidency is more than a little bit scary.

CNN (Bob Schneider): Palin’s answers do not lack confidence, they lack coherence.

Washington Post (Chris Cillizza): She pivots to executive appearance but her answer on the role of the vice presidency was REALLY bad.

TIME: Palin didn’t make any big mistakes, but she also didn’t reassure that she could handle the presidency.

Washington Post (Chris Cillizza): Palin: Worst spot in the debate. Looking down at her notes a lot. Really struggling.

TIME: This closing statement sounds like she's giving a speech to the College Republicans. It's really amateur hour.

Politico (Ben Smith): As this debate has gone on, Palin's gotten more abstract, Biden more concrete.

ABC News (Rick Klein): Palin: "So Joe, there you go again." Anyone else over that line? Couldn't it have been retired with Reagan? Shout-out to third graders at her brother's elementary school? What world were we just in there for a few minutes?

CNN (Bob Schneider): Palin needs to define the terms she uses. Reform, corruption, maverick…these are words that Palin often uses, but she needs to define them.

FOX News (Aaron Bruns): Palin calls the supreme NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen David McKiernan, “McClellan.” Does it twice.

Politico (Jonathan Martin): Biden explains how McCain is not a maverick On voting for Bush's budgets, health care and education. No dispute from Palin.

TNR: Palin's final quote was from Ronald Reagan, warning that without vigilance, "you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free." In fact, Reagan was not warning about a general lack of vigilance about freedom, he was warning what would happen if Medicare was enacted.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/reviews-are-in-biden-won.html

This is the actual front and back cover of this magazine.

About the debate .. how did anyone convince Bush II he could do it either? or Reagan? Imagine how the neocons could manipulate Palin or even feeble old McCain?

I used to live in South Dakota. I moved because I couldn't take it. I was reading about the live "undecideds" at KELO LAND studio in Sioux Falls (where I used to go to watch "Captain 11" show cartoons, blissfully unaware that he was drunk half the time) - anyway, these peoples' ratings went upward when they heard Palin talk about the "White Flag of Surrender" and they went up with they heard Biden talk about "getting Bin Laden." No wonder they can't decide - they have no more idea about context than Palin does!

Who was the McClellen that Palin mentioned twice, you ask?

Could it have been a Freudian slip? The most famous General McClellen in American history was a Civil War General who liked to drill his troops but didn't really want to fight. Abraham Lincoln eventually fired him a few months before Gettysburg.

McClellen became the Democratic candidate for President in 1864, and is credited by historians for running the dirtiest, most disgusting Presidential campaign in American history. For instance, pro-McClellen newspapers featured cartoons depicting Negros and Whites kissing, charging that if Lincoln won reelection, miscegenation would spread across America - which was a pretty explosive charge for 1864. It was that kind of campaign - and in many ways it presaged McCain's completely fictitious lines of attack against Obama in 2008 (like the claim that Obama wanted to expose 5 year olds to comprehensive sex education).

slugbug said

Imagine how the neocons could manipulate Palin or even feeble old McCain?

This is the scariest statement that I've read over this entire campaign. And you know what springs to mind? The lawless, murderous military in Zimbabwe - they don't even pretend that Mugabe is in charge now.

I wonder which will come first - the legal charges against Palin in Alaska, or the presidential election outcome?

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart by adennak

I know some folks out there might have had trouble following the Vice Presidential debate. Particularly, trying to parse meaning from the things that Sarah Palin said. With that in mind, I have compiled a handy resource for your perusal. I hope to update this chart, both graphically and grammatically, when it is no longer ten to five in the morning. For for the mean time. . . enjoy!

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart.

Do not click on my name unless you want to hear the Beverly Hillbillies Theme Song - thanks Kayakbiker!

It was cute, slugbug and kyakbiker.

I've turned my little McClellan observation into a diary at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/3/103036/026/482/618865

New "Talking Points" Caribou Barbie™ repeats phrases at random--you never know what she'll say next! Doll really talks with eyes that move.(But do not blink) Includes hunting rifle, moose carcass, Bible and every single newspaper--Caribou Barbie™ reads them all! Rape kit sold separately. By GOP.

http://www.vimeo.com/1868008

Hmmm...2004...a time of Republican control of the House, the Senate, and the Executive...

October 3, 2008
The Reckoning
Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt, and Risk
By STEPHEN LABATON
“We have a good deal of comfort about the capital cushions at these firms at the moment.” — Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, March 11, 2008.

