by Mary Pitt
The most memorable points made in the McCain/Obama debate, from my lowly viewpoint, was the plight of poor old Joe, the Plumber The story was that Joe has worked for a plumbing company for twelve years, 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Now he wants to buy the company and "give jobs" to other men. He is worried that, should he do well and earn over a quarter of a mil a year, he may have to pay a higher rate of taxes then he would now.
Having some experience in running a small business and having employed up to seven people at any given time, the efforts of both my husband and me never came close to turning that much profit in a year. For that matter, we never, by each holding separate jobs at the same time, our individual wages never matched the figure that Joe has been earning for the past twelve years. Let's do some math:
If Joe has truly worked twelve hours a day for seven days a week, if he was earning union wages, let's say conservatively, $25.00 per hour. Forty hours a week at that rate would garner a gross of $1,000 per week. The additional 44 hours per week would be paid at the overtime rate of $37.50 per hour for an additional $1,650, bringing the total to $2650 per week. Let's say the poor man became so exhausted with that pace that he took a liberal vacation, say four weeks a year, leaving him with 48 weeks per year for an annual gross of $127,200. Not bad, even after deductions for taxes and contributions to the medical plan, (the bulk of which would have been paid by the employer), and, oh yes, let's not forget the onerous Social Security contributions that would have ceased at about the $95,000 mark. Those of us at the bottom of the scale would tend to agree with Senator McCain when he said, "Congratulations, Joe, you're rich!"
But Joe is an ambitious man and he wants to buy the business and give jobs to people. I would suggest that he first consult with a good accountant who can explain to him the business facts of life. He will learn that all the wages he pays will be deductible, including any health insurance he provides for his employees as a perk of the job. Of course, he will be required to pay the Employer's tax for Social Security and other taxes and licenses but those are a part of the cost of doing business and are also deductible.. (Should he opt to forego employee health insurance, those same employees are not allowed to deduct the cost of the plan they will have to carry privately.)
At the end of the year, after the aforesaid accountant closes the books, making all adjustments to the books to be sure Joe gets all the deductions for depreciation on plant and equipment, as well as the rolling stock and finds all the loopholes that are legally allowed, the resultant figure will be the one on which Joe will pay income tax, under the Obama plan and assuming that he clears the magic figure of $250,000 a year, at about the same rate he is paying now on the lesser present-day income. It may compute to a slightly large amount than he is paying today but he would have double the income and could well afford to pay it.
Of course, all this is contingent upon his knowing more about the business than simply how to do the work he is performing now. Many a hard-working, ambitious man in the home service business has done well, decided to own his own business and failed miserably within the first seven years. Let's hope that Joe is not one of them.
But from the worm's-eye view of a worn-out old lady, Joe's attitude simply does not make sense. First, it appears to be stupid to deliberately earn less money because a higher income would result in more income taxes. You see, I am from the generation that learned early in life that being honest and paying taxes is the price for the privilege of living in a nation that allows one the freedom to gain wealth and to better the living standard for one's family. It is a matter of the ultimate expression of patriotism that one does one's duty to one's country whether that duty be serving in the military or simply paying the necessary taxes to sustain a free and democratic government. (Republicans are very big on patriotism these days but it does not extend to taxes.)
If Warren Buffet sees fit to complain that his tax rate is too low for all the privileges that he has enjoyed and the prosperity that he has had the opportunity to earn, surely old Joe the Plumber would be able to do the same. We can only hope that he will then be prepared to pay the proper homage to the nation that provided him with the chance to become truly wealthy and that his mindset can mature to the point that he will do it proudly.
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for "societal perfection".
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
reading comprehension
Let’s take a look at this two clips, shall we? And then we’ll have a quiz.
Congressman asks Justice Dept. about Qwest wiretap charges
By John Godfrey
Last update: 6:45 p.m. EDT Oct. 15, 2007
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/congressman-asks-justice-dept-about/story.aspx?guid=%7BE944A27D-75C3-4D12-8CA4-2C22302AB947%7D
[…]
Once-classified documents that were unveiled in the insider-trading case of Nacchio also suggest the U.S. government didn't offer lucrative contracts to the company after Nacchio refused to cooperate with what the documents call "improper government requests" in February 2001.
The documents, submitted as part of Nacchio's defense in the insider-trading case, don't elaborate on the government requests. Nacchio has said in the past he didn't comply when asked by the National Security Agency, which heads up U.S. electronic surveillance, for access to the private phone records of Qwest customers.
[…]
Speaking from the White House lawn Oct. 10, Bush said Congress must grant liability protection to telephone companies being sued "only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks."
[…]
Republicans wire Xcel Center for political convention
September 2, 2008 7:00 AM PDT
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10029750-38.html
[…]
Qwest Communications, the official communications provider, has laid the groundwork for wireline voice and data services in the Xcel Center. The aggregate data capacity of Qwest's network is about 50 billion bits per second--fast enough to transmit an entire HD movie in just a few seconds.
Though the eight-year-old Xcel Center is modern, as Everett said, Qwest overlaid 100 percent of the wiring in the building. Trent Clausen, Qwest's director of network operations for the RNC, said that the building's age made the transition to Qwest's network "pretty seamless."
[…]
So. Qwest Communications refused to turn over customer records to the bush administration. And bush has said how imperative it is for telecommunication companies to assist “in the efforts to defend our nation”. So, obviously, by implication, Qwest was against the US, because as the bush has said “You’re either with us, or you are against us” That’s pretty plain speaking there.
So then, even though Qwest is totally unrepentent over its attempt to undermine our American values, the republican party hires them to set up the network for their convention. Giving money to those who would undermine our values because they obviously “hate our freedoms.”
And now the quiz.
Doesn’t this mean that mccain and palin are not only “palling around with, not some “old used up terrorist”, but an active terrorist organization, but also funneling money to them so that it can continue its nefarious activities?
