SEC and FASB statement of today:
The current environment has made questions surrounding the determination of fair value particularly challenging for preparers, auditors, and users of financial information. [Doh!] The SEC's Office of the Chief Accountant and the staff of the FASB have been engaged in extensive consultations with participants in the capital markets, including investors, preparers, and auditors, on the application of fair value measurements in the current market environment.
...When an active market for a security does not exist, the use of management estimates that incorporate current market participant expectations of future cash flows, and include appropriate risk premiums, is acceptable...
...The results of disorderly transactions are not determinative when measuring fair value. The concept of a fair value measurement assumes an orderly transaction between market participants. An orderly transaction is one that involves market participants that are willing to transact and allows for adequate exposure to the market. Distressed or forced liquidation sales are not orderly transactions, and thus the fact that a transaction is distressed or forced should be considered when weighing the available evidence
...Transactions in inactive markets may be inputs when measuring fair value, but would likely not be determinative. If they are orderly, transactions should be considered in management's estimate of fair value. However, if prices in an inactive market do not reflect current prices for the same or similar assets, adjustments may be necessary to arrive at fair value.
...In general, the greater the decline in value, the greater the period of time until anticipated recovery, and the longer the period of time that a decline has existed, the greater the level of evidence necessary to reach a conclusion that an other-than-temporary decline has not occurred.
Determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary is a matter that often requires the exercise of reasonable judgment based upon the specific facts and circumstances of each investment. This includes an assessment of the nature of the underlying investment (for example, whether the security is debt, equity or a hybrid) which may have an impact on a holder's ability to assess the probability of recovery.
Looser, but not unreasonable.
Will there be fraud? Yup. But understand that you could get the same answer if you ask "Will there be rain?"
HT: RedState
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Think There's a "Priest Problem?"
Hmmmmm.
Each year, for a number of years, the activists in the graduating class from a major Catholic seminary near Chicago would visit me for a day just before their ordination, with questions about values, revolutionary tactics, and such. Once, at the end of such a day, one of the seminarians said, "Mr. Alinsky, before we came here we met and agreed that there was one questions we particularly wanted to put to you. We're going to be ordained, and then we'll be assigned to different parishes, as assistants to -- frankly -- stuffy, reactionary old pastors. They will disapprove of a lot of what you and we believe in, and we will be put into a killing routine. Our question is: how do we keep our faith in true Christian values, everything we hope to do to change the system?" --Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
So my question: which Seminary Rector arranged THOSE trips? Or 'allowed' them?
HT: Dreher
Each year, for a number of years, the activists in the graduating class from a major Catholic seminary near Chicago would visit me for a day just before their ordination, with questions about values, revolutionary tactics, and such. Once, at the end of such a day, one of the seminarians said, "Mr. Alinsky, before we came here we met and agreed that there was one questions we particularly wanted to put to you. We're going to be ordained, and then we'll be assigned to different parishes, as assistants to -- frankly -- stuffy, reactionary old pastors. They will disapprove of a lot of what you and we believe in, and we will be put into a killing routine. Our question is: how do we keep our faith in true Christian values, everything we hope to do to change the system?" --Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
So my question: which Seminary Rector arranged THOSE trips? Or 'allowed' them?
HT: Dreher
Yup: Queen Nancy: "Let Them Eat Cake!"
Sure enough:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered her Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, to essentially not do his job in the runup to the vote on Monday for the negotiated Wall Street bailout plan, according to House Democrat leadership aides.
"Clyburn was not whipping the votes you would have expected him to, in part because he was uncomfortable doing it, in part because we didn't want the push for votes to be successful," says one leadership aide. . . .
That's from The Prowler, found at The Other McCain
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered her Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, to essentially not do his job in the runup to the vote on Monday for the negotiated Wall Street bailout plan, according to House Democrat leadership aides.
"Clyburn was not whipping the votes you would have expected him to, in part because he was uncomfortable doing it, in part because we didn't want the push for votes to be successful," says one leadership aide. . . .
That's from The Prowler, found at The Other McCain
Two Excellent Essays on the "Bailout"
From What's Wrong With the World, two very good essays on the "bailout."
First, the overview:
...it is a certainty that a credit freeze would be a disaster in the short and medium term, to a degree that many people simply do not appreciate at all. I can't predict exactly what form the disaster will take, nor precisely how bad it will be, any more than I can predict exactly how the train cars will end up in a major train wreck. But I know it is very bad and should be stopped. It is every bit as important as any critical national security or natural disaster concern.
...It's really bad, and people ought to accept that it is really bad, and that it isn't just about those guys over there but is going to be bad for you and your neighbors. The populist nonsense about 'each house being robbed of thousands of dollars to bail out Wall Street' is just poppycock: this is about saving your own bacon as much as anyone else's, and it isn't going to cost you thousands to do it.
I completely understand Main Street cynicism on the point. A perfectly justified cynicism combined with a genuine clear and present danger is a toxic combination.
...The problem with the national debt is not that it exists, but what it has been spent on. To the extent that the national debt is at work on productive endeavors which expand the tax base and increase the flourishing of the country - a sadly small extent, I suspect - it is a good thing. Carrying debt is intrinsically neutral; it can be extrinsically good, or extrinsically bad, depending on circumstances. Averting a credit lockup by buying up valuable but illiquid securities is among the best reasons ever proposed for issuing government debt, comparable perhaps to issuing government bonds to finance a necessary defensive war.
And, of course, the capstone (as Sykes mentioned this morning...):
...the longer it takes to get to intervention the more expensive and socialistic it will be
That post (a lot longer than the excerpts here, and all just as good and reasonable) is followed by another one which 'splains the mortgage problem so even a complete moron MSM turkey can get it.
Suppose we have ten thousands banks, and each of those banks has in its possession a thousand bags of metal. Somewhere around eighty percent of the bags are known to contain gold. Somewhere around twenty percent contain lead. These percentages are not hard and fast, but they are roughly good numbers.
...The distribution of lead and gold amongst the banks is entirely unknown, but it is definitely not uniform. It is not even entirely clear how many bags a given bank has.
...On the other hand, if I have a large enough amount of capital to buy up all of the bags from all of the banks, it is perfectly reasonable for me to expect that 70% to 90% of them will contain gold. If I can buy bags on the open market for $20 right now, that represents a very good investment opportunity; only if I can buy substantially all of them. If I can buy them all, it is even well worth it for me to take out a loan to buy them all, because I only have to pay a couple of percent on the loan whereas my returns on the portfolio will most likely be quite a lot higher
Reading them both, in their entirety, should be quite helpful.
First, the overview:
...it is a certainty that a credit freeze would be a disaster in the short and medium term, to a degree that many people simply do not appreciate at all. I can't predict exactly what form the disaster will take, nor precisely how bad it will be, any more than I can predict exactly how the train cars will end up in a major train wreck. But I know it is very bad and should be stopped. It is every bit as important as any critical national security or natural disaster concern.
...It's really bad, and people ought to accept that it is really bad, and that it isn't just about those guys over there but is going to be bad for you and your neighbors. The populist nonsense about 'each house being robbed of thousands of dollars to bail out Wall Street' is just poppycock: this is about saving your own bacon as much as anyone else's, and it isn't going to cost you thousands to do it.
I completely understand Main Street cynicism on the point. A perfectly justified cynicism combined with a genuine clear and present danger is a toxic combination.
...The problem with the national debt is not that it exists, but what it has been spent on. To the extent that the national debt is at work on productive endeavors which expand the tax base and increase the flourishing of the country - a sadly small extent, I suspect - it is a good thing. Carrying debt is intrinsically neutral; it can be extrinsically good, or extrinsically bad, depending on circumstances. Averting a credit lockup by buying up valuable but illiquid securities is among the best reasons ever proposed for issuing government debt, comparable perhaps to issuing government bonds to finance a necessary defensive war.
And, of course, the capstone (as Sykes mentioned this morning...):
...the longer it takes to get to intervention the more expensive and socialistic it will be
That post (a lot longer than the excerpts here, and all just as good and reasonable) is followed by another one which 'splains the mortgage problem so even a
Suppose we have ten thousands banks, and each of those banks has in its possession a thousand bags of metal. Somewhere around eighty percent of the bags are known to contain gold. Somewhere around twenty percent contain lead. These percentages are not hard and fast, but they are roughly good numbers.
...The distribution of lead and gold amongst the banks is entirely unknown, but it is definitely not uniform. It is not even entirely clear how many bags a given bank has.
...On the other hand, if I have a large enough amount of capital to buy up all of the bags from all of the banks, it is perfectly reasonable for me to expect that 70% to 90% of them will contain gold. If I can buy bags on the open market for $20 right now, that represents a very good investment opportunity; only if I can buy substantially all of them. If I can buy them all, it is even well worth it for me to take out a loan to buy them all, because I only have to pay a couple of percent on the loan whereas my returns on the portfolio will most likely be quite a lot higher
Reading them both, in their entirety, should be quite helpful.
Housing Prices
Chicago is the nearest 'comparable' to Milwaukee --although Minneapolis is a contender. (-10%, -13+%, respectively.)Surprising that Detroit is holding up as well as it is, considering...
HT: The Big Picture
Bachmann-Sensenbrenner Overdrive
OK. Puns are awful. But hey...
Sensenbrenner appeared with Sykes to 'splain his "no" vote--and his 'splanation was acceptable.
Here's what Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) had to say about her "no" vote:
...I support a plan that would have Wall Street bail itself out, not hardworking taxpayers, by requiring institutions to insure troublesome assets that are causing today’s credit crunch. It would suspend mark-to-market accounting, which forces companies to take losses on artificially devalued assets on an artificial timetable, to give investors more confidence.
The plan I support would break up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- government sponsored enterprises that are at the heart of this crisis -- so that the encumbered taxpayer no longer backs them -- implicitly or explicitly -- and so that they do not artificially grow larger than the market will allow. We cannot pass legislation that sets America up for a Groundhog Day reprise of this mess and that means changing the problem at its core - the GSEs...
Onc suspects that Sensenbrenner would go along with this (as would Ryan,) but it "breaking up" Fan/Fred ain't going to happen--so that's likely a negotiating position.
HT: PowerLine
Sensenbrenner appeared with Sykes to 'splain his "no" vote--and his 'splanation was acceptable.
Here's what Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) had to say about her "no" vote:
...I support a plan that would have Wall Street bail itself out, not hardworking taxpayers, by requiring institutions to insure troublesome assets that are causing today’s credit crunch. It would suspend mark-to-market accounting, which forces companies to take losses on artificially devalued assets on an artificial timetable, to give investors more confidence.
The plan I support would break up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- government sponsored enterprises that are at the heart of this crisis -- so that the encumbered taxpayer no longer backs them -- implicitly or explicitly -- and so that they do not artificially grow larger than the market will allow. We cannot pass legislation that sets America up for a Groundhog Day reprise of this mess and that means changing the problem at its core - the GSEs...
Onc suspects that Sensenbrenner would go along with this (as would Ryan,) but it "breaking up" Fan/Fred ain't going to happen--so that's likely a negotiating position.
HT: PowerLine
Like High Interest? You'll LOVE "No Bailout"
Within moments of the failure to pass the bailout:
The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, that banks charge each other for such loans climbed 431 basis points to an all-time high of 6.88 percent today, the British Bankers' Association said. The euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor, for one-month loans climbed to record 5.05 percent, the European Banking Federation said. The Libor-OIS spread, a gauge of the scarcity of cash, advanced to a record
That's for overnight bank-to-bank loans. Typical business loans are written 3-5 point over that rate, and many are at 5-10 over.
Some, who are less-than-educated, think this is irrelevant. But when YOUR employer gets slapped with a 10% interest rate (or 12%) to borrow against receivables to finance YOUR paycheck, it will have an impact--possibly on you.
The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, that banks charge each other for such loans climbed 431 basis points to an all-time high of 6.88 percent today, the British Bankers' Association said. The euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor, for one-month loans climbed to record 5.05 percent, the European Banking Federation said. The Libor-OIS spread, a gauge of the scarcity of cash, advanced to a record
That's for overnight bank-to-bank loans. Typical business loans are written 3-5 point over that rate, and many are at 5-10 over.
Some, who are less-than-educated, think this is irrelevant. But when YOUR employer gets slapped with a 10% interest rate (or 12%) to borrow against receivables to finance YOUR paycheck, it will have an impact--possibly on you.
Queen Nancy Pelosi: "Screw the Economy!"
It occurred to me yesterday, as the vote totals emerged, that the Democrats have decided to let the economy go into free-fall--as that's a sure-fire way to win the next election.
And Karl Rove's analysis of the vote made it clear: that's exactly what their plan is.
Pelosi was short about 12 votes; Rove named 6 House Committee chairs who voted against the bill, observing that every one of those people literally owed their chair-position to Pelosi.
Think she didn't have them by the short hairs?
Instead, she set the tone with a rant about "Republican" errors (lying about 'deregulation', by the way) and in effect, told her Members that they could vote against it.
$1 trillion disappeared immediately thereafter. That's $1 trillion which will not be used for retirement income, for funding college aspirations, for expanding or purchasing businesses, or for consumption.
Well, Nancy, you got your way, and it's possible that you'll have the opportunity to take over the US economy in January.
Congratulations!
And Karl Rove's analysis of the vote made it clear: that's exactly what their plan is.
Pelosi was short about 12 votes; Rove named 6 House Committee chairs who voted against the bill, observing that every one of those people literally owed their chair-position to Pelosi.
Think she didn't have them by the short hairs?
Instead, she set the tone with a rant about "Republican" errors (lying about 'deregulation', by the way) and in effect, told her Members that they could vote against it.
$1 trillion disappeared immediately thereafter. That's $1 trillion which will not be used for retirement income, for funding college aspirations, for expanding or purchasing businesses, or for consumption.
Well, Nancy, you got your way, and it's possible that you'll have the opportunity to take over the US economy in January.
Congratulations!
Stupid News Stories
Apparently some Federal judge issued an opinion. They do that all the time--that's not 'stupid news.'
Here's the 'stupid':
The ruling immediately halts the practice of killing wolves that threaten livestock and pets in the three states.
Wrong.
It won't halt "shoot, shovel, shut up." It won't halt "shoot the ^%$# critter"--shovel or not.
But it will prevent DNR from doing the job that ordinary American farmers WILL do.
Here's the 'stupid':
The ruling immediately halts the practice of killing wolves that threaten livestock and pets in the three states.
Wrong.
It won't halt "shoot, shovel, shut up." It won't halt "shoot the ^%$# critter"--shovel or not.
But it will prevent DNR from doing the job that ordinary American farmers WILL do.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Mark-to-Market: A Rant
Found at Ace's Place: (cleaned up a bit...)
They (these distressed assets) have to be shown on the balance sheet and marked down to marked down to market value. This means that suddenly, normally healthy companies have assets that actually have value, but have been artificially and temporarily valued at **** zero **** dollars even if they bought them for several million. Even --and I want the market-valuation absolutists to read this very carefully -- even when those assets are ownership of actual real property that have intrinsic worth. Due to this rule, the credit markets are being affected in a way that is not tied directly to the fact that loans were made to itinerant phrenologists and spastic mimes. Those were the root cause. The problem with valuation of these loan packages including defaulted mortgages is a ****** multiplier.
Let's put it this way - think of the "credit drain" and bad things as a military force. The CRA loans to carnies and strippers with Tourette's Syndrome is like a company of infantry - pretty impressive. The problem with marking down to market prices is like giving each sonofabich a Davey Crockett nuclear howitzer.
This means that through temporary and artificial means, a company that would say own 30,000 houses/shitty mortgages, all with $3K worth of salvagable copper in them that could be torn out and sold- that they bought for $3 million - suddenly don't have jack shit on their books. All of it is valued at zero because no one will buy it. That isn't a rumor - that is actually happening.
Marking down to zero isn't done on a ***** whim. It is documented. People/entities with these assets that have intrinsic value cannot label them on their balance sheets as what they paid for them - they must write that they are worthless.
This makes huge companies suddenly in dire straits. They may not be able to make payroll NEXT WEEK. A number of companies, who might be loaded with these, will fail.
This is because they suddenly have to book a loss - huge paper losses - that have no real relation to the situation over just the next three months.
Let me repeat - healthy companies will be unable to prove they own enough assets to float a loan. Past liabilities will be dishonored. This will spread within 21 to 30 days up and down the food chain. Each 2 weeks will result in larger and larger cycles of shrinkage of asset valuation, sudden outlays for demand notes, inability to meet payroll, layoffs, and cancellations (with penalties) of contracts.
Distribution networks would be among the first hit. I haven't gone further than that in my research. But right there, we're looking at some severe dislocation. Severe as in diabetics having to stock up on insulin.
This does have the possibility of being retardedly bad - think what would happen if 1/3rd of the train and truck traffic ceased. Stopped without notice.
The problem is systemic - not just to the credit market - it is systemic to how we do business between states. It is systemic as in "No Produce Scheduled Until Next Week" type signs in your Safeway.
If it doesn't get fixed in 2 weeks, by January some communities will be isolated due to no diesel for the road crews. In New York.
It's formally called FASB 157, effective for fiscal years ending later than 11/2007. It applies to publicly-held companies.
Aside from making a good case for modifying "mark-to-market" or eliminating it, he sketches the basic problem that banks have if they're sitting on MBSs or CDOs. Same-o as other firms who might have purchased same for investment purposes--for example, a cash-rich company which was after good returns with 5- to 10-year excess funds.
Is it really TEOTWAWKI? Maybe. In the case of banks, it accounts for the sudden drop in interbank/overnight lending (countered by the Fed's massive tripling of available billions today).
In the case of banks, it makes Ryan's insurance plan look a lot better. In that plan, although the Bank would have to pay a premium, the Treasury would guarantee the value of the investment, meaning that the "mark-to-market" could clamber back into the 90++% range.
That's a lot of capital, folks.
They (these distressed assets) have to be shown on the balance sheet and marked down to marked down to market value. This means that suddenly, normally healthy companies have assets that actually have value, but have been artificially and temporarily valued at **** zero **** dollars even if they bought them for several million. Even --and I want the market-valuation absolutists to read this very carefully -- even when those assets are ownership of actual real property that have intrinsic worth. Due to this rule, the credit markets are being affected in a way that is not tied directly to the fact that loans were made to itinerant phrenologists and spastic mimes. Those were the root cause. The problem with valuation of these loan packages including defaulted mortgages is a ****** multiplier.
Let's put it this way - think of the "credit drain" and bad things as a military force. The CRA loans to carnies and strippers with Tourette's Syndrome is like a company of infantry - pretty impressive. The problem with marking down to market prices is like giving each sonofabich a Davey Crockett nuclear howitzer.
This means that through temporary and artificial means, a company that would say own 30,000 houses/shitty mortgages, all with $3K worth of salvagable copper in them that could be torn out and sold- that they bought for $3 million - suddenly don't have jack shit on their books. All of it is valued at zero because no one will buy it. That isn't a rumor - that is actually happening.
Marking down to zero isn't done on a ***** whim. It is documented. People/entities with these assets that have intrinsic value cannot label them on their balance sheets as what they paid for them - they must write that they are worthless.
This makes huge companies suddenly in dire straits. They may not be able to make payroll NEXT WEEK. A number of companies, who might be loaded with these, will fail.
This is because they suddenly have to book a loss - huge paper losses - that have no real relation to the situation over just the next three months.
Let me repeat - healthy companies will be unable to prove they own enough assets to float a loan. Past liabilities will be dishonored. This will spread within 21 to 30 days up and down the food chain. Each 2 weeks will result in larger and larger cycles of shrinkage of asset valuation, sudden outlays for demand notes, inability to meet payroll, layoffs, and cancellations (with penalties) of contracts.
Distribution networks would be among the first hit. I haven't gone further than that in my research. But right there, we're looking at some severe dislocation. Severe as in diabetics having to stock up on insulin.
This does have the possibility of being retardedly bad - think what would happen if 1/3rd of the train and truck traffic ceased. Stopped without notice.
The problem is systemic - not just to the credit market - it is systemic to how we do business between states. It is systemic as in "No Produce Scheduled Until Next Week" type signs in your Safeway.
If it doesn't get fixed in 2 weeks, by January some communities will be isolated due to no diesel for the road crews. In New York.
It's formally called FASB 157, effective for fiscal years ending later than 11/2007. It applies to publicly-held companies.
Aside from making a good case for modifying "mark-to-market" or eliminating it, he sketches the basic problem that banks have if they're sitting on MBSs or CDOs. Same-o as other firms who might have purchased same for investment purposes--for example, a cash-rich company which was after good returns with 5- to 10-year excess funds.
Is it really TEOTWAWKI? Maybe. In the case of banks, it accounts for the sudden drop in interbank/overnight lending (countered by the Fed's massive tripling of available billions today).
In the case of banks, it makes Ryan's insurance plan look a lot better. In that plan, although the Bank would have to pay a premium, the Treasury would guarantee the value of the investment, meaning that the "mark-to-market" could clamber back into the 90++% range.
That's a lot of capital, folks.
Rumors and Ramblings on The Banks
Word on the street is that two major Milwaukee-area bank have told their lenders to stop lending.
The Rest of the Story on the Bailout
Roeser has the details.
...As he was preparing for the debate, McCain got word that a huge bloc of Republican House members were unalterably opposed to the Bush-Paulson plan to rescue Wall Street with taxpayers’ money…and for good reason. They saw Bush-Paulson as having too little oversight: McCain agreed. They wanted a voice in the deal and felt left out by Bush and Paulson. They insisted on pay curbs for Wall Streeters: McCain not only agreed but insisted, pointing out that no one should be paid more than the president of the U. S., $400,000 a year (although the CEO of Goldman Sachs makes more than that in two days). They pointed out a hidden joker that would convey a slush fund for ACORN: McCain was appalled. They cited favoritism for the trial bar: McCain readily agreed. Most of all they wanted an FDIC-style insurance program for the toxic assets the rescue would address without taxpayer risk. He quickly assented.
...By intervening in behalf of the House Republicans, he saw that most of the issues they cared about got included in the final package. Much of the credit for the improved package should go to McCain-although due to the liberal media’s intransigence in blocking it, it won’t. But the p.r. he earned was awful
Roeser also makes short work of Barney Frank (D-Boys, Preferably Naked) in the post.
...As he was preparing for the debate, McCain got word that a huge bloc of Republican House members were unalterably opposed to the Bush-Paulson plan to rescue Wall Street with taxpayers’ money…and for good reason. They saw Bush-Paulson as having too little oversight: McCain agreed. They wanted a voice in the deal and felt left out by Bush and Paulson. They insisted on pay curbs for Wall Streeters: McCain not only agreed but insisted, pointing out that no one should be paid more than the president of the U. S., $400,000 a year (although the CEO of Goldman Sachs makes more than that in two days). They pointed out a hidden joker that would convey a slush fund for ACORN: McCain was appalled. They cited favoritism for the trial bar: McCain readily agreed. Most of all they wanted an FDIC-style insurance program for the toxic assets the rescue would address without taxpayer risk. He quickly assented.
...By intervening in behalf of the House Republicans, he saw that most of the issues they cared about got included in the final package. Much of the credit for the improved package should go to McCain-although due to the liberal media’s intransigence in blocking it, it won’t. But the p.r. he earned was awful
Roeser also makes short work of Barney Frank (D-Boys, Preferably Naked) in the post.
Calling a Spade a Spade: It's Bailing Out CONGRESS
Yah, the $700Bn goes to purchase the crap-sandwiches from banks.
But who MADE the crap sandwiches in the first place?
The Democrat Congress(es).
Not John McCain. Not GWB (although he certainly was a facilitator.) Not conservative Pubbies, who usually meet in a phone booth.
Barney Fthrank (D-Boys and Lovers from GSEs). Chris Dodd (D-Mozilo), Maxine Waters (D-Wackos), Lacy Clay (D-Whatever) Gregory Meeks (D-Twits).
And the GSE hotshots: Raines, Jefferson, and Gorelick.
But who MADE the crap sandwiches in the first place?
The Democrat Congress(es).
Not John McCain. Not GWB (although he certainly was a facilitator.) Not conservative Pubbies, who usually meet in a phone booth.
Barney Fthrank (D-Boys and Lovers from GSEs). Chris Dodd (D-Mozilo), Maxine Waters (D-Wackos), Lacy Clay (D-Whatever) Gregory Meeks (D-Twits).
And the GSE hotshots: Raines, Jefferson, and Gorelick.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
"I Have A Bracelet, Too--and They Don't Want Me to Wear It"
Ol' Barry doesn't stop at being a pol.
He's friggin' despicable.
Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it
Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.
Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.
But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte
I'll take Palin any day.
HT: The Hatted One
He's friggin' despicable.
Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it
Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.
Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.
But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte
I'll take Palin any day.
HT: The Hatted One
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Bp. Soto Talks Catholic!
Dreher carries a story from Bill Cork.
The occasion was the annual meeting of the National Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, an organization whose existence is, shall we say, at cross-purposes with Catholic teaching on sexuality
So what does Bp. Soto tell them?
"Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all," Bishop Soto said. "For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression."
He did not endear himself to a number of attendees.
There's a Milwaukee-area Board Member of the Nat'l Ass'n LGMinistries. Wonder what he thought...
The occasion was the annual meeting of the National Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, an organization whose existence is, shall we say, at cross-purposes with Catholic teaching on sexuality
So what does Bp. Soto tell them?
"Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all," Bishop Soto said. "For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression."
He did not endear himself to a number of attendees.
There's a Milwaukee-area Board Member of the Nat'l Ass'n LGMinistries. Wonder what he thought...
The Bailout: Considering Ryan's Plan
Just a rumination here...is it "valuation" or "gimme money"?
Paulson's original story was that The Bailout was created to 1) establish a value for troubled Bank assets, and after the 'value' was established by reverse-auction 2) the Treasury would buy the loans, giving the banks the liquidity they need to continue functioning.
OK. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, albeit the details were skimpy and there are a few negatives--such as delivering cash to banks which were (obviously) poorly managed, and getting not-too-much in return. If one trusts Paulson and his eventual appointees to the BailBoard, the deal will come out reasonably close to even, and maybe deliver a small profit. Some economists argue that the Gummint will come out ahead almost no matter what. Maybe. Maybe not.
But is it necessary to deliver cash to the banks? To buy them out of bad loans?
We have a note of skepticism from P-Mac, who writes:
House Republicans, including Wisconsin's own Paul Ryan, are proposing, ...to sell federal insurance against defaults to holders of possibly bad debt, something that transfers the risk and cost to people who made the bad loans instead of to taxpayers
P-Mac also cites a WSJ editorial which supports the Paulson plan:
Another reality is that taxpayers are already going to pay to refinance the banking system. The only issues are how and how much. If the Paulson plan fails, the Fed will still have guaranteed $29 billion for Bear Stearns, will still own AIG, and will still have a balance sheet that increasingly piles up ugly assets. Those are taxpayer obligations too. Meanwhile, banks will continue to fail, and the Treasury and FDIC will eventually have to come up with the capital to rescue those. One hope of the Paulson plan is that it will mean fewer such failures by letting banks sell bad assets for which there is now no market.
But P-Mac is not convinced by the WSJ's logic.
For good reason!
'Selling bad assets' actually does TWO things: it establishes a value for those assets AND sends cash to the banks, as we mentioned above.
But if 'valuation' is the principal concern, then what's the matter with Ryan's plan, which would establish value through Gummint insurance of 'bad' assets?
In other words, Banks legitimately argue that "mark-to-market" forces them to de-value assets to ridiculously low numbers, harming their capital ratios for lending purposes. That is true.
Ryan's plan insures the banks against losses, thus allowing "mark-to-market" valuations to float back to 100% of the face value (par) of the notes (or thereabouts.) The banks cannot lose on the bad loans, but they will pay an insurance premium for that privilege.
Best part: no cash is sent to banks. Bank shareholders pay the insurance premium; and if it is a large premium, shareholders will fire their management for being idiots.
There is no question that something must be done about bank liquidity. Ryan's plan is simple, focused, and transparent--which is all one wants.
And as a bonus, it does not allow for ChristmasTree crap that Barney Frank (D-Boys) and Chris Dodd (D-Not My Fault!!!) would pile onto the Paulson plan.
Definitely worth considering.
Paulson's original story was that The Bailout was created to 1) establish a value for troubled Bank assets, and after the 'value' was established by reverse-auction 2) the Treasury would buy the loans, giving the banks the liquidity they need to continue functioning.
OK. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, albeit the details were skimpy and there are a few negatives--such as delivering cash to banks which were (obviously) poorly managed, and getting not-too-much in return. If one trusts Paulson and his eventual appointees to the BailBoard, the deal will come out reasonably close to even, and maybe deliver a small profit. Some economists argue that the Gummint will come out ahead almost no matter what. Maybe. Maybe not.
But is it necessary to deliver cash to the banks? To buy them out of bad loans?
We have a note of skepticism from P-Mac, who writes:
House Republicans, including Wisconsin's own Paul Ryan, are proposing, ...to sell federal insurance against defaults to holders of possibly bad debt, something that transfers the risk and cost to people who made the bad loans instead of to taxpayers
P-Mac also cites a WSJ editorial which supports the Paulson plan:
Another reality is that taxpayers are already going to pay to refinance the banking system. The only issues are how and how much. If the Paulson plan fails, the Fed will still have guaranteed $29 billion for Bear Stearns, will still own AIG, and will still have a balance sheet that increasingly piles up ugly assets. Those are taxpayer obligations too. Meanwhile, banks will continue to fail, and the Treasury and FDIC will eventually have to come up with the capital to rescue those. One hope of the Paulson plan is that it will mean fewer such failures by letting banks sell bad assets for which there is now no market.
But P-Mac is not convinced by the WSJ's logic.
For good reason!
'Selling bad assets' actually does TWO things: it establishes a value for those assets AND sends cash to the banks, as we mentioned above.
But if 'valuation' is the principal concern, then what's the matter with Ryan's plan, which would establish value through Gummint insurance of 'bad' assets?
In other words, Banks legitimately argue that "mark-to-market" forces them to de-value assets to ridiculously low numbers, harming their capital ratios for lending purposes. That is true.