As rumors swirled that Bear Stearns faced imminent collapse in early March, Christopher Cox was told by his staff that Bear Stearns had $17 billion in cash and other assets — more than enough to weather the storm.

Drained of most of its cash three days later, Bear Stearns was forced into a hastily arranged marriage with JPMorgan Chase — backed by a $29 billion taxpayer dowry.

Within six months, other lions of Wall Street would also either disappear or transform themselves to survive the financial maelstrom — Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to commercial banks.

How could Mr. Cox have been so wrong?

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?em

How could Mr. Cox have been so wrong?

ON PURPOSE, that is how. They had this 'bailout' plan in the works for months, the WH mouthpiece said so himself.

ON PURPOSE... they lied on purpose, to STEAL 700 BILLION IN CASH. Who would you lie to for that much money?

There was one part I profoundly disagreed with Biden on last night. His whole story about going off on, was it Helms? And someone told him what would you think had they adopted a needy child?

And he said since then he learned NOT TO QUESTION THEIR MOTIVES.

Bullshit! And what the HELL?

Trillions of dollars and godlike powers are on the line, and you will not be so rude as to question the motives of those who are obviously involved in misconduct? Why again? Because they LOVE KIDS???

BULLSHIT MR.BIDEN. He is smart but that just sounded dumb. Flat out retarded and backwards.

Because they don't question each others motives, we have a war profiteer at the helm starting wars with lies, and a Tres. Sec. that is too damn worried about shoring up his cash cow at his former place of business instead of tending to the needs of taxpayers. Because they don't question each others motives, then who in the hell is policing them when they start committing crimes? How can they possibly let each other get away with the things they do for as long as they do? Because questioning the motives of theives and war criminals is taboo, we consistantly are being ruled by just those kinds of people.

BECAUSE we do not question their 'motives' I have a diapered whoremonger of a senator spouting about 'family values' anytime anyone questions his motives. It is obscene. I killed all those people but no one will question my MOTIVES so it must be ok to kill more of them!

When in Gods name, WHEN are we going to grow the hell up and start dealing with reality as it EXISTS and not the way we HOPE it is? I see you stealing but I really HOPE you are not a thief? Oh please!

Until all this PC polite bullshit stops, they are going to keep stealing from us while we all stand here not daring to question their 'motives'. Because that would just be SO RUDE!

Enough already!

Biden should know better, until he questions their motives he will not get to the bottom of the problems. And no one will be punished for the wrong they do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIGJTHdH50

And...

They are threatening our Congress with the threat of MARTIAL LAW...? looks like YES.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnbNm6hoBXc

Woman, 90, shoots self inside foreclosed home

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/03/eviction.suicide.attempt/index.html

October 4, 2008

California, Short of Cash, May Ask U.S. for Loan

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
LOS ANGELES — With the credit crisis cutting off access to short-term financing, California officials said the state may be forced to ask the United States government to lend it $7 billion, warning that the state could run out of money in a few weeks without it.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a letter Thursday night to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said that with credit markets essentially frozen, the state, like a slew of others and local governments nationwide, had no access to the short-term financing that normally support day-to-day operations.

“California and other states may be unable to obtain the necessary level of financing to maintain government operations and may be forced to turn to the Federal treasury for short-term financing,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said in the letter, which was first reported by The Los Angeles Times.

Treasury officials said they were reviewing the letter.

As the nation’s most populous state, California’s precarious finances underscore the depths of the financial crisis. The emergency handout, the equivalent of $192 for each resident, would rival the federal government’s bailout of New York City in 1975 as it teetered on bankruptcy.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/04calif.html

Wait a second...REPUBLICAN governor wants $$$ from OUR TAX DOLLARS and the U.S. Gov't that THEY WANT TO DISMANTLE?

hmmmm...something else wrong with that picture.

And here's pictures of the DC beltway celebrations on screwing out the normal folk and giving to Wall Street.DU

Does John McCain’s Campaign Own VotefortheMILF.com?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/10/03/does-john-mccains-campaign-own-voteforthemilfcom/

Now that is ironic.

Christy

Larry Flynt is making the movie
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2008/10/larry-flynt-mak.html
Palin lookalike off Craig's list

October 4, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Palin’s Alternate Universe
By BOB HERBERT

Sarah Palin is the perfect exclamation point to the Bush years.

We’ve lived through nearly two terms of an administration that believed it could create its own reality:

“Deficits don’t matter.” “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job.” “Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere.”

