‘Obama Lied, Jobs Died’

Where Are the Cries of ‘Obama Lied, Jobs Died’?
His and his administration’s whoppers are super-sized, yet the press still focuses on Bush.

from Pajamas Media.com
May 21, 2009
by Tom Blumer

In mid-February, I identified several clear fibs and pathetic straw-man arguments that Barack Obama and his teleprompters (not necessarily in that order) employed in four statements he made at his first presidential briefing and at an appearance in Elkhart, Indiana, earlier that day.

It is now painfully clear that Obama and his apparatchiks have entered an arena many thought Bill Clinton and his crew had all to themselves.

Admission to this very exclusive club requires the repeated ability to get through the Three Steps of Super-Sized Lying with most of your perceived credibility somehow still intact:

1.The president and his administration must have the nerve to state what they know is an obvious falsehood without betraying any hint that he or they realize it is false, and in a way that causes virtually all who hear it to instinctively believe it.

2.Sadly, more often than not, Step 1 is enough, because the second step requires actual follow-up by someone who heard it. That someone has to discover, document, and prove beyond doubt that the statement or contention made by the president or his administration is not true.

3.Sometimes Step 2 occurs, but the truth-teller’s proof gets little or no attention. But if it does, the third step requires the president and his administration to cling to their guns, so to speak, using a variety of tactics that effectively amount to saying, “Who are you going to believe, us or the irrefutable evidence?”

Critics can say what they will about George W. Bush’s accomplishments or lack thereof, but if they’re honest — an unfortunately dubious proposition — they’ll have to admit that he and his administration almost never engaged in the three-step process to which this administration is virtually addicted.

If you look at what the Left continues to insist are Bush’s five biggest “lies,” you’ll realize that he and his administration never even got to Step 1, let alone the rest of the Three Steps of Super-Sized Lying:

Most crucially, there is the assertion that there were weapons of mass destruction in pre-war Iraq. Critically, the Left’s claim has been and still is that “there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Please note that the critics’ claim was not “no stockpiles,” “no large caches,” or “only a few.” Their claim, frequently stated to great applause, was that there were none, with no exceptions, no qualifications, and no redefinitions. But the truth is that there were WMDs in Iraq … (This brief pause has been provided so lefties can pick their brainwashed jaws off the floor.) … Heck, I knew that in 2005. Later evidence proved that WMDs were really, officially there. What’s more, in November 2006, a New York Times article acknowledged the existence of a report showing that “[Saddam] Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.” As Ed Morrissey described it at the time, “Saddam [was] far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, … [making] it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it.” Oh, and I almost forgot about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, specifically “the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel.” History will have to tell us why the hapless Bush crew didn’t defend itself against the Left’s long-since-refuted lie.
The supposedly infamous “sixteen words” (”The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”) that made Joe Wilson a temporary media darling were and still are not only true, but doubly so.
Bush never said that the threat from Iraq was “imminent.”

The worst that can validly be said about the “Mission Accomplished” celebration in May 2003 is that it was overconfident; it doesn’t change the fact Saddam’s ouster had indeed been achieved.
Finally, the hope expressed by Dick Cheney in 2002 that “my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators” was just that — a hopeful prediction.

None of the above items from the Bush era qualifies as a “lie” as any normal person who recognizes that intent is the key would define the word.

By contrast, there is no legitimate doubt that Barack Obama and his administration are serving up super-sized whoppers with a complete absence of shame. Here are just a few of the more egregious:

In February, Obama, in a Peoria, Illinois, visit, said in a speech that Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens had told him the previous day that “if Congress passes our [stimulus] plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.” The truth is that Owens “told Obama he could rehire people if a ‘responsible stimulus bill is passed and the economy gets going again.’”

Who do you believe, Barack Obama or a CEO and the congressman who later spoke with Mr. Owens?