Ryan's plan insures the banks against losses, thus allowing "mark-to-market" valuations to float back to 100% of the face value (par) of the notes (or thereabouts.) The banks cannot lose on the bad loans, but they will pay an insurance premium for that privilege.
Best part: no cash is sent to banks. Bank shareholders pay the insurance premium; and if it is a large premium, shareholders will fire their management for being idiots.
There is no question that something must be done about bank liquidity. Ryan's plan is simple, focused, and transparent--which is all one wants.
And as a bonus, it does not allow for ChristmasTree crap that Barney Frank (D-Boys) and Chris Dodd (D-Not My Fault!!!) would pile onto the Paulson plan.
Definitely worth considering.
The Rest of the Wisconsin Vote Fraud Story
Headless, as usual, has the goods, which he got from McMahon.
The Wisconsin voter eligibility requirements are set up to facilitate vote fraud.
Hoocouldaknowed?
Gore Invented the Internet; Biden Invented Petraeus' Strategy
Bet you didn't know this:
"The fact of the matter is, the only thing succeeding in Iraq right now is the plan that Barack and I talked about that Petraeus is implementing -- giving local control in the very areas with a limited central government."
Saith Joe Biden, whose father was a coal-miner named Kinnock.....
So, as RedState puts it, are we to believe that:
...when Biden was pushing for Iraq to be divided into into three ethnically-homogeneous, unsustainable "states," then abandoned, he was actually working behind the scenes with the freshman Senator from Illinois and General Petraeus to craft a plan to make Iraq more unified and sustainable.
Well, why NOT?
"The fact of the matter is, the only thing succeeding in Iraq right now is the plan that Barack and I talked about that Petraeus is implementing -- giving local control in the very areas with a limited central government."
Saith Joe Biden, whose father was a coal-miner named Kinnock.....
So, as RedState puts it, are we to believe that:
...when Biden was pushing for Iraq to be divided into into three ethnically-homogeneous, unsustainable "states," then abandoned, he was actually working behind the scenes with the freshman Senator from Illinois and General Petraeus to craft a plan to make Iraq more unified and sustainable.
Well, why NOT?
Obama's Caddyshack AlQuaeda Policy
Likely the strongest McCain stomping of Obama-the-Young-and-Naive came when McCain made it clear that AlQuaeda/Afghanistan and AlQuaeda/Iraq are one and the same AlQuaeda.
(Too bad he didn't mention AlQuaeda/South America (the drug connection) in the process.)
Obama seems to think in Caddyshack terms--whack-the-moles one at a time; McCain thinks in system-wide terms--get them all at once.
Re-balance the US forces, yes (Bush has been doing that for more than 6 months, by the way.)
But to leave the 18th green alone while whacking the moles at the 9th?
Perhaps Sen. Obama should study another movie for foreign-affairs training.
(Too bad he didn't mention AlQuaeda/South America (the drug connection) in the process.)
Obama seems to think in Caddyshack terms--whack-the-moles one at a time; McCain thinks in system-wide terms--get them all at once.
Re-balance the US forces, yes (Bush has been doing that for more than 6 months, by the way.)
But to leave the 18th green alone while whacking the moles at the 9th?
Perhaps Sen. Obama should study another movie for foreign-affairs training.
"Mommy, Mommy, That's Not True!!"
That seemed to be Obama's principal retort last night.
One wonders how that might hold up in the real world.
One wonders how that might hold up in the real world.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Gwen Moore, Co-Sponsored by ACORN
Obama, Dodd, Moore, ACORN, Dodd, Obama.....
So Gwen Moore, Congresscritter WI., shows up on TV flogging a "foreclosure conference" or some such thing in November. It's for those who can't pay for their homes and need ed-yu-muh-cay-shun on how to fix it. Whatever.
BUT, if you can't wait until November, says Gwen, then be sure to call....
yup...
ACORN.
The ad didn't have a disclaimer, so it was not paid for by Gwen Moore.
So her face goes on TV, she talks about avoiding-foreclosure-classes, and ACORN pays for the ad.
Nice!
So Gwen Moore, Congresscritter WI., shows up on TV flogging a "foreclosure conference" or some such thing in November. It's for those who can't pay for their homes and need ed-yu-muh-cay-shun on how to fix it. Whatever.
BUT, if you can't wait until November, says Gwen, then be sure to call....
yup...
ACORN.
The ad didn't have a disclaimer, so it was not paid for by Gwen Moore.
So her face goes on TV, she talks about avoiding-foreclosure-classes, and ACORN pays for the ad.
Nice!
Pirates Hit the Jackpot
Whoa! Look what I brung home, Mom!
A Russian warship on Friday rushed to intercept a Ukrainian vessel carrying 33 battle tanks and ammunition that was seized by pirates off the Horn of Africa
It was unclear whether the pirates who seized the Faina Thursday knew ahead of time it was carrying 33 Russian-designed T-72 tanks, plus ammunition and spare parts, bound for Kenya. Analysts said it would be extremely difficult to sell such weaponry as Russian tanks
Oh, I dunno. Throw in a lifetime warranty and 1,000 gallons of diesel---hell, that's a deal!! After all, "lifetime" for a tank may not last too long, especially with drivers who don't know what all those funny Cyrillic letters actually spell out...You could even offer E-Z credit terms, with a small $250K downstroke.
The Russkis sent a warship to chase the Ukrainian ship.
Middleton [a civilian analyst] said it was unclear how the pirates might react if confronted by military action, noting that they have fled from authorities in the past. On the other hand, he said, they are usually well-armed and organized and are based in an unstable country — Somalia.
"It could potentially get pretty messy," he said.
Ya think?
A Russian warship on Friday rushed to intercept a Ukrainian vessel carrying 33 battle tanks and ammunition that was seized by pirates off the Horn of Africa
It was unclear whether the pirates who seized the Faina Thursday knew ahead of time it was carrying 33 Russian-designed T-72 tanks, plus ammunition and spare parts, bound for Kenya. Analysts said it would be extremely difficult to sell such weaponry as Russian tanks
Oh, I dunno. Throw in a lifetime warranty and 1,000 gallons of diesel---hell, that's a deal!! After all, "lifetime" for a tank may not last too long, especially with drivers who don't know what all those funny Cyrillic letters actually spell out...You could even offer E-Z credit terms, with a small $250K downstroke.
The Russkis sent a warship to chase the Ukrainian ship.
Middleton [a civilian analyst] said it was unclear how the pirates might react if confronted by military action, noting that they have fled from authorities in the past. On the other hand, he said, they are usually well-armed and organized and are based in an unstable country — Somalia.
"It could potentially get pretty messy," he said.
Ya think?
The Badger Speaks, So LissenUp!
AB puts thought to pixels and is, of course, correct.
The more efficient solution IMHO is to look at it on an asset class basis. Looking at things on an asset class basis would make it easier to try and value the paper...
With the idea that a value, ANY VALUE, is good.
...where you do the deal is not necessarily the best deal. But it’s a start, especially in the case where the assets are composed of many little assets i.e. mortgages, derivatives and synthetics that became a part of the problem
Congress and the Executive Branch look, from appearances anyway, to be working on a way to get something on the table. If there’s a market and profit component to the final structure, it may actually work
All I want is 1) simple; 2) focused; and 3) transparent.
The more efficient solution IMHO is to look at it on an asset class basis. Looking at things on an asset class basis would make it easier to try and value the paper...
With the idea that a value, ANY VALUE, is good.
...where you do the deal is not necessarily the best deal. But it’s a start, especially in the case where the assets are composed of many little assets i.e. mortgages, derivatives and synthetics that became a part of the problem
Congress and the Executive Branch look, from appearances anyway, to be working on a way to get something on the table. If there’s a market and profit component to the final structure, it may actually work
All I want is 1) simple; 2) focused; and 3) transparent.
Bp. Jos. Martino (Scranton) Lays It Out for You
Remarkable. Clear. No-Holds-Barred.
"Furthermore, public officials who are Catholic and who persist in public support for abortion and other intrinsic evils should not partake in or be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. As I have said before, I will be vigilant on this subject."
"Catholics...are wrong when they assert that abortion....is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. ....the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that it must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate."
This is called "teaching." Bishops have that obligation--all of them.
And it should be read aloud at St. Norbert's College.
HT: Rocco
Who IS This B-Yotch, And Who Cares What She Thinks?
Kathleen Parker (of NRO):
Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League
And after assorted moans, groans, whines, and perma-PMS-driven b-yotching, Kathleen unloads upon us her Sage Advice:
Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first
Ms. Parker, I have a suggestion for you. Find Mr. Parker and let him have his way with you just once this year.
Perhaps my suggestion is not "Beltway-Cool" enough? I have others which may be less rewarding for you, all involving the phrase 'where the sun never shines.'
HT: Cranky
Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League
And after assorted moans, groans, whines, and perma-PMS-driven b-yotching, Kathleen unloads upon us her Sage Advice:
Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first
Ms. Parker, I have a suggestion for you. Find Mr. Parker and let him have his way with you just once this year.
Perhaps my suggestion is not "Beltway-Cool" enough? I have others which may be less rewarding for you, all involving the phrase 'where the sun never shines.'
HT: Cranky
Rome's New Cong. for Worship
Not only did B-16 bring on three new consultors--all true-blue men who understand liturgy very well; he also made another (less known) move:
... Also relevant to the appointments is the fact that all former consultants, appointed when Archbishop Piero Marini led the office of Liturgical Celebrations, have been dismissed since their appointments were not renewed
That's what's called the 'neutron bomb,' folks. The building stands, but no one's left inside. Rembert Weakland has no more pals at CDW.
Who are the new guys?
The new consultants include Monsignor Nicola Bux [and] includes Fr. Mauro Gagliardi, an expert in dogmatic theology and professor at the Legionaries of Christ's Pontifical Athenaeum “Regina Apostolorum;” Opus Dei Spanish priest Juan José Silvestre Valor, professor at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce in Rome; Fr. Uwe Michael Lang, C.O., an official of the Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and author of the book Turning Towards the Lord -- about the importance of facing ad orientem during Mass; and Fr. Paul C.F. Gunter, a Benedictine professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum Sant Anselmo in Rome and member of the editorial board of the forthcoming Usus Antiquior, a quarterly journal dedicated to the liturgy under the auspices of the Society of St. Catherine of Siena
So what?
Here's what:
...Among the changes mentioned was the sign of peace, which could be moved, it was said, from its present position to the time between the Prayer of the Faithful and the Offertory. In fact, Pope Benedict had already indicated in Sacramentum Caritatis that he would let the CDW study this possibility. We now have confirmation that this is actually happening,
The New Rite (Ordinary Form) will undergo some long-needed surgery. And most likely this will only be the first of many changes.
That's what.
... Also relevant to the appointments is the fact that all former consultants, appointed when Archbishop Piero Marini led the office of Liturgical Celebrations, have been dismissed since their appointments were not renewed
That's what's called the 'neutron bomb,' folks. The building stands, but no one's left inside. Rembert Weakland has no more pals at CDW.
Who are the new guys?
The new consultants include Monsignor Nicola Bux [and] includes Fr. Mauro Gagliardi, an expert in dogmatic theology and professor at the Legionaries of Christ's Pontifical Athenaeum “Regina Apostolorum;” Opus Dei Spanish priest Juan José Silvestre Valor, professor at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce in Rome; Fr. Uwe Michael Lang, C.O., an official of the Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and author of the book Turning Towards the Lord -- about the importance of facing ad orientem during Mass; and Fr. Paul C.F. Gunter, a Benedictine professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum Sant Anselmo in Rome and member of the editorial board of the forthcoming Usus Antiquior, a quarterly journal dedicated to the liturgy under the auspices of the Society of St. Catherine of Siena
So what?
Here's what:
...Among the changes mentioned was the sign of peace, which could be moved, it was said, from its present position to the time between the Prayer of the Faithful and the Offertory. In fact, Pope Benedict had already indicated in Sacramentum Caritatis that he would let the CDW study this possibility. We now have confirmation that this is actually happening,
The New Rite (Ordinary Form) will undergo some long-needed surgery. And most likely this will only be the first of many changes.
That's what.
Why "The Bailout"? MPS Shows You
OK, so there's this big hoootchakoomiewowzer in DC. In a nutshell, there's a problem: a bunch of people spent more than they could repay. That caused other problems, leading to this hootchakoomiewowzer. Ugh.
Wanna see how that stuff starts?
MPS Board Member:
“I’m saying flat out that unless we change the (state) funding formula, we will be broke in about three years,” Falk said. “In about three years, the whole thing collapses.”
Looks like a money problem to me. How about you?
Less than 3 hours later:
...the board voted 7-2 to offer benefits such as health insurance to domestic partners of nonunionized MPS employees and put the board on record in favor of doing that for all employees.
A fig leaf was temporarily inserted, of course:
Petersons added to the proposal that the change should be “revenue neutral,” so there would be no additional cost to MPS
Does that mean that the "domestic partner" will pay their own premiums? Does it mean that they will pay the cost-escalation which will occur when they incur a major expense (say, heart surgery)?
Who knows? And frankly, Who Cares? That's a problem for the bunch which inherits MPS in "three years," right?
There you have it. "The Bailout" mutatis mutandis, 'splained.
Wanna see how that stuff starts?
MPS Board Member:
“I’m saying flat out that unless we change the (state) funding formula, we will be broke in about three years,” Falk said. “In about three years, the whole thing collapses.”
Looks like a money problem to me. How about you?
Less than 3 hours later:
...the board voted 7-2 to offer benefits such as health insurance to domestic partners of nonunionized MPS employees and put the board on record in favor of doing that for all employees.
A fig leaf was temporarily inserted, of course:
Petersons added to the proposal that the change should be “revenue neutral,” so there would be no additional cost to MPS
Does that mean that the "domestic partner" will pay their own premiums? Does it mean that they will pay the cost-escalation which will occur when they incur a major expense (say, heart surgery)?
Who knows? And frankly, Who Cares? That's a problem for the bunch which inherits MPS in "three years," right?
There you have it. "The Bailout" mutatis mutandis, 'splained.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
VW Tightens It Up
Next time you be-bop over to the VW dealer, be prepared.
Finance terms are getting tighter. Trade-in values are leaner, lease terms include less residuals--
Kinda what you'd expect when things are tight.
Finance terms are getting tighter. Trade-in values are leaner, lease terms include less residuals--
Kinda what you'd expect when things are tight.
Mgr. Rossi of the National Shrine Embarrasses Self In Public
Oh, yes, Monsignor, we'll all just fuggeddaboutit.
Explaining why he ordered the cancellation of a book-signing by Phil Lawler at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Msgr. Walter Rossi, the rector the basilica, told the Washington Times that Phil's book, The Faithful Departed, covered a subject on which the Roman Pontiff wants no further discussion. During his April visit to the US, the rector said, the Pope said as much.
"Benedict over and over again said it's time to move on," the monsignor said of the sex-abuse scandal.
Really?
If the Pope said this "over and over again," it's funny that the message does not appear in the transcripts of his public remarks. It's funny that nobody else heard him say it
The US Bishops, of course, would LOVE to have the whole thing disappear, and they ordered Mgr. Rossi to come up with some line of foofoodust--which he did, obediently--to legitimize their command.
Here in Milwaukee, we have at least $26 million reasons to remember. In LosAngeles and Boston, the numbers are even higher.
And you think, Monsignor, that you have credibility? That you represent some sort of moral authority?
Fuggeddaboutit, Monsignor.
Explaining why he ordered the cancellation of a book-signing by Phil Lawler at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Msgr. Walter Rossi, the rector the basilica, told the Washington Times that Phil's book, The Faithful Departed, covered a subject on which the Roman Pontiff wants no further discussion. During his April visit to the US, the rector said, the Pope said as much.
"Benedict over and over again said it's time to move on," the monsignor said of the sex-abuse scandal.
Really?
If the Pope said this "over and over again," it's funny that the message does not appear in the transcripts of his public remarks. It's funny that nobody else heard him say it
The US Bishops, of course, would LOVE to have the whole thing disappear, and they ordered Mgr. Rossi to come up with some line of foofoodust--which he did, obediently--to legitimize their command.
Here in Milwaukee, we have at least $26 million reasons to remember. In LosAngeles and Boston, the numbers are even higher.
And you think, Monsignor, that you have credibility? That you represent some sort of moral authority?
Fuggeddaboutit, Monsignor.
The Clarity of Jos. Ratzinger
Found in an essay written by Fr. J. Schall, who quotes Tracey Rowland:
For Ratzinger, the whole point of Gaudium et Spes, correctly interpreted, is that a 'daring new' Christocentric theological anthropology is the medicine that the world needs, and that it is the responsibility of the Church to administer of it. He is critical of interpretations which would transform Christianity into what he provocatively calls a 'poorly managed haberdashery that is always trying to lure more customers'"
That is clear, no?
"Teen Mass", anyone?
For Ratzinger, the whole point of Gaudium et Spes, correctly interpreted, is that a 'daring new' Christocentric theological anthropology is the medicine that the world needs, and that it is the responsibility of the Church to administer of it. He is critical of interpretations which would transform Christianity into what he provocatively calls a 'poorly managed haberdashery that is always trying to lure more customers'"
That is clear, no?
"Teen Mass", anyone?
The Reality of This Election
For those of you who think that I am a McCain partisan---you are wrong. I agree with Douthat.
So Barack Obama, who once claimed to embody sweeping, once-in-a-generation change, has ended up running a cautious, negative, and deeply generic Democratic campaign, while John McCain, who's supposedly all about honor and service and aching nobility, has offered a mix of snark, stunts, and manufactured controversies week in and week out.
The rest of his essay amplifies on that graf.
You have TweedleDum and TweedleDee, both massive egos, differentiated only in one regard: McCain actually has substance (most of it wrong-headed.)
So Barack Obama, who once claimed to embody sweeping, once-in-a-generation change, has ended up running a cautious, negative, and deeply generic Democratic campaign, while John McCain, who's supposedly all about honor and service and aching nobility, has offered a mix of snark, stunts, and manufactured controversies week in and week out.
The rest of his essay amplifies on that graf.
You have TweedleDum and TweedleDee, both massive egos, differentiated only in one regard: McCain actually has substance (most of it wrong-headed.)
On "Financial Deregulation"
Most references to "financial deregulation" are about the effective repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which finally occurred in 1999.
What you don't hear:
[it] passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by 90-8,
Gee. You mean there were only 57 Dimowits in the House, and 8 in the Senate that year?
Something else of interest:
Since the 1933 regulatory wall has collapsed as definitively as the Berlin Wall, all the giant financial conglomerates now face oversight and regulation by the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp
Yah. That's under-regulation, hey.
HT: RedState
What you don't hear:
[it] passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by 90-8,
Gee. You mean there were only 57 Dimowits in the House, and 8 in the Senate that year?
Something else of interest:
Since the 1933 regulatory wall has collapsed as definitively as the Berlin Wall, all the giant financial conglomerates now face oversight and regulation by the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp
Yah. That's under-regulation, hey.
HT: RedState
Why Is McCain in DC? OR: "Who Needs Obama?"
As usual, to get the realities, you have to peruse the correct blogs.
“We got a good sense last night, even more so this morning,” one top aide said. “Got in a position where Democrats were warily circling McCain — not going to commit to a deal unless McCain does. It was just a time for leadership. So he just stepped up.”
(Quoted in No Runny)
Contrast to this mindless rant (excerpt) from Folkbum:
The John McCain campaign has become just one hail mary after another. It's hard to take seriously
I had earlier mentioned that McCain was playing with Obamamama's mind by going to DC for the negotiations--and he is. Pushing off the debate will throw The O-and-Savior off his game.
At the same time, it is clear from the WaPo quote that both Democrat and Republican Senators view McCain's contribution as essential.
And it's also clear that nobody, but nobody, views Obamamama's contribution as essential--or even necessary. Harry Reid certainly doesn't.
That ought to tell you something.
“We got a good sense last night, even more so this morning,” one top aide said. “Got in a position where Democrats were warily circling McCain — not going to commit to a deal unless McCain does. It was just a time for leadership. So he just stepped up.”
(Quoted in No Runny)
Contrast to this mindless rant (excerpt) from Folkbum:
The John McCain campaign has become just one hail mary after another. It's hard to take seriously
I had earlier mentioned that McCain was playing with Obamamama's mind by going to DC for the negotiations--and he is. Pushing off the debate will throw The O-and-Savior off his game.
At the same time, it is clear from the WaPo quote that both Democrat and Republican Senators view McCain's contribution as essential.
And it's also clear that nobody, but nobody, views Obamamama's contribution as essential--or even necessary. Harry Reid certainly doesn't.
That ought to tell you something.
Gummint Health Care Stories, #56,946
Here's a nationalized-medicine patient who will NOT cost a lot to treat.
Health officials are still investigating how a man found dead at the Health Sciences Centre ER waiting area escaped the attention of medical staff for 34 hours.
"Staff weren't aware he was waiting for care," said Dr. Brock Wright, chief operating officer for the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, at a news conference this morning. "They didn't know he was in the queue waiting to be seen."
Dead patient.
Brain-dead staff.
HT: Moonbattery
Health officials are still investigating how a man found dead at the Health Sciences Centre ER waiting area escaped the attention of medical staff for 34 hours.
"Staff weren't aware he was waiting for care," said Dr. Brock Wright, chief operating officer for the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, at a news conference this morning. "They didn't know he was in the queue waiting to be seen."
Dead patient.
Brain-dead staff.
HT: Moonbattery
Dave Obey: "Shepherd" or "Midnight Operator"?
Despite the JSOnline's headline implying that Dave Obey is some sort of good boy for his "work," a better description would be "conniving backroom pol."
Here's the JS headline:
Obey shepherds spending bill to House passage
Reality? Far different.
"Congress is being forced to approve a package that was created in a backroom by a handful of Democrat leaders and staff," Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said in a statement. "This legislation has never seen the light of day, and has had no oversight or scrutiny by the vast majority of representatives, senators, the media or the American public."
'Profanity Dave' didn't want anyone looking too carefully at his handiwork--which says volumes about his preferred modus operandi.
Here's the JS headline:
Obey shepherds spending bill to House passage
Reality? Far different.
"Congress is being forced to approve a package that was created in a backroom by a handful of Democrat leaders and staff," Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said in a statement. "This legislation has never seen the light of day, and has had no oversight or scrutiny by the vast majority of representatives, senators, the media or the American public."
'Profanity Dave' didn't want anyone looking too carefully at his handiwork--which says volumes about his preferred modus operandi.
Long Delay in GAB Case
Apparently this is one really, really, really, really busy little judge.
Judge Maryann Sumi also agreed to allow the state Dem and GOP parties to intervene in the suit as well as three public employee unions.
But she will not hold another hearing in the case until Oct. 23, just two weeks before the November election
People who speculate that 'the long delay in hearing the case is politically motivated and can only help James Doyle's party' are, of course, wrong.
Political considerations NEVER enter into Dane County officials' decisions.
Judge Maryann Sumi also agreed to allow the state Dem and GOP parties to intervene in the suit as well as three public employee unions.
But she will not hold another hearing in the case until Oct. 23, just two weeks before the November election
People who speculate that 'the long delay in hearing the case is politically motivated and can only help James Doyle's party' are, of course, wrong.
Political considerations NEVER enter into Dane County officials' decisions.
Let Me Call You Sweetheart, Jamie Gorelick
Surprise!
Countrywide Financial Corp., the biggest U.S. mortgage lender, made large, previously undisclosed home loans to two additional executives of Fannie Mae, the government-chartered firm at the center of the U.S. credit crisis.
One of Countrywide's previously undisclosed customers at Fannie was Jamie Gorelick
Another Countrywide client was recently ousted Fannie Mae Chief Executive Daniel Mudd,
The Gorelick note was "special"!
Ms. Gorelick received a rate of 5% for the first 10 years on a $960,149 refinancing. The transaction was handled by another employee who sat next to him, Mr. Feinberg said. The average market rate for loans of the type obtained by Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Raines fluctuated around 6% at that time, according to data from HSH Associates Inc
Ms. Gorelick cannot recall that her treatment was "special."
Countrywide Financial Corp., the biggest U.S. mortgage lender, made large, previously undisclosed home loans to two additional executives of Fannie Mae, the government-chartered firm at the center of the U.S. credit crisis.
One of Countrywide's previously undisclosed customers at Fannie was Jamie Gorelick
Another Countrywide client was recently ousted Fannie Mae Chief Executive Daniel Mudd,
The Gorelick note was "special"!
Ms. Gorelick received a rate of 5% for the first 10 years on a $960,149 refinancing. The transaction was handled by another employee who sat next to him, Mr. Feinberg said. The average market rate for loans of the type obtained by Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Raines fluctuated around 6% at that time, according to data from HSH Associates Inc
Ms. Gorelick cannot recall that her treatment was "special."
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Best Summary EVER of The Bailout
HT Ace.
This is readable, understandable, and not lengthy.
Besides, it knocks all the twinkle-toe arguments from the 'Pure Capitalist' Morons (and the 'Dirty Little Democrat/Commie' Morons) on their cans.
If you read it, you'll know more about the situation than Herb Kohl does.
This is readable, understandable, and not lengthy.
Besides, it knocks all the twinkle-toe arguments from the 'Pure Capitalist' Morons (and the 'Dirty Little Democrat/Commie' Morons) on their cans.
If you read it, you'll know more about the situation than Herb Kohl does.
More/More Credit Lockup?
OK, so the country's largest Chevy dealer goes down.
A few thousand employees out of work, and GM has a helluvalotta inventory that they didn't expect to have. It's meaningful, but not the end of the world as we know it, right?
That's not all.
In early August Caterpillar brought a 5 year bond to market, the 4.90 of August 2013. That bond priced 175 basis points cheap to the benchmark 5 year Treasury note. With the turmoil in the credit markets the last several weeks, the issue has widened on spread and this morning it was quoted 225/ 210.
The talk on the new issue is T + 325 basis points. That is fully 100 basis points cheap to the outstanding issue and 150 basis points above where the same maturity was priced six weeks ago.
CAT, for crying out loud.
But that's not all:
.American Honda (the finance arm of the car company) just issued 5 and 10 year bonds similar to Catapiller. They are rated AA, and the offering went off at 400 over [Meaning that AmerHonda paid 4 cents more in interest for each dollar of debt.] Which also means that Honda consumers will be paying 4 cents more/dollar of debt.
Credit lockup still look good to the Pure of Principle?
Both from McArdle's sources, mis-spellings and all...
A few thousand employees out of work, and GM has a helluvalotta inventory that they didn't expect to have. It's meaningful, but not the end of the world as we know it, right?
That's not all.
In early August Caterpillar brought a 5 year bond to market, the 4.90 of August 2013. That bond priced 175 basis points cheap to the benchmark 5 year Treasury note. With the turmoil in the credit markets the last several weeks, the issue has widened on spread and this morning it was quoted 225/ 210.
The talk on the new issue is T + 325 basis points. That is fully 100 basis points cheap to the outstanding issue and 150 basis points above where the same maturity was priced six weeks ago.
CAT, for crying out loud.
But that's not all:
.American Honda (the finance arm of the car company) just issued 5 and 10 year bonds similar to Catapiller. They are rated AA, and the offering went off at 400 over [Meaning that AmerHonda paid 4 cents more in interest for each dollar of debt.] Which also means that Honda consumers will be paying 4 cents more/dollar of debt.
Credit lockup still look good to the Pure of Principle?
Both from McArdle's sources, mis-spellings and all...
Credit Lockup Troubles? UPDATED
Maybe it's the credit lockup, and maybe it's not.
The USA's largest Chevrolet Dealer (Bill Heard), which sold 25% of all Chevys sold in the USA last year, just went belly-up.
That would be 14 dealerships, largely in the Mid-South.
Auto dealers live on credit. It finances their inventories, and finances their customers.
UPDATE: Apparently Bill Heard had a number of problems; it's possible that the company's disregard of the law had more to do with the closure than any financial problems.
The USA's largest Chevrolet Dealer (Bill Heard), which sold 25% of all Chevys sold in the USA last year, just went belly-up.
That would be 14 dealerships, largely in the Mid-South.
Auto dealers live on credit. It finances their inventories, and finances their customers.
UPDATE: Apparently Bill Heard had a number of problems; it's possible that the company's disregard of the law had more to do with the closure than any financial problems.
OODA Loop, Phase III
Heh.
McPain pulls out of the Foreign Policy debate to attend to the nation's business.
Obama, stunned, says "Nope."
McPain pulls out of the Foreign Policy debate to attend to the nation's business.
Obama, stunned, says "Nope."
A Different View of the US Economy
Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, an Italian economist and professor of financial ethics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Italy, wrote an article for L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's daily paper.
He addressed the current crisis in the US economy, and his take is interesting.
The current financial crisis pummeling the United States and beyond is a sign that the so-called "new economy" and its risky investments have failed, the Vatican newspaper said.
The booming growth of financial markets did not correspond to real growth or concrete development for society because it created an artificially robust gross national product, said a Sept. 24 article in L'Osservatore Romano.
The only real growth registered in this crisis has been "the commissions, profits of the banks and bonuses for the managers," it said.
The U.S. financial meltdown has been blamed on "the greed of managers and lack of regulations. But curiously, no one ever refers to the indirect responsibility of the government's economic policy" which, he wrote, tried to cover the lack of any real economic development with a booming Wall Street.
He said the U.S. government's proposed bailout may stave off any worst-case scenario for its troubled financial markets, but it will not repair the root causes of the crisis.
"Despite various attempts, the Western world does not know how to map out a model of development that is capable of guaranteeing stable wealth," the article said.
The West has "not succeeded with its new economy project, it did not succeed with accelerating growth in Asia by transferring low-cost production (there), and it did not succeed after inventing a boom in the GNP through risky financial models that were poorly conceived and badly regulated," it said.
"In order to maintain this sham GNP, the banks financed things that were not guaranteed" and that should not have been financed, like the subprime loans, it said.