Now comes Ms. Palin, a smiling, bubbly vice-presidential candidate who travels in an alternate language universe. For Ms. Palin, such things as context, syntax and the proximity of answers to questions have no meaning.

In her closing remarks at the vice-presidential debate Thursday night, Ms. Palin referred earnestly, if loosely, to a quote from Ronald Reagan. He had warned that if Americans weren’t vigilant in protecting their freedom, they would find themselves spending their “sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in America when men were free.”

What Ms. Palin didn’t say was that the menace to freedom that Reagan was talking about was Medicare. As the historian Robert Dallek has pointed out, Reagan “saw Medicare as the advance wave of socialism, which would ‘invade every area of freedom in this country.’ ”

Does Ms. Palin agree with that Looney Tunes notion? Or was this just another case of the aw-shucks, darn-right, I’m-just-a-hockey-mom governor of Alaska mouthing something completely devoid of meaning?

Here’s Ms. Palin during the debate: “Say it ain’t so, Joe! There you go pointing backwards again ... Now, doggone it, let’s look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I’m glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?”

If Governor Palin didn’t like a question, or didn’t know the answer, she responded as though some other question had been asked. She made no bones about this, saying early in the debate: “I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear.”

The problem with Ms. Palin’s candidacy is that John McCain might actually win this election, and then if something terrible happened, the country could be left with little more than an exclamation point as president.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04herbert.html?hp

sparrow

Re: Schwarzenegger

He, and the Republicans, can keep blaming the tax-and-spend Democrats and liberals of San Francisco. After all, they own the state legislature.

This works wonders in Orange County, where the Democrats not only lag behind the Republicans, but also the American Independents (Constitution), in many precincts. And Orange County still has lots of money, and is still a national Republican cash cow.

I am so glad to be 6,000 miles away from that hellhole - even though I hate sitting in a country whose "President" takes orders from W and the Republicans (and funds them in return).

NEVER piss off Letterman:

Why doesn't McCain have any events on a Saturday (Palin is at a Home Depot in California)? He usually takes Sunday off. He voted on the bailout but it was his first roll call vote since April. If he were President, he'd probably take more vacations than Bush.

Karen's movement analysis of the VP debate. Newswise

My brother's analysis..."She looked goofy."

I went to McCain's website and Sarah Palin is there in a video that comes on automatically and she is facing you across the blogosphere. It's really creepy. Then I went to Obama's and his blog is down. It's all so wierd.

Caribou Barbie is now going after Obama on Ayers.

It's time to take out the nuclear weapons against these clowns.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcianhro.htm
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/earlhopperinterview08feb08.shtml
http://www.farfromglory.com/john_s_mccain.htm
http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm

Cyrano

Palin and her husband were secessionists.
Her minister was an exorcist.

& most of all, the economy is still in ruins & it is the fault of the Republicans!!

The focus has to be on McCain & what kind of plan he has to solve the economic problem & the foreign relations quagmire. So he says the "surge worked" - well what now?! Some guys from Ft. Lewis are taking off for their third stint in Iraq.

McCain/Palin want to put the focus on Obama, using what worked for Hillary and other opponents during the primary.

Many Republicans had reservations about McCain. What did Huckabee & Romney & Giuliani & even Ron Paul hammer him with? Those things could be useful, not as Democratic policy, because they'd probably be diametrically opposed - but to get out in the open to scare Republicans with.

Palin needs to be minimized & neutralized at the same time. If anyone claims attacks are "sexist," they are not because she is not a feminist. You can't claim "sexism" just because you are a woman. That's not how it works. "Sexism" as a construct is part of "feminism" and she calls herself a "feminist for life" but that is a contradiction in terms. She is a "feminist against choice" and feminism is ABOUT choice. So much for her.

Keating 5 is not off-limits nor are those lurking allegations about things that happened or didn't in Vietnam, especially is they want to bring up matters involving the '60s.

Cyrano
The links you have - and more - if they want to play games about the past - those are fair game. Also, where are the health records? What is the deal with the melanoma? What of the drooping eye? What is the prognosis & what do the insurance agents think? Could he go anywhere in the US & get a good deal on insurance like he wants others to do?

Cyrano - I could not agree more. It makes me want to throw up every time I hear JK or BO or any other democrat refer to John McCain as a war hero. What utter crap. He survived that war in far better shape than hundreds of thousands of others. He's a survivor.

We don't even really know who some of the real, true heroes of that war were. They don't blow their own trumpets - maybe they're dead; maybe maimed; maybe silenced; maybe wanting it all to go away; maybe ....

