Homer Simpson Republicans Terrorize U.S. About Terrorists
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Dick Cheney, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Sarah Palin, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on February 7th, 2010
Terrorism is about creating fear.
Republicans are now clearly trying to create fear in the minds of the American public about the Obama Administration’s prosecution of terrorists in civilian courts. They are insinuating several things: one, that terrorists are “enemy combatants”, and therefore should be tried in military courts; two, that allowing them to be tried in civilian courts will only invite another attack on U.S. soil; third that these defendants are not entitled to any constitutional rights; and finally, that Obama is soft on terrorism.
These constitutional law geniuses include half-term Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), and former Vice President Dick Cheney (Chief Republican Hypocrite – Washington, D.C.)
Amazing how incensed these four are about this “recent” decision to take accused terrorists to trial in civilian courts, particularly after the Bush Administration tried over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY terrorists in the same courts.
“D’oh“!
OK, President Obama, “Where’s The Beef”?
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Business and Money, Capitalism, Economics, Financial Crisis, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, Wall Street, economy on February 6th, 2010
You are making all of this noise about refocusing TARP (bailout) funds towards small business.
President Obama, this blog noted that you said the same thing 100 days ago . . . read it right here.
So Where’s The Beef?
Bank of America’s CEO Ken Lewis Will Play the “But We Made Lots of Money” Card in his Criminal Case?
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Banking, Business and Money, Capitalism, Crime & Punishment, Economics, Financial Crisis, Financial Terrorists, How and Why We Get Screwed, Legal & Justice, Politics, Show Them the $$$, Wall Street, financial industry on February 5th, 2010
There is plenty of blame to go around in Washington and New York for the financial meltdown and subsequent bailout debacle. These Wall Street financial terrorists – Wizards of Mass Derivatives (WMD’s) – with the assistance of their Washington lackeys, Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, et al., robbed the national treasury to pay the piper for their incompetence and then left us standing alone on the dance floor. And do not even go there about the fact that they “paid the money back” in their defense.
That dog won’t hunt!
Since our federal prosecutors would not grow some testicles and bring criminal indictments against any of these guys – with President Obama’s U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder leading the “Charge of the Lightweight Brigade” – New York AG Andrew Cuomo has demonstrated that he has big enough balls to make at least a couple of them pay for screwing us.
Ken Lewis, former CEO of Bank of America (BoA), was charged with committing fraud yesterday in a New York state court for his failure to divulge to BoA shareholders the extent of Merrill’s losses, as well as an undisclosed agreement to pay former Lynch executives massive bonuses, and that he intentionally misled the government by threatening to scuttle the deal in order to get another $20 billion in bailouts from the Treasury.
Sources from Lewis’ criminal defense team have indicated that they may subpoena Henry Paulson, former Bush Treasury Secretary, as well as Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the FederalReserve, to testify at Lewis’ trial in an attempt to persuade the jury that Lewis did not mislead the government about the severity of BoA’s financial condition subsequent to the banks merger with Merrill Lynch. They will further argue that the bank made money after the deal, and repaid all of the TARP money it received from the federal government, so the government and shareholders were not harmed – and in fact benefited from his actions (or inactions, as the case may be).
What is so unnerving is the audacity of Lewis to claim that “they made the company lot’s of money” as a defense. Worse yet, the Wall Street Journal comes to their defense, claming among other things that “TARP was a gilded straitjacket that every bank, including BofA, wanted to flee as quickly as possible”.
Really? Let’ review this twisted and misleading logic.
We made some really, really bad bets, and the financial system will collapse if you do not give us unprecedented bailouts to fix the system. Of course we understand that the government is giving us this money to restore the necessary liquidity - a continuous flow of money to keep the economy running – so that businesses can continue to borrow money, and keep people working. Now we are not going to making any promises to that effect, but we will do what we think is right for the financial system . Also, we accept that we have to purchase/merge with some of the other failed financial institutions as a condition of getting our asses saved. But we will not be obligated to deal honestly, nor follow financial regulations, in these business dealings, and if we see an opportunity to squeeze more money out of this mess, we will. Moreover, we will probably accept this unreasonable condition that you may limit our pay structure while we are under the obligation to pay the government back, but once we retire that debt to the government, you have to get off our ass and we can transact business however we like.
How dare them now have the arrogance to say they made money as a result of some uncanny business acumen. As I have stated previously in this blog – give me $15 or $20 Billion, I can make a Billion or so investing in some very conservative financial instruments over the course of a year, pay you back, give myself an obscene bonus – and then tell you to go FxxK youself!!