Financial institutions created an "economic growth out of debt and, therefore, (created something) very risky," it added. The article said the lesson to be learned is that nations cannot build a healthy economy or experience real development if it is not based on "balanced demographic growth."
So happens that the Vatican's Pontifical Gregorian University and Barclays Bank had sponsored an international conference on economics the same day that article ran.
Giulio Gallazzi, founder and president of the financial and business consulting firm Socially Responsible Italia, was one of the conference speakers
He said when an economy is based predominantly on the health of its financial markets and not on growth in the industrial, manufacturing and service sectors, the bubble of wealth that is generated is more difficult to distribute to the rest of society.
The seemingly paradoxical term "jobless growth," he said, indicates this problem in which a nation's GNP increases without an increase in employment, which means much of the new wealth does not trickle down to the working classes.
Nations need to reconsider now-debunked economic theories from the last century and create new rules that favor long-term growth and investments that involve "measured and manageable risk," he said.
Businesses and stockholders should also engage in "value sharing" in which they choose investment opportunities not solely for their chances at reaping a profit "but as an opportunity to contribute to the common good" and sustainable development.
He and other speakers emphasized the importance of having banking institutions and foundations concentrate on helping the local communities in which they are based.
Besides offering microcredit and small-business loans, local projects should also include scientific, humanistic and cultural initiatives that foster a person's "full development," the speakers said.
What a concept! Economics as if MAN matters!
He addressed the current crisis in the US economy, and his take is interesting.
The current financial crisis pummeling the United States and beyond is a sign that the so-called "new economy" and its risky investments have failed, the Vatican newspaper said.
The booming growth of financial markets did not correspond to real growth or concrete development for society because it created an artificially robust gross national product, said a Sept. 24 article in L'Osservatore Romano.
The only real growth registered in this crisis has been "the commissions, profits of the banks and bonuses for the managers," it said.
The U.S. financial meltdown has been blamed on "the greed of managers and lack of regulations. But curiously, no one ever refers to the indirect responsibility of the government's economic policy" which, he wrote, tried to cover the lack of any real economic development with a booming Wall Street.
He said the U.S. government's proposed bailout may stave off any worst-case scenario for its troubled financial markets, but it will not repair the root causes of the crisis.
"Despite various attempts, the Western world does not know how to map out a model of development that is capable of guaranteeing stable wealth," the article said.
The West has "not succeeded with its new economy project, it did not succeed with accelerating growth in Asia by transferring low-cost production (there), and it did not succeed after inventing a boom in the GNP through risky financial models that were poorly conceived and badly regulated," it said.
"In order to maintain this sham GNP, the banks financed things that were not guaranteed" and that should not have been financed, like the subprime loans, it said.
Financial institutions created an "economic growth out of debt and, therefore, (created something) very risky," it added. The article said the lesson to be learned is that nations cannot build a healthy economy or experience real development if it is not based on "balanced demographic growth."
So happens that the Vatican's Pontifical Gregorian University and Barclays Bank had sponsored an international conference on economics the same day that article ran.
Giulio Gallazzi, founder and president of the financial and business consulting firm Socially Responsible Italia, was one of the conference speakers
He said when an economy is based predominantly on the health of its financial markets and not on growth in the industrial, manufacturing and service sectors, the bubble of wealth that is generated is more difficult to distribute to the rest of society.
The seemingly paradoxical term "jobless growth," he said, indicates this problem in which a nation's GNP increases without an increase in employment, which means much of the new wealth does not trickle down to the working classes.
Nations need to reconsider now-debunked economic theories from the last century and create new rules that favor long-term growth and investments that involve "measured and manageable risk," he said.
Businesses and stockholders should also engage in "value sharing" in which they choose investment opportunities not solely for their chances at reaping a profit "but as an opportunity to contribute to the common good" and sustainable development.
He and other speakers emphasized the importance of having banking institutions and foundations concentrate on helping the local communities in which they are based.
Besides offering microcredit and small-business loans, local projects should also include scientific, humanistic and cultural initiatives that foster a person's "full development," the speakers said.
What a concept! Economics as if MAN matters!
What DO the Bishops Say About....
....voting for an abortion absolutist such as Obamamamamama?
Actually, the bishops said candidates who promote fundamental moral evils such as abortion are cooperating in a grave evil, and Catholics may never vote for them to advance those evils.
A Catholic voter’s decision to support a candidate despite that gravely immoral position “would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”
This standard of “grave moral reasons” is a very high standard to meet. The bishops added that “a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”
--Letter to the NYSlimes authored by Bps. Wm. Murphy and N. DiMarzio, 9/24/08
Recently a nice young fellow who teaches at a Catholic school in the Twin Cities advised a family member of mine that '...some Catholics consider voting for Obamamamamama to be the morally correct thing to do.'
Fortunately for him, that family member was not possessed of a baseball bat. Not only was his tone utterly condescending, he is (obviously) morally under-informed.
And he graduated from a Catholic high school and college...
HT: American Papist.
Actually, the bishops said candidates who promote fundamental moral evils such as abortion are cooperating in a grave evil, and Catholics may never vote for them to advance those evils.
A Catholic voter’s decision to support a candidate despite that gravely immoral position “would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”
This standard of “grave moral reasons” is a very high standard to meet. The bishops added that “a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”
--Letter to the NYSlimes authored by Bps. Wm. Murphy and N. DiMarzio, 9/24/08
Recently a nice young fellow who teaches at a Catholic school in the Twin Cities advised a family member of mine that '...some Catholics consider voting for Obamamamamama to be the morally correct thing to do.'
Fortunately for him, that family member was not possessed of a baseball bat. Not only was his tone utterly condescending, he is (obviously) morally under-informed.
And he graduated from a Catholic high school and college...
HT: American Papist.
Could a Daley Family Member....Lie???
Heaven forfend!
Tom Roeser:
In a TV ad, John McCain listed Bill Daley as a lobbyist which has drawn a shout of anger and resentment from Daley since he has never been registered as a lobbyist. The shout he gave off was that of a wounded animal, unjustly shot at, in a forest.
Dear me, as one who went to Washington weekly as a lobbyist for Quaker Oats for 27 years and would frequently see Bill Daley on the early morning UAL or American Airlines 7:30 a.m. Red Eye, I am utterly aghast that all the while, big firms were sending Bill Daley to D. C. because of his expertise on the technical end of Big Business…and not because his name was Daley, that he was the mayor’s son and mayor’s brother but because he was so expert in business economics. All the time I thought it was because he was an expert at plying his trade with Democratic power brokers who would recall his surname with fondness
...All the times I saw him chomping steaks with Democratic power lords at Morton’s of Chicago on the edge of Georgetown and tippling drinks at Hill fund-raisers he was sharing his great knowledge of the economy and his scientific expertise with the telecommunications industry without any political connection…and was not seeking favor with the power people which is what a lobbyist is supposed to do. How I misjudged Daley all these years! Indeed, John McCain should be ashamed of himself for saying that Daley was lobbyist.
Ergo: Daley was NOT a lobbyist or applied pressure or gratification to lawmakers in return for favors because Daley never registered as a lobbyist!
...It is indeed gratifying to see his anger at being singled out as having been hired as a lobbyist when he didn’t fill out the lobbying forms and hence could not be a lobbyist. That proves McCain is a liar, right? Well that’s what the Chicago press thinks…and you know the Chicago press fully trusts that a Daley assigned to Washington is not a lobbyist and isn’t muscling for his clients because, after all, he didn’t file a lobbyist’s registration fee.
You kinda have to have your "droll" glasses on to read that post.
Seeing as Bill Daley's from Chicago, it is frankly impossible that he would NOT fill out the forms and pay the fees if he were .....ahhhhhh.....lobbying. Especially since he's a member of the esteemed (and notoriously HONEST) Daley family.
Hell, there are probably 10,000 registered voters in Chicago who will testify to the Daley Honesty. Maybe 30,000. Maybe 50,000.
Tom Roeser:
In a TV ad, John McCain listed Bill Daley as a lobbyist which has drawn a shout of anger and resentment from Daley since he has never been registered as a lobbyist. The shout he gave off was that of a wounded animal, unjustly shot at, in a forest.
Dear me, as one who went to Washington weekly as a lobbyist for Quaker Oats for 27 years and would frequently see Bill Daley on the early morning UAL or American Airlines 7:30 a.m. Red Eye, I am utterly aghast that all the while, big firms were sending Bill Daley to D. C. because of his expertise on the technical end of Big Business…and not because his name was Daley, that he was the mayor’s son and mayor’s brother but because he was so expert in business economics. All the time I thought it was because he was an expert at plying his trade with Democratic power brokers who would recall his surname with fondness
...All the times I saw him chomping steaks with Democratic power lords at Morton’s of Chicago on the edge of Georgetown and tippling drinks at Hill fund-raisers he was sharing his great knowledge of the economy and his scientific expertise with the telecommunications industry without any political connection…and was not seeking favor with the power people which is what a lobbyist is supposed to do. How I misjudged Daley all these years! Indeed, John McCain should be ashamed of himself for saying that Daley was lobbyist.
Ergo: Daley was NOT a lobbyist or applied pressure or gratification to lawmakers in return for favors because Daley never registered as a lobbyist!
...It is indeed gratifying to see his anger at being singled out as having been hired as a lobbyist when he didn’t fill out the lobbying forms and hence could not be a lobbyist. That proves McCain is a liar, right? Well that’s what the Chicago press thinks…and you know the Chicago press fully trusts that a Daley assigned to Washington is not a lobbyist and isn’t muscling for his clients because, after all, he didn’t file a lobbyist’s registration fee.
You kinda have to have your "droll" glasses on to read that post.
Seeing as Bill Daley's from Chicago, it is frankly impossible that he would NOT fill out the forms and pay the fees if he were .....ahhhhhh.....lobbying. Especially since he's a member of the esteemed (and notoriously HONEST) Daley family.
Hell, there are probably 10,000 registered voters in Chicago who will testify to the Daley Honesty. Maybe 30,000. Maybe 50,000.
Is the Election Over?
Maybe I missed something, but I thought that the Presidential will be held in November.
Democrats have begun striking coins with Barack Obama’s profile — and already proclaiming him President
A company in Birmingham's Jewellery Quarter is making commemorative coins for American presidential hopeful Barack Obama
...The coins show Senator Obama’s face, along with a picture of the White House and the legend “President of the United States of America”.
Geez. That could save a helluvalotta time and money, no?
HT: Ed Morrissey
Democrats have begun striking coins with Barack Obama’s profile — and already proclaiming him President
A company in Birmingham's Jewellery Quarter is making commemorative coins for American presidential hopeful Barack Obama
...The coins show Senator Obama’s face, along with a picture of the White House and the legend “President of the United States of America”.
Geez. That could save a helluvalotta time and money, no?
HT: Ed Morrissey
PJBuchanan on The Bailout
He's right.
No, it is not fair. Yet, Treasury’s Hank Paulson may be right. To save the sheep who might have been wiped out in a general financial panic, we may have to save the pigs
Buchanan is a historian, and reminds us of a few inconvenient facts.
-the Big Apple had to be rescued by Gerald Ford.
-Marion Barry’s Washington, D.C., was next in line at the cashier’s window
-In the Reagan era, it was Chrysler. Later that decade, Citibank, Chase-Manhattan and Bank of America were staring into the abyss, as Latin American regimes
-Then came the Mexican and Asian financial crises and the U.S.-IMF bailouts of the 1990s
And guess what? "Flyover Country" inhabitants paid the most--but not necessarily in taxes.
Who ultimately paid for the Mexican bailout? Florida tomato growers wiped out by Mexican producers, the price of whose tomatoes was chopped two-thirds by the devaluation. U.S. autoworkers who saw Ford and Delphi plants shuttered as new Ford and Delphi plants opened in Mexico. U.S. textile workers whose mills closed and jobs vanished.
Middle-class American families have paid and paid—in lost jobs, lower wages, a falling median income—to save the big banks from the consequences of their follies. And those bank bailouts are behind the trade deficits that set five records in the Bush era, reached 6 percent of GDP, forced huge U.S. borrowings from abroad and ravaged the dollar
If there's any good news, PJB speculates that at least McPain and Obamamamama's high-spending promises may be voided by the pile-on of Gummint debt this bailout will occasion.
I think PJB is an optimist.
No, it is not fair. Yet, Treasury’s Hank Paulson may be right. To save the sheep who might have been wiped out in a general financial panic, we may have to save the pigs
Buchanan is a historian, and reminds us of a few inconvenient facts.
-the Big Apple had to be rescued by Gerald Ford.
-Marion Barry’s Washington, D.C., was next in line at the cashier’s window
-In the Reagan era, it was Chrysler. Later that decade, Citibank, Chase-Manhattan and Bank of America were staring into the abyss, as Latin American regimes
-Then came the Mexican and Asian financial crises and the U.S.-IMF bailouts of the 1990s
And guess what? "Flyover Country" inhabitants paid the most--but not necessarily in taxes.
Who ultimately paid for the Mexican bailout? Florida tomato growers wiped out by Mexican producers, the price of whose tomatoes was chopped two-thirds by the devaluation. U.S. autoworkers who saw Ford and Delphi plants shuttered as new Ford and Delphi plants opened in Mexico. U.S. textile workers whose mills closed and jobs vanished.
Middle-class American families have paid and paid—in lost jobs, lower wages, a falling median income—to save the big banks from the consequences of their follies. And those bank bailouts are behind the trade deficits that set five records in the Bush era, reached 6 percent of GDP, forced huge U.S. borrowings from abroad and ravaged the dollar
If there's any good news, PJB speculates that at least McPain and Obamamamama's high-spending promises may be voided by the pile-on of Gummint debt this bailout will occasion.
I think PJB is an optimist.
Even More, Yet, Again, on The Bailout
Eminently sensible stuff here, cited by PowerLine.
David John, argues in favor of (1) strict oversight over all the new RTC's activities, (2) allowing the new RTC to exercise rights over purchased securities, as opposed to being a passive holder of them, (3) allowing it to hold the assets without "sunset," so as to maximize the ability of taxpayers to receive full value for them, and (4) a limit on total taxpayer exposure. It is my understanding that the Treasury Department's proposal contains all of these features [this from a Heritage Foundation paper].
There are some sensible additions to the package which John endorses:
...the Treasury draft lacks the two features that John considers important. First, the new RTC should be allowed to refer cases to the Justice Department for civil suits to recover bonuses or termination compensation received by executives where appropriate. Second, the new RTC "should purchase securities only at a deep discount, where the market for the security is having difficulty clearing" in order to "exact a cost on the asset holder and ensure that only dysfunctional markets are eligible."
Finally:
..."the new RTC should focus on restoring the markets, not on providing funding for other programs or serving as a platform for other goals."
By now, anyone who has read more than Democrat Party talking points on the issue should understand that the market-gridlock on these securities was caused by several elements:
1) Democrat legislation and regulation forcing or enabling Fannie/Freddie (and banks) to make bad loans.
2) Democrat and Republican passage of SarbOx, which contained the infamous "mark-to-market" clause, meaning that banks who were forced to make crappy loans were also forced to write down the value of those loans.
3) Al Greenspan's horrific "easy money" policies--which supported ridiculously high purchase-price valuations of housing by stuffing cash into the markets at unrealistically-low rates.
4) Greed, corruption, and abominable behavior by a number of financial execs, including those NOT on Wall Street (see, e.g., Countrywide Loans and WaMu.)
5) Greed, corruption, and abominable behavior by a number of Congressmen who took monstrous campaign contributions from Fannie, Freddie, Wall Street, and the banks (not to mention the Realtors)--see, e.g., Dodd and Obama.
6) Greed and/or stupidity on the part of home-buyers who THOUGHT that the value of their homes would rise forever--and quickly--beyond the value of the mortgage they incurred to purchase it. This particularly applies to 'flippers' and 'climbers.'
Some, such as Gingrich and Malkin, seem to think that crippling the banking system is better than a $700Bn bailout. Obviously, reality doesn't cloud their judgment.
Others, notably Congressional Democrats, seem to think that more lousy lending (and even MORE targets for bailout dollars) is a better solution than what's proposed by Paulson, modified with the above suggestions. These are people who suffer from mental diseases, possibly brought on by physical diseases. (Remember King Herod?)
Cleaning up Fannie and Freddie and repealing CRA/HUD regs should be the first items on the Congress' agenda for next session.
They won't be, of course, because of #5 above.
But repeating The Depression to teach Democrats a lesson is not in the national interest.
David John, argues in favor of (1) strict oversight over all the new RTC's activities, (2) allowing the new RTC to exercise rights over purchased securities, as opposed to being a passive holder of them, (3) allowing it to hold the assets without "sunset," so as to maximize the ability of taxpayers to receive full value for them, and (4) a limit on total taxpayer exposure. It is my understanding that the Treasury Department's proposal contains all of these features [this from a Heritage Foundation paper].
There are some sensible additions to the package which John endorses:
...the Treasury draft lacks the two features that John considers important. First, the new RTC should be allowed to refer cases to the Justice Department for civil suits to recover bonuses or termination compensation received by executives where appropriate. Second, the new RTC "should purchase securities only at a deep discount, where the market for the security is having difficulty clearing" in order to "exact a cost on the asset holder and ensure that only dysfunctional markets are eligible."
Finally:
..."the new RTC should focus on restoring the markets, not on providing funding for other programs or serving as a platform for other goals."
By now, anyone who has read more than Democrat Party talking points on the issue should understand that the market-gridlock on these securities was caused by several elements:
1) Democrat legislation and regulation forcing or enabling Fannie/Freddie (and banks) to make bad loans.
2) Democrat and Republican passage of SarbOx, which contained the infamous "mark-to-market" clause, meaning that banks who were forced to make crappy loans were also forced to write down the value of those loans.
3) Al Greenspan's horrific "easy money" policies--which supported ridiculously high purchase-price valuations of housing by stuffing cash into the markets at unrealistically-low rates.
4) Greed, corruption, and abominable behavior by a number of financial execs, including those NOT on Wall Street (see, e.g., Countrywide Loans and WaMu.)
5) Greed, corruption, and abominable behavior by a number of Congressmen who took monstrous campaign contributions from Fannie, Freddie, Wall Street, and the banks (not to mention the Realtors)--see, e.g., Dodd and Obama.
6) Greed and/or stupidity on the part of home-buyers who THOUGHT that the value of their homes would rise forever--and quickly--beyond the value of the mortgage they incurred to purchase it. This particularly applies to 'flippers' and 'climbers.'
Some, such as Gingrich and Malkin, seem to think that crippling the banking system is better than a $700Bn bailout. Obviously, reality doesn't cloud their judgment.
Others, notably Congressional Democrats, seem to think that more lousy lending (and even MORE targets for bailout dollars) is a better solution than what's proposed by Paulson, modified with the above suggestions. These are people who suffer from mental diseases, possibly brought on by physical diseases. (Remember King Herod?)
Cleaning up Fannie and Freddie and repealing CRA/HUD regs should be the first items on the Congress' agenda for next session.
They won't be, of course, because of #5 above.
But repeating The Depression to teach Democrats a lesson is not in the national interest.
NYSlimes v. Truth
Seems that the NYTimes/Slimes (they're interchangable names) can't handle the truth.
Or at least they won't print it. The slimetime says Rick Davis is a lobbyist.
McCain's response:
As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.
Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.
No salary, no other compensation, no equity, no distributions....geez, that usually means NO EMPLOYMENT CONNECTION.
HT: PowerLIne
Or at least they won't print it. The slimetime says Rick Davis is a lobbyist.
McCain's response:
As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.
Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.
No salary, no other compensation, no equity, no distributions....geez, that usually means NO EMPLOYMENT CONNECTION.
HT: PowerLIne
Big Spenders: Wisconsin Gummints
Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance:
From 1983 to 2007, state aid and tax credits for kindergarten through grade 12 schools rose 320%, state expenditures were up 222%, inflation rose 115% and UW funding increased 99%, according to the report released Tuesday by the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance
WTA seems to be complaining that UW funding is shorted.
Thank God for small favors. And that IS a small favor, given the above.
From 1983 to 2007, state aid and tax credits for kindergarten through grade 12 schools rose 320%, state expenditures were up 222%, inflation rose 115% and UW funding increased 99%, according to the report released Tuesday by the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance
WTA seems to be complaining that UW funding is shorted.
Thank God for small favors. And that IS a small favor, given the above.
Going Bankrupt? Offer MORE Benefits!!
What else could MPS do to engender confidence in its financial smarts?
An effort that began more than a year ago to give domestic partners of Milwaukee Public Schools employees the same standing for fringe benefits as employees’ wives or husbands took a major step forward Tuesday night when the School Board’s finance committee voted 3-2 to support the idea
That's the ticket!!
An effort that began more than a year ago to give domestic partners of Milwaukee Public Schools employees the same standing for fringe benefits as employees’ wives or husbands took a major step forward Tuesday night when the School Board’s finance committee voted 3-2 to support the idea
That's the ticket!!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Good News From the UK
This is something that rings true:
The music in most Roman Catholic parishes is so bad that it's turning practising Catholics into lapsed ones.
Of course, horribly sung Chant also caused the Lutheran Revolution, IMHO.
Anyway,
According to James MacMillan, arguably Britain's finest composer, "our liturgy has been hijacked, in some places, by opportunists who used the vacuum created by the Council to push home a radical agenda of de-sacralisation". But he also reckons that there is a growing movement against "enforced banalities".
And here's the action plan:
Today I spoke to a leading Catholic cathedral musician, who said he was fed up with SSG composers "pushing their own rubbish at dioceses in their endless workshops". His suggestion: commission simple, chant-based settings of the liturgy from composers and publish them free of charge on the internet.
Imagine the fury of certain well-off composer-publishers if settings of the Mass and antiphons that were better than their own tripe – and more in line with Pope Benedict's teachings – could be downloaded for nothing. Or perhaps this music could be given away free with copies of a leading Catholic newspaper. Now there's a thought...
Simple, eh? Break the back of OCP by publishing actual music free.
The music in most Roman Catholic parishes is so bad that it's turning practising Catholics into lapsed ones.
Of course, horribly sung Chant also caused the Lutheran Revolution, IMHO.
Anyway,
According to James MacMillan, arguably Britain's finest composer, "our liturgy has been hijacked, in some places, by opportunists who used the vacuum created by the Council to push home a radical agenda of de-sacralisation". But he also reckons that there is a growing movement against "enforced banalities".
And here's the action plan:
Today I spoke to a leading Catholic cathedral musician, who said he was fed up with SSG composers "pushing their own rubbish at dioceses in their endless workshops". His suggestion: commission simple, chant-based settings of the liturgy from composers and publish them free of charge on the internet.
Imagine the fury of certain well-off composer-publishers if settings of the Mass and antiphons that were better than their own tripe – and more in line with Pope Benedict's teachings – could be downloaded for nothing. Or perhaps this music could be given away free with copies of a leading Catholic newspaper. Now there's a thought...
Simple, eh? Break the back of OCP by publishing actual music free.
Insight on Obamamamama
This essay is spot-on, and reflects accurately my thoughts. Malor calls it precisely.
Christopher Hitchens asks: "Why is Obama so vapid, hesitant, and gutless?"
Uh, is that a trick question?
Obama acts like an aimless twit because that's what he is. There is no "deeper Barack." Sure, he does fine on the topics he's rehearsed a hundred times (race, healthcare, race, anti-Bush, race, Iraq, oh and race), but give him something new to to think about and he defaults: "Present."
...He seems vapid and hesitant because he's never really sure if the answer he's giving is the right one. He's worried that his minders are going to have to turn him around so he can explain away any "inartful" statements.
You see where this leads, although the author did not say so explicitly: it will not be Obama who is making policy, nor "running" the country. It will be his advisers, and THAT cast of characters is not too savory. In fact, none are more than partisan hacks with their own power-trip agenda.
This separates Bush and McCain from Obama. Clearly, GWB and McCain are not Conservatives; just as clearly, they are both very independent and quite stubborn. It may be that Bush and McCain's final policy will coincide with that of one or more of their advisers--but that's more likely to be coincidence than design.
Obama, however, is not a leader. He is a creature of the Machine--he is exactly what Axelrod and Plouffe built and programmed.
And that Machine is not interested in "the National Interest." It is self-interest, pure and simple.
Look no further than Fannie/Freddie to see the Machine in action.
Christopher Hitchens asks: "Why is Obama so vapid, hesitant, and gutless?"
Uh, is that a trick question?
Obama acts like an aimless twit because that's what he is. There is no "deeper Barack." Sure, he does fine on the topics he's rehearsed a hundred times (race, healthcare, race, anti-Bush, race, Iraq, oh and race), but give him something new to to think about and he defaults: "Present."
...He seems vapid and hesitant because he's never really sure if the answer he's giving is the right one. He's worried that his minders are going to have to turn him around so he can explain away any "inartful" statements.
You see where this leads, although the author did not say so explicitly: it will not be Obama who is making policy, nor "running" the country. It will be his advisers, and THAT cast of characters is not too savory. In fact, none are more than partisan hacks with their own power-trip agenda.
This separates Bush and McCain from Obama. Clearly, GWB and McCain are not Conservatives; just as clearly, they are both very independent and quite stubborn. It may be that Bush and McCain's final policy will coincide with that of one or more of their advisers--but that's more likely to be coincidence than design.
Obama, however, is not a leader. He is a creature of the Machine--he is exactly what Axelrod and Plouffe built and programmed.
And that Machine is not interested in "the National Interest." It is self-interest, pure and simple.
Look no further than Fannie/Freddie to see the Machine in action.
Even MORE, Yet, on the Bailout
Think this is beanbag?
Democrats in the Senate and House believe that if they can string out negotiations on the federal financial markets bailout through Tuesday, "we can get everything we want and more, including solidifying the Obama campaign," says a Senate Banking Committee staffer working for the majority.
"Let's see what the White House has to say when the market is cratering again." . . ."This is a Bush and McCain problem, not an Obama problem no matter how much they try to pin it on him and us," says a House Democrat leadership aide.
What was that jazz about 'the public interest'?
Ahhhhh, nevermind.
HT: McCain
Democrats in the Senate and House believe that if they can string out negotiations on the federal financial markets bailout through Tuesday, "we can get everything we want and more, including solidifying the Obama campaign," says a Senate Banking Committee staffer working for the majority.
"Let's see what the White House has to say when the market is cratering again." . . ."This is a Bush and McCain problem, not an Obama problem no matter how much they try to pin it on him and us," says a House Democrat leadership aide.
What was that jazz about 'the public interest'?
Ahhhhh, nevermind.
HT: McCain
Even MORE on the Bailout
RedState's Cianfrocca has an overview worth reading.
Does Mr. Paulson intend to systematically purchase MBS at higher prices than current market values would suggest?
This would save Wall Street’s bacon. A great many firms would be relieved of the burden of their past errors and mismanagement, and would get a fighting chance to stay in business and attract new capital.
Is that fair and right? No, it’s not. It would also put the taxpayers in a position to absorb Wall Street’s losses, through higher taxes, higher inflation, or both. (Politically, of course, this is dynamite.)
Got that? Purchasing at par (100% of face-value) is not fair and endangers taxpayers to some (yet-to-be-determined) degree.
What if he means to value his MBS purchases fairly, or to undervalue them? That will force the pain to be borne by the firms that made the bad decisions and took too much risk.
Is that fair and right? Yes, it is. But it will also force many of these firms out of business. And that would have severe follow-on effects in world markets, as a cascade of liquidations cause asset values to collapse across the world.
More than one analyst has suggested that we could see a 25% drop in the US stock market, or worse.
That's the alternative. Purchase them at some "fair" price (say, e.g., a discount of 20% from par) and there's a significant liquidity crisis. What he does NOT say is that this will have a serious impact on day-to-day credit markets.
His conclusion:
We need to perform the purchases of MBS either at a fair valuation or at an undervaluation. Because, as with the Resolution Trust Corporation, that will give the authorities time to control the process and work everything out carefully, perhaps over the next two years.
The time element is extremely important. The actual values of the CDOs ("loan lumps") will not be known for at least a couple of years, maybe 5 to 10 years. Treasury can always assign penalties (or rewards) later.
What about The Objectors, like BillyBoyKristol, Limbaugh, Newt, Barney, Dodd, et al?
Instead, the perception is growing in financial markets that the deal will die in Congress. The culprits: Republicans who are dead-set against a bailout on principle, and Democrats who are seeing a chance to jump-start their plans for the government to take over the economy and run it in a corrupt way
Like it or not, his assessments of the politicians is dead-on. Who loses big-time if the deal does NOT go through?
If there’s no deal, there’s no upside for Republicans
I agree with him there. If the Republicans liked FDR's regime, they will LOVE Obama's.
Members of Congress in both parties: Get your heads out of your lower intestinal tracts and do the people’s business for a change
I know. It will be hard to get out of your habits...
Does Mr. Paulson intend to systematically purchase MBS at higher prices than current market values would suggest?
This would save Wall Street’s bacon. A great many firms would be relieved of the burden of their past errors and mismanagement, and would get a fighting chance to stay in business and attract new capital.
Is that fair and right? No, it’s not. It would also put the taxpayers in a position to absorb Wall Street’s losses, through higher taxes, higher inflation, or both. (Politically, of course, this is dynamite.)
Got that? Purchasing at par (100% of face-value) is not fair and endangers taxpayers to some (yet-to-be-determined) degree.
What if he means to value his MBS purchases fairly, or to undervalue them? That will force the pain to be borne by the firms that made the bad decisions and took too much risk.
Is that fair and right? Yes, it is. But it will also force many of these firms out of business. And that would have severe follow-on effects in world markets, as a cascade of liquidations cause asset values to collapse across the world.
More than one analyst has suggested that we could see a 25% drop in the US stock market, or worse.
That's the alternative. Purchase them at some "fair" price (say, e.g., a discount of 20% from par) and there's a significant liquidity crisis. What he does NOT say is that this will have a serious impact on day-to-day credit markets.
His conclusion:
We need to perform the purchases of MBS either at a fair valuation or at an undervaluation. Because, as with the Resolution Trust Corporation, that will give the authorities time to control the process and work everything out carefully, perhaps over the next two years.