It is the biggest load of garbage on which to base the choice of a president. Give us strength to get through the next month of slime. The media is just loving this Obama Running With Terrorists b.s. as well. God I hate the media.

CNN is now doing the Ayres story - but largely debunking it.

Obama said no one dies in vain because they are following orders of their commander and chief. That is true on a very micro level.

I do not go to work in vain because I get paid. It does not mean I have a stupid job.

People ought to think about these things.

War is stupid in the first place.

Concepts everyone accepts - work - war - heroism - people ought to re-examine them objectively.

It doesn't help that my coming of age occurred during the late '60s.
It isn't fashionable to question authority.

I meant commander-in-chief.

Same diff.

Also, it's possible to justify anything.

Prostitution - supply and demand - and don't we all prostitute ourselves, to some extent?

What I hate is when I'm told that someone died so I can spout off like this. I'd like to see them prove it.

Christy, where are you?!

About the Ayres story - it's going to be pre-empted, to some degree. Obama will use a Rope a Dope or Jujitso strategy and use their own weight against them.

He will say that McCain was erratic on the economy and that he's trying to distract us away from that. He will bring the topic back to the economy.

Media plays a part certainly but McCain/Palin have attacked them and denied them access. That won't be completely forgotten.

Stuff is happening on the ground. Obama made it to Virginia AND North Carolina today whereas McCain took the day off. Palin made it to a Home Depot where she was loudly protested (in CA yet, because it's a place to fundraise in Orange County, not to hope to win). There was an Alaskans for Obama rally. Jay-Z did a huge concert in Detroit and will have them in Miami tomorrow and Monday. Springsteen did a huge rally in Philly, all around voter registration. People here and all over the country were registering voters as fast as they could be disenfranchised. We have the ground game. People continue to donate, large and small.

If we have a third bloodless coup, there will be much trouble.

more - hope this strategy is good - saw it at DKos but this is the source article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14283.html

Seems like Obama has run a disciplined campaign, slow and steady, cool and collected - dug in for the long-term

Guy also predicted / recommended such a pre-emptive strategy by Obama a few weeks ago (at one of our blogs)

http://baracklikeme.blogspot.com/2008/09/rope-dope.html

October 4, 2008 11:41 PM
slugbug Author Profile Page said:
If we have a third bloodless coup, there will be much trouble.
October 4, 2008 11:41 PM

Oh. People have been saying that for a year or two now. I think you're right though. The collapse of the financial infrastructures is so much 'closer to home' than Iraq was.

So many more people are jobless or working for less money than four years ago. And they still hide the deaths of our soldiers. But at this point, I'm totally shocked when I hear anyone claim to be a Republican now.

My rich neighbor with his 40 acres and his electronic entrance gate and his 6000 foot house has his McCain/Palin sign out. And more are popping up since the debate. But less than it use to be. People are grabbing 2 signs per home rather than the typical 1/home.

But fill up on gas. Go to the market. Do things and there is a deep rage--illegal spying and they aren't too surprised but can blow it off by saying, "I've got nothing to hide", send the troops to Iraq and give the returning vets nothing--well they're pissed but it's still not enough to have them not like Republican policy. But this financial collapse is their personal lives and security. They don't want Wall Street bailed out. They wanted Main Street bailed out. A lot may not have understood that Republicans filibustered 94 times in 2 year--the most ever. But they understand quite well that the Republicans only wanted to bail out Wall Street if they could get more tax cuts (for the wealthy). People--former Republicans--get it.

Letterman and SNL would have unlimited skits and comedy with a McCain/Palin win. Let's hope they don't need it though. These videos rock!

October 5, 2008
Analysis: Palin's Words May Backfire on McCain
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:46 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is ''palling around with terrorists'' and doesn't see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.

And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

First, Palin's attack shows that her energetic debate with rival Joe Biden may be just the beginning, not the end, of a sharpened role in the battle to win the presidency.

''Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,'' Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain's ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday.

''This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America,'' she said. ''We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism.''

Obama released his own loaded-word attack on McCain Sunday, calling the 72-year-old senator ''erratic,'' a hard-to-miss implication that his age could be a problem.

''Our financial system in turmoil,'' an announcer says in Obama's new ad. ''And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy.''

The ad, slated to start running Monday on national cable, seeks to capitalize on John McCain's response to the nation's financial crisis while rebutting Republican attacks on Obama's character and judgment.

But Palin's reference questions Obama's associations and thereby his character. And her context is inaccurate.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Palins-Words-Analysis.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

This is amazing!