Congressman asks Justice Dept. about Qwest wiretap charges
By John Godfrey
Last update: 6:45 p.m. EDT Oct. 15, 2007
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/congressman-asks-justice-dept-about/story.aspx?guid=%7BE944A27D-75C3-4D12-8CA4-2C22302AB947%7D
[…]
Once-classified documents that were unveiled in the insider-trading case of Nacchio also suggest the U.S. government didn't offer lucrative contracts to the company after Nacchio refused to cooperate with what the documents call "improper government requests" in February 2001.
The documents, submitted as part of Nacchio's defense in the insider-trading case, don't elaborate on the government requests. Nacchio has said in the past he didn't comply when asked by the National Security Agency, which heads up U.S. electronic surveillance, for access to the private phone records of Qwest customers.
[…]
Speaking from the White House lawn Oct. 10, Bush said Congress must grant liability protection to telephone companies being sued "only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks."
[…]
Republicans wire Xcel Center for political convention
September 2, 2008 7:00 AM PDT
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10029750-38.html
[…]
Qwest Communications, the official communications provider, has laid the groundwork for wireline voice and data services in the Xcel Center. The aggregate data capacity of Qwest's network is about 50 billion bits per second--fast enough to transmit an entire HD movie in just a few seconds.
Though the eight-year-old Xcel Center is modern, as Everett said, Qwest overlaid 100 percent of the wiring in the building. Trent Clausen, Qwest's director of network operations for the RNC, said that the building's age made the transition to Qwest's network "pretty seamless."
[…]
So. Qwest Communications refused to turn over customer records to the bush administration. And bush has said how imperative it is for telecommunication companies to assist “in the efforts to defend our nation”. So, obviously, by implication, Qwest was against the US, because as the bush has said “You’re either with us, or you are against us” That’s pretty plain speaking there.
So then, even though Qwest is totally unrepentent over its attempt to undermine our American values, the republican party hires them to set up the network for their convention. Giving money to those who would undermine our values because they obviously “hate our freedoms.”
And now the quiz.
Doesn’t this mean that mccain and palin are not only “palling around with, not some “old used up terrorist”, but an active terrorist organization, but also funneling money to them so that it can continue its nefarious activities?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The God That Failed
The 30-Year Lie of the Market Cult
Written by Chris Floyd
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1627-the-god-that-failed-the-30-year-lie-of-the-market-cult.html
Perhaps the most striking fact revealed by the global financial crash -- or rather, by the reaction to it -- is the staggering, astonishing, gargantuan amount of money that the governments of the world have at their command.
In just a matter of days, we have seen literally trillions of dollars offered to the financial services sector by national treasuries and central banks across the globe. Britain alone has put $1 trillion at the disposal of the bankers, traders, lenders and speculators; and this has been surpassed by the total package of public money that Washington is shoveling into the financial furnaces of Wall Street and the banks. These radical efforts are being replicated on a slightly smaller scale in France, Germany, Italy, Russia and many other countries.
The effectiveness of this unprecedented transfer of wealth from ordinary citizens to the top tiers of the business world remains to be seen. It will certainly insulate the very rich from the consequences of their own greed and folly and fraud; but it is not at all clear how much these measures will shield the vast majority of people from the catastrophe that has been visited upon them by the elite.
But putting aside for a moment the actual intent, details and results of the global bailout offers, it is their very extent that shocks, and shows -- in a stark, harsh, all-revealing light -- the brutal disdain with which the national governments of the world's "leading democracies" have treated their own citizens for decades.
Beginning with Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979, government after government -- and party after party -- fell to the onslaught of an extremist faith: the narrow, blinkered fundamentalism of the "Chicago School." Epitomized by its patron saint, Milton Friedman, the rigid doctrine held that an unregulated market would always "correct" itself, because its workings are based on entirely rational and quantifiable principles. This was of course an absurdly reductive and savagely ignorant view of history, money and human nature; but because it flattered the rich and powerful, offering an "intellectual" justification for rapacious greed and ever-widening economic and social inequality, it was adopted as holy writ by the elite and promulgated as public policy.
This radical cult -- a kind of Bolshevism from above -- took its strongest hold in the United States and Britain, and was then imposed on many weaker nations through the IMF-led "Washington Consensus" (more aptly named by Naomi Klein as the "Shock Doctrine"), with devastating and deadly results. (As in Yeltsin's Russia, for example, where life expectancy dropped precipitously and millions of people died premature deaths from poverty, illness, and despair.)
According to the cult, not only were markets to be freed from the constraints placed on them after the world-shattering effects of the Great Depression, but all public spending was to be slashed ruthlessly to the bone. (Although exceptions were always made for the Pentagon war machine.) After all, every dollar spent by a public entity on public services and amenities was a dollar taken away from the private wheeler-dealers who could more usefully employ it in increasing the wealth of the elite -- who would then allow some of their vast profits to "trickle down" to the lower orders.
This was the cult that captured the governments of the United States and Britain (among others), as well as the Republican and Democratic parties, and the Conservative and Labour parties as well. And for almost thirty years, its ruthless doctrines have been put into practice. Regulation and oversight of financial markets were systematically stripped away or rendered toothless. Essential public services were sold off, for chump change, to corporate interests. Public spending on anything other than making war, threatening war and profiting from war was pared back or eliminated. Such public spending that did remain was forever under threat and derided, like the remnants of some pagan faith surviving in isolated backwaters.
Year after year, the ordinary citizens were told by their governments: we have no money to spend on your needs, on your communities, on your infrastructure, on your health, on your children, on your environment, on your quality of life. We can't do those kinds of things any more.
Of course, when talking amongst themselves, or with the believers in the think tanks, boardrooms -- and editorial offices -- the cultists would speak more plainly: we don't do those things anymore because we shouldn't do them, we don't want to do them, they are wrong, they are evil, they are outside the faith. But for the hoi polloi, the line was usually something like this: Budgets are tight, we must balance them (for a "balanced budget" is a core doctrine of the cult), we just can't afford all these luxuries, sorry about that.
But now, as the emptiness and falsity of the Chicago cargo cult stands nakedly revealed, even to some of its most faithful and fanatical adherents, we can see that this 30-year mantra by our governments has been a deliberate and outright lie. The money was there -- billions and billions and billions of dollars of it, trillions of dollars of it. We can see it before our very eyes today -- being whisked away from our public treasuries and showered upon the banks and the brokerages.