The time element is extremely important. The actual values of the CDOs ("loan lumps") will not be known for at least a couple of years, maybe 5 to 10 years. Treasury can always assign penalties (or rewards) later.
What about The Objectors, like BillyBoyKristol, Limbaugh, Newt, Barney, Dodd, et al?
Instead, the perception is growing in financial markets that the deal will die in Congress. The culprits: Republicans who are dead-set against a bailout on principle, and Democrats who are seeing a chance to jump-start their plans for the government to take over the economy and run it in a corrupt way
Like it or not, his assessments of the politicians is dead-on. Who loses big-time if the deal does NOT go through?
If there’s no deal, there’s no upside for Republicans
I agree with him there. If the Republicans liked FDR's regime, they will LOVE Obama's.
Members of Congress in both parties: Get your heads out of your lower intestinal tracts and do the people’s business for a change
I know. It will be hard to get out of your habits...
ACORN: Still Consistently Fraudulent
New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, and now North Carolina.
The move by RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross and Communications Director Danny Diaz followed a Herald-Sun report that Durham County Board of Elections Director Mike Ashe wants state officials to check about 80 voter registration forms for possible fraud.
Gee. Makes you wonder about Illinois, no?
Nah. Couldn't happen there.
HT: Moonbattery
The move by RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross and Communications Director Danny Diaz followed a Herald-Sun report that Durham County Board of Elections Director Mike Ashe wants state officials to check about 80 voter registration forms for possible fraud.
Gee. Makes you wonder about Illinois, no?
Nah. Couldn't happen there.
HT: Moonbattery
Newt: Still a Geek
Gingrich is the kind of guy who everybody has known.
You put him in a closet while he works on his idea, and slide a pizza under the door now and then. But you never, EVER put him in front of customers.
In other words, he's really, really smart, but disconnected from reality.
Here's his "solution" to the liquidity crisis:
...suspend the mark-to-market rule
A very good idea. If it can be done administratively, do it!
...repeal Sarbanes-Oxley
Sure, Newt. How about tomorrow? Well--OK--how about September 30th?
...match our competitors in China and Singapore by going to a zero capital gains tax
Another great idea. Another non-starter.
...immediately pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas.
Sure. Why not bundle that with #s 2 and 3 above. September 30th still OK with you?
All of these are fine and dandy. NONE of them will happen with Queen Nancy and Harry the Twit running Congress.
Thanks, Newt. Go get your pizza.
Realistic people will get the job done while you design the Perfect Society.
HT: Gop3
You put him in a closet while he works on his idea, and slide a pizza under the door now and then. But you never, EVER put him in front of customers.
In other words, he's really, really smart, but disconnected from reality.
Here's his "solution" to the liquidity crisis:
...suspend the mark-to-market rule
A very good idea. If it can be done administratively, do it!
...repeal Sarbanes-Oxley
Sure, Newt. How about tomorrow? Well--OK--how about September 30th?
...match our competitors in China and Singapore by going to a zero capital gains tax
Another great idea. Another non-starter.
...immediately pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas.
Sure. Why not bundle that with #s 2 and 3 above. September 30th still OK with you?
All of these are fine and dandy. NONE of them will happen with Queen Nancy and Harry the Twit running Congress.
Thanks, Newt. Go get your pizza.
Realistic people will get the job done while you design the Perfect Society.
HT: Gop3
Monday, September 22, 2008
How Bad WAS It Last Week?
If you think Paulson just decided to ask for $700Bn because he had nothing better to do that day, get this from McArdle:
...What happened last week is that one money market firm advertised its entire portfolio, including a large chunk of Lehman paper worth slightly less than 2% of the total fund assets. Spooked investors, who did not want to lose out if the fund "broke the buck" started withdrawing as fast as their little fingers could punch the buttons on their phones.
...Thus was touched off a general run on money market funds that held money for institutions
...Suddenly, said one source, no one could sell two-week Wachovia paper at 30% yield-to-maturity-
...The fund runs started to hit money markets that had no obvious problems (Putnam, BKNY/Mellon, American Beacon) causing them to shut down or redeem the shares in kind. Investors began worrying State Street's massive short-term investment fund complex was holding Lehman, which whipsawed its stock price 50% in one day
The red highlight is bonkers wild significant to anyone who's been around finance for more than a week or so.
McArdle then says what I posted earlier, with a much better slant:
No doubt some of my readers are rubbing their hands and saying "Exactly what should happen to people who carry credit card balances!" And I'm sure that among you there are people who pay cash on the barrel for everything, having never taken out any loan for a house, an automobile, an education, a personal financial crisis. These people never even use an American Express Card, which is, of course, a short-term loan. They also do not work for companies that borrow money to buy capital equipment or finance expansion, and their firms do not experience any mismatch between their payables and their receivables. Those people should stop reading now, because I'm pretty sure the Amish aren't supposed to use the internet
McArdle was kind enough not to add "jackass!!" after that paragraph, so I did on her behalf.
There's a lot more at the link. She's savvy, and 'splains it for you.
Let's stop the silly talk and get this deal done. Let's do it the way ABadger wants:
1) Non-political;
2) Clear mission and mandate along with adequate funding;
3) Professional management paid at market rates….this would include bonuses if earned;
4) All profits returned to the funding source….i.e. the government to the general revenues funds;
5) Exhaustive transparency
And if Congress can't do it right, then let's commence the Revolution!!
...What happened last week is that one money market firm advertised its entire portfolio, including a large chunk of Lehman paper worth slightly less than 2% of the total fund assets. Spooked investors, who did not want to lose out if the fund "broke the buck" started withdrawing as fast as their little fingers could punch the buttons on their phones.
...Thus was touched off a general run on money market funds that held money for institutions
...Suddenly, said one source, no one could sell two-week Wachovia paper at 30% yield-to-maturity-
...The fund runs started to hit money markets that had no obvious problems (Putnam, BKNY/Mellon, American Beacon) causing them to shut down or redeem the shares in kind. Investors began worrying State Street's massive short-term investment fund complex was holding Lehman, which whipsawed its stock price 50% in one day
The red highlight is bonkers wild significant to anyone who's been around finance for more than a week or so.
McArdle then says what I posted earlier, with a much better slant:
No doubt some of my readers are rubbing their hands and saying "Exactly what should happen to people who carry credit card balances!" And I'm sure that among you there are people who pay cash on the barrel for everything, having never taken out any loan for a house, an automobile, an education, a personal financial crisis. These people never even use an American Express Card, which is, of course, a short-term loan. They also do not work for companies that borrow money to buy capital equipment or finance expansion, and their firms do not experience any mismatch between their payables and their receivables. Those people should stop reading now, because I'm pretty sure the Amish aren't supposed to use the internet
McArdle was kind enough not to add "jackass!!" after that paragraph, so I did on her behalf.
There's a lot more at the link. She's savvy, and 'splains it for you.
Let's stop the silly talk and get this deal done. Let's do it the way ABadger wants:
1) Non-political;
2) Clear mission and mandate along with adequate funding;
3) Professional management paid at market rates….this would include bonuses if earned;
4) All profits returned to the funding source….i.e. the government to the general revenues funds;
5) Exhaustive transparency
And if Congress can't do it right, then let's commence the Revolution!!
Belling's Right, LImbaugh's Wrong (More or Less)
On The Bailout...Belling is right: do the deal and shut up, so long as Congress doesn't screw around with this. Limbaugh's bellowing about "free markets" is seriously erroneous.
Some stuff you need to know before you evaluate The Bailout:
Yes, indeed, the credit markets could literally lock up and disappear if something is not done. That means that you might not get PAID, folks, if your employer is dependent on short-term or seasonal credit facilities.
(Work for a building contractor? This means YOU. Work for a company that makes stuff like toys, lawn-mowers, or snowblowers, that is a seasonal good? This means YOU. Work for a school system that gets 2 tax-infusions/year? A municipality that gets only 2 tax-infusion payments/year? How about an automobile manufacturer or dealer? This means YOU.)
Why a "credit lockup'?
Because FDIC and Fed Reserve bank examiners are demanding that Banks write off loans that actually are GOOD loans--but they look 'hinky' to the examiner. This is not widely reported, but trust me, it's happening. Banks don't get a vote; they must comply. This is impairing their capital ratios, meaning that they cannot make OTHER loans--like to your employer (see above.)
'Hinky' doesn't mean that the borrower is not paying; it means that perhaps the collateral doesn't seem to have the value that the Bank says it does. Easy example: if your house is worth $400K but in a FIRE-SALE it's only worth $250K and your mortgage is written for $300K, your collateral is "impaired." You're still making payments! You keep up the house, and pay the insurance and taxes! But the examiner says it's 'hinky' because of "mark-to-market" rules which use FIRE-SALE as a factor.
The same applies to businesses. The machinery which is collateral for the loan is worth $1.5 million, unless it's a FIRE-SALE, in which case it might only be worth $500,000. So it's 'impaired' and the Bank must write down $1 million or so.
Most important, this applies to the "loan lumps" (CDO's) that the Bank purchased from Fannie, Freddie, or Lehman, or Bear. This is large-money stuff, folks. If those CDO's are 'impaired,' that takes out a large amount of lendable capital.
Do that often enough and the Bank cannot make any other loans.
Lockup ensues, and a crash will happen.
Yes, there are bad mortgage loans. Let's define that a bit, shall we? For our purposes, "bad" mortgages are those on which no payments have been made for more than 90 days. They're going into foreclosure.
That's only about 5% of the loans out there, which is NOT a lot (although it's higher than the historical average.) They must be written off--but the value of the houses and land is not ZERO; it may be anywhere between 20% - 90% (or more) of the mortgage amount. In other words, it's not a "total loss." In fact, it may even sell for MORE than the mortgage amount, meaning that there's a profit here (sorta--there are expenses, too....)
Short-term, the Banks need relief. They cannot operate with impaired capital, and the value(s) of the "lumps of mortgages" they hold (purchased from Lehmann, or Bear, or Fannie/Freddie) is not determinable. If they get rid of the "lumps," they will have 'fixed' their capital ratios and will be able to lend.
Long-term, the "lumps" of mortgages will pay off, with a few exceptions. 90%++ are being paid now, regularly, no problem. 5%++ are not. The 5%++ problems will be a problem for Gummint (or the taxpayers, if you think that way) and that's the risk.
The biggest risk is NOT the loan packages. It is Congress. This is where all the REAL worries should be concentrated. If the plan is not Simple, Focused, and Transparent, it will be a problem.
All the Treasury should do is pick up the loans, collect what they can in an orderly fashion (that will be most of the loans, no problem) and dispose of the bad stuff in an orderly fashion. NOTHING ELSE SHOULD BE IN THE LEGISLATION. NOTHING. ELSE.
****************
Some people seem to think that "private enterprise" can muscle its way out of this, if only the Gummint would go away and leave them alone. Balderdash. They have no understanding of the banking system. None. Zero. Zip. First off, $700 Bn is a helluvalotta money. You're not getting that from your Mom, or even from Rush Limbaugh--or from Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett. Ain't there. Can't happen.
Secondly, the Banks will ALWAYS be regulated--for better or for worse.
Talk to an honest banker and they will tell you: the Banks got into this because a number of them were (and are) run by greedy little bastards who saw Big Returns (and Big Bonuses) in those CDO's. But that's a minority of bankers, and as usual, the 10% cause 80% of the problems.
Third: Congress and Presidents caused a lot of these problems with stupid laws. What's new? Congress may be better or worse than greedy bastards--which poison do you want? You're going to have one or the other (until the next Revolution, hint, hint...)
Sure, things will go wrong with the Big Bailout. Congress will interfere at some point, sooner or later. But if they keep their mitts off it for three or four years, there's a good chance that it will work out for the best.
Either that, or fuggeddabout that paycheck--right around Christmas.
Some stuff you need to know before you evaluate The Bailout:
1) 'Impairments' and write-downs on good loans.
Yes, indeed, the credit markets could literally lock up and disappear if something is not done. That means that you might not get PAID, folks, if your employer is dependent on short-term or seasonal credit facilities.
(Work for a building contractor? This means YOU. Work for a company that makes stuff like toys, lawn-mowers, or snowblowers, that is a seasonal good? This means YOU. Work for a school system that gets 2 tax-infusions/year? A municipality that gets only 2 tax-infusion payments/year? How about an automobile manufacturer or dealer? This means YOU.)
Why a "credit lockup'?
Because FDIC and Fed Reserve bank examiners are demanding that Banks write off loans that actually are GOOD loans--but they look 'hinky' to the examiner. This is not widely reported, but trust me, it's happening. Banks don't get a vote; they must comply. This is impairing their capital ratios, meaning that they cannot make OTHER loans--like to your employer (see above.)
'Hinky' doesn't mean that the borrower is not paying; it means that perhaps the collateral doesn't seem to have the value that the Bank says it does. Easy example: if your house is worth $400K but in a FIRE-SALE it's only worth $250K and your mortgage is written for $300K, your collateral is "impaired." You're still making payments! You keep up the house, and pay the insurance and taxes! But the examiner says it's 'hinky' because of "mark-to-market" rules which use FIRE-SALE as a factor.
The same applies to businesses. The machinery which is collateral for the loan is worth $1.5 million, unless it's a FIRE-SALE, in which case it might only be worth $500,000. So it's 'impaired' and the Bank must write down $1 million or so.
Most important, this applies to the "loan lumps" (CDO's) that the Bank purchased from Fannie, Freddie, or Lehman, or Bear. This is large-money stuff, folks. If those CDO's are 'impaired,' that takes out a large amount of lendable capital.
Do that often enough and the Bank cannot make any other loans.
Lockup ensues, and a crash will happen.
2) 'Impairments' and write-downs on bad loans
Yes, there are bad mortgage loans. Let's define that a bit, shall we? For our purposes, "bad" mortgages are those on which no payments have been made for more than 90 days. They're going into foreclosure.
That's only about 5% of the loans out there, which is NOT a lot (although it's higher than the historical average.) They must be written off--but the value of the houses and land is not ZERO; it may be anywhere between 20% - 90% (or more) of the mortgage amount. In other words, it's not a "total loss." In fact, it may even sell for MORE than the mortgage amount, meaning that there's a profit here (sorta--there are expenses, too....)
3) Short-term and Long-term thinking
Short-term, the Banks need relief. They cannot operate with impaired capital, and the value(s) of the "lumps of mortgages" they hold (purchased from Lehmann, or Bear, or Fannie/Freddie) is not determinable. If they get rid of the "lumps," they will have 'fixed' their capital ratios and will be able to lend.
Long-term, the "lumps" of mortgages will pay off, with a few exceptions. 90%++ are being paid now, regularly, no problem. 5%++ are not. The 5%++ problems will be a problem for Gummint (or the taxpayers, if you think that way) and that's the risk.
4) Risks
The biggest risk is NOT the loan packages. It is Congress. This is where all the REAL worries should be concentrated. If the plan is not Simple, Focused, and Transparent, it will be a problem.
All the Treasury should do is pick up the loans, collect what they can in an orderly fashion (that will be most of the loans, no problem) and dispose of the bad stuff in an orderly fashion. NOTHING ELSE SHOULD BE IN THE LEGISLATION. NOTHING. ELSE.
****************
Some people seem to think that "private enterprise" can muscle its way out of this, if only the Gummint would go away and leave them alone. Balderdash. They have no understanding of the banking system. None. Zero. Zip. First off, $700 Bn is a helluvalotta money. You're not getting that from your Mom, or even from Rush Limbaugh--or from Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett. Ain't there. Can't happen.
Secondly, the Banks will ALWAYS be regulated--for better or for worse.
Talk to an honest banker and they will tell you: the Banks got into this because a number of them were (and are) run by greedy little bastards who saw Big Returns (and Big Bonuses) in those CDO's. But that's a minority of bankers, and as usual, the 10% cause 80% of the problems.
Third: Congress and Presidents caused a lot of these problems with stupid laws. What's new? Congress may be better or worse than greedy bastards--which poison do you want? You're going to have one or the other (until the next Revolution, hint, hint...)
Sure, things will go wrong with the Big Bailout. Congress will interfere at some point, sooner or later. But if they keep their mitts off it for three or four years, there's a good chance that it will work out for the best.
Either that, or fuggeddabout that paycheck--right around Christmas.
Sandra Bernhard's Happy Sponsor
This is not about Sandra Bernhard's unhinged rant, which (in normal times) would be dismissed as the ravings of an infected brain.
Rather, I found THIS to be very interesting:
According to news reports, the D.C. Jewish Community Center is supposedly very happy with their Bernhard show, and partied with Bernhard on opening night. Evidently, according to News Busters, they’re in tune with her right-bashing rage
Excuse my asking in such terms, but WTF is the DC Jewish Community Center so happy about?
HT: Headless, who found this at Black Political Thought
Rather, I found THIS to be very interesting:
According to news reports, the D.C. Jewish Community Center is supposedly very happy with their Bernhard show, and partied with Bernhard on opening night. Evidently, according to News Busters, they’re in tune with her right-bashing rage
Excuse my asking in such terms, but WTF is the DC Jewish Community Center so happy about?
HT: Headless, who found this at Black Political Thought
A Cleaner Cleanup
Here's something we should all get behind:
In an effort for transparency, I'd like to see a website that listed each transaction purchased by the government. This could list the details of the asset, the PAR value, the selling institution, the underlying characteristics, the originators of the loans, the price the government paid (and eventual sold the asset for) and any other relevant detail.
Proposed by Calculated Risk.
In an effort for transparency, I'd like to see a website that listed each transaction purchased by the government. This could list the details of the asset, the PAR value, the selling institution, the underlying characteristics, the originators of the loans, the price the government paid (and eventual sold the asset for) and any other relevant detail.
Proposed by Calculated Risk.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
On Second Thought
Yah, I'm NRA, and yah, I practice, and yah, I teach others how to, etc.
But I'm kind with Ace on this:
The thought of Uncle Joe [Biden] owning a gun almost makes you believe in gun control.
Almost
Except for the Iron Rule of gun-ownership, which is that using Joe Biden as an example demonstrates that the 2A was, indeed, for all citizens.
Not just Conservatives.
Even though that might be the better way to do it...
But I'm kind with Ace on this:
The thought of Uncle Joe [Biden] owning a gun almost makes you believe in gun control.
Almost
Except for the Iron Rule of gun-ownership, which is that using Joe Biden as an example demonstrates that the 2A was, indeed, for all citizens.
Not just Conservatives.
Even though that might be the better way to do it...
The Effete Elite: Muffy and Kent
Just leaving the country-club, Muffy and Kent were discussing the nomination of Sarah Palin.
If this is the choice of the conservative base, [Kent] said “Then we need a new base.”
“It’s over,” [Muffy] insisted of Palin’s candidacy.
Of course, BillyBoyKristol and Peggy Noonan should do one more thing as they fire up their Bentleys--look behind them to see who's following.
--Fred, the superannuated "boy" of who misses his shuffleboard game to be on Fox News Channel every Saturday afternoon;
--Aaaahhhhnold, who is required to sacrifice one conservative principle every time he wants to bed his wife;
--George the Eldest, whose wife never could stand all those filthy stinking party events in the Midwest;
--and a few ex-White House and Defense types, whose assignments far exceeded their capabilities. We could call them Wolfie, "No Boots," and "Tricky Dickie" of Pearlescent.
While their motorcade departs Burning Bush, note behind them...
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away
HT: Wigderson
If this is the choice of the conservative base, [Kent] said “Then we need a new base.”
“It’s over,” [Muffy] insisted of Palin’s candidacy.
Of course, BillyBoyKristol and Peggy Noonan should do one more thing as they fire up their Bentleys--look behind them to see who's following.
--Fred, the superannuated "boy" of who misses his shuffleboard game to be on Fox News Channel every Saturday afternoon;
--Aaaahhhhnold, who is required to sacrifice one conservative principle every time he wants to bed his wife;
--George the Eldest, whose wife never could stand all those filthy stinking party events in the Midwest;
--and a few ex-White House and Defense types, whose assignments far exceeded their capabilities. We could call them Wolfie, "No Boots," and "Tricky Dickie" of Pearlescent.
While their motorcade departs Burning Bush, note behind them...
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away
HT: Wigderson
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The Next Time a RadioMouth Yaps About "Dow UP"...
As the intrepid and valuable skeptic Vox points out:
...these are the companies that were part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1998 that are no longer so: Chevron Corporation, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Union Carbide, Sears Roebuck, AT&T Corporation, Eastman Kodak, International Paper Company, Altria Group (Phillip Morris) and Honeywell International. These declining companies were replaced by healthier, more growth-friendly corporations like the American International Group,
So that "10 year average increase" of 4.4% (shitty increase, by the way) is....ah....a bit manipulated, I guess.
Goodyear blew up. Union Carbide, ditto (literally, in India...). Sears got out-maneuvered by the banko K-Mart (!!); Eastman cannot buy sales anymore.
Real measurement. All the time.
Yah, right.
...these are the companies that were part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1998 that are no longer so: Chevron Corporation, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Union Carbide, Sears Roebuck, AT&T Corporation, Eastman Kodak, International Paper Company, Altria Group (Phillip Morris) and Honeywell International. These declining companies were replaced by healthier, more growth-friendly corporations like the American International Group,
So that "10 year average increase" of 4.4% (shitty increase, by the way) is....ah....a bit manipulated, I guess.
Goodyear blew up. Union Carbide, ditto (literally, in India...). Sears got out-maneuvered by the banko K-Mart (!!); Eastman cannot buy sales anymore.
Real measurement. All the time.
Yah, right.
Obama's (ummmnnnhhhh) Senate Voting (uhhhhnnnn) Record
RedState did a very brief analysis.
Seems that the O-and-Savior has serious problems with 1) thinking straight; and 2) pushing buttons. That "button" thing--I hope Mr. Putin is paying close attention...
March 14, 1997 Thank you Madam Speaker (sic). Will the sponsor yield? I let this – I voted to have this bill come out of committee, because I think it was useful to have this kind of discussion on the bill, and I think the Senator has good intent… So although I did vote Yes to get this out of the committee, I – as currently constituted in light of the discussion, I think that it may – I will probably vote in opposition to the bill.
March 18, 1997 This is actually on the previous bill, 1076. I pressed yes, but my button didn’t come up.
March 19, 1997 The – yesterday on Senate Bill 1000, I should have – I was trying to vote Yes on this and I was recorded as a No. Just wanted to have that in the record.
March 20, 1997 Yes, Madam President. On Senate bill 700, I should have pressed a Yes vote; pressed a Present vote. I’d like that reflected in the record, please.
May 13, 1997 Yes, Mr. President. I was off the floor and I was wondering if we were going to go back on 2nd reading. I’d ask the body for 2147. Move it from 2nd to 3rd.
May 28, 1997 Thank you, Madam President. My button seems to be sticking. So I was recorded as not voting on that; I would have voted aye.
October 30, 1997 Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Chamber, the sponsor. Let me start off by just saying that – I want to apologize to the sponsor because the – I’m originally recorded as a – as a Yes vote on this, and it’s an indication, I think, that I wasn’t paying sufficient attention. I do have concerns on this bill, and I just want to express those concerns very quickly…
November 14, 1997 Thank you, Mr. President. I had the same problem on Senate Bill 493. I’d like to be recorded as a No vote.
[Later that same day]
Thank you, Mr. President. On Senate Bill 452, I was out in the hall when the vote came up and I didn’t get back here in time. I would like to be recorded as a Yes vote.
May 22, 1998 I apologize, Mr. President. I was off the floor and missed House Bill 1706. I just wanted to record that I would have voted in the affirmative.
Sure.
"Mr. Putin, on that little nuclear strike, I'm sorry, but I meant to press the "NO" button."
Seems that the O-and-Savior has serious problems with 1) thinking straight; and 2) pushing buttons. That "button" thing--I hope Mr. Putin is paying close attention...
March 14, 1997 Thank you Madam Speaker (sic). Will the sponsor yield? I let this – I voted to have this bill come out of committee, because I think it was useful to have this kind of discussion on the bill, and I think the Senator has good intent… So although I did vote Yes to get this out of the committee, I – as currently constituted in light of the discussion, I think that it may – I will probably vote in opposition to the bill.
March 18, 1997 This is actually on the previous bill, 1076. I pressed yes, but my button didn’t come up.
March 19, 1997 The – yesterday on Senate Bill 1000, I should have – I was trying to vote Yes on this and I was recorded as a No. Just wanted to have that in the record.
March 20, 1997 Yes, Madam President. On Senate bill 700, I should have pressed a Yes vote; pressed a Present vote. I’d like that reflected in the record, please.
May 13, 1997 Yes, Mr. President. I was off the floor and I was wondering if we were going to go back on 2nd reading. I’d ask the body for 2147. Move it from 2nd to 3rd.
May 28, 1997 Thank you, Madam President. My button seems to be sticking. So I was recorded as not voting on that; I would have voted aye.
October 30, 1997 Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Chamber, the sponsor. Let me start off by just saying that – I want to apologize to the sponsor because the – I’m originally recorded as a – as a Yes vote on this, and it’s an indication, I think, that I wasn’t paying sufficient attention. I do have concerns on this bill, and I just want to express those concerns very quickly…
November 14, 1997 Thank you, Mr. President. I had the same problem on Senate Bill 493. I’d like to be recorded as a No vote.
[Later that same day]
Thank you, Mr. President. On Senate Bill 452, I was out in the hall when the vote came up and I didn’t get back here in time. I would like to be recorded as a Yes vote.
May 22, 1998 I apologize, Mr. President. I was off the floor and missed House Bill 1706. I just wanted to record that I would have voted in the affirmative.
Sure.
"Mr. Putin, on that little nuclear strike, I'm sorry, but I meant to press the "NO" button."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Slimeballs) Awakes to 21st Century
Sen. Dodd, whose mortgage rates have always been, uhhhh, ....extra-nice, showed up for a meeting with Paulson and Bernanke.
"This problem began with bad lending practices"
said Dodd, while Angelo Mozilo was busy stroking Dodd's.....shoes.
Note that Senator Dodd did not say WHY there were "bad lending practices."
Hint:
Look at Sen. Dodd, ACORN, and Barney "Furtive" Frank (D-Boys). (Or is it FrankFurter?)
Never mind.
As Barney would say, "BOHICA!!! It's party time!!!"
"This problem began with bad lending practices"
said Dodd, while Angelo Mozilo was busy stroking Dodd's.....shoes.
Note that Senator Dodd did not say WHY there were "bad lending practices."
Hint:
Look at Sen. Dodd, ACORN, and Barney "Furtive" Frank (D-Boys). (Or is it FrankFurter?)
Never mind.
As Barney would say, "BOHICA!!! It's party time!!!"
"Journalists" Push Party Line
In a brilliant display of investigative and journalistic talent, PATRICK MARLEY and STEVEN WALTERS discovered that
The lead Department of Justice attorney for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s lawsuit against the state’s election authority met with Republican Party representatives about a week before filing the suit.
Crikey, mate!
Next, Marley and Walters will discover that James Doyle, Governor of Wisconsin, met withDemocrat Heavy Lifter and Major Contributor attorney Lester Pines before giving Pines a bunch of taxpayer money engaging Pines to defend the indefensible decision made by a Doyle-appointed committee of old go-along-to-get-along farts of honorable, venerable retired judges to give the finger to Federal law delay certain audits which may (or may not) be required by Federal law .
It is clear that such audits would require election clerks to work hard and long for a change impose a burden on some local workers. Further, such audits may uncover thousands of fraudulent registrations have the effect of making voters prove that they exist they are legally registered.
It is unlikely, however, that Walters and Marley will be confused with the accounting firm made famous in Dickens' fiction will ever report that ACORN met with James Doyle, governor of Wisconsin. It is also unlikely that Walters and Marley will report that the long delay in implementing Federal law are due to Governor James Doyle's personally pressuring Accenture to "foul this up real good, eh!!" It is also unlikely that Walters and Marley will report that the Department of Administration deliberately undermined the G.A.B.'s progress on compliance with Federal Law.
After all, Walters and Marley are unlikely to report that their only sources are Democrat party operatives, Doyle, Pines, Wineke, and other barflies confidential.
They won't report that because it may or may not be true. And they only report what is true, right?
Well, SOME of what is true. After all, we have an election torig run.
The lead Department of Justice attorney for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s lawsuit against the state’s election authority met with Republican Party representatives about a week before filing the suit.
Crikey, mate!
Next, Marley and Walters will discover that James Doyle, Governor of Wisconsin, met with
It is clear that such audits would
It is unlikely, however, that Walters and Marley
After all, Walters and Marley are unlikely to report that their only sources are
They won't report that because it may or may not be true. And they only report what is true, right?
Well, SOME of what is true. After all, we have an election to
Friday, September 19, 2008
Queen Nancy's "Most Ethical Congress"
Rangel.
Amiable, bon vivant, and ....a crook.
Rep. Charles Rangel acknowledged yesterday he may have violated House ethics rules when he used congressional stationery to solicit donations for a Harlem "center for public service" that will be named after him.
...Last year, Rangel's office provided The Post with a list of some of the donations he had already helped secure for the project, which included $10 million from AIG; $500,000 from the Verizon Foundation; and $1 million from Eugene Isenberg, CEO of energy firm Nabors Industries.
It would be a scream if the Fed Reserve placed a lien on Rangel's goods for return of the $10 million.
Amiable, bon vivant, and ....a crook.
Rep. Charles Rangel acknowledged yesterday he may have violated House ethics rules when he used congressional stationery to solicit donations for a Harlem "center for public service" that will be named after him.
...Last year, Rangel's office provided The Post with a list of some of the donations he had already helped secure for the project, which included $10 million from AIG; $500,000 from the Verizon Foundation; and $1 million from Eugene Isenberg, CEO of energy firm Nabors Industries.
It would be a scream if the Fed Reserve placed a lien on Rangel's goods for return of the $10 million.
Still Pumping it Out
There will be a temporary delay while we issue new ATM cards--these will be labeled "USTreasury."
HT: Ace
Short Sells: A Little Terrorism, Dear?