Moreover, REMEMBER THIS: they did NOT have to accept the money. Furthermore, they were supposed to lend the money, not hold it in reserve while waiting for the markets to turn North, and then invest it in order to make a quick killing so they could line their fat pockets, all the while leaving many Americans and businesses hung out to swing in the cold, harsh winds of their utter malfeasance. How utterly disingenuous of both Wall Street and the Wall Street Journal.
This author has previously commented several times about the criminal malfeasance of BoA in this blog – in this entry and in this entry - and questioned the refusal of federal prosecutors to bring charges in this matter. A Federal District Court Judge was appalled by BoA’s behavior, and was obviously disgusted that the U.S. government – specifically the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – was not doing more. If we have to wait for a New York Attorney General to act, this begs the question as to how deep in bed people at the top of this government are with Wall Street?
President Obama – you took money from Wall Street, and now you say you want them to be accountable? Prove it!
P.S. This same picture was used in a previous entry – it is the finest representative illustration of the BoA bailout I have seen on the Internet. Illustration by graphic artist David Dees of DeesIllustration.com
Jon Stewart Eviscerates Fox News’ Viewers For Drinking the Bong Water
Posted by Lance Haley in Bill O'Reilly, Business and Money, Conservatives, Cultural Issues, Culture Wars, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Media & Communication, Sarah Palin, The Daily Show, Uncategorized on February 4th, 2010
Just kidding . . .
That was a shameless attempt to get Jon Stewart to reference this blog. On last night’s The Daily Show (TDS), in a segment called The Blogs Must Be Crazy , Stewart lampooned the blogosphere’s use of certain words – particularly “eviscerates” – to describe how strongly some media talk show hosts respond to one another when critiquing their respective competitors.
Jon Stewart’s appearance on The O’Reilly Factor has created quite a buzz this week, and whatever you think of either Stewart or Bill O’Reilly, their willingness to appear on one another’s shows is quite refreshing, with a spirited but civil discourse taking place between the two of them. I suppose the one irony in the show was O’Reilly’s cheap shot at Daily Show viewers by referring to them as “stoned slackers” – when surveys have routinely shown that they are some of the best informed news audiences.
It comes as no surprise that ”stoned slackers” would actually be every bit as informed as Fox News viewers, and are probably significantly smarter than Fox News’ talk show hosts – even when they are “lit up”. If Daily Show viewers ever watched Fox News - which they are way too smart to do – wonder what they would think?
“Man I wish I could get ahold of whatever theses dudes are smoking, because that must be some really high-grade SH!T” . . . or . . . . “Dudes, you are not supposed to drink the bong water.”
America: Ten Years From Now, Recall When You Believed Health Care Reform Was Too Expensive
Posted by Lance Haley in Budget Deficit, Uncategorized, economy on February 4th, 2010
Let’s see. Obama’s Health Care Reform was way too expensive. We just could not afford it. It was going to financially break the country.
Read this little statistic released this week, and then you just keep telling yourself that . . .
Sarah Palin is the Real Retard in this Political Correctness Brouhaha
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Cultural Issues, Fox News, Media & Communication, Morality, Politics, Sarah Palin, Uncategorized on February 3rd, 2010
Levi Johnston - the father of Bristol Palin’s baby – contends that his “ex-mother-in-law”, Sarah Palin, would say ”where is my retarded baby”. Sarah and Todd Palin have a “special needs” child, and Sarah Palin denies that she ever referred to her baby that way. Frankly, I can see Sarah Palin saying something like that “tongue-in-cheek” (in jest). Having a sense of humor about these things is normal human behavior (as in the heading of this post).
Nevertheless, I digress.
For decades now in the United States, minorities and their advocates – most of which are Liberals – have long protested the use of certain derogatory terms to describe individuals that belonged to these various groups as socially unacceptable. The most common example are racial slurs like the “N” word. This drive to “scrub” the English language of these terms was labeled as “political correctness” – a concept that is indicative of an agenda to create a social sensitivity to members of our society who are not part of mainstream America. Conservatives have routinely criticized “political correctness” as liberal nonsense, and Rush Limbaugh referred to “liberal activists” as retards . Now you want to talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Recent reports have surfaced stating that Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s White House Chief of Staff, was addressing a group of Liberal Democrat politicians last summer regarding their intended strategy to use “attack ads” against Conservative Democrats, and referred to them as “Fxxking retarded“. Now Sarah Palin has said that Emanuel should be fired.
I guess the irony of a “kike using ”politically incorrect” language while addressing a group of liberals is lost on Palin.