Let's say it again: The money was there all along.
Money to build and generously equip thousands and thousands of new schools, with well-paid, exquisitely trained teachers, small teacher-pupil ratios, a full range of enriching and inspiring programs.
Money to revitalize the nation's crumbling inner cities, making them safe and vibrant places for businesses and families and communities to grow.
Money to provide decent, affordable and accessible health care to every citizen, to provide dignity and comfort to the elderly, and protection and humane treatment for the mentally ill.
Money to provide affordable higher education to everyone who wanted it and could qualify for it. Money to help establish and sustain local businesses and family farms, centered in and on the local community, driven by the needs and knowledge of the people in the area, and not by the dictates of distant corporations.
Money to strengthen crumbling infrastructure, to repair bridges, shore up levies, maintain roads and electric grids and sewage systems.
Money for affordable, workable public transport systems, for the pursuit of alternative sources of energy, for sustainable, sensible development, for environmental restoration.
Money to support free inquiry in science, technology, health and other areas -- research unfettered from the war machine and the drive for corporate profit, and instead devoted to the betterment of human life.
Money to support culture, learning, continuing education, libraries, theater, music and the endless manifestations of the human quest to gain more meaning, more understanding, more enlightenment, a deeper, spiritually richer life.
The money for all of this -- and much, much more -- was there, all along. When they said we couldn't have these things, they were lying -- or else allowing themselves to be profitably duped by the high priests of the market cult. When they wanted a trillion dollars -- or three trillion dollars -- to wage a war of aggression in Iraq, they found it. Now, when they want trillions of dollars to save the speculators, fraudsters and profiteers of greed in the global market, they suddenly have it.
Who then can believe that these governments could not have found the money for good schools, health care, and all the rest, that they could not have enhanced the well-being and livelihood of millions of ordinary citizens, and helped create a more just and equitable and stable world -- if they had wanted to?
This is one of the main facts that ordinary citizens around the world should take away from this crisis: the money to maintain, secure and improve the lives of their families and communities was always there -- but their governments, and their political parties, made a deliberate, unforced choice not to use it for the common good. Instead, they subjugated the well-being of the world to the dictates of an extremist cult. A cult of greed and privilege, that preached iron discipline to the poor and the middle-class, but released the rich and powerful from all restrictions, and all responsibility for their actions.
This should be a constant -- and galvanizing -- thought in the minds of the public in the months and years to come. Remember what you could have had, and how it was denied you by the lies and delusions of a powerful elite and their bought-off factotums in government. Remember the trillions of dollars that suddenly appeared when the wheeler-dealers needed money to cover their own greed and stupidity.
Let these thoughts guide you as you weigh the promises and actions of politicians and candidates, and as you assess the "expert analysis" on economic and domestic policy offered by the corporate media and the corporate-bankrolled think tanks and academics.
And above all, let these thoughts be foremost in your mind when you hear -- as you certainly will hear, when (and if) the markets are finally stabilized (at whatever gigantic cost in human suffering) -- the adherents of the market cult emerge once more and call for "deregulation" and "untying the hands of business" and all the other ritual incantations of their false and savage fundamentalist faith.
For although the market cult has suffered a cataclysmic defeat in the last few weeks, it is by no means dead. It has 30 years of entrenchment in power to fall back on. And the leader of every major political party in the West has spent their entire political career within the cult's confines. It has been the atmosphere they breathed, it has been the sole ladder by which they have climbed to prominence. They will be loath to abandon it, once the immediate crisis is past; most will not be able to.
So remember well the lessons of this new October crash: The money to make a better life, to serve the common good, has always been there. But it has been kept from you by deceit, by dogma, by greed, and by the ambition of those who have sold their souls, and betrayed their brothers and sisters, their fellow human creatures, for the sake of privilege and power.
Written by Chris Floyd
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1627-the-god-that-failed-the-30-year-lie-of-the-market-cult.html
Perhaps the most striking fact revealed by the global financial crash -- or rather, by the reaction to it -- is the staggering, astonishing, gargantuan amount of money that the governments of the world have at their command.
In just a matter of days, we have seen literally trillions of dollars offered to the financial services sector by national treasuries and central banks across the globe. Britain alone has put $1 trillion at the disposal of the bankers, traders, lenders and speculators; and this has been surpassed by the total package of public money that Washington is shoveling into the financial furnaces of Wall Street and the banks. These radical efforts are being replicated on a slightly smaller scale in France, Germany, Italy, Russia and many other countries.
The effectiveness of this unprecedented transfer of wealth from ordinary citizens to the top tiers of the business world remains to be seen. It will certainly insulate the very rich from the consequences of their own greed and folly and fraud; but it is not at all clear how much these measures will shield the vast majority of people from the catastrophe that has been visited upon them by the elite.
But putting aside for a moment the actual intent, details and results of the global bailout offers, it is their very extent that shocks, and shows -- in a stark, harsh, all-revealing light -- the brutal disdain with which the national governments of the world's "leading democracies" have treated their own citizens for decades.
Beginning with Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979, government after government -- and party after party -- fell to the onslaught of an extremist faith: the narrow, blinkered fundamentalism of the "Chicago School." Epitomized by its patron saint, Milton Friedman, the rigid doctrine held that an unregulated market would always "correct" itself, because its workings are based on entirely rational and quantifiable principles. This was of course an absurdly reductive and savagely ignorant view of history, money and human nature; but because it flattered the rich and powerful, offering an "intellectual" justification for rapacious greed and ever-widening economic and social inequality, it was adopted as holy writ by the elite and promulgated as public policy.
This radical cult -- a kind of Bolshevism from above -- took its strongest hold in the United States and Britain, and was then imposed on many weaker nations through the IMF-led "Washington Consensus" (more aptly named by Naomi Klein as the "Shock Doctrine"), with devastating and deadly results. (As in Yeltsin's Russia, for example, where life expectancy dropped precipitously and millions of people died premature deaths from poverty, illness, and despair.)