On May 11, Obama and the administration claimed that executives and representatives of major health care providers agreed that they could wring major cost savings out of the medical system in the next 10 years on the road to a supposedly affordable government-run system that would save the government up to $2 trillion. Within days, health care officials denied there were any detailed promises, saying that “they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.” Who do you believe, Obama or the others at the conference?

On the day of government-run Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing, Obama and his car guys told a bipartisan group of political leaders that the bankruptcy “will not disrupt the lives of the people who work at Chrysler or the communities that depend on it.” Those who heard it reasonably took that statement to mean that no plants would permanently close. At least two congresspersons issued press releases to that effect. On May 1, government-run Chrysler announced that it would close plants in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Obama lied; jobs died. Who do you believe, Team Obama or a bipartisan group of politicians?

That the “Bush lied” crowd and the establishment media (but I repeat myself) are so quiet while Obama’s patent falsehoods go virtually unchallenged tells you all you need to know about whose side they are on — and it’s not the side containing the truth.

Tom Blumer owns a training and development company based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Gulp: U.S. to lose AAA debt rating?

from Hot Air.com
May 22, 2009
by Allahpundit

I guess my question would be, if we haven’t lost it already, how fantastically huge would our annual deficits have to be before we do lose it? $3 trillion? $4 trillion?

Something for Obama to shoot for now that national health care’s on the way.

“It’s very important that this Congress and this president put in place policies that will bring those deficits down to a sustainable level over the medium term,” Geithner said in an interview with Bloomberg Television yesterday. He added that the target is reducing the gap to about 3 percent of gross domestic product, from a projected 12.9 percent this year.

The dollar extended declines today after Treasuries and American stocks slumped on concern the U.S. government’s debt rating may at some point be lowered. Bill Gross, the co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., said the U.S. “eventually” will lose its AAA grade…

It’s “critically important” to bring down the American deficit, Geithner said.

It’s “critically important,” and by The One’s own admission our debt is “unsustainable,” and yet his two attempts at reducing spending thus far produced an initial budget cut of .0029% followed by a further cut of roughly one-half of one percent, later cannibalized by an upward revision in spending. Believe it or not, S&P was sounding alarms about America’s debt rating eight months ago, after the financial crisis first hit and Bush dumped $85 billion in AIG’s lap. Trillions of dollars in bailouts and stimulus later, with enormous new entitlements on the way, the problem’s considerably worse — and yet The One’s defenders insist there’s technically zero risk of a lower rating because the U.S. could simply print more money to pay off its debt and avert any looming default. Which, as far as I understand, means we’re facing the following choice eventually: Either increase the monetary supply to meet our obligations and risk massive inflation, or refuse to meet our obligations and suffer a lower debt rating, thereby triggering even more massive deficits. What am I missing here?

Fortunately, The One has a super secret plan by which nationalizing health care will actually bring down spending, so let’s look forward to that.
Click to read the article and the comments

Fund Managers Burned by Obama will avoid lending to unionized companies

Fund Managers Burned by Obama Now Say They Are Wary
from Bloomberg.com
By Caroline Salas
May 20, 2009

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Hedge fund manager George Schultze says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy.

Obama put Chrysler under court protection on April 30 after lenders balked at a proposal giving them about 29 cents on the dollar for their $6.9 billion in debt. The investors said the president’s plan favored a union retiree medical fund whose claims ranked behind them for repayment. It was offered a 55 percent equity stake in the automaker.

Pacific Investment Management Co., Barclays Capital and Fridson Investment Advisors have joined Schultze Asset Management LLC in saying lenders may be unwilling to back unionized companies with underfunded pension and medical obligations, such as airlines and auto-industry suppliers, because Chrysler’s creditors failed to block Obama’s move. The reluctance may put additional pressure on borrowers seeking capital in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

“Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk,” Schultze, 39, said in a telephone interview from his office in Purchase, New York. “The obvious one is: Don’t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.”

