Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Websites and blogs I recommend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(353)
-
▼
April
(37)
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, April 30, 2010
- The Barkerburger...
- The Rise of China... The Decline of America
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, April 29, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, April 28, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, April 26, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., April 24 & 25, 2010
- Well... Well... Well... Looky What I Just Found!
- The Truth Concerning the Dodd Bill
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, April 23, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, April 22, 2010
- GM and the Bush/Obama "New" Economy
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, April 21, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, April 20, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, April 19, 2010
- What Is This Man's Malfunction...???
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., April 17 & 18
- Rob's Thread
- Friday Newsbites: April 16, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, April 15, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, April 14, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, April 13, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, April 12, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., April 10 & 11
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, April 9, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, April 8, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, April 7, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, April 6, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, April 5, 2010
- The Oil Bubble Had Better Pop Soon Or...
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun. April 3 & 4, 2010
- Happy Easter!
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, April 2, 2010
- There's a Reason I Read Buchanan... And You Should...
- Happy Two Month Anniversary!
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, April 1, 2010
-
▼
April
(37)
About Me
- William R. Barker
- Pearl River, NY High School Class of '81; Northeastern University, Boston, MA Class of '87.
25 comments:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_on_bi_ge/us_foreclosure_rates
A record number of U.S. homes were lost to foreclosure in the first three months of this year... RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday that the number of U.S. homes taken over by banks jumped 35% in the first quarter from a year ago.
In addition, households facing foreclosure grew 16% in the same period and 7% from the last three months of 2009.
* THE OBAMA "RECOVERY" CONTINUES AT FULL SPEED! (*SMIRK*)
More homes were taken over by banks and scheduled for a foreclosure sale than in any quarter going back to at least January 2005, when RealtyTrac began reporting the data, the firm said. "We're right now on pace to see more than 1 million bank repossessions this year," said Rick Sharga, a RealtyTrac senior vice president.
* THE OBAMA "RECOVERY" CONTINUES AT FULL SPEED! (*SMIRK*)
That is so disingenuous. Are you unaware that various Dems are proposing legislation to help homeowners facing foreclosure, and that GOP types are rallying against another such "bailout." You can't have it both ways. It's like being against abortion, but also being against the birth control that would prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Obama has been in office less than 18 months. Anybody who is facing foreclosure today got his mortgage under the Bushie regime.
And I'd like you to show me that the majority of those facing foreclosure now are not greedy yuppies who took out mortgages they couldn't afford, hoping to flip those houses, and then got caught by the bursted bubble. I really don't think that most of those being evicted are minority ghetto-dwellers at this point. They would have been the first to go.
Rob.
NOTHING I impart is "disingenuous."
Nada.
Zip.
Zilch.
I provide links backtracking each and every post and my commentary (interspaced) is clearly marked.
You're free to challenge citable facts with citable facts any time, bud.
You're free to offer competing analysis as you see fit.
(*SHRUG*)
But don't give me this crap that I'm being "disingenuous" simply based upon you wanting to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality.
(*SMIRK*) (*DISGUSTED SNORT*)
You ask me if I'm "unaware that various Dems are proposing legislation to help homeowners...?"
Obviously not, Rob. (*SNORT*) I've posted news excerpt after news excerpt, analysis after analysis on these... er... "proposals."
I posted the factual information of how the various policies have actually worked (or NOT worked as is the reality!) in the real world as well as advancing the philosophical argument against bailouts and what I consider to be theft and clear violations of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
(*SMIRK*)
Jeezus, Rob, is you goal to appear the hypocrite or is this simply yet more evidence that you live in a fantasy world where if you close your eyes, jam your fingers in your ears, and keep shouting "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah" you can avoid LEARNING anything...???
Rob. The building blocks of knowledge and wisdom are contained within Barker's Newsbites.
(*WINK*) (*GRIN*)
Read and absorb... or read and refuse to believe what's before your eyes. (*SHRUG*) Your choice...
BILL
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/May/Pages/ManyMoreDefenseProgramsWillEndUpLikeJSF.aspx
The breathless hype over the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s soaring costs and schedule slips clouds a much bigger acquisition predicament for the Pentagon: How to stop more programs from ending up like JSF.