According to the cult, not only were markets to be freed from the constraints placed on them after the world-shattering effects of the Great Depression, but all public spending was to be slashed ruthlessly to the bone. (Although exceptions were always made for the Pentagon war machine.) After all, every dollar spent by a public entity on public services and amenities was a dollar taken away from the private wheeler-dealers who could more usefully employ it in increasing the wealth of the elite -- who would then allow some of their vast profits to "trickle down" to the lower orders.
This was the cult that captured the governments of the United States and Britain (among others), as well as the Republican and Democratic parties, and the Conservative and Labour parties as well. And for almost thirty years, its ruthless doctrines have been put into practice. Regulation and oversight of financial markets were systematically stripped away or rendered toothless. Essential public services were sold off, for chump change, to corporate interests. Public spending on anything other than making war, threatening war and profiting from war was pared back or eliminated. Such public spending that did remain was forever under threat and derided, like the remnants of some pagan faith surviving in isolated backwaters.
Year after year, the ordinary citizens were told by their governments: we have no money to spend on your needs, on your communities, on your infrastructure, on your health, on your children, on your environment, on your quality of life. We can't do those kinds of things any more.
Of course, when talking amongst themselves, or with the believers in the think tanks, boardrooms -- and editorial offices -- the cultists would speak more plainly: we don't do those things anymore because we shouldn't do them, we don't want to do them, they are wrong, they are evil, they are outside the faith. But for the hoi polloi, the line was usually something like this: Budgets are tight, we must balance them (for a "balanced budget" is a core doctrine of the cult), we just can't afford all these luxuries, sorry about that.
But now, as the emptiness and falsity of the Chicago cargo cult stands nakedly revealed, even to some of its most faithful and fanatical adherents, we can see that this 30-year mantra by our governments has been a deliberate and outright lie. The money was there -- billions and billions and billions of dollars of it, trillions of dollars of it. We can see it before our very eyes today -- being whisked away from our public treasuries and showered upon the banks and the brokerages.
Let's say it again: The money was there all along.
Money to build and generously equip thousands and thousands of new schools, with well-paid, exquisitely trained teachers, small teacher-pupil ratios, a full range of enriching and inspiring programs.
Money to revitalize the nation's crumbling inner cities, making them safe and vibrant places for businesses and families and communities to grow.
Money to provide decent, affordable and accessible health care to every citizen, to provide dignity and comfort to the elderly, and protection and humane treatment for the mentally ill.
Money to provide affordable higher education to everyone who wanted it and could qualify for it. Money to help establish and sustain local businesses and family farms, centered in and on the local community, driven by the needs and knowledge of the people in the area, and not by the dictates of distant corporations.
Money to strengthen crumbling infrastructure, to repair bridges, shore up levies, maintain roads and electric grids and sewage systems.
Money for affordable, workable public transport systems, for the pursuit of alternative sources of energy, for sustainable, sensible development, for environmental restoration.
Money to support free inquiry in science, technology, health and other areas -- research unfettered from the war machine and the drive for corporate profit, and instead devoted to the betterment of human life.
Money to support culture, learning, continuing education, libraries, theater, music and the endless manifestations of the human quest to gain more meaning, more understanding, more enlightenment, a deeper, spiritually richer life.
The money for all of this -- and much, much more -- was there, all along. When they said we couldn't have these things, they were lying -- or else allowing themselves to be profitably duped by the high priests of the market cult. When they wanted a trillion dollars -- or three trillion dollars -- to wage a war of aggression in Iraq, they found it. Now, when they want trillions of dollars to save the speculators, fraudsters and profiteers of greed in the global market, they suddenly have it.
Who then can believe that these governments could not have found the money for good schools, health care, and all the rest, that they could not have enhanced the well-being and livelihood of millions of ordinary citizens, and helped create a more just and equitable and stable world -- if they had wanted to?
This is one of the main facts that ordinary citizens around the world should take away from this crisis: the money to maintain, secure and improve the lives of their families and communities was always there -- but their governments, and their political parties, made a deliberate, unforced choice not to use it for the common good. Instead, they subjugated the well-being of the world to the dictates of an extremist cult. A cult of greed and privilege, that preached iron discipline to the poor and the middle-class, but released the rich and powerful from all restrictions, and all responsibility for their actions.
This should be a constant -- and galvanizing -- thought in the minds of the public in the months and years to come. Remember what you could have had, and how it was denied you by the lies and delusions of a powerful elite and their bought-off factotums in government. Remember the trillions of dollars that suddenly appeared when the wheeler-dealers needed money to cover their own greed and stupidity.
Let these thoughts guide you as you weigh the promises and actions of politicians and candidates, and as you assess the "expert analysis" on economic and domestic policy offered by the corporate media and the corporate-bankrolled think tanks and academics.
And above all, let these thoughts be foremost in your mind when you hear -- as you certainly will hear, when (and if) the markets are finally stabilized (at whatever gigantic cost in human suffering) -- the adherents of the market cult emerge once more and call for "deregulation" and "untying the hands of business" and all the other ritual incantations of their false and savage fundamentalist faith.
For although the market cult has suffered a cataclysmic defeat in the last few weeks, it is by no means dead. It has 30 years of entrenchment in power to fall back on. And the leader of every major political party in the West has spent their entire political career within the cult's confines. It has been the atmosphere they breathed, it has been the sole ladder by which they have climbed to prominence. They will be loath to abandon it, once the immediate crisis is past; most will not be able to.
So remember well the lessons of this new October crash: The money to make a better life, to serve the common good, has always been there. But it has been kept from you by deceit, by dogma, by greed, and by the ambition of those who have sold their souls, and betrayed their brothers and sisters, their fellow human creatures, for the sake of privilege and power.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
View of the Debate From the Great Flyover
by Mary Pitt
10/08/08
I was watching the candidates as they deplaned for the debate. First, Obama skipped down the steps alone and galloped over to shake the hands of the flight crew. When the McCains arrived, Cindy walked down the steps first. Only the polite thing to do but something looked different. She walked slowly with her back against him and her hands braced on the rails as if to prevent his pitching forward. Once on the ground, she fell back to walk behind him but she walked very closely with her hand behind his back as if to steady him These little "tells" may not be noticeable to just everyone but, since I so recently was responsible for an elderly, unsteady man, it appeared obvious to me that this campaign has taken a toll on John's strength and they are being very careful to hide that fact from the public. I think you can sometimes tell more about a man's physical health by the solicitude or lack thereof on the part of his wife and the actions of Cindy McCain, millionairess or not, tells me that he is not well.