Dissident Lenders

Schultze, whose firm had about $247.7 million under management in February, according to a regulatory filing, declined to disclose which company debt he may avoid.

He was among the last holdouts. The dissident lenders to the Auburn Hills, Michigan-based automaker -- including OppenheimerFunds Inc. and Perella Weinberg Capital Management LP, both in New York -- caved after Obama blamed hedge fund “speculators” for the bankruptcy of the 83-year-old car company and said he stood with its employees.

At its peak, the group consisted of 30 funds holding more than $1 billion, according to Tom Lauria of White & Case LLP, the investors’ attorney, who is based in Miami and New York.

“Anything that involves a large number of jobs or affects a large number of people, you can expect to see a Chrysler redux,” Jerry del Missier, president of Barclays Capital, said in an interview from his New York office. “One of the consequences here is the so-called speculators, people who provide financing, will think twice about getting involved.”

Barclays Plc, based in London, is the third-biggest U.K. bank.

‘Rights Were Trashed’

Jack Welch, former chief executive officer of General Electric Co., criticized how the government handled Chrysler’s bankruptcy, saying unions were favored at the expense of creditors.

“I didn’t like the terms,” Welch, 73, said in an interview yesterday at the Boston Convention Center. “The creditors’ rights were trashed and the unions got 55 percent of the company.”
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Obamanomics: Fed's economic forecast worsens

Central bank now expects unemployment to rise to a range of 9.2% to 9.6% this year. Fed also predicts a sharper decline in GDP than it had forecast in January

By Chris Isidore
CNNMoney.com
May 20, 2009

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve's latest forecasts for the U.S. economy are gloomier than the ones released three months earlier, with an expectation for higher unemployment and a steeper drop in economic activity.

The Fed's forecasts, released as part of the minutes from its April meeting, show that its staff now expects the unemployment rate to rise to between 9.2% and 9.6% this year. The central bank had forecast in January that the jobless rate would be in a range of 8.5% to 8.8%, but the unemployment rate topped that in April, hitting 8.9%.

The Fed also now expects the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, to post a drop of between 1.3% and 2% this year. It had previously expected only a 0.5% to 1.3% decline.

At the April meeting, the Fed decided to once again leave its key federal funds rate near 0%, a level it has been at since last December. The central bank also announced that it did not plan on increasing purchasing more long-term Treasury notes anytime soon.

The Fed disclosed plans to begin buying $300 billion's worth of such Treasurys in March in order to try and keep long-term rates down and boost economic activity.

But according to the minutes, some members of the central bank's policy committee indicated they were open to increasing its purchases of Treasury notes and mortgage securities as a way of spurring more lending.

Treasury prices rallied after the minutes were released, pushing their yield, which moves in the opposite direction, down to 3.18%.

Stocks, which have moved sharply higher during the past two months on hopes that the recession may soon be ending, fell Wednesday afternoon.

According to the minutes, Fed members did indicate they expected GDP to increase slightly in the second half of this year. However, it would not be enough to overcome the anticipated declines in the first half. GDP shrunk more than 6% in the first quarter.

Policymakers acknowledged that there were some better economic readings in the period leading up to the April meeting, but added that they were not convinced the economy was out of the woods yet.

In the minutes, Fed members indicated that there are a number of factors that "would be likely to restrain the pace of economic recovery over the medium term" and added that the credit crunch would "recede only gradually" and that "households would likely remain cautious" in their spending.

Fed members expressed concerns about rising problems in the commercial real estate market as well, indicating that this could cause further problems for financial institutions still struggling with the effects of the collapse of home prices and rising mortgage defaults.

The Fed also reduced its GDP targets for 2010 and 2011, but the central banks still expects the economy to grow in both years.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’ - Then why did you just triple it?

By Roger Runningen and Hans Nichols
from Bloomberg.com

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

Two weeks ago, the president proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, with plans to eliminate or reduce 121 federal programs. Republicans ridiculed the amount, saying that it represented one-half of 1 percent of the entire budget. They noted that Obama is seeking an $81 billion increase in other spending.