Ritholtz, having a conversation with his pal Joe Besecker:
...from what he was seeing and hearing about in terms of order flow, the vast majority of the financial short selling the past week or so were being done overseas. It appears that the lion's share of shorting was coming out of overseas bourses such as London and Dubai.It may not be a coincidence that the financial short selling ban is both here and in London.
Then there is another coincidence: The huge increase in shorting of the financials occurred on the anniversary of 9/11. And on top of that, the same institutions attacked on 9/11/01 were the ones suffering in recent days
Taking a $200 million short-position is not a problem if your net worth is $1Bn or so and your camels are already paid for.
...from what he was seeing and hearing about in terms of order flow, the vast majority of the financial short selling the past week or so were being done overseas. It appears that the lion's share of shorting was coming out of overseas bourses such as London and Dubai.It may not be a coincidence that the financial short selling ban is both here and in London.
Then there is another coincidence: The huge increase in shorting of the financials occurred on the anniversary of 9/11. And on top of that, the same institutions attacked on 9/11/01 were the ones suffering in recent days
Taking a $200 million short-position is not a problem if your net worth is $1Bn or so and your camels are already paid for.
Lie. Repeat. Lie. Repeat. "Nobody Can Vote" Lie. Repeat..
Van Hollen cannot understand why people seem to think that
due to his lawsuit.
Could it be because Ted Perry, "journalist" at Channel 6, repeated that canard two nights ago (while totally ignoring the Fed's AIG purchase, by the way)?
Or that the 6:00 team of "journalists" on Channel 12 said exactly the same thing on the same night?
Or that countless newspaper stories have repeated the line, fed them by Jim Doyle's hand-picked operatives, cronies, ward-heelers, and professional slimers?
Nah.
Couldn't be that Jim Doyle sorta-kinda-quietly-backhandedly made sure that the database did NOT get up on time, or that thestooges judges (appointed by the very same Jim Doyle) making up the "Accountability" Board said
Face it. Doyle's looking at the US Attorney General slot if the Democrat wins. The Party as a whole is looking at raping and pillaging the remaining wealth-creators in the US if a Democrat wins.
So a lot of repeated lying is worth it.
HT: McIlheran, or maybe Mc Ilheran. Whatever.
'a MILLION PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE'
due to his lawsuit.
Could it be because Ted Perry, "journalist" at Channel 6, repeated that canard two nights ago (while totally ignoring the Fed's AIG purchase, by the way)?
Or that the 6:00 team of "journalists" on Channel 12 said exactly the same thing on the same night?
Or that countless newspaper stories have repeated the line, fed them by Jim Doyle's hand-picked operatives, cronies, ward-heelers, and professional slimers?
Nah.
Couldn't be that Jim Doyle sorta-kinda-quietly-backhandedly made sure that the database did NOT get up on time, or that the
"Accountability? Not on OUR Watch!!"
Face it. Doyle's looking at the US Attorney General slot if the Democrat wins. The Party as a whole is looking at raping and pillaging the remaining wealth-creators in the US if a Democrat wins.
So a lot of repeated lying is worth it.
HT: McIlheran, or maybe Mc Ilheran. Whatever.
Looking for a Small, Light, Self-Defense Gun?
They're called Palm Pistols.
This is neat. Likely very accurate, given the hold-method/firing mechanics, and extremely small.
HT: Of Arms and the Law
This is neat. Likely very accurate, given the hold-method/firing mechanics, and extremely small.
HT: Of Arms and the Law
BuhBye, MPS?
Holy wah!
The Milwaukee School Board voted Thursday night to begin looking into dissolving the Milwaukee Public Schools system
Kind of a Harry Reid moment, eh? "Nobody knows what to do..."
The completely unexpected 6-to-3 vote followed a gloomy assessment of the short- and long-term financial situation of MPS from Superintendent William Andrekopoulos and several board members
Oh, well. Easy come, easy go.
The Milwaukee School Board voted Thursday night to begin looking into dissolving the Milwaukee Public Schools system
Kind of a Harry Reid moment, eh? "Nobody knows what to do..."
The completely unexpected 6-to-3 vote followed a gloomy assessment of the short- and long-term financial situation of MPS from Superintendent William Andrekopoulos and several board members
Oh, well. Easy come, easy go.
Mutual Admiration: Fannie, Freddie, Obama, ACORN, and NACA
Oh, they were tight, indeed.
A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions...[receiving] $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004
In just three years! My, my. How could that be?
Easy. Friends in high places, who were stealing money left and right.
In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.
Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003
"Earned" the money? Not necessarily:
Raines and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered in a civil lawsuit to pay nearly $31.4 million for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings over a period of six years to trigger their massive bonuses.
Raines was also forced in the settlement to give up Fannie Mae stock options valued at $15.6 million.
Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50 million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts ranging from $65,000 to $250,000
Well. Obama goes to the Senate and picks up more dollars/year from Fannie and Freddie than any other Senator in history.
Think about that. He hardly knew which way to the men's room in the Senate, and he's clocking about $1,000/day, every day of the year, in "donations" from these folks.
You're waiting for the other ACORN to drop, right? Intuitively smart you are!!
In an article focusing on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and how the Clintonoids had pumped up the volume of lending, we find this:
...bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part, on positive CRA ratings. "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York
These "community organizations" play hardball.
Take Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA), for example.
[The President of NACA]...is unhesitatingly candid about his intent to use NACA to promote an activist, left-wing political agenda. NACA loan applicants must attend a workshop that celebrates—to the accompaniment of gospel music—the protests that have helped the group win its bank lending agreements...
...The home mortgage business is his tool for political organizing: the Homebuyer's Workbook contains a voter registration application and states that "NACA's mission of neighborhood stabilization is based on participation in the political process. To participate you must register to vote." [He] plans to install a high-capacity phone system that can forward hundreds of calls to congressional offices—"or Phil Gramm's house"—to buttress NACA campaigns. The combination of an army of "volunteers" and a voter registration drive portends (though there is no evidence of this so far) that someday CRA-related funds and Marks's troop of CRA borrowers might end up fueling a host of Democratic candidacies
Even though the money lent by NACA (and ACORN) came from Banks, the mortgages were bundled and sold to (ta-da!) Fannie and Freddie, just like a lot of others.
Gee.
"Voter Registration." "Activism." "Income derived from mortgage-brokering activity". "ACORN." "Fraud." "Manipulation." "Unjust Enrichment."
Would it surprise you to learn that NACA has offices in Chicago?
How about Milwaukee?
Yes, indeedy....both places.
You can connect the dots any way you like, and there are lots of interesting little dots to connect, eh?
The big picture: Obama and the GSE's recognized that they were symbiotic. They needed each other as they washed money around in circles:
1) Congressional Democrats force banks to cough up money for "CRA" purposes.
2) The Banks 'lend' the money through extremely politicized LeftyWonzo organizations like NACA and ACORN, who get fee-income which finances "voter registration"--and they know where the voters live, as well as where they USED to live, eh? (Wink-wink...) Those "voters" happen to vote Democrat!
3) Ship the loans, bundled neatly, back to Fannie/Freddie, so that Raines, Johnson, and Gorelick can show what they've done about lending to the disadvantaged, thereby inflating their salaries, bonuses, and stock-option rights.
4) Fannie/Freddie employees then make significant donations to Favored Congressmen--like the O-and-Savior, for example--to make sure that they get re-elected.
5) If Fannie/Freddie go banko, no big deal.
Taxpayers are around to pick up the difference.
HT: RS McCain
A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions...[receiving] $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004
In just three years! My, my. How could that be?
Easy. Friends in high places, who were stealing money left and right.
In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.
Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003
"Earned" the money? Not necessarily:
Raines and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered in a civil lawsuit to pay nearly $31.4 million for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings over a period of six years to trigger their massive bonuses.
Raines was also forced in the settlement to give up Fannie Mae stock options valued at $15.6 million.
Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50 million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts ranging from $65,000 to $250,000
Well. Obama goes to the Senate and picks up more dollars/year from Fannie and Freddie than any other Senator in history.
Think about that. He hardly knew which way to the men's room in the Senate, and he's clocking about $1,000/day, every day of the year, in "donations" from these folks.
You're waiting for the other ACORN to drop, right? Intuitively smart you are!!
In an article focusing on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and how the Clintonoids had pumped up the volume of lending, we find this:
...bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part, on positive CRA ratings. "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York
These "community organizations" play hardball.
Take Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA), for example.
[The President of NACA]...is unhesitatingly candid about his intent to use NACA to promote an activist, left-wing political agenda. NACA loan applicants must attend a workshop that celebrates—to the accompaniment of gospel music—the protests that have helped the group win its bank lending agreements...
...The home mortgage business is his tool for political organizing: the Homebuyer's Workbook contains a voter registration application and states that "NACA's mission of neighborhood stabilization is based on participation in the political process. To participate you must register to vote." [He] plans to install a high-capacity phone system that can forward hundreds of calls to congressional offices—"or Phil Gramm's house"—to buttress NACA campaigns. The combination of an army of "volunteers" and a voter registration drive portends (though there is no evidence of this so far) that someday CRA-related funds and Marks's troop of CRA borrowers might end up fueling a host of Democratic candidacies
Even though the money lent by NACA (and ACORN) came from Banks, the mortgages were bundled and sold to (ta-da!) Fannie and Freddie, just like a lot of others.
Gee.
"Voter Registration." "Activism." "Income derived from mortgage-brokering activity". "ACORN." "Fraud." "Manipulation." "Unjust Enrichment."
Would it surprise you to learn that NACA has offices in Chicago?
How about Milwaukee?
Yes, indeedy....both places.
You can connect the dots any way you like, and there are lots of interesting little dots to connect, eh?
The big picture: Obama and the GSE's recognized that they were symbiotic. They needed each other as they washed money around in circles:
1) Congressional Democrats force banks to cough up money for "CRA" purposes.
2) The Banks 'lend' the money through extremely politicized LeftyWonzo organizations like NACA and ACORN, who get fee-income which finances "voter registration"--and they know where the voters live, as well as where they USED to live, eh? (Wink-wink...) Those "voters" happen to vote Democrat!
3) Ship the loans, bundled neatly, back to Fannie/Freddie, so that Raines, Johnson, and Gorelick can show what they've done about lending to the disadvantaged, thereby inflating their salaries, bonuses, and stock-option rights.
4) Fannie/Freddie employees then make significant donations to Favored Congressmen--like the O-and-Savior, for example--to make sure that they get re-elected.
5) If Fannie/Freddie go banko, no big deal.
Taxpayers are around to pick up the difference.
HT: RS McCain
Thursday, September 18, 2008
McCain Becomes McMoron
Sure enough.
He went all nutso.
FIRE!!!! CHRIS COX!!!.
Nevermind that Cox can't be removed from the SEC (although it is possible that the President can remove him as Chair.)
START ANOTHER RTC!!!
Yah, John? And who's going to take the haircut? The taxpayer, again?
Read a book after you leave Green Bay. Like, e.g., Laws Congress Wrote which Screwed Up the Mortgage Business. (Hint: start with every single piece of legislation sponsored by Barney Fife)
He went all nutso.
FIRE!!!! CHRIS COX!!!.
Nevermind that Cox can't be removed from the SEC (although it is possible that the President can remove him as Chair.)
START ANOTHER RTC!!!
Yah, John? And who's going to take the haircut? The taxpayer, again?
Read a book after you leave Green Bay. Like, e.g., Laws Congress Wrote which Screwed Up the Mortgage Business. (Hint: start with every single piece of legislation sponsored by Barney Fife)
SEC Caused the Implosion?
Maybe it was SEC rule-changes which caused the Bear/Lehman/Merrill Lynch problem?
The SEC allowed five firms — the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults. [Morgan Stanley is trying to sell itself to Wachovia as this is written.]
...The so-called net capital rule was created in 1975 to allow the SEC to oversee broker-dealers, or companies that trade securities for customers as well as their own accounts. It requires that firms value all of their tradable assets at market prices, and then it applies a haircut, or a discount, to account for the assets' market risk. So equities, for example, have a haircut of 15%, while a 30-year Treasury bill, because it is less risky, has a 6% haircut.
The net capital rule also requires that broker dealers limit their debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1, although they must issue an early warning if they begin approaching this limit, and are forced to stop trading if they exceed it, so broker dealers often keep their debt-to-net capital ratios much lower.
...In 2004, the European Union passed a rule allowing the SEC's European counterpart to manage the risk both of broker dealers and their investment banking holding companies. In response, the SEC instituted a similar, voluntary program for broker dealers with capital of at least $5 billion, enabling the agency to oversee both the broker dealers and the holding companies.
This alternative approach, which all five broker-dealers that qualified — Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — voluntarily joined, altered the way the SEC measured their capital. Using computerized models, the SEC, under its new Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowed the broker dealers to increase their debt-to-net-capital ratios, sometimes, as in the case of Merrill Lynch, to as high as 40-to-1. It also removed the method for applying haircuts, relying instead on another math-based model for calculating risk that led to a much smaller discount.
Here's a list of the SEC Commissioners serving in 2004:
Cynthia A. Glassman (R) Harvey J. Goldschmid (D) Paul S. Atkins (R) Roel C. Campos (D)
William H. Donaldson (R), Chairman
Just for fun, ask your friendly banker if you can borrow 30x the value of your house so that you can purchase a basket of debt securities from (e.g.) GM, Zimbabwe, Russia, Germany, FannieMae, the US Treasury, and 20,000 other mortgagees around the country.
HT: Rithotlz
The SEC allowed five firms — the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults. [Morgan Stanley is trying to sell itself to Wachovia as this is written.]
...The so-called net capital rule was created in 1975 to allow the SEC to oversee broker-dealers, or companies that trade securities for customers as well as their own accounts. It requires that firms value all of their tradable assets at market prices, and then it applies a haircut, or a discount, to account for the assets' market risk. So equities, for example, have a haircut of 15%, while a 30-year Treasury bill, because it is less risky, has a 6% haircut.
The net capital rule also requires that broker dealers limit their debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1, although they must issue an early warning if they begin approaching this limit, and are forced to stop trading if they exceed it, so broker dealers often keep their debt-to-net capital ratios much lower.
...In 2004, the European Union passed a rule allowing the SEC's European counterpart to manage the risk both of broker dealers and their investment banking holding companies. In response, the SEC instituted a similar, voluntary program for broker dealers with capital of at least $5 billion, enabling the agency to oversee both the broker dealers and the holding companies.
This alternative approach, which all five broker-dealers that qualified — Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — voluntarily joined, altered the way the SEC measured their capital. Using computerized models, the SEC, under its new Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowed the broker dealers to increase their debt-to-net-capital ratios, sometimes, as in the case of Merrill Lynch, to as high as 40-to-1. It also removed the method for applying haircuts, relying instead on another math-based model for calculating risk that led to a much smaller discount.
Here's a list of the SEC Commissioners serving in 2004:
Cynthia A. Glassman (R) Harvey J. Goldschmid (D) Paul S. Atkins (R) Roel C. Campos (D)
William H. Donaldson (R), Chairman
Just for fun, ask your friendly banker if you can borrow 30x the value of your house so that you can purchase a basket of debt securities from (e.g.) GM, Zimbabwe, Russia, Germany, FannieMae, the US Treasury, and 20,000 other mortgagees around the country.
HT: Rithotlz
Regulation? What Regulation?
Ben Stein, a conservative Republican, thunk about this just after Bear, Stearns disappeared. So happens (not a coincidence) that Einhorn's observations, and Stein's, are precisely on track with those of Lee Pickard, quoted at the link.
...Einhorn points out that the fellows who run big investment banks have a strong incentive to maximize their assets and leverage themselves into deep trouble because their pay is a function of how much debt they can pile on. If they can use relatively low-interest debt to generate slightly higher returns, the firm earns more revenue and executive pay increases
Under an interesting set of rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004, called “Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities,” the amount of capital that had to underlie assets was reduced substantially. (Mr. Einhorn rightly says that this set of rules should have been called the “Bear Stearns Future Insolvency Act of 2004.”)
Through the act, the S.E.C. — acting as one of Wall Street’s chief regulators, mind you — also allowed such things as “hybrid capital instruments” (much riskier than cash or Treasuries), subordinated debt (ditto) and even deferred return of taxes, to be counted as capital. The S.E.C. even allowed the banks to hold securities “for which there is no ready market” as capital.
Einhorn has even more troubling observations. He says the S.E.C. also allowed broker-dealers to set their own valuations on assets and liabilities that were hard to value. And broker-dealers could assign their own creditworthiness ratings to counterparties in complex derivatives transactions when those counterparties were otherwise unrated
Uh-huh. None of which would bother me (or you) if we hadn't been shanghai-ed into a position where WE may actually pay part of Bear Stearns' or AIG's losses (if there are any.)
And here Ben asks the pertinent question:
The S.E.C. told me that all of its actions were helpful to investors and that no one could have prevented the Bear Stearns collapse because it was caused by liquidity issues, not capital issues. My respectful response is that if Bear were thoroughly well capitalized, why would liquidity issues come up at all?
Under the "old rules," capital had to be 1/8th. The "new rules" allowed 1/30th. BIG difference.
...One truth, that deregulation is sometimes a good thing, has been followed down so long and winding a road that it has led to an immense lie: that deregulation carried to an extreme will not lead to calamity.
IOW, common sense should prevail. But that's not always the case, eh?
To think that people of this mind-set are in charge of the finances of the nation that is the cornerstone of world freedom is terrifying. Mr. Einhorn may well have done us a service of great value.
HT: Dreher
...Einhorn points out that the fellows who run big investment banks have a strong incentive to maximize their assets and leverage themselves into deep trouble because their pay is a function of how much debt they can pile on. If they can use relatively low-interest debt to generate slightly higher returns, the firm earns more revenue and executive pay increases
Under an interesting set of rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004, called “Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities,” the amount of capital that had to underlie assets was reduced substantially. (Mr. Einhorn rightly says that this set of rules should have been called the “Bear Stearns Future Insolvency Act of 2004.”)
Through the act, the S.E.C. — acting as one of Wall Street’s chief regulators, mind you — also allowed such things as “hybrid capital instruments” (much riskier than cash or Treasuries), subordinated debt (ditto) and even deferred return of taxes, to be counted as capital. The S.E.C. even allowed the banks to hold securities “for which there is no ready market” as capital.
Einhorn has even more troubling observations. He says the S.E.C. also allowed broker-dealers to set their own valuations on assets and liabilities that were hard to value. And broker-dealers could assign their own creditworthiness ratings to counterparties in complex derivatives transactions when those counterparties were otherwise unrated
Uh-huh. None of which would bother me (or you) if we hadn't been shanghai-ed into a position where WE may actually pay part of Bear Stearns' or AIG's losses (if there are any.)
And here Ben asks the pertinent question:
The S.E.C. told me that all of its actions were helpful to investors and that no one could have prevented the Bear Stearns collapse because it was caused by liquidity issues, not capital issues. My respectful response is that if Bear were thoroughly well capitalized, why would liquidity issues come up at all?
Under the "old rules," capital had to be 1/8th. The "new rules" allowed 1/30th. BIG difference.
...One truth, that deregulation is sometimes a good thing, has been followed down so long and winding a road that it has led to an immense lie: that deregulation carried to an extreme will not lead to calamity.
IOW, common sense should prevail. But that's not always the case, eh?
To think that people of this mind-set are in charge of the finances of the nation that is the cornerstone of world freedom is terrifying. Mr. Einhorn may well have done us a service of great value.
HT: Dreher
Candidates Respond to AIG/FanFred Crisis
Purloined from McArdle, who purloined it from Noah Millman.
Obama: We're in this mess because the fundamentals are bad, and the fundamentals are bad because the Republicans have been ignoring ordinary working people and their needs. Most of what I think we should do is not particularly germane, and what is germane I don't want to explain in too much detail because I'm worried I might get it wrong. I'm sticking to my platform.
McCain: We're in this mess because a bunch of Wall Street hot shots got us into it, but they won't dare to pull that stuff when I'm in the White House, because I survived five years in a POW camp. Do I look like the kind of guy who hangs around with a bunch of Wall Street sissies who buy their shirts at Thomas Pink? Not on your tintype girlie-girl.
Actual statements' content differs not-in-the-least from the above.
Obama: We're in this mess because the fundamentals are bad, and the fundamentals are bad because the Republicans have been ignoring ordinary working people and their needs. Most of what I think we should do is not particularly germane, and what is germane I don't want to explain in too much detail because I'm worried I might get it wrong. I'm sticking to my platform.
McCain: We're in this mess because a bunch of Wall Street hot shots got us into it, but they won't dare to pull that stuff when I'm in the White House, because I survived five years in a POW camp. Do I look like the kind of guy who hangs around with a bunch of Wall Street sissies who buy their shirts at Thomas Pink? Not on your tintype girlie-girl.
Actual statements' content differs not-in-the-least from the above.
Palin EMail Hacker ID'd
Robert McCain reports:
I have no means of verifying those accusations, which might be entirely false, and thus am not naming the person. However, I will note that the person identified by these bloggers is the son of a Democratic state legislator. Should this turn out to be the case, it would rather seriously undermine the early assertion that Palin's hacker was a non-ideological prankster.
More to follow, certainly.
I have no means of verifying those accusations, which might be entirely false, and thus am not naming the person. However, I will note that the person identified by these bloggers is the son of a Democratic state legislator. Should this turn out to be the case, it would rather seriously undermine the early assertion that Palin's hacker was a non-ideological prankster.
More to follow, certainly.
Now You Can Underwrite GM/FoMoCo/Chrysler!
I told you so. Look at the bottom of the post.
Here's today's press-retelling:
Even as lawmakers in both parties unleashed a barrage of questions about the wisdom of a government rescue for the American International Group, support seemed to be growing quickly on Capitol Hill for $25 billion in loan guarantees to assist the ailing auto industry.
Both presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, have voiced support for the loan guarantees — an unsurprising stance given the critical importance of the main auto-producing states, Michigan and Ohio, to the electoral map this fall.
The chief executives of the three big American automakers — General Motors, Ford and Chrysler — met on Wednesday afternoon with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
When they emerged, they expressed optimism that the loan guarantees would be included as part of a budget resolution that is needed to finance government operations through the end of the year.
“The support that we got was again very encouraging,” said Robert L. Nardelli, the chairman of Chrysler. “The conversations I have had all day on the Hill have been very encouraging, very candid, very straightforward and so as we conclude the day, I would say it was successful.”
Alan R. Mulally, the chief executive of Ford, was even more upbeat. “It was a great day,” he said. When a reporter asked what Mr. Mulally might say to people who viewed the loan guarantees as a bailout, he replied in a chipper voice, “I would characterize it as an enabler.”
(A VERY unfortunate choice of terms, Mr. Mulally. Ask Bill...)
Ms. Pelosi sharply criticized the Bush administration on Wednesday over the $85 billion bailout of A.I.G., saying it was evidence of mismanagement by President Bush. But she expressed strong support for the automakers’ loan guarantees, which would be used to help the companies meet new fuel efficiency standards that Congress adopted last year.
At least she's somewhat honest. Congress created the problem. YOU will pay for the solution.
HT: The Agitator
Here's today's press-retelling:
Even as lawmakers in both parties unleashed a barrage of questions about the wisdom of a government rescue for the American International Group, support seemed to be growing quickly on Capitol Hill for $25 billion in loan guarantees to assist the ailing auto industry.
Both presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, have voiced support for the loan guarantees — an unsurprising stance given the critical importance of the main auto-producing states, Michigan and Ohio, to the electoral map this fall.
The chief executives of the three big American automakers — General Motors, Ford and Chrysler — met on Wednesday afternoon with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
When they emerged, they expressed optimism that the loan guarantees would be included as part of a budget resolution that is needed to finance government operations through the end of the year.
“The support that we got was again very encouraging,” said Robert L. Nardelli, the chairman of Chrysler. “The conversations I have had all day on the Hill have been very encouraging, very candid, very straightforward and so as we conclude the day, I would say it was successful.”
Alan R. Mulally, the chief executive of Ford, was even more upbeat. “It was a great day,” he said. When a reporter asked what Mr. Mulally might say to people who viewed the loan guarantees as a bailout, he replied in a chipper voice, “I would characterize it as an enabler.”
(A VERY unfortunate choice of terms, Mr. Mulally. Ask Bill...)
Ms. Pelosi sharply criticized the Bush administration on Wednesday over the $85 billion bailout of A.I.G., saying it was evidence of mismanagement by President Bush. But she expressed strong support for the automakers’ loan guarantees, which would be used to help the companies meet new fuel efficiency standards that Congress adopted last year.
At least she's somewhat honest. Congress created the problem. YOU will pay for the solution.
HT: The Agitator
Sarah Flyover
Bill Katz:
The Washington and New York elites hate Sarah Palin. They, and especially the feminist “leaders” among them, are like the old factory owners in the pre-union days. They fear that the little people are rising up against them, and they must stop this. They are now the establishment, and like all establishments they protect themselves.
Sarah Palin may or may not be our next vice president. But if she is not, she will be remembered for one great thing – that for a single moment the “flyover people,” those often ignored and sneered at, felt they had a champion, and they felt that one of their own had made it.
They will be back, and if they’re not shown proper respect in this country, they might be a lot angrier next time.
Interesting that Katz worked as an intern for Sen. Paul Douglas.
HT: PowerLine
The Washington and New York elites hate Sarah Palin. They, and especially the feminist “leaders” among them, are like the old factory owners in the pre-union days. They fear that the little people are rising up against them, and they must stop this. They are now the establishment, and like all establishments they protect themselves.
Sarah Palin may or may not be our next vice president. But if she is not, she will be remembered for one great thing – that for a single moment the “flyover people,” those often ignored and sneered at, felt they had a champion, and they felt that one of their own had made it.
They will be back, and if they’re not shown proper respect in this country, they might be a lot angrier next time.
Interesting that Katz worked as an intern for Sen. Paul Douglas.
HT: PowerLine
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Down in the Polls, STILL Won't "Town-Hall"?
It's noted that the O-and-Savior still declines to meet McCain in a 'town-hall' setting, despite the fact that his once-very-formidable poll numbers are now slip-slidin' away.
Vox thinks he knows why.
Someone who is truly intelligent doesn't duck debates or townhall face-offs with an old man like McCain. If Obama was anywhere nearly as bright as he pretends, he'd eagerly embrace the chance to make McCain look half-senile in front of a national audience
(Only a few years ago, the Hildebeeste was touted as the smartest human alive. Is 'being smart' some sort of Democrat Party mantra?)
Anyway, we're sure that Obamamamama will allow Columbia to release his transcripts and settle the question, right?
Vox thinks he knows why.
Someone who is truly intelligent doesn't duck debates or townhall face-offs with an old man like McCain. If Obama was anywhere nearly as bright as he pretends, he'd eagerly embrace the chance to make McCain look half-senile in front of a national audience
(Only a few years ago, the Hildebeeste was touted as the smartest human alive. Is 'being smart' some sort of Democrat Party mantra?)
Anyway, we're sure that Obamamamama will allow Columbia to release his transcripts and settle the question, right?
Health Care Inequality? Nope.
Not hard to believe, except for the "everybody KNOWS" propaganda:
The problem is not "inequality" by any means.
The problem is sheer cost.
HT: Grim
You can imagine the reaction at Brookings (a LeftyWonzo place if there ever was one) after they actually did the number-crunching.
The problem is not "inequality" by any means.
The problem is sheer cost.
HT: Grim
Tempest in Verona, WI (??!!)
You can expect a large hue and cry over this one.
After decades of honing his musical skills, Charles Philyaw landed his dream job in 2004 as the full-time director of music liturgy at St. Andrew Catholic Church in Verona.
The church, with 1,643 adult members, was more than just a place to work for Philyaw. He and his partner, James Mulder-Philyaw, joined the parish and participated fully in the religious community.
Then in June, it all collapsed. Philyaw said he was told by the parish priest, the Rev. Dave Timmerman, that he would no longer be retained because he was living an openly gay life. He was given two weeks' notice
It's the next sentence which is going to be played big:
"Absolutely, Chuck lost his job because he's openly gay," said Jo Ellen Kilkenny, one of the five whose inquiries triggered Philyaw's dismissal
Not exactly true.
Rev. Monsignor James Bartylla was asked about the Diocese' position on the matter.
While same-sex attraction is considered a disorder by the Catholic Church, it is not a sin in and of itself, Bartylla said. "It is acting on the attraction that makes it a sinful act, a grave depravity," he said.
People with same-sex attraction must control their desires and live chaste lives, he said. If they do so, they can participate fully in church life, including in leadership positions, he said.
Because of this distinction between same-sex attraction and acting on it, it would be a mistake to say the Catholic Church dismisses anyone from employment simply for their sexual orientation, King [spokesman for the Diocese of Madison] said.
It should be no different at all in a case of heterosexual co-habitation.
After decades of honing his musical skills, Charles Philyaw landed his dream job in 2004 as the full-time director of music liturgy at St. Andrew Catholic Church in Verona.
The church, with 1,643 adult members, was more than just a place to work for Philyaw. He and his partner, James Mulder-Philyaw, joined the parish and participated fully in the religious community.
Then in June, it all collapsed. Philyaw said he was told by the parish priest, the Rev. Dave Timmerman, that he would no longer be retained because he was living an openly gay life. He was given two weeks' notice
It's the next sentence which is going to be played big:
"Absolutely, Chuck lost his job because he's openly gay," said Jo Ellen Kilkenny, one of the five whose inquiries triggered Philyaw's dismissal
Not exactly true.
Rev. Monsignor James Bartylla was asked about the Diocese' position on the matter.
While same-sex attraction is considered a disorder by the Catholic Church, it is not a sin in and of itself, Bartylla said. "It is acting on the attraction that makes it a sinful act, a grave depravity," he said.
People with same-sex attraction must control their desires and live chaste lives, he said. If they do so, they can participate fully in church life, including in leadership positions, he said.
Because of this distinction between same-sex attraction and acting on it, it would be a mistake to say the Catholic Church dismisses anyone from employment simply for their sexual orientation, King [spokesman for the Diocese of Madison] said.
It should be no different at all in a case of heterosexual co-habitation.