During the entire debate, the whole performance of McCain was a bit off and off-putting. He behaved like nothing but a churlish old man, insisting that his way is the only way and you young whipper-snappers had better accept his wisdom, based on his vast experiences from fifty years ago. He has been there and he knows what he is doing, whether you like it or not! Strutting around on-stage, flapping his arms like an aquarium seal and giving a performance that brought to mind a frenetic wind-up Mini-Me on meth. From his "new idea" of buying the risky loans from the financial companies and re-writing them so that owners can afford their mortgage payments. (haven't we heard that somewhere before?) to having a "secret plan" to defeat Al Qaida but he's not gonna tell us, we oldsters could only hearken back to Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War. (By the way, that really worked, didn't it?)
When we add to this his assessment of the reasons for the growth of terrorism coming out of Afghanistan, he was simply from outer space, He said that, after the Afghan Freedom Fighters had defeated Russian forces and forced them out of the country, we abandoned that nation and they did resent that. In fact he was almost half right. He neglected to recognize that, for all those grueling years, the Taliban were the Freedom Fighters who kicked Russia from their country but he is right that they resented our abandonment of their country. At the time, our concern was not the nation of Afghanistan but their strategic physical position relative to our struggle against Russia. We trained and helped to fund the Al Qaida troops from Saudi Arabia and sent them in to help the Afghan forces. When they succeeded in the tasks to which we had assigned them, they were discarded like used Kleenex. I wonder why they hate us with such intensity............
On the other hand, the attitude of Obama was all but dismissive. He would lounge atop his stool and smile indulgently as McCain spouted his almost-inane opinions and grandiose proposals, an act of which we all have been guilty when a beloved, belligerent old uncle invokes the Good Ole Days when he was in his prime, the while boring the socks of the youngsters in the room whose reluctant brains are unable to comprehend the society in which the old man insists on living. This assessment may not be so far off the mark, however. Just when I had almost convinced myself that the signs that I had seen of possible physical debilitation or fatigue had possibly led me to an erroneous assumption, the debate ended. Barack and Michelle Obama waded into the audience, shaking hands and posing for candid photos as if that were what they really came to do and the debate was only a delay in the beginning of the festivities.
Cindy McCain collected her husband from the stage and they quietly left the building. How sad that nobody seemed to miss them. It reminded me in a painful way of the quote by General MacArthur, "old soldiers never die, they just fade away." I mourn the fading into irrelevance of all the old soldiers, sailors, and other heroes of my day and the loss of their influence on our lives, political, social, and personal, and especially the little old ladies sitting in the corner and smiling at the antics of the youngsters as they fumble, fail, and eventually find their own new ways of life. If only the old men could develop such an attitude........
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for "societal perfection".
10/08/08
I was watching the candidates as they deplaned for the debate. First, Obama skipped down the steps alone and galloped over to shake the hands of the flight crew. When the McCains arrived, Cindy walked down the steps first. Only the polite thing to do but something looked different. She walked slowly with her back against him and her hands braced on the rails as if to prevent his pitching forward. Once on the ground, she fell back to walk behind him but she walked very closely with her hand behind his back as if to steady him These little "tells" may not be noticeable to just everyone but, since I so recently was responsible for an elderly, unsteady man, it appeared obvious to me that this campaign has taken a toll on John's strength and they are being very careful to hide that fact from the public. I think you can sometimes tell more about a man's physical health by the solicitude or lack thereof on the part of his wife and the actions of Cindy McCain, millionairess or not, tells me that he is not well.
During the entire debate, the whole performance of McCain was a bit off and off-putting. He behaved like nothing but a churlish old man, insisting that his way is the only way and you young whipper-snappers had better accept his wisdom, based on his vast experiences from fifty years ago. He has been there and he knows what he is doing, whether you like it or not! Strutting around on-stage, flapping his arms like an aquarium seal and giving a performance that brought to mind a frenetic wind-up Mini-Me on meth. From his "new idea" of buying the risky loans from the financial companies and re-writing them so that owners can afford their mortgage payments. (haven't we heard that somewhere before?) to having a "secret plan" to defeat Al Qaida but he's not gonna tell us, we oldsters could only hearken back to Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War. (By the way, that really worked, didn't it?)
When we add to this his assessment of the reasons for the growth of terrorism coming out of Afghanistan, he was simply from outer space, He said that, after the Afghan Freedom Fighters had defeated Russian forces and forced them out of the country, we abandoned that nation and they did resent that. In fact he was almost half right. He neglected to recognize that, for all those grueling years, the Taliban were the Freedom Fighters who kicked Russia from their country but he is right that they resented our abandonment of their country. At the time, our concern was not the nation of Afghanistan but their strategic physical position relative to our struggle against Russia. We trained and helped to fund the Al Qaida troops from Saudi Arabia and sent them in to help the Afghan forces. When they succeeded in the tasks to which we had assigned them, they were discarded like used Kleenex. I wonder why they hate us with such intensity............
On the other hand, the attitude of Obama was all but dismissive. He would lounge atop his stool and smile indulgently as McCain spouted his almost-inane opinions and grandiose proposals, an act of which we all have been guilty when a beloved, belligerent old uncle invokes the Good Ole Days when he was in his prime, the while boring the socks of the youngsters in the room whose reluctant brains are unable to comprehend the society in which the old man insists on living. This assessment may not be so far off the mark, however. Just when I had almost convinced myself that the signs that I had seen of possible physical debilitation or fatigue had possibly led me to an erroneous assumption, the debate ended. Barack and Michelle Obama waded into the audience, shaking hands and posing for candid photos as if that were what they really came to do and the debate was only a delay in the beginning of the festivities.