‘Beginning to Turn’

“We’ve got a long way to go before we put this recession behind us,” Obama said. “But we do know that the gears of our economy, our economic engine, are slowly beginning to turn.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Roger Runningen in Albuquerque at rrunningen@bloomberg.net; Hans Nichols in Washington at =1871 or hnichols2@bloomberg.net
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Gone With The Wind - A Classic Starring Barack Obama

image by Rees

What movie goers have said:

"An Epic Movie about romance and dirty money"

"You'll laugh, you'll cry. Well, mostly cry"

"I threw-up in my mouth"

"More villains than I could have ever imagined"

"Disturbing, just disturbing"

"I just wish it were fiction"

"Do not take your children. The vision of their future will give them nightmares"

Rated U - for Unconstitutional

Obama, oops, Hugo Chavez seizes food plant owned by transnational Cargill

Gee, isn't this the same thing Obama has been doing? Is Obama copying Hugo, or is Hugo copying Obama?
Rees

Caracas - The Venezuelan government on Friday took over a food-processing plant owned by the transnational corporation Cargill, arguing that it had violated state rules for the production of goods with regulated prices. Deputy Food Minister Rafael Coronado headed the move on the pasta- processing plant in the coastal state of Vargas, near Caracas, and said the seizure was temporary.

Coronado said the measure was adopted in response to the violation of a presidential decree establishing quotas for manufacturing, distribution and commercialization of 11 basic food items, including pasta and rice.

Under the rules, 70 per cent of each plant's pasta must meet the government standards for manufacture, distribution and commercialization, with only 30 per cent allowed to be made outside that framework.

Coronado said authorities had inspected Cargill's facilities in Caracas Thursday, to establish whether they were abiding by the law in terms of production, price, characteristics and product presentation.

They found that 80 per cent of the pasta in stock fell outside the regulations, with only 20 per cent of the regulated variety, Coronado said.

The plant was set to be occupied for 90 days. The authorities would seek to make sure from Monday that the plant production is in line with legal requirements.

Coronado said that the state and private companies alike have a duty to provide the population with quality products at fair prices. According to Coronado, measures adopted by the government seek to guarantee food security and to prevent food scarcity.

In March, the Venezuelan government nationalized a rice-processing plant that belonged to Cargill in the western state of Portuguesa, also arguing that the transnational was not producing regulated goods.
Click to go to the article

Obama Wants Nationalized Banking and More - much, much more...

Why doesn't Obama just come right out and say he wants to control all businesses? That's what he's attempting to do. Somehow this power grab has got to stop.
Rees

From Yahoo! News:
By Anne Flaherty
Associated Press Writer
May 9, 2009

WASHINGTON – The White House told industry officials on Friday that it is leaning toward recommending that the Federal Reserve become the supercop for "too big to fail" companies capable of causing another financial meltdown.

According to officials who attended a private one-hour meeting between President Barack Obama's economic advisers and representatives from about a dozen banks, hedge funds and other financial groups, the administration made it clear it was not inclined to divide the job among various regulators as has been suggested by industry and some federal regulators.

"The idea of having a council of regulators was pretty much vetoed," said one participant.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who briefly attended the meeting but did not identify the Fed specifically as his top choice, told the group that one organization needs to be held responsible for monitoring systemwide risk. He said such a regulator should be given better visibility into all institutions that pose a risk to the financial system, regardless of what business they are in.

"Committees don't make decisions," Geithner told the group, according to another participant.

Officials from the Treasury Department and National Economic Council, which hosted the meeting, told participants that the Fed was considered the most likely candidate for the job, according to several officials who attended or were briefed on the discussions.

The administration officials said a legislative proposal would likely be sent to Capitol Hill in June with the expectation that the House Financial Services Committee, led by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., would consider the measure before the July 4th recess.