P.S. For those of you who are offended by my use of a politically incorrect term, you too are missing my point. 
A Reasoned Conservative Offers Sage Advice to President Obama
Posted by Lance Haley in How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics on January 25th, 2010
I cannot help but be a bit giddy tonite about my previous post which I published earlier today. I just got back from watching a basketball game with my buddies, and read Jon Meacham’’s insightful and intelligent take in the most recent edition of Newsweek magazine on why President Obama has failed. What Meacham says echo’s my sentiment from this morning - Obama is leading the country with his head, and not his heart.
Of even greater interest is Meacham’s acknowledgement – for the record, he is an avowed Conservative – that there is this curious notion held by a significant minority of the American public from every political persuasion – left, right and centrists - that the President is some left-wing radical, hell-bent on bringing permanent ruination to the United States. What is most perplexing is how wholly disconnected this widely-held perception is from reality: Barack Obama is more conservative in his views and actions than many of his Republican predecessors. I confess that I have thought a great deal about why people really believe these things are true, when all evidence is to the contrary. The only rational explanation for this warped perspective is that the President has passively allowed others to define him.
The solution to the problem (and it is a problem)?
Once again, President Obama: get some damn fire in your belly, piss a few people off in the process (even on the Far Left), and move this country out of the doldrums!
President Obama, Now You’re Talking . . .
Posted by Lance Haley in Economics, Middle Class, Uncategorized, economy on January 25th, 2010
but it is still just talk.
IF you are going to successfully implement these proposals - which have been a long time coming, and would show that the U.S. government really does care about the Middle Class – a little word of advice.
USE THE DAMN BULLY PULPIT – Teddy Roosevelt style!
Now that is really talking.
Furthermore, the American people will start listening if you have the courage of your convictions to place unrelenting pressure on both your political allies and opponents into taking strong action, regardless of the consequences. You are too worried about being liked by everyone. Teddy Roosevelt was not particularly popular with many of his political friends, nor any of his enemies – especially the rich and powerful. Nonetheless, he was both respected and feared by all. Most importantly, he won the majority of the American public’s heart and soul.
So can you.
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
President Teddy Roosevelt, “Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Americans Better Hope Obama Does Not Fail On Repairing the Economy
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Banking, Budget Deficit, Business and Money, Capitalism, Congress, Economics, Financial Crisis, Financial Terrorists, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, Lobbyists & Lobbying, Politics, Sarah Palin, Senate, Show Them the $$$, Wall Street, Wealth Disparity & the Ultra Rich, economy, financial industry on January 24th, 2010
Most Americans have a hard time with economic complexity, and reading charts . . . BORING!
Please stay with me on this one . It is far too important to ignore, because the graph posted above does not paint a pretty picture for the future of this country. If you do not care to understand the fundamentals, skip to the explanation and assessment at the bottom under “gobbly-gook“.
This graph was apparently created by Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Global Equity Strategies research group for Bloomberg financial news (Bloomberg.com), and posted at one of my favorite investment and economic blogs – Seeking Alpha. For those of you who do not engage in economic analysis – I minored in Economics in undergraduate studies - this chart represents the comparative relationship since 1996 between the U.S. stock market (utilizing the S & P 500 as an indicator) and job growth/decline in the American labor market utilizing the U.S. Conference Board’s “job plentiful index”. The key factor here is the radical divergence between the stock market and jobs over the past seven years.
From 1996-2000, job growth grew lock-and-step with the stock market, and the job index was actually much higher than the relative market index – meaning that as businesses made money (profits), jobs were created – this concept of “wage labour“ correlating with profits is the single most fundamental component of Adam Smith’s original theory of Capitalism as outlined in his treatise The Wealth of Nations. Capitalism in its most simple of terms states that as companies compete for and secure profits, workers will benefit through both increased job opportunities and rising wages, all which serves the best interests of society.
If you follow the graph out from 2000-2003, both indexes dropped in remarkable comparison as a result of a relatively severe recession. However, after 2003, the stock market goes up, but job growth lags far behind, and this growing divergence is only temporarily halted by the financial meltdown in late 2008 – when the two lines meet again in early 2009. Now the divergence between the two is growing ever wider at an alarming rate.
So what does this gobbly-gook mean?
Simply put, the stock market believes publically-traded companies in the United States - which are overly-represented by very large corporations - will produce a growth in profits without creating more jobs.
What this really means is that no matter who is President – Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Mitt Rommney, John McCain, [you fill in the blank] – the future for the future of U.S. workforce looks bleak. Moreover, if you think putting the Republicans back in office will change that – with their proposed policies of cutting taxes, gutting business regulation, and further fostering the concentration of power in large corporations – you are only fooling yourself.