Cindy McCain collected her husband from the stage and they quietly left the building. How sad that nobody seemed to miss them. It reminded me in a painful way of the quote by General MacArthur, "old soldiers never die, they just fade away." I mourn the fading into irrelevance of all the old soldiers, sailors, and other heroes of my day and the loss of their influence on our lives, political, social, and personal, and especially the little old ladies sitting in the corner and smiling at the antics of the youngsters as they fumble, fail, and eventually find their own new ways of life. If only the old men could develop such an attitude........
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for "societal perfection".
Monday, October 06, 2008
issues and slime
Sure, Barack Obama knows somebody who was a radical 40 years ago when Obama was 8. We all do, even you, john. But, you, john, were a traitor during that time. Remember those anti-American propaganda movies you made for the Vietnamese while you were a POW? Hey, don’t give me any crap about being tortured. There were a whole lot more of your fellow POW’s who stayed true to their country, while undergoing far worse torture than you did.
and, sarah, how’s about we talk about the traitor you sleep with, and allegedly had children by? You know about the Alaska Independent Party’s hatred of America, and it’s desire to secede. You should, you and your husband are involved with it.
Well, listen.
The DOW is down 24% since Jan 1.
270 more US military were killed in Iraq since Jan 1.
2.2 million more American workers have lost their jobs since Jan 1.
Factories are closing, people are losing their homes, their savings, their health insurance.
Our country’s infrastructure is falling apart, and so are our schools.
We don’t have time for any more of your bullshit.
and, sarah, how’s about we talk about the traitor you sleep with, and allegedly had children by? You know about the Alaska Independent Party’s hatred of America, and it’s desire to secede. You should, you and your husband are involved with it.
Well, listen.
The DOW is down 24% since Jan 1.
270 more US military were killed in Iraq since Jan 1.
2.2 million more American workers have lost their jobs since Jan 1.
Factories are closing, people are losing their homes, their savings, their health insurance.
Our country’s infrastructure is falling apart, and so are our schools.
We don’t have time for any more of your bullshit.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
well, as long as palin wants to bring it up...
Palin hits Obama for 'terrorist' connection
10/4/08
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/index.html
ENGLEWOOD, Colorado (CNN) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Saturday slammed Sen. Barack Obama's political relationship with a former anti-war radical, accusing him of associating "with terrorists who targeted their own country."
Palin's attack delivered on the McCain campaign's announcement that it would step up attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate with just a month left before the November general election.
"We see America as the greatest force for good in this world," Palin said at a fund-raising event in Colorado, adding, "Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Palin made similar comments later at a rally in Carson, California.
[...]
With friends like these ...
McCain finds his own radical friend
Steve Chapman
May 4, 2008
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6061828.column
Can a presidential candidate justify a long and friendly relationship with someone who, back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology -- and who has never shown remorse or admitted error? When the candidate in question is Barack Obama, John McCain says no. But when the candidate in question is John McCain, he's not so sure.
Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.
How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.
Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?
Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."
All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.
In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."
He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.
Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy -- or celebrating his service to their common cause.
How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.
That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.
10/4/08
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/index.html
ENGLEWOOD, Colorado (CNN) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Saturday slammed Sen. Barack Obama's political relationship with a former anti-war radical, accusing him of associating "with terrorists who targeted their own country."
Palin's attack delivered on the McCain campaign's announcement that it would step up attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate with just a month left before the November general election.
"We see America as the greatest force for good in this world," Palin said at a fund-raising event in Colorado, adding, "Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Palin made similar comments later at a rally in Carson, California.
[...]
With friends like these ...
McCain finds his own radical friend
Steve Chapman
May 4, 2008
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6061828.column
Can a presidential candidate justify a long and friendly relationship with someone who, back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology -- and who has never shown remorse or admitted error? When the candidate in question is Barack Obama, John McCain says no. But when the candidate in question is John McCain, he's not so sure.
Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.
How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.
Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?
Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."
All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.
In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."
He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.
Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy -- or celebrating his service to their common cause.
How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.
That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.
Where Is Justice?
by Mary Pitt
Friday, October 03, 2008 11:18 PM
As a small voice from the back of the room, I have one question regarding the discovery of the illiquidity of all the huge corporate conglomerates who have taken over the finances of this ostensibly democratic nation. When is somebody going to jail?
Now, I don't profess to truly understand the ins and outs of our financial system and I have absolutely no concept of anything over a million of anything. I think I am in good company as you would be safe in assuming that the majority of the American people are in the same boat as I. However, those of us with intact brain cells do remember the Enron fiasco when Congressional hearings were held which exposed the various forms of chicanery which had been perpetrated by the corporate moguls and their compliant accountants. It seems that they had engaged in what they termed "creative accounting" in order to induce pigeons, (pardon me, investors), to continue to trust them with trust funds and other forms of financial donations. We watched with a sense of irony as first one and then another of the perpetrators were marched off to the Federal Country Clubs. (But our money was still gone.)
Now we learn that the same sort of underhanded and blatantly dishonest business practices had brought down many of those companies who had been entrusted with the very lifeblood of our capitalist financial and political system. They had created false balance sheets which listed the packages of home, auto, small business, and miscellaneous loans which had been issued to patently and obviously poor credit risks at their face value rather than discounting them due to the likelihood that a large percentage of them would default. This created the false image of a company in robust health and highly eligible for the consideration by potential investors.
The only reason we have heard advanced as to the reasons for this perfidy have to do with the eligibility of the corporate officers to draw bonuses, raises, and parachutes with a higher carat of gold content. which only further drained the corporate coffers and caused the business foundation to shake still more. It was only when the whole house of cards was preparing to come down around the ears of the entire system was this condition uncovered by the oblivious souls who were in the position of guardians of the public good, who had been blithely watching the stock market go up and up.