The officials requested anonymity because the meeting had not been publicly announced and they were not authorized to discuss it.

A Treasury Department statement provided to The Associated Press on Friday confirmed Geithner's position that he wants a "single independent regulator with responsibility for systemically important firms and critical payment and settlement systems."

A spokesman said Geithner also is open to creating a council to "coordinate among the various regulators, including the systemic risk regulator."

Industry officials say such a council would likely serve as advisers and would not be given the authority that a "systemic risk regulator" would.

The Fed itself hasn't taken a position on whether it should have the job, although Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the Fed would have to be involved in any effort to identify and resolve systemwide risk.

Geithner said Friday the administration plans an "aggressive" package of reforms for the financial system including proposals to fundamentally overhaul how financial institutions pay their senior executives. Critics have charged that the bonus system used at many major institutions encouraged excessive risk taking.

"We had a financial system that did a terrible job of protecting consumers, of building a strong, stable financial system less prone to crisis and we are going to have to fix that," Geithner said in an interview on PBS' "Newshour." "You will see this president, this administration bringing sweeping reforms to our financial system."

In a speech Thursday, Bernanke said that huge, globally interconnected financial firms whose failure could endanger the U.S. economy should be subject to "a robust framework for consolidated supervision."

Naming the Fed as a kind of super regulator is likely to run into at least some resistance by other federal regulators and in Congress.

Mary Schapiro, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said Friday that she was inclined to support the idea floated this week by the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for a new "systemic risk council" to monitor large institutions against financial threats. The council would include the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, FDIC and SEC, according to the proposal by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair.

Speaking to the Investment Company Institute, the mutual fund industry's biggest trade group, Schapiro said she is concerned about an "excessive concentration of power" over financial risk in a single agency.

Lawmakers are divided on whether the Fed alone should assume the role of systemic regulator. Some say the Fed failed to prevent the current economic crisis and shouldn't be trusted with such a big responsibility. Others say the Fed should stay focused on its primary duty of setting monetary policy.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said this week he is "more attracted to the council idea" than having a single regulator play that role.

Unlike other regulatory agencies, the Fed does not rely on appropriations from Congress for its operating funds. It finances itself through its investments.

Fed Gov. Daniel Tarullo told Congress in March that the extent to which the new responsibility for systemic risk should fall to the central bank "depends a great deal on precisely how the Congress defines the role and responsibilities of the authority."

"Any systemic risk authority would need a sophisticated, comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach to systemic risk," he testified. "Such an authority likely would require knowledge and experience across a wide range of financial institutions and markets."
Click to read the rest of the article

MUST WATCH!!! Beck: “Is it against the law sir!?”

pwn'd with a capital "P"

Comments from Hot Air.com:

What happened is most certainly news because we established that the Attorney General of CT is acting in a tryannical and unlawful manner.

1 - By using his Office and the office’s legal powers to engage in hostile State action against citizens who , it is not contested by anyone, have violated no law and in course of those actions , the AG is violating
2 - The Constitution of the United States
Article I Section 10

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No State is permitted to interfere with any party’s obligations under a contract.
He should be impeached.
VinceP1974 on March 31, 2009 at 12:08 AM
-------------------------------------------------------

I like the fact that the conservatives are finally waking up and taking a stand. It’s good to see the tea parties and shows like Glenn Beck telling us it is okay to be angry, to stand up for our rights, and to march in the streets. It works for the left. Those loonies have been making noise, demanding their views be voiced, while we sit in our offices and work. Now, we have a chance to make some noise, to take back our country, to demand that the laws and the constitution be followed in our country. I like the fact that the left loonies are a little scared.I say, let’s make some noise and make the left pee down their legs in fear.I heart Glenn Beck.
HornetSting on March 30, 2009 at 9:41 PM
---------------------------------------------------