Obama said this past week that he is going to make the economy, specifically job creation, his number one priority. I had absolutely no illusions that Obama was going to be able to turn this mess around quickly – he was handed the second worst economic situation in U.S. history, coupled with two very expensive wars. Nonetheless, I am sorely disappointed in his failure to immediately regulate the financial system, and focus the bailouts on bolstering small and medium-size business to quickly boost employment. You can defend Big Business all you want, but it is statistically indisputable that small and medium size businesses provide over 50% of the jobs in this country, and produce 64% of the new jobs every year.
Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, would be astounded at the bailouts for Wall Street, and the subsequent consolidation (concentration of power) of these financial behemoths. Moreover, he would bemoan the fact that such an extraordinary amount of financial capital was squandered on such an inherently risk-weighted aspect of business (trading derivatives and securities), which only produces profits while creating virtually a statistically insignificant number of new jobs in comparison (which ironically, Wall Street was shedding jobs at a record pace while making record profits and bonuses on trading in 2009 – so as for creating new jobs, “that dog just won’t hunt”).
Better pray it’s not too late to redress these problems. Hoping Obama fails on this front, is proverbially speaking, biting you nose off in spite of your face.
P.S. The bailouts were a monumental failure - and the primary blame must be placed at the feet of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and present Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (former New York Federal Reserve Chairman) for reasons I address in a future posting. Paulson, Geithner and Blankfein could all be charged for conspiracy to commit financial fraud if Federal Prosecutors would just grow some testicles.
All Proposed U.S. Budget Deficit Reduction Plans Are “Nothing Burgers”
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Banking, Budget Deficit, Campaigns, Congress, Conservatives, Economics, Financial Crisis, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Senate, Show Them the $$$, Uncategorized, Wall Street, Wealth Disparity & the Ultra Rich, economy, financial industry on January 24th, 2010
“Nothing Burger“: Two pieces of bread slapped together with nothing in between. Usually eaten when you have nothing in the house except bread or are too lazy to spend 2 minutes making a decent sandwich.
- definition in the The Urban Dictionary
This is utter laughable.
Senator Gregg Judd (R-New Hampshire), the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, claims the Democrats are not serious about cutting the deficit. He first offered a plan co-sponsored by Democratic Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D – North Dakota), that would require Congress to establish a bi-partisan commission to study deficit reduction recommendations, and if a fixed number of its members could agree on specific budget cuts, Congress would then be compelled to vote on those measures before the 2010 mid-term elections this Fall.
President Obama and the Democrats endorsed a similar deficit-reduction plan, but without the requirement of a mandatory vote in the Senate on the issue. Senator Gregg then criticized the Democrats, calling their plan a “nothing burger“, insinuating that they were not serious about deficit reduction. And the Republicans are?
Senator Gregg, you need a little lesson in transparency.
First, there is serious doubt about whether you can even get the support of your own party on this issue – both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – Kentucky) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (D – Ohio) stated they will not back the plan because the Republicans are philosophically opposed to tax increases. In other words, Republicans tacit acknowledge that deficit cutting would likely involve raising taxes, and they would rather let the country go bankrupt before they would make it pay its own way – now that is fiscal responsibility at its finest.
Second, that nasty little chart just below indicates that the real explosion in the government debt started in 1981 – after Ronald Reagan took office and the Neo-Conservative movement began. The largest deficit increases (as a percentage of the previous deficit) occurred from 2003 to 2006, not ironically when President Bush and the Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress. Moreover, that does not even account for the estimated $600 Billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we borrowed from China through 2007, – projected to increase to $1.6 Trillion before Obama took office - and which was “kept off the books” by the Bush Administration, Enron style.
Ouch!
Third, no Washington politician is ever going to be serious about fiscal responsibility, regardless of which party they belong to – it just does not make political sense if you are an incumbent running for re-election. Besides, Senator Gregg, proposing mandatory deficit reduction is easy when you are being disingenuous about the political realities of the issue.
One final word on that lesson about transparency, Senator Gregg: While serving as the Senate Republican’s lead negotiator and author of the TARP program (Wall Street bailouts) in the Fall of 2008, you recommended that Bank of America receive $45 Billion from the TARP funds – at a time when you owned millions of dollars in Bank of America stock. After your Bank of America stock recovered rather nicely this past year, you are now proposing that the TARP fund be terminated so as to not create a “piggy bank” for politicians.
And you have the audacity to criticize the Democrats, Senator Gregg?