We have been told that it is our fault for borrowing or buying things we could not afford. Shame on us that, if we were searching for a new home with a limited budget, that the fast-talking sales person told us that they had access to “creative financing” which would allow us to pay the interest only for the first two years to allow us time to get our feet under us before having to start paying on the principle. Or shame on us when we went shopping for a used car to replace the old one that had just gasped its last and the slick salesman said that, by the same method, we could afford to drive away in “this little baby right here”. And shame on us when our bank told us that Adjustable Rate Loan was the newest thing and had many advantages. Double-shame that we fell for the easy credit card approvals that appeared in our mail regularly. Well, now we have to pay for those mistakes, in spades!
Rather than to risk the collapse from spreading to the international market with the dollar sinking into oblivion, we were told that it would be necessary to obligate the American taxpayers for generations to come for buying out those worthless loans and putting right the condition of these companies. Now, I could be wrong and I readily admit to naiveté in these matters, but I felt it would have been as productive and more fair to the American people if the government were to take them into Federal receivership, terminate without severance pay all the people involved in the conspiracy to defraud, and set the firms on the right path before releasing them back to the control of the shareholders.
However, we must assume that Congress knows best and chose to take another path and the American people will have the opportunity to judge their actions in the upcoming election. While the Congresspersons are at home campaigning, perhaps we will be able to ask them to further account for their reasoning and explain their actions. There are many questions that the wage slaves and others who feel disconnected from the nuts and bolts of managing our futures would like answered if answers there be. Among them are:
Why, when we lose our jobs or have a medical catastrophe do we not receive any assistance from the government until our resources are so depleted that we qualify for welfare?
Why was it necessary to make the bankruptcy court so restrictive that relief was all but unavailable through that action?
And, oh, so many more questions why we, the people, are treated so much less generously than the multi-billion dollar corporations. If we make a simple mistake on our income taxes, the vaunted accountants from the Internal Revenue Service fall upon us like so many fire ants and we pay up or go to jail and they will follow us to the ends of the earth to collect every penny, costing us out job or profession and ruining our families forever after. Yet, those who are engaged in such corporate criminality are allowed to float away in their golden parachutes and dwell forever after on the Riviera.
Again, I can only ask, when is somebody going to jail for this?
Friday, October 03, 2008 11:18 PM
As a small voice from the back of the room, I have one question regarding the discovery of the illiquidity of all the huge corporate conglomerates who have taken over the finances of this ostensibly democratic nation. When is somebody going to jail?
Now, I don't profess to truly understand the ins and outs of our financial system and I have absolutely no concept of anything over a million of anything. I think I am in good company as you would be safe in assuming that the majority of the American people are in the same boat as I. However, those of us with intact brain cells do remember the Enron fiasco when Congressional hearings were held which exposed the various forms of chicanery which had been perpetrated by the corporate moguls and their compliant accountants. It seems that they had engaged in what they termed "creative accounting" in order to induce pigeons, (pardon me, investors), to continue to trust them with trust funds and other forms of financial donations. We watched with a sense of irony as first one and then another of the perpetrators were marched off to the Federal Country Clubs. (But our money was still gone.)
Now we learn that the same sort of underhanded and blatantly dishonest business practices had brought down many of those companies who had been entrusted with the very lifeblood of our capitalist financial and political system. They had created false balance sheets which listed the packages of home, auto, small business, and miscellaneous loans which had been issued to patently and obviously poor credit risks at their face value rather than discounting them due to the likelihood that a large percentage of them would default. This created the false image of a company in robust health and highly eligible for the consideration by potential investors.
The only reason we have heard advanced as to the reasons for this perfidy have to do with the eligibility of the corporate officers to draw bonuses, raises, and parachutes with a higher carat of gold content. which only further drained the corporate coffers and caused the business foundation to shake still more. It was only when the whole house of cards was preparing to come down around the ears of the entire system was this condition uncovered by the oblivious souls who were in the position of guardians of the public good, who had been blithely watching the stock market go up and up.
We have been told that it is our fault for borrowing or buying things we could not afford. Shame on us that, if we were searching for a new home with a limited budget, that the fast-talking sales person told us that they had access to “creative financing” which would allow us to pay the interest only for the first two years to allow us time to get our feet under us before having to start paying on the principle. Or shame on us when we went shopping for a used car to replace the old one that had just gasped its last and the slick salesman said that, by the same method, we could afford to drive away in “this little baby right here”. And shame on us when our bank told us that Adjustable Rate Loan was the newest thing and had many advantages. Double-shame that we fell for the easy credit card approvals that appeared in our mail regularly. Well, now we have to pay for those mistakes, in spades!
Rather than to risk the collapse from spreading to the international market with the dollar sinking into oblivion, we were told that it would be necessary to obligate the American taxpayers for generations to come for buying out those worthless loans and putting right the condition of these companies. Now, I could be wrong and I readily admit to naiveté in these matters, but I felt it would have been as productive and more fair to the American people if the government were to take them into Federal receivership, terminate without severance pay all the people involved in the conspiracy to defraud, and set the firms on the right path before releasing them back to the control of the shareholders.
However, we must assume that Congress knows best and chose to take another path and the American people will have the opportunity to judge their actions in the upcoming election. While the Congresspersons are at home campaigning, perhaps we will be able to ask them to further account for their reasoning and explain their actions. There are many questions that the wage slaves and others who feel disconnected from the nuts and bolts of managing our futures would like answered if answers there be. Among them are:
Why, when we lose our jobs or have a medical catastrophe do we not receive any assistance from the government until our resources are so depleted that we qualify for welfare?
Why was it necessary to make the bankruptcy court so restrictive that relief was all but unavailable through that action?
And, oh, so many more questions why we, the people, are treated so much less generously than the multi-billion dollar corporations. If we make a simple mistake on our income taxes, the vaunted accountants from the Internal Revenue Service fall upon us like so many fire ants and we pay up or go to jail and they will follow us to the ends of the earth to collect every penny, costing us out job or profession and ruining our families forever after. Yet, those who are engaged in such corporate criminality are allowed to float away in their golden parachutes and dwell forever after on the Riviera.
Again, I can only ask, when is somebody going to jail for this?