When Attorney Generals devote themselves to promoting what ought to be law, particularly heinous when not defined as their “wish” but arguments presented AS IF a matter of “yes or no” law, then the Attorney Generals are not doing their job of defending what IS the law, and the rights of those who obey the law. Simple enough, and the AG finally had to admit the status of factual vs. wish-list matter.
maverick muse on March 30, 2009 at 7:55 PM
-----------------------------------------------

Unbelievable, the Attorney General admits that he was enforcing a law that does not exist. In other words the Attorney General thinks… HE IS THE LAW. This is called thuggery and I’m afraid we are going to see more and more of it with the Democrats in power and encouraging it at all levels.
Maxx on March 30, 2009 at 7:59 PM
------------------------------------------------

A pity that more of those fortunate to have a megaphone do not use it to expose these fools like Beck did with AG Blumenthal.
Jdripper on March 30, 2009 at 7:58 PM
------------------------------------------------

A nice demonstration of Liberal myopia and misunderstanding of the rule of law. Also a stellar example of how the MSM has lost its will and its way. Beck is doing the job that the MSM refuses and at this point is constitutionally incapable of doing: pressing the issues and asking hard questions.
When did Connecticut turn into Vermont? Who are these unsightly Socialists who embarrass themselves and their once great state?
This Blumenthal idiot goes a long way to show how the likes of Dodd can fester.
EMD on March 30, 2009 at 8:05 PM
-------------------------------------------------

You know what should be the law… following the Constitution.
Wait… that is the law? Huh, too bad there are no AGs prosecuting that one. Guess they’re too busy on “public policy”
… wait… I thought that public policy was required to be the province of legislators while the judicial branch dealt with enforcement of the law?
I am so confused… should we ask the executive branch and see if he can figure it out?
Damiano on March 30, 2009 at 8:13 PM
-----------------------------------------------------

Wow, no wonder CNN got rid of Beck. Those pussies simply couldn’t stand watching a real man work the magic John Wayne used to bring to the screen.
Great stuff! Melted that POS on the constitution question. Liberals think they are above our laws. Beck just brought that dynamic to life.
Keemo on March 30, 2009 at 8:29 PM
----------------------------------------------------

Glenn Beck isn’t doing it for ratings, he already has the ratings.
He’s doing it because its what’s right. This AG has no business trying to enforce ‘populist principle’ vs the laws he was meant to enforce.
The CT AG had no response as to what law the people that received the bonuses was breaking. Plain and simple.
And something tells me, this is just a prelude of things to come with this new administration and its cronies.
RedbonePro on March 30, 2009 at 9:19 PM
-----------------------------------------------------

People in Beck’s line of work do go over the top sometimes with weak facts or poor perspective, but this ain’t it. This A.G. is a disgrace and the arrogance and over reaching he is happy to engage in is as un-American as it gets. Beck did exactly what’s needed: ask the simple questions and insist on answers. I can not figure out why some people for the sake of appearing reasonable cannot get on board with that. All that’s needed for evil to succeed is for people to try and look smart when angry indignation is called for. If this public law enforcement official does not get you angry then you would probably be fine with a good police beating or railroad of an innocent fellow citizen. It’s all just fun right, as long as it’s not you being ground up in some politician’s ego trip. No news value to this? Really AP? Maybe when some capitalists get hung in trees… well maybe the first one anyway. Then: “ho hum, that again.”
bagoh20 on March 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM
----------------------------------------------

No news value? Asking a public servant, who’s job it is to win convictions in court for violations of laws passed by our government, which broken laws he is spending his time trying to prosecute has no news value in you’re mind? Don’t you understand that it is the responsibility of a free press to find out and question how government officials do their jobs? This guy spent a solid week grandstanding against someone else’s bonuses and promising the populist mob to stop payment on a legal contract. This has no news value for you Allahpundit? I think you should really rethink this, either that or just spend you’re time reading Frum rants, monitoring Meghen McCain’s twitter musings and watching The View.
Dollayo on March 31, 2009 at 12:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------