Fundamentalism's Deficit; Freedom's Obligation
Also from Benedict XVI, in France:
Scripture requires exegesis, and it requires the context of the community in which it came to birth and in which it is lived. This is where its unity is to be found, and here too its unifying meaning is opened up. To put it yet another way: there are dimensions of meaning in the word and in words which only come to light within the living community of this history-generating word. Through the growing realization of the different layers of meaning, the word is not devalued, but in fact appears in its full grandeur and dignity. Therefore the Catechism of the Catholic Church can rightly say that Christianity does not simply represent a religion of the book in the classical sense (cf. par. 108). It perceives in the words the word, the Logos itself, which spreads its mystery through this multiplicity. This particular structure of the Bible issues a constantly new challenge to every generation. It excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text. To attain to it involves a transcending and a process of understanding, led by the inner movement of the whole and hence it also has to become a process of living. Only within the dynamic unity of the whole are the many books one book. God's word and action in the world are only revealed in the word and history of human beings.
The whole drama of this topic is illuminated in the writings of Saint Paul. What is meant by the transcending of the letter and understanding it solely from the perspective of the whole, he forcefully expressed as follows: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). And he continues: "Where the Spirit is there is freedom (cf. 2 Cor 3:17). But one can only understand the greatness and breadth of this vision of the biblical word if one listens closely to Paul and then discovers that this liberating Spirit has a name, and hence that freedom has an inner criterion: "The Lord is the Spirit. Where the Spirit is there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17). The liberating Spirit is not simply the exegete's own idea, the exegete's own vision. The Spirit is Christ, and Christ is the Lord who shows us the way. With the word of Spirit and of freedom, a further horizon opens up, but at the same time a clear limit is placed upon arbitrariness and subjectivity, which unequivocally binds both the individual and the community and brings about a new, higher obligation than that of the letter: namely, the obligation of insight and love. This tension between obligation and freedom, which extends far beyond the literary problem of scriptural exegesis, has also determined the thinking and acting of monasticism and has deeply marked Western culture. It presents itself anew as a task for our generation too, vis-á-vis the poles of subjective arbitrariness and fundamentalist fanaticism. It would be a disaster if today's European culture could only conceive freedom as absence of obligation, which would inevitably play into the hands of fanaticism and arbitrariness. Absence of obligation and arbitrariness do not signify freedom, but its destruction.
Scriptures are 'larger than life,' and certainly larger than the letters contained therein.
Scripture requires exegesis, and it requires the context of the community in which it came to birth and in which it is lived. This is where its unity is to be found, and here too its unifying meaning is opened up. To put it yet another way: there are dimensions of meaning in the word and in words which only come to light within the living community of this history-generating word. Through the growing realization of the different layers of meaning, the word is not devalued, but in fact appears in its full grandeur and dignity. Therefore the Catechism of the Catholic Church can rightly say that Christianity does not simply represent a religion of the book in the classical sense (cf. par. 108). It perceives in the words the word, the Logos itself, which spreads its mystery through this multiplicity. This particular structure of the Bible issues a constantly new challenge to every generation. It excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text. To attain to it involves a transcending and a process of understanding, led by the inner movement of the whole and hence it also has to become a process of living. Only within the dynamic unity of the whole are the many books one book. God's word and action in the world are only revealed in the word and history of human beings.
The whole drama of this topic is illuminated in the writings of Saint Paul. What is meant by the transcending of the letter and understanding it solely from the perspective of the whole, he forcefully expressed as follows: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). And he continues: "Where the Spirit is there is freedom (cf. 2 Cor 3:17). But one can only understand the greatness and breadth of this vision of the biblical word if one listens closely to Paul and then discovers that this liberating Spirit has a name, and hence that freedom has an inner criterion: "The Lord is the Spirit. Where the Spirit is there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17). The liberating Spirit is not simply the exegete's own idea, the exegete's own vision. The Spirit is Christ, and Christ is the Lord who shows us the way. With the word of Spirit and of freedom, a further horizon opens up, but at the same time a clear limit is placed upon arbitrariness and subjectivity, which unequivocally binds both the individual and the community and brings about a new, higher obligation than that of the letter: namely, the obligation of insight and love. This tension between obligation and freedom, which extends far beyond the literary problem of scriptural exegesis, has also determined the thinking and acting of monasticism and has deeply marked Western culture. It presents itself anew as a task for our generation too, vis-á-vis the poles of subjective arbitrariness and fundamentalist fanaticism. It would be a disaster if today's European culture could only conceive freedom as absence of obligation, which would inevitably play into the hands of fanaticism and arbitrariness. Absence of obligation and arbitrariness do not signify freedom, but its destruction.
Scriptures are 'larger than life,' and certainly larger than the letters contained therein.
Musica Sacra
Benedict XVI, in France, delivered a brief essay on monasticism. Part of it described the relationship between the Word (the Bible) and music.
...the words of the Psalm: coram angelis psallam Tibi, Domine - in the presence of the angels, I will sing your praise (cf. 138:1) - are the decisive rule governing the prayer and chant of the monks. What this expresses is the awareness that in communal prayer one is singing in the presence of the entire heavenly court, and is thereby measured according to the very highest standards: that one is praying and singing in such a way as to harmonize with the music of the noble spirits who were considered the originators of the harmony of the cosmos, the music of the spheres. The monks have to pray and sing in a manner commensurate with the grandeur of the word handed down to them, with its claim on true beauty. This intrinsic requirement of speaking with God and singing of him with words he himself has given, is what gave rise to the great tradition of Western music. It was not a form of private "creativity", in which the individual leaves a memorial to himself and makes self-representation his essential criterion. Rather it is about vigilantly recognizing with the "ears of the heart" the inner laws of the music of creation, the archetypes of music that the Creator built into his world and into men, and thus discovering music that is worthy of God, and at the same time truly worthy of man, music whose worthiness resounds in purity.
So! How does your basic "teen Mass" music measure up?
...the words of the Psalm: coram angelis psallam Tibi, Domine - in the presence of the angels, I will sing your praise (cf. 138:1) - are the decisive rule governing the prayer and chant of the monks. What this expresses is the awareness that in communal prayer one is singing in the presence of the entire heavenly court, and is thereby measured according to the very highest standards: that one is praying and singing in such a way as to harmonize with the music of the noble spirits who were considered the originators of the harmony of the cosmos, the music of the spheres. The monks have to pray and sing in a manner commensurate with the grandeur of the word handed down to them, with its claim on true beauty. This intrinsic requirement of speaking with God and singing of him with words he himself has given, is what gave rise to the great tradition of Western music. It was not a form of private "creativity", in which the individual leaves a memorial to himself and makes self-representation his essential criterion. Rather it is about vigilantly recognizing with the "ears of the heart" the inner laws of the music of creation, the archetypes of music that the Creator built into his world and into men, and thus discovering music that is worthy of God, and at the same time truly worthy of man, music whose worthiness resounds in purity.
So! How does your basic "teen Mass" music measure up?
Georgia: Saakashvili Just Plain Lied
We mentioned that a local PM RadioMouth was off his meds on the Georgia situation (he was hardly alone--McPain was even worse.)
Now it seems that the NeoCon Party Line: "Russia Bad, Georgia Good" was not only simplistic, but wrong.
One thing was already clear to the officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels: They thought that the Georgians had started the conflict and that their actions were more calculated than pure self-defense or a response to Russian provocation. In fact, the NATO officers believed that the Georgian attack was a calculated offensive against South Ossetian positions to create the facts on the ground, and they coolly treated the exchanges of fire in the preceding days as minor events. Even more clearly, NATO officials believed, looking back, that by no means could these skirmishes be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations.
The details that Western intelligence agencies extracted from their signal intelligence agree with NATO's assessments. According to this intelligence information, the Georgians amassed roughly 12,000 troops on the border with South Ossetia on the morning of Aug. 7. Seventy-five tanks and armored personnel carriers -- a third of the Georgian military's arsenal -- were assembled near Gori. Saakashvili's plan, apparently, was to advance to the Roki Tunnel in a 15-hour blitzkrieg and close the eye of the needle between the northern and southern Caucasus regions, effectively cutting off South Ossetia from Russia.
A looney-tune elected to office. He speaks English, was educated in the USA, so he's got to be good!
Right.
Now it seems that the NeoCon Party Line: "Russia Bad, Georgia Good" was not only simplistic, but wrong.
One thing was already clear to the officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels: They thought that the Georgians had started the conflict and that their actions were more calculated than pure self-defense or a response to Russian provocation. In fact, the NATO officers believed that the Georgian attack was a calculated offensive against South Ossetian positions to create the facts on the ground, and they coolly treated the exchanges of fire in the preceding days as minor events. Even more clearly, NATO officials believed, looking back, that by no means could these skirmishes be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations.
The details that Western intelligence agencies extracted from their signal intelligence agree with NATO's assessments. According to this intelligence information, the Georgians amassed roughly 12,000 troops on the border with South Ossetia on the morning of Aug. 7. Seventy-five tanks and armored personnel carriers -- a third of the Georgian military's arsenal -- were assembled near Gori. Saakashvili's plan, apparently, was to advance to the Roki Tunnel in a 15-hour blitzkrieg and close the eye of the needle between the northern and southern Caucasus regions, effectively cutting off South Ossetia from Russia.
A looney-tune elected to office. He speaks English, was educated in the USA, so he's got to be good!
Right.
AIG "News"? Not to Channel 6
The most stunning business news of yesterday (and of this century) came over the wires around 8:00 PM CST. I posted the item at 8:02 PM.
Fed Buys AIG for $85Bn, takes 80% of equity as collateral, fires CEO.
Never been done before, and nothing like that is ever likely to happen again (we hope...)
So what does Channel 6 do about that?
Nothing at 9:00 PM CST. Zero. Nada. Bupkus.
I guess that wasn't "news."
Fed Buys AIG for $85Bn, takes 80% of equity as collateral, fires CEO.
Never been done before, and nothing like that is ever likely to happen again (we hope...)
So what does Channel 6 do about that?
Nothing at 9:00 PM CST. Zero. Nada. Bupkus.
I guess that wasn't "news."
Dandy Andy Cuomo: Disaster-Maker at HUD
Besides the horrifically irresponsible Queen Nancy (and Barney, too!), there's another actor--Dandy Andy Cuomo, son of Mario the Abortion-Apologist.
Abortions seem to run in the family--Andy sure did one at HUD.
Curiously, he is a Dim appointee!
Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.
No, Dandy Andy was hardly alone:
...the near-collapse of these dual pillars in recent weeks is rooted in the HUD junkyard, where every Cuomo decision discussed here was later ratified by his Bush successors
...It is also worth remembering that the motive for this bipartisan ownership expansion probably had more to do with the legion of lobbyists working for lenders, brokers, and Wall Street than an effort to walk in MLK's footsteps
...Cuomo's predecessor, Henry Cisneros, did that for the first time in December 1995, taking a cautious approach and moving the GSEs toward a requirement that 42 percent of their mortgages serve low- and moderate-income families. Cuomo raised that number to 50 percent and dramatically hiked GSE mandates to buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the "very-low-income."
... Cuomo wasn't shy about embracing subprime mortgages as a possible consequence of his goals. "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas," his report on the new goals noted.
...Fannie had gone from $1.2 billion in subprime-mortgage and securities purchases in 2000 to $9.2 billion in 2001 and $15 billion in 2002. Freddie's numbers were murkier, but clearly also on the rise. In 2003 alone, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities—which also count against the goals.
Fannie also developed a "flexible" product line, providing up to 100 percent financing and requiring borrowers to make as little as a $500 contribution, and bought $13.7 billion of those loans in 2003.
After this initial uptick, the two banks purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans between 2004 and 2006. The Washington Post noted this June that the GSEs' aggressive acquisitions "created a market for more such lending" by others, feeding the fire.
One could surmise that the 2004/6 "market creation" was the same as the CDO frenzy of Bear Stearns and Lehmann (inter alia.)
It gets worse.
The HUD secretary is also required to produce voluminous rules that govern how the GSEs meet those goals, and the 187-page rules Cuomo issued opened the door to abuse.
The rules explicitly rejected the idea of imposing any new reporting requirements on the GSEs. In other words, HUD wanted Fannie and Freddie to buy risky loans, but the department didn't want to hear just how risky they were.
And worse yet:
But Cuomo wasn't only stifling data that HUD could use to keep the GSEs out of trouble. He also went against his own recommendation—in a report issued jointly with the Treasury Department a few months earlier—that called for a prohibition against the GSEs purchasing loans "with high costs and/or predatory features." Instead, Cuomo decided without explanation to adopt rules that prohibited nothing.
Cuomo also adopted Fannie and Freddie's standards of what a bad loan was, almost verbatim. For example, HUD accepted Fannie's many caveats on prepayment penalties—a predatory practice long condemned by housing advocates. The final rules allowed the GSEs to take goal credit on some loans that carried these penalties, even though these sky-high charges often either bound borrowers to bad mortgages or cost them dearly to climb out.
The Bush Boyzzz were no better.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Fannie conceded in 2005 that 10 percent of its loans had such prepayment penalties. HUD's next rulemaking, in 2004, freely acknowledged that "certain practices were not enumerated in the regulations adopted in 2000," including certain kinds of prepayment penalties, and that they "often lock borrowers into disadvantageous loan products." But once again, HUD did nothing about those practices.
Cronyism didn't help. Recall that Dandy Andy was looking at running for AG/NY State.
Just a look at the New Yorkers tied to the GSEs must have impressed Cuomo, who, after all, would soon return to New York politics. Harold Ickes, the former Clinton chief of staff and a Democratic power broker in this state, was on the Freddie board. Tom Downey, the former New York congressman who would later donate $21,894 to Cuomo, was a Fannie lobbyist. And Al D'Amato, the former banking committee chair who'd shepherded Cuomo's appointment through the Republican Senate, was a Fannie consultant
And, of course, there were the usual suspects:
But Cuomo was closer to the GSEs' most formidable opponents—namely, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), regarded as the most influential private real-estate finance lobby in Washington, and the upstart FM Watch, a new coalition of heavyweights from Chase to AIG. Both of these groups wanted Cuomo to put as much affordable-housing pressure on the GSEs as he could, and they said so in their releases and newsletters. They opposed what they called Fannie and Freddie's profit-driven "mission creep," which they saw as a publicly subsidized invasion of their high-end mortgage market. Their goal was the same as Cuomo's: to push Fannie and Freddie deeper into low-end mortgages, consistent with the mission statement in their charters
...Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide who's become the face of the subprime scandal, was at one point the MBA's president and a member of its executive committee throughout Cuomo's HUD tenure. He and other MBA leaders became Cuomo donors, with Mozilo donating $1,000 twice—in 2002 and 2006
...FM Watch's lobbyists during the Cuomo years at HUD included Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton's chief of staff, and the law firm Akin Gump, where Cuomo has so many allies that his campaign committee has collected $67,550 in contributions there since he formed it in early 2001.
And another familiar name:
These groups clearly had Cuomo's ear, but he was also being pushed to commit the GSEs to more affordable and, in some cases, riskier loans by consumer organizations—groups like ACORN
Dandy Andy kinda liked predatory gouging, too:
Cuomo's fellow attorney generals in Illinois, California, and Massachusetts have filed lawsuits against Countrywide and other mortgage companies in the current crisis. And those lawsuits are aimed in part at the sucker punch called "yield-spread premium" [YSP] that was thrown at millions of households who got mortgages from brokers. Brokers have taken over the origination market in recent years by aggressively advertising, and they decide which lenders get the business.
Cuomo hasn't sued anybody over these outrageous payments to brokers—which are based on the "spread" between the high interest rate that brokers persuade unwary borrowers to accept and the par or going rate they would ordinarily have to pay. If Cuomo did sue, it might make for an awkward moment or two in court, since it was Cuomo who issued a rule in 1999 that dozens of federal courts have since found legalized the yield-spread premiums. He was the first HUD secretary to say they were "not illegal per se," nullifying most of the 150 class-action lawsuits against them filed across the country
There are certainly those who believe that YSPs are at the heart of the crisis. Senator Chris Dodd, the chair of the banking committee, is trying to ban them...
In his first year as HUD secretary, when his earliest proposal to reform YSPs attracted a Times story, he said: "Too often consumers think the brokers are working for them. In reality, they are working against them." Cuomo's proposed rules that year did not go so far as to prohibit YSPs...
Of course, lying with the language became the "out."
The MBA, which includes brokers and other industry organizations, got Congressional leaders to oppose it, and Cuomo retreated. A year and a half later, Cuomo adopted a new rule that did the opposite of his first proposal. "The Lending Industry Welcomes Policy Clarification" was the subhead on the MBA's cover story. Cuomo's 1999 rule, issued under pressure from Congress to come up with a policy statement one way or the other because of all the lawsuits, found that YSPs were legal if "reasonably related to the value of the goods" actually furnished or the services "actually performed" by brokers. The Cuomo rule-making also stated that "HUD does not view the name of the payment as the appropriate issue," even though calling something a premium based on a "yield" and a "spread" pretty much destroys any notion that the payment is tied to a good or a service.
The author's take on Dandy Andy's YSP gobbledygook?
The sad fact is that Cuomo's surrender on YSPs can't be excused as an unfortunate consequence of well-motivated policy, as his defenders have argued regarding his FHA and GSE actions. He has no cover for this one; it exposes him as an agent of special interests. And looking at his GSE and FHA policies through the lens of his retreat on these payoffs (which even Glaser, in a marked change from his MBA days, now condemns) suggests a pattern of compromised judgments
Wow.
NO credit should go to GWB, whose HUD appointees reflected his smarmy silliness about such things as budget discipline, standards, and responsibility. (Little of any, if you need a hint.) Nothing changed--partly due to the Democrat Congress, partly due to the private-interest pirates, and partly due to GWB's flaccidity.
But Dandy Andy has aspirations way beyond NY State. Remember this when he comes a-callin'.
HT: Overlawyered
Abortions seem to run in the family--Andy sure did one at HUD.
Curiously, he is a Dim appointee!
Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.
No, Dandy Andy was hardly alone:
...the near-collapse of these dual pillars in recent weeks is rooted in the HUD junkyard, where every Cuomo decision discussed here was later ratified by his Bush successors
...It is also worth remembering that the motive for this bipartisan ownership expansion probably had more to do with the legion of lobbyists working for lenders, brokers, and Wall Street than an effort to walk in MLK's footsteps
...Cuomo's predecessor, Henry Cisneros, did that for the first time in December 1995, taking a cautious approach and moving the GSEs toward a requirement that 42 percent of their mortgages serve low- and moderate-income families. Cuomo raised that number to 50 percent and dramatically hiked GSE mandates to buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the "very-low-income."
... Cuomo wasn't shy about embracing subprime mortgages as a possible consequence of his goals. "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas," his report on the new goals noted.
...Fannie had gone from $1.2 billion in subprime-mortgage and securities purchases in 2000 to $9.2 billion in 2001 and $15 billion in 2002. Freddie's numbers were murkier, but clearly also on the rise. In 2003 alone, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities—which also count against the goals.
Fannie also developed a "flexible" product line, providing up to 100 percent financing and requiring borrowers to make as little as a $500 contribution, and bought $13.7 billion of those loans in 2003.
After this initial uptick, the two banks purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans between 2004 and 2006. The Washington Post noted this June that the GSEs' aggressive acquisitions "created a market for more such lending" by others, feeding the fire.
One could surmise that the 2004/6 "market creation" was the same as the CDO frenzy of Bear Stearns and Lehmann (inter alia.)
It gets worse.
The HUD secretary is also required to produce voluminous rules that govern how the GSEs meet those goals, and the 187-page rules Cuomo issued opened the door to abuse.
The rules explicitly rejected the idea of imposing any new reporting requirements on the GSEs. In other words, HUD wanted Fannie and Freddie to buy risky loans, but the department didn't want to hear just how risky they were.
And worse yet:
But Cuomo wasn't only stifling data that HUD could use to keep the GSEs out of trouble. He also went against his own recommendation—in a report issued jointly with the Treasury Department a few months earlier—that called for a prohibition against the GSEs purchasing loans "with high costs and/or predatory features." Instead, Cuomo decided without explanation to adopt rules that prohibited nothing.
Cuomo also adopted Fannie and Freddie's standards of what a bad loan was, almost verbatim. For example, HUD accepted Fannie's many caveats on prepayment penalties—a predatory practice long condemned by housing advocates. The final rules allowed the GSEs to take goal credit on some loans that carried these penalties, even though these sky-high charges often either bound borrowers to bad mortgages or cost them dearly to climb out.
The Bush Boyzzz were no better.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Fannie conceded in 2005 that 10 percent of its loans had such prepayment penalties. HUD's next rulemaking, in 2004, freely acknowledged that "certain practices were not enumerated in the regulations adopted in 2000," including certain kinds of prepayment penalties, and that they "often lock borrowers into disadvantageous loan products." But once again, HUD did nothing about those practices.
Cronyism didn't help. Recall that Dandy Andy was looking at running for AG/NY State.
Just a look at the New Yorkers tied to the GSEs must have impressed Cuomo, who, after all, would soon return to New York politics. Harold Ickes, the former Clinton chief of staff and a Democratic power broker in this state, was on the Freddie board. Tom Downey, the former New York congressman who would later donate $21,894 to Cuomo, was a Fannie lobbyist. And Al D'Amato, the former banking committee chair who'd shepherded Cuomo's appointment through the Republican Senate, was a Fannie consultant
And, of course, there were the usual suspects:
But Cuomo was closer to the GSEs' most formidable opponents—namely, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), regarded as the most influential private real-estate finance lobby in Washington, and the upstart FM Watch, a new coalition of heavyweights from Chase to AIG. Both of these groups wanted Cuomo to put as much affordable-housing pressure on the GSEs as he could, and they said so in their releases and newsletters. They opposed what they called Fannie and Freddie's profit-driven "mission creep," which they saw as a publicly subsidized invasion of their high-end mortgage market. Their goal was the same as Cuomo's: to push Fannie and Freddie deeper into low-end mortgages, consistent with the mission statement in their charters
...Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide who's become the face of the subprime scandal, was at one point the MBA's president and a member of its executive committee throughout Cuomo's HUD tenure. He and other MBA leaders became Cuomo donors, with Mozilo donating $1,000 twice—in 2002 and 2006
...FM Watch's lobbyists during the Cuomo years at HUD included Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton's chief of staff, and the law firm Akin Gump, where Cuomo has so many allies that his campaign committee has collected $67,550 in contributions there since he formed it in early 2001.
And another familiar name:
These groups clearly had Cuomo's ear, but he was also being pushed to commit the GSEs to more affordable and, in some cases, riskier loans by consumer organizations—groups like ACORN
Dandy Andy kinda liked predatory gouging, too:
Cuomo's fellow attorney generals in Illinois, California, and Massachusetts have filed lawsuits against Countrywide and other mortgage companies in the current crisis. And those lawsuits are aimed in part at the sucker punch called "yield-spread premium" [YSP] that was thrown at millions of households who got mortgages from brokers. Brokers have taken over the origination market in recent years by aggressively advertising, and they decide which lenders get the business.
Cuomo hasn't sued anybody over these outrageous payments to brokers—which are based on the "spread" between the high interest rate that brokers persuade unwary borrowers to accept and the par or going rate they would ordinarily have to pay. If Cuomo did sue, it might make for an awkward moment or two in court, since it was Cuomo who issued a rule in 1999 that dozens of federal courts have since found legalized the yield-spread premiums. He was the first HUD secretary to say they were "not illegal per se," nullifying most of the 150 class-action lawsuits against them filed across the country
There are certainly those who believe that YSPs are at the heart of the crisis. Senator Chris Dodd, the chair of the banking committee, is trying to ban them...
In his first year as HUD secretary, when his earliest proposal to reform YSPs attracted a Times story, he said: "Too often consumers think the brokers are working for them. In reality, they are working against them." Cuomo's proposed rules that year did not go so far as to prohibit YSPs...
Of course, lying with the language became the "out."
The MBA, which includes brokers and other industry organizations, got Congressional leaders to oppose it, and Cuomo retreated. A year and a half later, Cuomo adopted a new rule that did the opposite of his first proposal. "The Lending Industry Welcomes Policy Clarification" was the subhead on the MBA's cover story. Cuomo's 1999 rule, issued under pressure from Congress to come up with a policy statement one way or the other because of all the lawsuits, found that YSPs were legal if "reasonably related to the value of the goods" actually furnished or the services "actually performed" by brokers. The Cuomo rule-making also stated that "HUD does not view the name of the payment as the appropriate issue," even though calling something a premium based on a "yield" and a "spread" pretty much destroys any notion that the payment is tied to a good or a service.
The author's take on Dandy Andy's YSP gobbledygook?
The sad fact is that Cuomo's surrender on YSPs can't be excused as an unfortunate consequence of well-motivated policy, as his defenders have argued regarding his FHA and GSE actions. He has no cover for this one; it exposes him as an agent of special interests. And looking at his GSE and FHA policies through the lens of his retreat on these payoffs (which even Glaser, in a marked change from his MBA days, now condemns) suggests a pattern of compromised judgments
Wow.
NO credit should go to GWB, whose HUD appointees reflected his smarmy silliness about such things as budget discipline, standards, and responsibility. (Little of any, if you need a hint.) Nothing changed--partly due to the Democrat Congress, partly due to the private-interest pirates, and partly due to GWB's flaccidity.
But Dandy Andy has aspirations way beyond NY State. Remember this when he comes a-callin'.
HT: Overlawyered
Pelosi: Delusions, Not Facts, on Fan/Fred
Seems that every time I post about Queen Nancy, I have to use "delusions, not facts" as part of the title.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”
Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.
Uh-huh.
In the year 2003, we find this:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
...The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
(Which manipulation allowed Clinton-ite Jamie Gorelick to snag a very fat bonus...)
Guess what?
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Lying sack of s&^%.
Frank Raines, another Dim appointee, is also a double-dealing liar and fraudster:
But behind the scenes, Fannie Mae's Chicago office mobilized to gut Snow's plan.
"Hi everyone -- We are reaching out for your help!!" the office wrote to mortgage bankers in an Oct. 6 e-mail. The note urged recipients to tell congressional leaders to keep their hands off Fannie Mae. Within days, the initiative died
OK. The Dimmies killed off the 2003 proposal.
Move to 2005. After Raines was fired for accounting irregularities (but picked up a multi-$million severance check on the way out the door,):
Senator Richard K. Shelby, the Alabama Republican who is chairman of the banking committee, said on Wednesday that Mr. Raines's departure would almost certainly give Congress renewed impetus to crack down on Fannie Mae, the nation's largest source of financing for home mortgages.
The dismissal "does not obviate the need for enhanced regulation," he said in a statement, adding that "if anything, this change in management reinforces the need for comprehensive regulatory reform."
Fine. But in the House of Nancy, Barney, & Co.:
Even as they have weathered financial scandals and management shakeouts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with their political allies in Congress and the mortgage and construction industries, continue to exert considerable political influence on the legislation.
They soundly defeated one attempt to eliminate Fannie's and Freddie's ability to borrow money from the federal Treasury and a second amendment that would have given their new regulator greater authority. They also saved a provision that would give them the ability to provide financing for larger and more lucrative loans.
By a voice vote, the House also approved an amendment supported by Fannie and Freddie and opposed by the Bush administration that would continue letting the White House select a number of board members
By that time, it was clear that 1) Fan/Fred were doing very little to 'increase home-ownership' among the poor; and worse, 2) Fan/Fred were shoving money into the market so hard that it was creating the "housing bubble" in prices.
Oh, THAT'S helpful.
Big Hat Tip: Just One Minute
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”
Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.
Uh-huh.
In the year 2003, we find this:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
...The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
(Which manipulation allowed Clinton-ite Jamie Gorelick to snag a very fat bonus...)
Guess what?
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Lying sack of s&^%.
Frank Raines, another Dim appointee, is also a double-dealing liar and fraudster:
But behind the scenes, Fannie Mae's Chicago office mobilized to gut Snow's plan.
"Hi everyone -- We are reaching out for your help!!" the office wrote to mortgage bankers in an Oct. 6 e-mail. The note urged recipients to tell congressional leaders to keep their hands off Fannie Mae. Within days, the initiative died
OK. The Dimmies killed off the 2003 proposal.
Move to 2005. After Raines was fired for accounting irregularities (but picked up a multi-$million severance check on the way out the door,):
Senator Richard K. Shelby, the Alabama Republican who is chairman of the banking committee, said on Wednesday that Mr. Raines's departure would almost certainly give Congress renewed impetus to crack down on Fannie Mae, the nation's largest source of financing for home mortgages.
The dismissal "does not obviate the need for enhanced regulation," he said in a statement, adding that "if anything, this change in management reinforces the need for comprehensive regulatory reform."
Fine. But in the House of Nancy, Barney, & Co.:
Even as they have weathered financial scandals and management shakeouts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with their political allies in Congress and the mortgage and construction industries, continue to exert considerable political influence on the legislation.
They soundly defeated one attempt to eliminate Fannie's and Freddie's ability to borrow money from the federal Treasury and a second amendment that would have given their new regulator greater authority. They also saved a provision that would give them the ability to provide financing for larger and more lucrative loans.
By a voice vote, the House also approved an amendment supported by Fannie and Freddie and opposed by the Bush administration that would continue letting the White House select a number of board members
By that time, it was clear that 1) Fan/Fred were doing very little to 'increase home-ownership' among the poor; and worse, 2) Fan/Fred were shoving money into the market so hard that it was creating the "housing bubble" in prices.
Oh, THAT'S helpful.
Big Hat Tip: Just One Minute
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
AIG: Another Gummint Problem? UPDATED
Two different reports.
First, that AIG will become a "conservatorship" of the Federal Gummint (whatever the Hell that actually means.)
Second, that the Fed will pop a $75BILLION loan to AIG.
UPDATE: McArdle reports: In an extraordinary turn, the Federal Reserve agreed Tuesday night to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the troubled giant insurance company, the American International Group, in exchange for an $85 billion loan.
The Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase had been trying to arrange a $75 billion loan for the company to stave off the financial crisis caused by complex debt securities and credit default swaps. The Federal Reserve stepped in after it became clear Tuesday afternoon that the banking consortium would not be able to complete the deal.
Without the help, A.I.G. was expected to be forced to file for bankruptcy protection.
Pardon me, but what friggin' LEGAL AUTHORITY does the Fed have for that action?
By the way:
The "Big 3" (GM, FoMoCo, and Xler) are looking for $25Bn in Gummint loan-guarantees, too.
First, that AIG will become a "conservatorship" of the Federal Gummint (whatever the Hell that actually means.)
Second, that the Fed will pop a $75BILLION loan to AIG.
UPDATE: McArdle reports: In an extraordinary turn, the Federal Reserve agreed Tuesday night to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the troubled giant insurance company, the American International Group, in exchange for an $85 billion loan.
The Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase had been trying to arrange a $75 billion loan for the company to stave off the financial crisis caused by complex debt securities and credit default swaps. The Federal Reserve stepped in after it became clear Tuesday afternoon that the banking consortium would not be able to complete the deal.
Without the help, A.I.G. was expected to be forced to file for bankruptcy protection.
Pardon me, but what friggin' LEGAL AUTHORITY does the Fed have for that action?
By the way:
The "Big 3" (GM, FoMoCo, and Xler) are looking for $25Bn in Gummint loan-guarantees, too.
McCain Morphing Back to McPain
From a newsletter:
There are troubling whispers in Washington that John McCain might soon endorse the Gang of 16 Energy Proposal. It would be a terrible mistake for John McCain to sign on to this plan.
...10 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable off the Pacific Coast.
--10 billion barrels of oil and 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in ANWR.
--2 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in the Atlantic.
--That is 29 years worth of imports from the Persian Gulf still untouchable and inaccessible because of the Gang of 16's plan.
"The 16" is comprised of 8 Dims and 8 Pubbies. Eggster claims there are 20 in this bunch of morons.
Whatever.
McCain should NOT endorse this idiocy.
There are troubling whispers in Washington that John McCain might soon endorse the Gang of 16 Energy Proposal. It would be a terrible mistake for John McCain to sign on to this plan.
...10 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable off the Pacific Coast.
--10 billion barrels of oil and 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in ANWR.
--2 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in the Atlantic.
--That is 29 years worth of imports from the Persian Gulf still untouchable and inaccessible because of the Gang of 16's plan.
"The 16" is comprised of 8 Dims and 8 Pubbies. Eggster claims there are 20 in this bunch of morons.
Whatever.
McCain should NOT endorse this idiocy.
Grandstanding Lehman and Fred/Fan
As you might expect, both Presidential candidates have roundly denounced all the 'scoundrels' in DC.
And they both fell short--and are full of crapola. Megan McArdle provides the takedowns.
We start by asking what beefier SEC enforcement was supposed to do to portfolios and banks that were in full legal compliance with the SEC rules until the subprime market collapsed. Aside from standing there with their superdetective tweezers and magnifying glass in hand, clicking their tongues and saying, "That looks like it might be infected. You should get it looked at."
As an aside, we point out that the more lightly regulated hedge fund industry is weathering this storm better than the more heavily regulated banks.
Then we move on to Gramm-Leach-Bliley, bugbear of Glass-Steagall nostalgists everywhere. We first observe that GLB passed under the Clinton Administration. We second note that it passed in 1999, too late to have had any effect on the stock market bubble.
On the situation in general:
What those people were talking about, by and large, was the easy credit provided by the central bank, over which Bush has no direct control. During both speculative booms, there were people who thought that the markets were in a bubble, and that Greenspan/Bernanke should have acted to shut it down. But prior to the actual crashes, those people were in a minority. The considered opinion of Robert Shiller, probably the greatest living expert on bubbles (and a Democrat) is that any Fed or regulatory action would have had at best marginal effect on the housing bubble--or at least so he told me when I interviewed him.
At the Federal level, we might have forbidden securitization, or more exotic instruments. But this wasn't even on peoples' radar before the subprime market went sour. The bank regulators could probably have done something to tighten lending standards, but this would have amounted to saying "Don't lend money to poor people". A Democratic congress saying "don't lend money to poor people".
Too much cash--from overseas as well as domestically.
More:
This was not some criminal activity that the Bush administration should have been investigating more thoroughly; it was a thorough, massive, systemic mispricing of the risk attendant on lending to people with bad credit. (These are, mind you, the same people that five years ago the Democrats wanted to help enjoy the many booms of homeownership.) Lehman, Bear, Merrill and so forth did not sneakily lend these people money in the hope of putting one over on the American taxpayer while ruining their shareholders and getting the senior executives fired. They got it wrong. Badly wrong. So did everyone else.
...to believe that a Democrat could have done better is to assert that a Democratic president would have found a Fed chair who would pay less attention to unemployment, or a bank regulator who would have tried harder to prevent low-income people from buying homes. Where is this noble creature? And why didn't Barack Obama push for him at the time?
Indeed, I ask the Senator to name one significant thing that Bush has done to create this crisis that couldn't also be laid at the feet of St. William of Little Rock. If Democratic policy is so good at protecting the little guy from asset price bubbles, how come the stock market crashed in 2000?
Too much "lottery mentality" in housing from purchasers AND mortgage brokers.
Too much demand for "high returns" from cash-heavy munis, school districts, ....
Walt Kelly was right: "We have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us."
And they both fell short--and are full of crapola. Megan McArdle provides the takedowns.
We start by asking what beefier SEC enforcement was supposed to do to portfolios and banks that were in full legal compliance with the SEC rules until the subprime market collapsed. Aside from standing there with their superdetective tweezers and magnifying glass in hand, clicking their tongues and saying, "That looks like it might be infected. You should get it looked at."
As an aside, we point out that the more lightly regulated hedge fund industry is weathering this storm better than the more heavily regulated banks.
Then we move on to Gramm-Leach-Bliley, bugbear of Glass-Steagall nostalgists everywhere. We first observe that GLB passed under the Clinton Administration. We second note that it passed in 1999, too late to have had any effect on the stock market bubble.
On the situation in general:
What those people were talking about, by and large, was the easy credit provided by the central bank, over which Bush has no direct control. During both speculative booms, there were people who thought that the markets were in a bubble, and that Greenspan/Bernanke should have acted to shut it down. But prior to the actual crashes, those people were in a minority. The considered opinion of Robert Shiller, probably the greatest living expert on bubbles (and a Democrat) is that any Fed or regulatory action would have had at best marginal effect on the housing bubble--or at least so he told me when I interviewed him.
At the Federal level, we might have forbidden securitization, or more exotic instruments. But this wasn't even on peoples' radar before the subprime market went sour. The bank regulators could probably have done something to tighten lending standards, but this would have amounted to saying "Don't lend money to poor people". A Democratic congress saying "don't lend money to poor people".
Too much cash--from overseas as well as domestically.
More:
This was not some criminal activity that the Bush administration should have been investigating more thoroughly; it was a thorough, massive, systemic mispricing of the risk attendant on lending to people with bad credit. (These are, mind you, the same people that five years ago the Democrats wanted to help enjoy the many booms of homeownership.) Lehman, Bear, Merrill and so forth did not sneakily lend these people money in the hope of putting one over on the American taxpayer while ruining their shareholders and getting the senior executives fired. They got it wrong. Badly wrong. So did everyone else.
...to believe that a Democrat could have done better is to assert that a Democratic president would have found a Fed chair who would pay less attention to unemployment, or a bank regulator who would have tried harder to prevent low-income people from buying homes. Where is this noble creature? And why didn't Barack Obama push for him at the time?
Indeed, I ask the Senator to name one significant thing that Bush has done to create this crisis that couldn't also be laid at the feet of St. William of Little Rock. If Democratic policy is so good at protecting the little guy from asset price bubbles, how come the stock market crashed in 2000?
Too much "lottery mentality" in housing from purchasers AND mortgage brokers.
Too much demand for "high returns" from cash-heavy munis, school districts, ....
Walt Kelly was right: "We have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us."
CapTimes v. Bp. Morlino: No Contest
Frankly, if the Capital Times had agreed in toto with Bp. Morlino's thoughts, many Catholics would have been hospitalized with heart ailments today. So it's a good thing that the CapTimes said what they did.
Stupid arguments, but hey...
Like many Catholic politicians, Democrats and Republicans, Biden does not seek to write church doctrine into the laws of the land. Rather, he expresses his personal and religious concerns with regard to abortion but argues that others ought to be able to come to their own conclusions about this procedure. "This is between a person's God, if they believe in God, their doctor and themselves," says Biden
Uhhhnnnnn.....nope. Biden (and Kerry, Kennedy, Obey, Pelosi...you know the list) argue disingenuously that "religion" tells us that babies are human.
People who understand complex ideas like "1+1=2", on the other hand, realize that it is science, not religion, which determines 'what is a human life.'
IOW, Biden wants to mis-direct the argument, thinking that voters are stupid.
But here's the CapTimes' own synopsis, which is accurate:
Bishop Morlino disagrees. He objects to the approach taken by Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a number of other Democratic leaders who are practicing Catholics. The bishop argues that Biden, Pelosi and others who believe that women have a right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy have failed in their responsibility to reason to a conclusion that abortion is wrong.
Of course, the "hypocrite" accusation follows.
...while Bishop Morlino is quick to call out Catholic politicians who deviate from church views regarding abortion, he has been slow to complain about Catholic politicians, such as state Sen. Alan Lasee, D-DePere, who are at odds with the church's anti-death penalty teachings.
Clever--but not entirely true. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the State MAY use the death penalty under certain conditions. In other words, the "teachings" of the Church are in accord with Lasee's position. It is true that John Paul II discouraged the use of the DP (so do I.) So what? Lasee's position is defensible.
Of even more concern, however, is the failure of the bishop to be more outspoken on questions of war and peace. The Catholic hierarchy, internationally and in the U.S., has distinguished itself over the past seven years by challenging the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive war. Indeed, few issues have brought the current and previous popes and the U.S. bishops into the news in recent years so frequently and so righteously as the objection of the church to wars of whim rather than necessity.
Yet Bishop Morlino has not objected to the steady support by a number of Catholic politicians, including U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, to pre-emptive war-making.
Once again, close but no cigar.
The Pope and Bishops have spoken out against war, period. So? Who LIKES war?
It's important to remember that Congressmen do not make the decision regarding war, pre-emptive or no. The President makes that decision.
As to "pre-emptive," the CapTimes assumes a lot, beginning with the (erroneous) assumption that the President's intel-assets are worthless. (The President doesn't share all he knows with Bishops, or the Pope.) Bush can make the case that striking to prevent utilization of WMD's is the greater good. It's a licit moral position.
Ryan doesn't make that case--he can defend it, but he doesn't make it.
The Bishop simply outlined his valid objection to Biden's mis-use of the language. Referring to natural laws as "religious" is artful. But it's the 'artful' of the Dodger. The Bishop is right.
Stupid arguments, but hey...
Like many Catholic politicians, Democrats and Republicans, Biden does not seek to write church doctrine into the laws of the land. Rather, he expresses his personal and religious concerns with regard to abortion but argues that others ought to be able to come to their own conclusions about this procedure. "This is between a person's God, if they believe in God, their doctor and themselves," says Biden
Uhhhnnnnn.....nope. Biden (and Kerry, Kennedy, Obey, Pelosi...you know the list) argue disingenuously that "religion" tells us that babies are human.
People who understand complex ideas like "1+1=2", on the other hand, realize that it is science, not religion, which determines 'what is a human life.'
IOW, Biden wants to mis-direct the argument, thinking that voters are stupid.
But here's the CapTimes' own synopsis, which is accurate:
Bishop Morlino disagrees. He objects to the approach taken by Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a number of other Democratic leaders who are practicing Catholics. The bishop argues that Biden, Pelosi and others who believe that women have a right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy have failed in their responsibility to reason to a conclusion that abortion is wrong.
Of course, the "hypocrite" accusation follows.
...while Bishop Morlino is quick to call out Catholic politicians who deviate from church views regarding abortion, he has been slow to complain about Catholic politicians, such as state Sen. Alan Lasee, D-DePere, who are at odds with the church's anti-death penalty teachings.
Clever--but not entirely true. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the State MAY use the death penalty under certain conditions. In other words, the "teachings" of the Church are in accord with Lasee's position. It is true that John Paul II discouraged the use of the DP (so do I.) So what? Lasee's position is defensible.
Of even more concern, however, is the failure of the bishop to be more outspoken on questions of war and peace. The Catholic hierarchy, internationally and in the U.S., has distinguished itself over the past seven years by challenging the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive war. Indeed, few issues have brought the current and previous popes and the U.S. bishops into the news in recent years so frequently and so righteously as the objection of the church to wars of whim rather than necessity.
Yet Bishop Morlino has not objected to the steady support by a number of Catholic politicians, including U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, to pre-emptive war-making.
Once again, close but no cigar.
The Pope and Bishops have spoken out against war, period. So? Who LIKES war?
It's important to remember that Congressmen do not make the decision regarding war, pre-emptive or no. The President makes that decision.
As to "pre-emptive," the CapTimes assumes a lot, beginning with the (erroneous) assumption that the President's intel-assets are worthless. (The President doesn't share all he knows with Bishops, or the Pope.) Bush can make the case that striking to prevent utilization of WMD's is the greater good. It's a licit moral position.
Ryan doesn't make that case--he can defend it, but he doesn't make it.
The Bishop simply outlined his valid objection to Biden's mis-use of the language. Referring to natural laws as "religious" is artful. But it's the 'artful' of the Dodger. The Bishop is right.
Jamie Gorelick: A Double-Disaster
Doug Ross' work on this post is spectacular, therefore I won't excerpt much.
Except the takeaway:
What do you call someone with a Midas Touch, only instead of gold everything they touch turns to s***? That's what Gorelick's got
Plenty of pictures and images...
One more: did you know that Ms. Gorelick "earned" $26 million in 6 years at FNMA?
Except the takeaway:
What do you call someone with a Midas Touch, only instead of gold everything they touch turns to s***? That's what Gorelick's got
Plenty of pictures and images...
One more: did you know that Ms. Gorelick "earned" $26 million in 6 years at FNMA?
Shut Up, Carly!
The stupidest comeback.
A top aide to John McCain said Monday she thought comedian Tina Fey’s impersonation of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin on NBC’s Saturday Night Live over the weekend was sexist because it portrayed the Alaska governor as lacking in substance…
“The portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial,” Fiorina told MSNBC earlier Monday. “I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance.”
Get real. Get a life. Shaddup, stupid!
HT: HotAir
A top aide to John McCain said Monday she thought comedian Tina Fey’s impersonation of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin on NBC’s Saturday Night Live over the weekend was sexist because it portrayed the Alaska governor as lacking in substance…
“The portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial,” Fiorina told MSNBC earlier Monday. “I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance.”
Get real. Get a life. Shaddup, stupid!
HT: HotAir
Obama: "Yes, I Interfered in Iraq Negotiations"
Although it's against the law for a US citizen to negotiate with foreign governments, that's not the reason I think Obama should be banished to ....say....Afghanistan.
He was maniuplating Iraq for his own political purposes--and the campaign ADMITS IT!
Yesterday, Taheri accused Obama of attempting to derail a status-of-forces agreement between the US and Iraq by telling the Iraqis to wait until after the American elections and stop negotiating with the Bush administration.
So how does the Obama campaign respond?
Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.
That happens to be EXACTLY what the NYPost author claimed in his article.
HT: Hot Air
He was maniuplating Iraq for his own political purposes--and the campaign ADMITS IT!
Yesterday, Taheri accused Obama of attempting to derail a status-of-forces agreement between the US and Iraq by telling the Iraqis to wait until after the American elections and stop negotiating with the Bush administration.
So how does the Obama campaign respond?
Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.
That happens to be EXACTLY what the NYPost author claimed in his article.
HT: Hot Air
Monday, September 15, 2008
Obama's Resume "Enhancement"
Another way to spell "enhancement" is p-u-f-f-e-r-y.
Or, if you like, BS.
Posted by a former co-worker.
We're still waiting for those records from Columbia and/or Harvard Law, aren't we?
HT: The Other McCain
Or, if you like, BS.
Posted by a former co-worker.
We're still waiting for those records from Columbia and/or Harvard Law, aren't we?
HT: The Other McCain
Why "Europeans Don't Like the US"
Why?
They're ignorant.
More than 50 percent of Britons believe that polygamy is legal in the United States; in fact, it is illegal in all 50 states.
Almost one-third of Britons believe that Americans who have not paid their hospital fees or insurance premiums are not entitled to emergency medical care; in fact, such treatment must be provided by law.
Seventy percent of Britons think the United States has done a worse job than the European Union in reducing carbon emissions since 2000; in fact, America’s rate of growth of carbon emissions has decreased by almost ten percent since 2000, while that of the EU has increased by 2.3 percent
They also think that THEY speak English and that THEY won WWII, I suppose--and that Sh'aria Law is superior to common law.
HT Orwell's Picnic
They're ignorant.
More than 50 percent of Britons believe that polygamy is legal in the United States; in fact, it is illegal in all 50 states.
Almost one-third of Britons believe that Americans who have not paid their hospital fees or insurance premiums are not entitled to emergency medical care; in fact, such treatment must be provided by law.
Seventy percent of Britons think the United States has done a worse job than the European Union in reducing carbon emissions since 2000; in fact, America’s rate of growth of carbon emissions has decreased by almost ten percent since 2000, while that of the EU has increased by 2.3 percent
They also think that THEY speak English and that THEY won WWII, I suppose--and that Sh'aria Law is superior to common law.
HT Orwell's Picnic
ACORN: Consistently Fraudulent
Now in Michigan.
Several municipal clerks across [Michigan] are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.
The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN's Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees.
"There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications," said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's Office. "And it appears to be widespread."
WHOCouldaTHUNKit??
HT: The Other
Several municipal clerks across [Michigan] are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.
The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN's Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees.
"There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications," said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's Office. "And it appears to be widespread."
WHOCouldaTHUNKit??
HT: The Other
ATTN: Wis D of Revenue: New Taxpayers!!
Headless did a bunch of 'net-cruising and has a question. UPDATE: SEE COMBOX!
Can Wisconsin voter registration records be cross checked to find voters who have not filed Wisconsin income tax returns or obtained Wisconsin driver's licenses? There is a revenue source here that needs to be tapped.
This would be, by and large, college students who register and vote HERE while having legal residence someplace else.
The League of Women Voters' "Ask Abby" advice on that issue is pertinent, and possibly misleading.
Or maybe not. Headless also discovered the WI Statutes which are contradictory (!!)...see combox.
Can Wisconsin voter registration records be cross checked to find voters who have not filed Wisconsin income tax returns or obtained Wisconsin driver's licenses? There is a revenue source here that needs to be tapped.
This would be, by and large, college students who register and vote HERE while having legal residence someplace else.
The League of Women Voters' "Ask Abby" advice on that issue is pertinent, and possibly misleading.
Or maybe not. Headless also discovered the WI Statutes which are contradictory (!!)...see combox.
Money, Money, Who's Got the Money?
The Republican Party has the money, that's who.
DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney says the party raised more than $17 million and has $17.5 million on hand, having spent more than $28 million last month, largely on the Democrats' ground game.
That cash figure is a fraction of the $110 million a Republican official says it has, which includes transfers of money McCain is no longer allowed to spend and money from state fundraising vehicles.
As to Obama's fundraising:
Byron York quotes the campaign as having $77 million cash on hand after August. That sounds impressive, but they had almost $66 million at the end of July. They had a burn rate of over 80%, which explains why the campaign may have seemed desperate to the New York Times. In order to make this decision work for Obama, they have to do better than $66 million a month if they want to cover the cost of fundraising as well as make up for the deficit between the DNC and the RNC
Hubris. Exactly why HRC is not on the ticket.
HT: RedStates
DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney says the party raised more than $17 million and has $17.5 million on hand, having spent more than $28 million last month, largely on the Democrats' ground game.
That cash figure is a fraction of the $110 million a Republican official says it has, which includes transfers of money McCain is no longer allowed to spend and money from state fundraising vehicles.
As to Obama's fundraising:
Byron York quotes the campaign as having $77 million cash on hand after August. That sounds impressive, but they had almost $66 million at the end of July. They had a burn rate of over 80%, which explains why the campaign may have seemed desperate to the New York Times. In order to make this decision work for Obama, they have to do better than $66 million a month if they want to cover the cost of fundraising as well as make up for the deficit between the DNC and the RNC
Hubris. Exactly why HRC is not on the ticket.
HT: RedStates
Clay Cramer Discovers the H-1B Problem
Many of you know that Clay Cramer is a blogger, history buff, advocate for the mentally-disabled, and allaround good guy. He's also a systems engineer--correction: WAS a systems engineer for Hewlett-Packard.
Like a lot of other H-P folks, Cramer was recently laid off.
Then he discovered an advertisement in his local newspaper.
From H-P.
Looking for systems engineers.
In light of the big layoff at HP in Boise that included at least many dozens, and perhaps hundreds of software engineers, I was quite interested to see on the Idaho Department of Labor website, this position listed: Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software [in Boise, where Cramer used to work.]
He did a little homework:
I have now heard back from the contact at HP in Cupertino who is responsible for reading those resumes. Her signature block on her email includes HP Americas Immigration Consultant/Contingent
And with a little MORE homework, finds this:
To quote from the GAO report H1B Foreign Workers, an employer making a Labor Conditions Application for H1B visas for specialized workers must certify, among other facts:
the employment of H-1B workers will not adversely affect the workingconditions of other workers similarly employed in the area
Welcome to the world of Labor Arbitrage, Clayton!
By the way, both Obama and McCain have no proposals which will address this. They're both in the tank for the Microsoft/HP/Silicon Valley position--in effect, that H-1B is a good thing for everyone!
(Unless you are a native American systems engineer.)
Like a lot of other H-P folks, Cramer was recently laid off.
Then he discovered an advertisement in his local newspaper.
From H-P.
Looking for systems engineers.
In light of the big layoff at HP in Boise that included at least many dozens, and perhaps hundreds of software engineers, I was quite interested to see on the Idaho Department of Labor website, this position listed: Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software [in Boise, where Cramer used to work.]
He did a little homework:
I have now heard back from the contact at HP in Cupertino who is responsible for reading those resumes. Her signature block on her email includes HP Americas Immigration Consultant/Contingent
And with a little MORE homework, finds this:
To quote from the GAO report H1B Foreign Workers, an employer making a Labor Conditions Application for H1B visas for specialized workers must certify, among other facts:
the employment of H-1B workers will not adversely affect the workingconditions of other workers similarly employed in the area
Welcome to the world of Labor Arbitrage, Clayton!
By the way, both Obama and McCain have no proposals which will address this. They're both in the tank for the Microsoft/HP/Silicon Valley position--in effect, that H-1B is a good thing for everyone!
(Unless you are a native American systems engineer.)
How Bad Are SubPrime/AltA Mortgages?
From the Wall Street Journal:
Lehman marked them down by about 2/3rds from face value.
The chart suggests that if AIG, another player, copies Lehman's markdowns, they will knock off another $15Bn from their asset column.
Hmmmm.
AltA paper is (that is, WAS) considered decent stuff. Not prime, but decent.
Obama Tried to Stall Iraq Withdrawal
New York Post reports:
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview
What's left to campaign about if the war's over?
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
The Iraqis are no fools. They smell exactly the same thing.
Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.
Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."
Imagine that!! Screwing up Iraq for political gain!
Whocouldathunkit?
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview
What's left to campaign about if the war's over?
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
The Iraqis are no fools. They smell exactly the same thing.
Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.
Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."
Imagine that!! Screwing up Iraq for political gain!
Whocouldathunkit?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Bad Aim Here
Here's the news-story.
DELTONA, Fla. - An angry Deltona father whacked his teenage daughter's boyfriend with a metal pipe after finding the boy naked in his daughter's room.
Authorities say the father, 45, didn't even know his daughter had a boyfriend or that the youngster had been sneaking into the home for more than a year.
He heard noises coming from his daughter's bedroom Thursday morning and saw a stranger standing naked on the girl's bed, he swung a metal pipe. He then chased the teen out the front door and called police.
The boy was taken to the hospital where doctors closed a head wound with staples.The father was charged with aggravated battery on a child and bonded out on $10,000.
Here are my thoughts:
1) The father aimed about 24" too high with the pipe. Obviously it was not the boy's HEAD that he wanted to disable. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
2) Wanna see "jury nullification?" Go to the father's trial.
HT: June Cleaver
DELTONA, Fla. - An angry Deltona father whacked his teenage daughter's boyfriend with a metal pipe after finding the boy naked in his daughter's room.
Authorities say the father, 45, didn't even know his daughter had a boyfriend or that the youngster had been sneaking into the home for more than a year.
He heard noises coming from his daughter's bedroom Thursday morning and saw a stranger standing naked on the girl's bed, he swung a metal pipe. He then chased the teen out the front door and called police.
The boy was taken to the hospital where doctors closed a head wound with staples.The father was charged with aggravated battery on a child and bonded out on $10,000.
Here are my thoughts:
1) The father aimed about 24" too high with the pipe. Obviously it was not the boy's HEAD that he wanted to disable. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
2) Wanna see "jury nullification?" Go to the father's trial.
HT: June Cleaver
Jesus Was NOT a "Community Organizer"
Or the Vicar of Christ would not say this:
'Shun the worship of idols!', (1 Cor. 10:14), [Saint Paul] writes to a community deeply marked by paganism and divided between the observance of adherence to the novelty of the Gospel and the observance of old practiced inherited from their ancestors.
...The word 'idol' comes from the Greek and means 'image', 'figure', 'representation', but also 'ghost', 'phantom', 'vain appearance'. An idol is a delusion, for it turns its worshiper away from reality and places him in the kingdom of mere appearances.
Now, is this not a temptation in our own day – the only one we can act upon effectively? The temptation to idolize a past that no longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings; the temptation to idolize a future which does not yet exist, in the belief that, by his efforts alone, man can bring about the kingdom of eternal joy on earth! ...
It's the Eschatology, stupid!
'Shun the worship of idols!', (1 Cor. 10:14), [Saint Paul] writes to a community deeply marked by paganism and divided between the observance of adherence to the novelty of the Gospel and the observance of old practiced inherited from their ancestors.
...The word 'idol' comes from the Greek and means 'image', 'figure', 'representation', but also 'ghost', 'phantom', 'vain appearance'. An idol is a delusion, for it turns its worshiper away from reality and places him in the kingdom of mere appearances.
Now, is this not a temptation in our own day – the only one we can act upon effectively? The temptation to idolize a past that no longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings; the temptation to idolize a future which does not yet exist, in the belief that, by his efforts alone, man can bring about the kingdom of eternal joy on earth! ...
It's the Eschatology, stupid!
P-Mac: Right On, Indeed; Implications
The takeaway:
It isn’t really disenfranchisement that bothers Van Hollen’s angriest critics. It is that taking the federal law seriously implies that cheating is a real possibility. This is a given in that humans cheat in every other competitive endeavor.
Several years ago at a social event I was in conversation with a (now retired) City of Milwaukee employee who had an upper management position. He was, of course, a Democrat Party member, although he did not agree with all the Party's positions. The man was amiable, enjoyable, every bit the gentleman, and always up for a brief political joust.
At the time, voter fraud was just emerging as an issue in the City, and (of course) I brought it up.
His response?
"What's a few extra votes here and there? They won't make a difference anyway."
I think he could tell from my reaction that he'd admitted more than he should have, and he very quickly steered the conversation in another direction.
Of course, my interlocutor did not view this as a serious moral evil. To him it was just a minor "end justifies the means" thing. Most likely his view is very common with Party loyalists.
But it's rarely admitted out loud.
Oh, there's more.
Van Hollen’s lawsuit has municipal clerks justifiably scared and has prompted synthetic outrage from critics, but all he really is asking is that the Government Accountability Board see to it that the anti-fraud checks it should have been running get run.
The clerks are spooked because this could impose impossible amounts of work mere weeks before a big turnout. But that’s the result of Wisconsin blowing past the federal deadline for checking registrations against other government records to find dead voters and fake names. The deadline was in January 2004. Wisconsin got two years of waiver and took 31 months beyond that.
P-Mac hints, but does not ask the underlying question:
Do you suppose that it is merely co-incidence that James Doyle, a viciously partisan Democrat hack, was Governor of the State while all this "delay" was occurring?
And that the delay just happened to climax only 60 days before a national election?
With the climax being that a James Doyle (vicious partisan Democrat hack)-appointed Board said "Ah, fooey. Screw it!"
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
It isn’t really disenfranchisement that bothers Van Hollen’s angriest critics. It is that taking the federal law seriously implies that cheating is a real possibility. This is a given in that humans cheat in every other competitive endeavor.
Several years ago at a social event I was in conversation with a (now retired) City of Milwaukee employee who had an upper management position. He was, of course, a Democrat Party member, although he did not agree with all the Party's positions. The man was amiable, enjoyable, every bit the gentleman, and always up for a brief political joust.
At the time, voter fraud was just emerging as an issue in the City, and (of course) I brought it up.
His response?
"What's a few extra votes here and there? They won't make a difference anyway."
I think he could tell from my reaction that he'd admitted more than he should have, and he very quickly steered the conversation in another direction.
Of course, my interlocutor did not view this as a serious moral evil. To him it was just a minor "end justifies the means" thing. Most likely his view is very common with Party loyalists.
But it's rarely admitted out loud.
Oh, there's more.
Van Hollen’s lawsuit has municipal clerks justifiably scared and has prompted synthetic outrage from critics, but all he really is asking is that the Government Accountability Board see to it that the anti-fraud checks it should have been running get run.
The clerks are spooked because this could impose impossible amounts of work mere weeks before a big turnout. But that’s the result of Wisconsin blowing past the federal deadline for checking registrations against other government records to find dead voters and fake names. The deadline was in January 2004. Wisconsin got two years of waiver and took 31 months beyond that.