Friday, October 03, 2008
hanky panky
Paulson's Reasons for Delaying Day of Reckoning
by Jonathan Weil
10/3/08
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_weil&sid=aMaWyNFImi4o
Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) -- If you think this bailout is expensive, just wait until you see the next one.
The $700 billion rescue plan approved by the U.S. Senate won't fix the core problem with the nation's ailing financial institutions. And it almost guarantees that you and I will have to pony up for an even costlier bailout someday, maybe soon, if the House of Representatives passes it tomorrow.
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has correctly identified the quandary: Lots of shaky banks and insurance companies are showing strangely high values for assets that aren't worth squat in the market. Many need more capital and can't raise it. And he's right in saying the outlook is grim if we don't get this fixed.
What's stunning is how little the taxpayers would get in return for their money under Paulson's package, and how illusory much of the banks' newly minted capital would be.
Under the plan, Treasury would buy some companies' troubled assets at above-market values. To boost their capital, Paulson would have to pay the companies more than what their balance sheets say the assets are worth. Then other companies would use the rigged prices to write up, or avoid writing down, the values of similar holdings on their own books.
So, the taxpayers get hosed on the asset purchases. Other banks use the trumped-up prices to cook their books. And investor confidence supposedly is restored.
That brings us to this question: Why would a smart guy like Hank Paulson -- the former boss of Goldman Sachs -- advance such a dumb, shady plan? Let us count the reasons:
No. 1: It delays our national reckoning until after the presidential election.
Paulson first floated a bailout Sept. 18, at the very hour when shares of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley looked like they might go into a death spiral. It's not so much a bailout, as it is a timeout. He had to follow up with something, anything, to stop the freefall from resuming. It didn't have to make sense.
So it doesn't. The plan is about creating the illusion of stronger financial institutions, not strengthening them.
The banks know this. Otherwise, they would have stopped charging each other near-record rates for three-month loans by now. The reason they haven't is because they're still afraid their customers -- other banks -- might go broke.
No. 2: The reckoning will be worse than you can imagine.
If Paulson were serious about recapitalizing rickety U.S. banks, he would infuse them with hundreds of billions of dollars of fresh government money, in exchange for ownership stakes. And if he wanted to create market liquidity for all those troubled assets on their books, he would be ordering banks to disclose everything there is to know about them, so Mr. Market could figure out their present value.
He can't let that happen. Not now. If everyone could see how much the toxic waste is worth, the writedowns would be so huge that many banks would have to be declared insolvent.
Better to let the next administration deal with the clean- up. The trouble is, the longer the government waits to address the banks' lack of capital, the worse it gets, barring a miracle.
No. 3: He's helping his friends.
Is there any doubt? Let's see.
As of yesterday, Morgan Stanley Chief Executive John Mack owned 2.75 million shares of his company's stock, valued at about $67 million. If Mack can get Morgan Stanley to trade reams of sketchy paper for billions of dollars of our Treasury's cash, without diluting any of his stake in the company, who benefits?
Paulson would have us believe it's you.
No. 4: There's an excellent chance the Congress will pass it. Leave someone else to figure out the costs another day.
by Jonathan Weil
10/3/08
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_weil&sid=aMaWyNFImi4o
Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) -- If you think this bailout is expensive, just wait until you see the next one.
The $700 billion rescue plan approved by the U.S. Senate won't fix the core problem with the nation's ailing financial institutions. And it almost guarantees that you and I will have to pony up for an even costlier bailout someday, maybe soon, if the House of Representatives passes it tomorrow.
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has correctly identified the quandary: Lots of shaky banks and insurance companies are showing strangely high values for assets that aren't worth squat in the market. Many need more capital and can't raise it. And he's right in saying the outlook is grim if we don't get this fixed.
What's stunning is how little the taxpayers would get in return for their money under Paulson's package, and how illusory much of the banks' newly minted capital would be.
Under the plan, Treasury would buy some companies' troubled assets at above-market values. To boost their capital, Paulson would have to pay the companies more than what their balance sheets say the assets are worth. Then other companies would use the rigged prices to write up, or avoid writing down, the values of similar holdings on their own books.
So, the taxpayers get hosed on the asset purchases. Other banks use the trumped-up prices to cook their books. And investor confidence supposedly is restored.
That brings us to this question: Why would a smart guy like Hank Paulson -- the former boss of Goldman Sachs -- advance such a dumb, shady plan? Let us count the reasons:
No. 1: It delays our national reckoning until after the presidential election.
Paulson first floated a bailout Sept. 18, at the very hour when shares of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley looked like they might go into a death spiral. It's not so much a bailout, as it is a timeout. He had to follow up with something, anything, to stop the freefall from resuming. It didn't have to make sense.
So it doesn't. The plan is about creating the illusion of stronger financial institutions, not strengthening them.
The banks know this. Otherwise, they would have stopped charging each other near-record rates for three-month loans by now. The reason they haven't is because they're still afraid their customers -- other banks -- might go broke.
No. 2: The reckoning will be worse than you can imagine.
If Paulson were serious about recapitalizing rickety U.S. banks, he would infuse them with hundreds of billions of dollars of fresh government money, in exchange for ownership stakes. And if he wanted to create market liquidity for all those troubled assets on their books, he would be ordering banks to disclose everything there is to know about them, so Mr. Market could figure out their present value.
He can't let that happen. Not now. If everyone could see how much the toxic waste is worth, the writedowns would be so huge that many banks would have to be declared insolvent.
Better to let the next administration deal with the clean- up. The trouble is, the longer the government waits to address the banks' lack of capital, the worse it gets, barring a miracle.
No. 3: He's helping his friends.
Is there any doubt? Let's see.
As of yesterday, Morgan Stanley Chief Executive John Mack owned 2.75 million shares of his company's stock, valued at about $67 million. If Mack can get Morgan Stanley to trade reams of sketchy paper for billions of dollars of our Treasury's cash, without diluting any of his stake in the company, who benefits?
Paulson would have us believe it's you.
No. 4: There's an excellent chance the Congress will pass it. Leave someone else to figure out the costs another day.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)