Really? So who here thinks like this wanker blueneck? Again, I have yet to hear this supposed “conservative” list a cogent argument for what his beef with Beck is. Deflect the argument of who signs your checks by another slam on Beck. Punk. It’s bitches like you that make realize America is too wealthy. Only a society as affluent as ours can afford parasites like you. What do you do for a living? And what’s with the tooth polishing? Is the only “DR” you can think of a dentist? Are you even sure I’m in the health industry? What the hell does the “D” in “JD” stand for, punk? Howzabout the “D” in PhD? Wow. Go to the dentist for your prostate exams, do you?
drballard on March 31, 2009 at 1:02 PM
---------------------------------------------------
Click to go to the article and read more comments

Little Dictators

from INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Congress: The spectacle of the very same people responsible for one of the nation's great financial calamities angling to be given even more control to fix the problem would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Rep. Barney Frank, the Democrat who sits atop Congress' efforts to deal with the financial crisis, has enough chutzpah for 100 politicians — which is saying a lot.

In comments before testimony from both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed chief Ben Bernanke Tuesday, Frank said he wants to regulate pay on Wall Street — even for companies that aren't getting bailouts.

And he called retention bonuses — a time-honored practice on Wall Street and elsewhere in America in which key employees are compensated for their enormous value — "extortion" and "bribes."

Frank, one of the chief architects of the housing mess that's brought us so low, isn't satisfied merely with pretending he and his Democratic pals aren't to blame for all this. No, exploiting voter anger over the now-infamous AIG bonuses, he also wants to dictate to American capitalism what it can earn and what it can't.

This is the kind of thing that normally happens in Third World countries ruled by tinhorn dictators, or in fascist states, where the democratic rule of law has collapsed. Not the U.S.

Yet, that's where we find ourselves today, isn't it? Democrats in Congress, who steadfastly rejected virtually all efforts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they went on the wildest, most irresponsible lending binge in the history of finance, now pose themselves as the saviors of fallen capitalism.

The hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning.

Take Frank. As we've written before, he spearheaded congressional Democrats' efforts in 1992, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2005 to block reform of Fannie and Freddie.

Those two "government-sponsored enterprises" were the nexus of this crisis, holding $5.4 trillion of the $12 trillion in U.S. mortgages, while originating or funding 90% of the subprime market.

Their failures presaged the subsequent financial meltdown from which we're still trying to regain our economic footing.
Click to read the rest of the article

Attention White House and Congressional hacks: If you get caught in bed with a hooker, it's too late to condemn prostitution!

Attention White House and Congressional hacks: You can't go hop into bed with a hooker, have your little party, pay her and then express shock, outrage, condemn the hooker and ask for your money back when the American Taxpayer finds outs what happened.

Considering the financial condition of AIG at the time the bonuses were officially given to their executives, and the fact that the American Taxpayer had already injected billions of dollars into AIG in an attempt to rescue the company, the bonuses were a hideous, immoral example of greed. Unfortunately, the bonuses were legal and contractually agreed upon by all parties.

I'm someone who has seen their 401k destroyed. I can't describe how disgusting it is to watch watch has gone on at AIG, in the White House and in Congress. However, I don't agree with the whiplash legislation to tax the bonuses at a 90% rate.

First of all, the White House, the Federal Reserve and our Congressional Representatives all agreed to the bonuses. Now they're trying to cover their rear end because they see the outrage of the American Taxpayer.

This article by Rep. John Campbell explains why he voted against the legislation for the 90% tax on bailout bonuses. I just read this morning that it appears the bill won't even be voted upon by the Senate. That's the right thing to do. We don't need anymore slippery slopes.
Rees

John Campbell's AIG Tax Vote Explanation

from the website The Club For Growth
by Andrew Roth

Here's Rep. John Campbell's explanation for why he voted "no" on the AIG tax bill. It's very well reasoned and principled.