P-Mac hints, but does not ask the underlying question:
Do you suppose that it is merely co-incidence that James Doyle, a viciously partisan Democrat hack, was Governor of the State while all this "delay" was occurring?
And that the delay just happened to climax only 60 days before a national election?
With the climax being that a James Doyle (vicious partisan Democrat hack)-appointed Board said "Ah, fooey. Screw it!"
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Guns and Opinions
Shack discovered this:
Residents here [Washington DC] who buy a gun to keep legally at home, now that the Supreme Court has overturned the city’s ban on handguns, will find that a bureaucratic maze leads them to an unmarked door on Good Hope Road Southeast where Charles W. Sykes Jr. does business.
Mr. Sykes does not sell guns, but on Tuesday he is expected to become the only federally licensed dealer in Washington to serve as the transfer agent for the carefully controlled transactions that will put guns in the hands of district residents.
Hmmmmmn. Good Hope Road, no less!
That's the place to buy guns, for sure.
Residents here [Washington DC] who buy a gun to keep legally at home, now that the Supreme Court has overturned the city’s ban on handguns, will find that a bureaucratic maze leads them to an unmarked door on Good Hope Road Southeast where Charles W. Sykes Jr. does business.
Mr. Sykes does not sell guns, but on Tuesday he is expected to become the only federally licensed dealer in Washington to serve as the transfer agent for the carefully controlled transactions that will put guns in the hands of district residents.
Hmmmmmn. Good Hope Road, no less!
That's the place to buy guns, for sure.
Half-Glassed Gibson's Line of Questioning Contrast Palin v. Obama
Hot Air quotes Anchoress. Also we have some "edited-out" portions of the interview for your consideration, below.
Think that Half-Glassed Gibson had an agenda?
OBAMA INTERVIEW:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
PALIN INTERVIEW:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking?
Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
What a load of........
To the edits. Portions in bold were not broadcast. These were assembled by Mark Levin.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
Although there are other edits presented by Levin, I think the above were by far the most telling--revealing both Palin's actual thoughts AND Half-Glassed Gibson's desire to paint a less-than-accurate picture of Palin.
The whole thing can be found here.
HT: NewsBusters
Think that Half-Glassed Gibson had an agenda?
OBAMA INTERVIEW:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
PALIN INTERVIEW:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking?
Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
What a load of........
To the edits. Portions in bold were not broadcast. These were assembled by Mark Levin.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
Although there are other edits presented by Levin, I think the above were by far the most telling--revealing both Palin's actual thoughts AND Half-Glassed Gibson's desire to paint a less-than-accurate picture of Palin.
The whole thing can be found here.
HT: NewsBusters
Intelligent Enough to Be President?
Vox assembles a case which has some force.
Few have ever been under any illusion that John McCain was a particularly brilliant individual. He graduated towards the bottom of his Naval Academy class, 894th out of 899, but then, one has to be quite intelligent to get into the Naval Academy in the first place, even as a legacy with heavy hitters behind you. And once one is in, one has to have the intellectual firepower to survive there; the heavy hitters don't do a plebe any good once he's at Annapolis.
Actually, McCain's IQ has been made public. It's 133, putting him in the top 5% or so of the population.
Ivy League institutions, on the other hand, have been practicing aggressive affirmative action for decades. If Yale and Harvard degrees aren't enough to protect George Bush, with his 1206 SAT, from accusations of stupidity, Columbia and Harvard degrees can't be sufficient to protect Obama from the same, especially in light of the suspicious way in which his test scores are mysteriously unavailable to the public.
A combined 1206 on the SATs is not spectacular, although it deserves attention. That was earned quite a while back, before allegations that the SATs had been 'dumbed down' a bit.
What's with the "unavailability" of Obama's scores, by the way?
Obama isn't articulate, in fact, he's actually worse than George w. Bush, who has impressive elocution issues. It's becomingly increasingly obvious that Obama is thin-skinned and petty; his response to the poorly-targeted attacks on Palin and McCain has not been to stop and rethink his failed strategy, but rather to amp up the volume. His campaign is committing weekly self-disembowelments, the most recent being an attempt to completely turn off all the elderly voters - the most reliable voters in the electorate - by accusing John McCain of not knowing how to email. Setting aside the total tactical pointlessness of an attack that is at best meaningless to anyone who isn't a 15-year old girl, it also reveals a total failure to do even the most elementary research considering that McCain has a pretty good excuse for not using email - he can't type due to the torture he received in Vietnam.
Not to mention O's return to the race-card and 'abortion first' themes immediately following Palin's nomination.
It seems that the O campaign (if not O personally) has managed to make its target audience smaller every week, which seems counter-intuitive in a Presidential race, not to mention a Congressional race.
Few have ever been under any illusion that John McCain was a particularly brilliant individual. He graduated towards the bottom of his Naval Academy class, 894th out of 899, but then, one has to be quite intelligent to get into the Naval Academy in the first place, even as a legacy with heavy hitters behind you. And once one is in, one has to have the intellectual firepower to survive there; the heavy hitters don't do a plebe any good once he's at Annapolis.
Actually, McCain's IQ has been made public. It's 133, putting him in the top 5% or so of the population.
Ivy League institutions, on the other hand, have been practicing aggressive affirmative action for decades. If Yale and Harvard degrees aren't enough to protect George Bush, with his 1206 SAT, from accusations of stupidity, Columbia and Harvard degrees can't be sufficient to protect Obama from the same, especially in light of the suspicious way in which his test scores are mysteriously unavailable to the public.
A combined 1206 on the SATs is not spectacular, although it deserves attention. That was earned quite a while back, before allegations that the SATs had been 'dumbed down' a bit.
What's with the "unavailability" of Obama's scores, by the way?
Obama isn't articulate, in fact, he's actually worse than George w. Bush, who has impressive elocution issues. It's becomingly increasingly obvious that Obama is thin-skinned and petty; his response to the poorly-targeted attacks on Palin and McCain has not been to stop and rethink his failed strategy, but rather to amp up the volume. His campaign is committing weekly self-disembowelments, the most recent being an attempt to completely turn off all the elderly voters - the most reliable voters in the electorate - by accusing John McCain of not knowing how to email. Setting aside the total tactical pointlessness of an attack that is at best meaningless to anyone who isn't a 15-year old girl, it also reveals a total failure to do even the most elementary research considering that McCain has a pretty good excuse for not using email - he can't type due to the torture he received in Vietnam.
Not to mention O's return to the race-card and 'abortion first' themes immediately following Palin's nomination.
It seems that the O campaign (if not O personally) has managed to make its target audience smaller every week, which seems counter-intuitive in a Presidential race, not to mention a Congressional race.
Hot Rumor: O to Dump Biden
There's even a futures-contract thing on this.
I'll second Clay Cramer's intuition: replacing Biden would tank the O campaign, period.
So it's about time for O to replace Biden!!
I'll second Clay Cramer's intuition: replacing Biden would tank the O campaign, period.
So it's about time for O to replace Biden!!
GAB Sniveling Over "Lost Votes"
Those poor, poor things! Can't we all have a good cry?
(Before we get to the main act, here--has anyone asked Kevin Kennedy for his resignation yet? Seems to me that when he hired Accenture, he started all this crap.)
But to the point:
Here's the latest Wailing and Breast-Beating from the Professional Sniveler crowd:
The board says the suit would affect all people who filed paperwork between those dates, about 1 million voters (That would be the General Accountability Board, which is working hard to be Un-accountable, like Kennedy.)
The GAB didn't read the complaint too well.
Van Hollen says he is seeking those checks for people who filed paperwork by mail or with special registration deputies who work for volunteer groups - about 241,000 voters
Twittering and snippiness ensues from the Permanently Aggrieved:
Department of Justice officials "sound a little foggy on who is entitled to cast a provisional ballot," said board spokesman Kyle Richmond
Of course, that's irrelevant (what would you expect?)
People can cast provisional ballots in only two scenarios, he said. Those who register to vote for the first time by mail without providing proof of residence can cast provisional ballots if they don't have proof of residence with them when they show up to vote. Also allowed to cast provisional ballots are voters who have Wisconsin driver's licenses but cannot provide the license number when they register at the polls.
Others - such as those who want to register at the polls but do not have proof of residence or someone with them who can vouch for their address - cannot cast provisional ballots, according to the board.
So?
What the Un-Accountable Board is saying is this:
Someone CAN VOTE provisionally if they have a Wisconsin DL but don't have the number with them.
Someone CAN same-day register AND VOTE if they have proof of residence OR can provide someone who will "vouch" for their residence.
So if you forget your DL, just come back with it within a day. No problem-o. If you can prove that you live in Wisconsin, register and vote, no problem-o.
If neither of those applies, then you shouldn't vote here.
What's so hard to understand?
(Before we get to the main act, here--has anyone asked Kevin Kennedy for his resignation yet? Seems to me that when he hired Accenture, he started all this crap.)
But to the point:
Here's the latest Wailing and Breast-Beating from the Professional Sniveler crowd:
The board says the suit would affect all people who filed paperwork between those dates, about 1 million voters (That would be the General Accountability Board, which is working hard to be Un-accountable, like Kennedy.)
The GAB didn't read the complaint too well.
Van Hollen says he is seeking those checks for people who filed paperwork by mail or with special registration deputies who work for volunteer groups - about 241,000 voters
Twittering and snippiness ensues from the Permanently Aggrieved:
Department of Justice officials "sound a little foggy on who is entitled to cast a provisional ballot," said board spokesman Kyle Richmond
Of course, that's irrelevant (what would you expect?)
People can cast provisional ballots in only two scenarios, he said. Those who register to vote for the first time by mail without providing proof of residence can cast provisional ballots if they don't have proof of residence with them when they show up to vote. Also allowed to cast provisional ballots are voters who have Wisconsin driver's licenses but cannot provide the license number when they register at the polls.
Others - such as those who want to register at the polls but do not have proof of residence or someone with them who can vouch for their address - cannot cast provisional ballots, according to the board.
So?
What the Un-Accountable Board is saying is this:
Someone CAN VOTE provisionally if they have a Wisconsin DL but don't have the number with them.
Someone CAN same-day register AND VOTE if they have proof of residence OR can provide someone who will "vouch" for their residence.
So if you forget your DL, just come back with it within a day. No problem-o. If you can prove that you live in Wisconsin, register and vote, no problem-o.
If neither of those applies, then you shouldn't vote here.
What's so hard to understand?
O-and-Savior Goes All "Comprehensive"
Lemmeesee, heah.
When McCain had his butt handed to him on "comprehensive immigration reform" he (at least rhetorically) shifted gears. After all, he had a primary to win.
Obama, on the other hand, didn't highlight his dedication to the very same thing.
Until Wednesday night.
Barack Obama spoke on Wednesday night about a subject that often gets short shrift on the 2008 campaign trail: immigration. The Democratic candidate made the speech to a crowd of Hispanic leaders at black-tie dinner capping the end of a Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gathering in Washington.
After spending a few minutes talking about his opponent and his other policy proposals, Obama got his loudest cheers with these lines: “This election is about the 12 million people living in the shadows, the communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hand. They are counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves, and rise above the fear, and rise above the demagoguery, and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform.”
(Can anyone discern the actual meaning of the red-highlighted sentence? He must have lost his telepromter feed...)
Obama ended his speech with the words “si se puede,” the Spanish version of his campaign chant “yes we can.” His words were not so much a translation as much as a return to a native tongue — the phrase was used widely in Spanish before Obama adopted it, most often for protest marches and demonstrations.
We'll see about that, puede.
When McCain had his butt handed to him on "comprehensive immigration reform" he (at least rhetorically) shifted gears. After all, he had a primary to win.
Obama, on the other hand, didn't highlight his dedication to the very same thing.
Until Wednesday night.
Barack Obama spoke on Wednesday night about a subject that often gets short shrift on the 2008 campaign trail: immigration. The Democratic candidate made the speech to a crowd of Hispanic leaders at black-tie dinner capping the end of a Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gathering in Washington.
After spending a few minutes talking about his opponent and his other policy proposals, Obama got his loudest cheers with these lines: “This election is about the 12 million people living in the shadows, the communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hand. They are counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves, and rise above the fear, and rise above the demagoguery, and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform.”
(Can anyone discern the actual meaning of the red-highlighted sentence? He must have lost his telepromter feed...)
Obama ended his speech with the words “si se puede,” the Spanish version of his campaign chant “yes we can.” His words were not so much a translation as much as a return to a native tongue — the phrase was used widely in Spanish before Obama adopted it, most often for protest marches and demonstrations.
We'll see about that, puede.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Charles Gibson: Supercilious Half-Glassed Quizmaster
And the guy who (doesn't quite) call him that is the guy who INVENTED the term "Bush Doctrine." That would be Krauthammer.
There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
...I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term.
(Hint to Charles Gibson: your definition is one release behind the current one--which happens to be the one Palin identified.)
...was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world
Palin's response was erroneous, although she came closer with her "worldview..." formulation than did Chuck-E-Chees-E, the half-glassed quizmaster.
HT: Owen
There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
...I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term.
(Hint to Charles Gibson: your definition is one release behind the current one--which happens to be the one Palin identified.)
...was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world
Palin's response was erroneous, although she came closer with her "worldview..." formulation than did Chuck-E-Chees-E, the half-glassed quizmaster.
HT: Owen
Gaming "Religious Views"
You may have noticed that "imposing one's religion" is a meme of the Democrat Party lately, mostly due to Sarah Palin's nomination. But it's not new. The same faddledoodle is dragged out of the closet when gay "marriage" is on the table, or any abortion-related question arises.
Fr. Neuhaus breaks that down a bit utilizing the thought of Jefferson and Lincoln.
More than he wanted to be remembered for having been president, Mr. Jefferson wanted to be remembered as the author of the Virginia “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.” In the text of the bill he underlined this sentence: “The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” In a republic of free citizens, every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, every moral argument has access to the public square in which we deliberate the ordering of our life together
And yet civil government is ordered by, and derives its legitimacy from, the opinions of the citizenry. Precisely here do we discover the novelty of the American experiment, the unique contribution of what the Founders called this novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the ages. Never before in human history had any government denied itself jurisdiction, whether limited or total, over that on which it entirely depends, the opinion of its people.
Jefferson liked opinions, including those formed by religious conviction.
That was the point forcefully made by Lincoln in his dispute with Judge Douglas over slavery. Douglas stubbornly held to the Dred Scott decision as the law of the land. Lincoln had the deeper insight into how this republic was designed to work. “In this age, and this country,” Lincoln said, “public sentiment is every thing. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed.
Would that the Democrat Party poohbahs had read that before they set about attacking Ms. Palin. Of course, the Democrat Party opposed Lincoln back then--why not ignore him now?
What does all this really mean?
In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is, or at least there ought to be, no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who appeal to religion in public
Said another way, people hold religion and it shapes their opinion.
The Democrat Party, twisting and spinning, would have us believe that religion is a "thing" which imposes itself on the debate--forgetting that only PEOPLE can have a debate.
They'd just like to eliminate those troublesome people whose opinions are shaped by religion.
Fr. Neuhaus breaks that down a bit utilizing the thought of Jefferson and Lincoln.
More than he wanted to be remembered for having been president, Mr. Jefferson wanted to be remembered as the author of the Virginia “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.” In the text of the bill he underlined this sentence: “The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” In a republic of free citizens, every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, every moral argument has access to the public square in which we deliberate the ordering of our life together
And yet civil government is ordered by, and derives its legitimacy from, the opinions of the citizenry. Precisely here do we discover the novelty of the American experiment, the unique contribution of what the Founders called this novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the ages. Never before in human history had any government denied itself jurisdiction, whether limited or total, over that on which it entirely depends, the opinion of its people.
Jefferson liked opinions, including those formed by religious conviction.
That was the point forcefully made by Lincoln in his dispute with Judge Douglas over slavery. Douglas stubbornly held to the Dred Scott decision as the law of the land. Lincoln had the deeper insight into how this republic was designed to work. “In this age, and this country,” Lincoln said, “public sentiment is every thing. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed.
Would that the Democrat Party poohbahs had read that before they set about attacking Ms. Palin. Of course, the Democrat Party opposed Lincoln back then--why not ignore him now?
What does all this really mean?
In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is, or at least there ought to be, no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who appeal to religion in public
Said another way, people hold religion and it shapes their opinion.
The Democrat Party, twisting and spinning, would have us believe that religion is a "thing" which imposes itself on the debate--forgetting that only PEOPLE can have a debate.
They'd just like to eliminate those troublesome people whose opinions are shaped by religion.
Empire? Or "Special"? Foreign Policy
Dreher points to Rieff (a Lefty), but agrees--as do the paleocons.
But if one looks at the current American foreign policy debate without the expectation that Democrats and Republicans will agree on just about everything, what seems remarkable is the extent to which they do, in fact, agree on just about everything. ...But for the most part, from Barack Obama to--dare one say it?--Richard Cheney, the argument goes undisputed that the world "needs" (that extraordinarily loaded word being the one most commonly employed) American leadership and that, for its part, the U.S. has a "special" (also a loaded word) role to play on the international scene
Dreher:
As Rieff continues in the piece, written while the Democratic primaries were still ongoing, both US liberals and US conservatives place their faith in "the theology of American Exceptionalism"
"American Exceptionalism" happens to be a favorite soubriquet of Rush Limbaugh, and it derives specifically from the Whig practical-theology which underlies it. It's an expansion of the "Government Will Fix It All" theology which Bush bought with (e.g.) "No Child Left Behind."
Except here, it's "No Child Left Behind Anywhere On The Planet."
Thus both Obama and McCain will support the entry of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, where the treaty-obligation requires that NATO will send arms and men to defent those countries from attack.
Writing checks which MAY not be negotiable.
But if one looks at the current American foreign policy debate without the expectation that Democrats and Republicans will agree on just about everything, what seems remarkable is the extent to which they do, in fact, agree on just about everything. ...But for the most part, from Barack Obama to--dare one say it?--Richard Cheney, the argument goes undisputed that the world "needs" (that extraordinarily loaded word being the one most commonly employed) American leadership and that, for its part, the U.S. has a "special" (also a loaded word) role to play on the international scene
Dreher:
As Rieff continues in the piece, written while the Democratic primaries were still ongoing, both US liberals and US conservatives place their faith in "the theology of American Exceptionalism"
"American Exceptionalism" happens to be a favorite soubriquet of Rush Limbaugh, and it derives specifically from the Whig practical-theology which underlies it. It's an expansion of the "Government Will Fix It All" theology which Bush bought with (e.g.) "No Child Left Behind."
Except here, it's "No Child Left Behind Anywhere On The Planet."
Thus both Obama and McCain will support the entry of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, where the treaty-obligation requires that NATO will send arms and men to defent those countries from attack.
Writing checks which MAY not be negotiable.
Free Sarah!
Douthat and Dreher agree--and so do I.
I know that the people who've decided she's Monica Goodling with a shotgun aren't going to be persuaded by me on this point, but I think Palin really does have the potential to embody the kind of change the GOP desperately needs: In a party that's dominated by entrenched interests, she demonstrated that it's possible to take on the establishment and win; in a party increasingly riven by ideological feuds, she's demonstrated that it's possible to be a populist and a pragmatist, a social conservative on some fronts and a libertarian on others. But a vice-presidential run isn't the ideal place to develop that potential in the best of times, and a vice-presidential run under the tutelage of the McCain campaign is likely to produce a lot more of what we saw from Palin in her interview last night: Rigorously memorized, carefully regurgitated talking points, a determination to avoid making enormous gaffes, and not much else --Douthat
From Dreher:
This is correct. We just finished an editorial board meeting to talk over the Palin interviews, and most of us agreed that the Sarah Palin we all saw last night was a fembot programmed by the McCain brain trust. We all want to see the real Sarah. Some of us think she's better than what we all saw last night. Some of us think she's worse. All of us wish McCain's people would get out of the way and let Palin be Palin
The recitative of "talking points" was stilted and (frankly) not delivered with much conviction--no surprise.
Free Sarah!!
I know that the people who've decided she's Monica Goodling with a shotgun aren't going to be persuaded by me on this point, but I think Palin really does have the potential to embody the kind of change the GOP desperately needs: In a party that's dominated by entrenched interests, she demonstrated that it's possible to take on the establishment and win; in a party increasingly riven by ideological feuds, she's demonstrated that it's possible to be a populist and a pragmatist, a social conservative on some fronts and a libertarian on others. But a vice-presidential run isn't the ideal place to develop that potential in the best of times, and a vice-presidential run under the tutelage of the McCain campaign is likely to produce a lot more of what we saw from Palin in her interview last night: Rigorously memorized, carefully regurgitated talking points, a determination to avoid making enormous gaffes, and not much else --Douthat
From Dreher:
This is correct. We just finished an editorial board meeting to talk over the Palin interviews, and most of us agreed that the Sarah Palin we all saw last night was a fembot programmed by the McCain brain trust. We all want to see the real Sarah. Some of us think she's better than what we all saw last night. Some of us think she's worse. All of us wish McCain's people would get out of the way and let Palin be Palin
The recitative of "talking points" was stilted and (frankly) not delivered with much conviction--no surprise.
Free Sarah!!
GKC on Respect
As usual, worth the read.
THIEVES respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fullness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's.
--The Man Who Was Thursday
THIEVES respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fullness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's.
--The Man Who Was Thursday
Invading Pakistan, Redux
Who, exactly, wants to move through Pakistan if necessary?
From AFP (February 2008)
McCain zeroed in on a speech by Obama in August in which he said he would be prepared to strike Al-Qaeda on Pakistani territory if Islamabad would not respond to actionable intelligence.
The issue McCain raised was "telegraphing" possible military moves.
Palin, yesterday, in reference to Pakistan:
I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table
Well, she didn't say explicitly that we'd be in Pakistan.
But of course, GWB issued orders several months ago which allowed US ops in Pakistan.
From AFP (February 2008)
McCain zeroed in on a speech by Obama in August in which he said he would be prepared to strike Al-Qaeda on Pakistani territory if Islamabad would not respond to actionable intelligence.
The issue McCain raised was "telegraphing" possible military moves.
Palin, yesterday, in reference to Pakistan:
I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table
Well, she didn't say explicitly that we'd be in Pakistan.
But of course, GWB issued orders several months ago which allowed US ops in Pakistan.
OMG!! McCain Doesn't EMAIL!!
The O-and-Savior now asserts that "Leadership" creds include utilization of email and computers.
Oh, yah. That's the ticket.
Oh, yah. That's the ticket.
Charlie Gibson Loves the North Korean Government!
Charlie Gibson, who later in this interview will disgrace himself by selective editing of the "God's Will" quote, attempts to trap Palin on the Pakistan question.
GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target
...GIBSON: Is that a yes, that you think we have the right to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? To go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table
Gibson's line of questioning tells us that he doesn't remember the MacArthur/Truman disagreement about the Yalu and Red China and that he approves the way the Korean War ended.
So, obviously, Gibson approves of the consequences--and by extension, Gibson approves of the North Korean government!
See? I can extrapolate from non-text just as well as Charlie Gibson!! Maybe better; I actually recall history.
Oh, there's more.
Gibson also thinks that Israel needs US permission to defend itself.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and need to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends of Israel, and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we didn't second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
What part of "allow Israel to defend itself" don't you understand, Charlie?
Gibson would have actually displayed an IQ if he had asked the logical followup: "Should the US insert troops to defend Israel from a counter-attack?"
THAT would be a much more interesting discussion. But Charlie Gibson had already demonstrated that he did not have a particular interest in an interesting discussion.
He had other priorities.
HT: PowerLine
GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target
...GIBSON: Is that a yes, that you think we have the right to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? To go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table
Gibson's line of questioning tells us that he doesn't remember the MacArthur/Truman disagreement about the Yalu and Red China and that he approves the way the Korean War ended.
So, obviously, Gibson approves of the consequences--and by extension, Gibson approves of the North Korean government!
See? I can extrapolate from non-text just as well as Charlie Gibson!! Maybe better; I actually recall history.
Oh, there's more.
Gibson also thinks that Israel needs US permission to defend itself.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and need to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends of Israel, and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we didn't second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
What part of "allow Israel to defend itself" don't you understand, Charlie?
Gibson would have actually displayed an IQ if he had asked the logical followup: "Should the US insert troops to defend Israel from a counter-attack?"
THAT would be a much more interesting discussion. But Charlie Gibson had already demonstrated that he did not have a particular interest in an interesting discussion.
He had other priorities.
HT: PowerLine
Wisconsin Rain-Pattern=Global Warming?
What a load.
Flooding that ravaged southeastern Wisconsin this spring and summer was a symptom of global warming’s impact here - and it could get worse.
John Magnuson, co-chair of a state task force on global warming, told attendees that global warming has disrupted weather patterns in Wisconsin, including causing more frequent rainstorms
I'm sure that Mr. Magnuson can provide documented evidence that the rain-pattern in Wisconsin has NEVER been similar during cooling periods?
HT: Owen
Flooding that ravaged southeastern Wisconsin this spring and summer was a symptom of global warming’s impact here - and it could get worse.
John Magnuson, co-chair of a state task force on global warming, told attendees that global warming has disrupted weather patterns in Wisconsin, including causing more frequent rainstorms
I'm sure that Mr. Magnuson can provide documented evidence that the rain-pattern in Wisconsin has NEVER been similar during cooling periods?
HT: Owen
Georgia Into NATO? No, Thanks
McPain/Palin think that Georgia should be admitted to NATO.
That position is indefensible.
UPDATE: Vox quotes Spengler on Georgia and Ukraine.
The fact is that there won't be any Georgians or Ukrainians in the not-too-distant future. By coincidence, Washington's two favorite beacons of liberty happen to be the two countries with the world's fastest rate of population decline. By mid-century they will have barely half as many inhabitants as they do today, and half of those who remain will be elderly. Hardly [any] men of military age and women of child-bearing age will remain. Their economies will implode long before the mid-century mark, as soaring retirement costs crush state budgets, and young people emigrate to escape the burden of supporting the elderly.
Putin's Mother Russia ain't doing so well population-wise, either.
If McPain/Palin are smart, they'll just dawdle around on the question until absolutely nobody is left in the entire Caucasus, which won't be all that long.
That position is indefensible.
UPDATE: Vox quotes Spengler on Georgia and Ukraine.
The fact is that there won't be any Georgians or Ukrainians in the not-too-distant future. By coincidence, Washington's two favorite beacons of liberty happen to be the two countries with the world's fastest rate of population decline. By mid-century they will have barely half as many inhabitants as they do today, and half of those who remain will be elderly. Hardly [any] men of military age and women of child-bearing age will remain. Their economies will implode long before the mid-century mark, as soaring retirement costs crush state budgets, and young people emigrate to escape the burden of supporting the elderly.
Putin's Mother Russia ain't doing so well population-wise, either.
If McPain/Palin are smart, they'll just dawdle around on the question until absolutely nobody is left in the entire Caucasus, which won't be all that long.
Doyle's Boyzzz: "Screw Fair Elections"
Predictably, One Wisconsin Now, headed by someone who really ought to know about illegal activities in government, doesn't like JB VanHollen's suit asking for the G A B to actually do its job. Scot Ross has a history, folks.
One Wisconsin Now, a group that has been criticizing McCain and other Republicans, said Van Hollen should step aside in the case because of his role with the McCain campaign.
Right. Enforcing law is 'partisan.'
So laws which are inconvenient to Doyle's Boyzzz are also 'partisan,' by extension. Hmmmmm?
The lawsuit's goals are entirely reasonable:
Van Hollen said he wants the board to also check records for the 241,000 voters who registered or changed their addresses between Jan. 1, 2006, and Aug. 5, 2008, if they filed their paperwork by mail or with special registration deputies who work for volunteer groups
Nat Robinson, the board’s elections administrator, said he believed the suit would affect anyone who filed paperwork on or after Jan. 1, 2006 — about 1 million people, including those who registered at the polls or in a clerk’s office
A MILLION people? Is Nat trying to say that 1/5th of Wisconsin's population registered to vote since 1/1/06? That's a helluvalotta people, Nat.
There is a reason for VanHollen's action:
One in five voters who were checked last month initially failed the tests, often because of typos or missing initials.
A bloglodyte who is very familiar with database merges and reconciliations (and who is conservative in most respects) suggests that the 'typos/initials' may account for the vast majority of the problems. If that's the case, GAB shouldn't have a problem.
But the GAB cannot be allowed to shrug off a 20% error rate as 'inconsequential.' That is irresponsible.
And that's the point of the lawsuit.
One Wisconsin Now, a group that has been criticizing McCain and other Republicans, said Van Hollen should step aside in the case because of his role with the McCain campaign.
Right. Enforcing law is 'partisan.'
So laws which are inconvenient to Doyle's Boyzzz are also 'partisan,' by extension. Hmmmmm?
The lawsuit's goals are entirely reasonable:
Van Hollen said he wants the board to also check records for the 241,000 voters who registered or changed their addresses between Jan. 1, 2006, and Aug. 5, 2008, if they filed their paperwork by mail or with special registration deputies who work for volunteer groups
Nat Robinson, the board’s elections administrator, said he believed the suit would affect anyone who filed paperwork on or after Jan. 1, 2006 — about 1 million people, including those who registered at the polls or in a clerk’s office
A MILLION people? Is Nat trying to say that 1/5th of Wisconsin's population registered to vote since 1/1/06? That's a helluvalotta people, Nat.
There is a reason for VanHollen's action:
One in five voters who were checked last month initially failed the tests, often because of typos or missing initials.
A bloglodyte who is very familiar with database merges and reconciliations (and who is conservative in most respects) suggests that the 'typos/initials' may account for the vast majority of the problems. If that's the case, GAB shouldn't have a problem.
But the GAB cannot be allowed to shrug off a 20% error rate as 'inconsequential.' That is irresponsible.
And that's the point of the lawsuit.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
USCC's Fire Is Lit
This may be interesting.
In light of recent comments by Catholic politicians misrepresenting Catholic teaching, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops affirms the statements that have been issued by Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the
In light of recent comments by Catholic politicians misrepresenting Catholic teaching, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops affirms the statements that have been issued by Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the