I firmly opposed and voted “no” on HR 1586. Let’s first understand exactly what the bill does. It imposes a 90% federal income tax on any bonus paid to any employee of any company that has received over $5 Billion in federal rescue funds. Such companies include, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Chase Bank, JP Morgan, CitiBank, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac amongst others. The tax would only apply to people with total joint incomes over $250,000 or single individuals with income of over $125,000. When combined with California Income taxes which now top out at 10.55%, this can be a tax just short of 101% of the income.


Under this law, a bank teller at Wells Fargo could receive a bonus of $1,000 for doing a great job. If that bank teller was married to a physician who made $175,000 and they had some additional investment income, that bank teller would pay a tax of $1,055 on the bonus of $1,000 that they received for doing a good job. This is horrible!

This is not raising revenues, this is punishment. It is a terrible precedent to use the tax laws for punishment. If we go down this road, the government can impose a 100% tax on anyone they don’t like, or anyone they believe is paid too much. Employees of other companies, doing the same thing for the same bonus, will not receive this tax. That probably makes it unconstitutional and I hope it does.

I understand the public outrage over these bonuses and I share much of it. But this is not the way to fix it. Sue them to get the money back. But don’t do this.

You may or may not realize it, but embezzlement income is taxable today, but at normal rates. So if you steal money, you will not have a tax higher than normal. You may be forced to give the money back because you stole it, but it will not be taxed away from you. This bill makes a bonus from Bank of America a more egregious offense under the tax laws than bank robbery.

All of this was caused because we nationalized companies that are created to make a profit. Throughout time, governments have shown themselves to be particularly inept at such an enterprise. This is another example of why.
Click to go to the article

A Presidential Wake-Up Call

from Newsweek
By Eleanor Clift
March 21, 2009

The AIG mess should be a warning to Obama that even popular presidents can squander good will.

Who would have thought 55 days into this administration we would be asking the question, what did he know and when did he know it? Word that a provision in the stimulus bill gave the green light for AIG to hand out bonuses using taxpayer money sent the media bloodhounds hot on the trail of whoever is the culprit. For a time, it looked like Senate Banking chairman Chris Dodd would take the fall, but after 24 hours of twisting in the wind, Dodd said the change that exempted past agreements to pay bonuses was made at the request of the administration.

President Obama likes to remind voters that he inherited a mess, and that's true, but this one is of his own making. And until he comes up with a satisfactory explanation of who did what, when, and why, his credibility will suffer. Forty-eight hours ago, I didn't think Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was in trouble, but if the transaction with Dodd turns out to have Geithner's fingerprints on it, his job could be in jeopardy. The deadly chain of events may have started innocently enough, with Treasury Department lawyers raising questions about the government retroactively curtailing private-sector contracts, but did Dodd, who authored the restrictive language, capitulate to some Treasury flunky, or did someone more senior lean on him?
Click to read the rest of the article

Hannity & Giuliani discuss The Elite Liars Club: Dodd, Geithner, Obama

Look Who Called Out Obama

from the blog Don Surber
March 20, 2009

Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters said President Obama has some ’splainin’ to do over the AIG bonuses.

This is so wrong that it is humorous. Mrs. Waters went out of her way to help get a bailout for the black-owned bank in Boston that once had her husband as a member of its board of directors.

And she is calling out the president?

Glenn Thrush of Politico quoted her from that morning show on MSNBC that no one watches:

“Well, you know, they’ve got some explaining to do and I think the president is going to have to clarify to the American public what took place between Treasury and Mr. Dodd. Obviously there was, appears to have been, some kind of agreement that they would protect the AIG from having to give those bonuses. I don’t know who said what and when. Chris Dodd said he wrote the language but that he was pressured practically by Treasury. Maybe the president is not up to speed on what is going on. But I think it is going to have to be clarified.”

I love it. She should know the answer. It is the Chicago way: Don’t ask, don’t tell.

The whole post is here. With video.
Click to go to the article