[A] fatal flaw in the weapons acquisition process: It is hopelessly slow and unresponsive to the military’s rapidly changing needs.
Because it takes years or even decades to bring a weapon system to fruition, it gets redesigned so much that invariably it results in sticker shock. Every change, no matter how small, runs up a huge tab. When a program spans 10 to 12 years, and hundreds of modifications are made, as has been the case with the F-35, it is no surprise that costs spin out of control.
[Beyond cost concerns] a 12-year cycle may be acceptable for some niche far-out technologies, but not for mainstream weapons.
The pattern will repeat itself in other programs. Most of the Pentagon’s largest and most expensive systems still operate under rules that make it virtually impossible to deliver new hardware in less than a decade.
“We have an acquisition system which still has Cold War vestiges. … It was designed to prepare for a future war, rather than to conduct a current war,” said Ashton Carter, the Pentagon’s chief procurement official.
“We’ll be dealing with the same issues as long as we have the same JCIDS process,” said a senior Air Force official who asked to not be quoted by name, referring to the evaluation of future weapons requirements, also known as the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System. JCIDS deliberately emphasizes analysis and risk avoidance at the expense of speed, said Col. Timothy Chyma, a member of the Army acquisition corps.
JCIDS normally takes five to nine years - depending on the complexity - from the time a new system is requested until a solution is delivered. After the studies are completed, it takes another year at best to have the requirement approved, and then a system has to compete for funding within an intricate budget-planning process, which could take another three years. By comparison, the Army’s “rapid equipping force,” or REF, can turn out systems in seven to 15 months, Chyma said at a Brookings Institution seminar.
REF can do this because it is small, has access to funding within the same year it wants to make a purchase and, most importantly, it interacts directly with the units in the field so it understands their needs far better than the traditional procurement administrator.
The biggest advantage of REF is that all the functional areas are under one organization: requirements, technical expertise, program management and contracting. REF only buys small quantities and selects relatively mature technology, so the financial risk is low. “This is something the Army should embrace” in long-term modernization programs, Chyma said.
http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/04/obama_administr.html
Obama administration officials today are asking Congress to axe tax incentives for oil, gas and coal, while renewing credits for biofuels, solar power and other renewable energy sources.
But Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) argued that repealing tax incentives long enjoyed by oil and natural gas producers would only make the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy sources and suppress efforts to extract natural gas from shale plays nationwide.
He noted that in 2007, 85% of the nation's energy demand was supplied by gas, coal and oil; nuclear supplied 8% and renewable sources such as hydropower, solar and wind provided the remaining 7%.
"You cannot increase the cost of producing 85% of the energy being used today and expect consumers or employers to benefit from tax incentives that are going to less than 10% of the energy being used today," Camp said.
* DOES KINDA MAKE SENSE... DOESN'T IT...??? (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) questioned the fairness of ending subsidies for one energy sector at the expense of another. "Why is it okay to have incentives for green technologies (and not) domestic oil and gas production?" he wondered.
* PERSONALLY, I DON'T WANT TO SUBSIDIZE ANY OF IT, BUT THAT SAID... DEALING WITH OBAMA'S ACTUAL PROPOSAL... THE ANSWER TO NUNES' QUESTION IS "IT SHOULDN'T BE OK!"
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) said "Washington bureaucrats (shouldn't be) picking winners and losers."
* AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE!
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) [noted] "I see a distinction between an Exxon Mobil - which last year reported over $45 billion of profits and reported a tax liability of zero . . . and a small independent operator somewhere in the country responsible for finding most of the new (energy)."
* YEAH... ME TOO... BUT THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE TALKING A COMMODITY - A WORLD MARKET COMMODITY. EVEN HURTING ONE RATHER THAN BOTH STILL LEAVES CONSUMERS FACING PRICE INCREASES - NO?
T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire energy investor who chairs BP Capital and wants to see Congress enact incentives to spur the use of liquefied natural gas as a transportation fuel, added his voice to the choir. "Don't tax the industry at this point," he told the Ways and Means Committee. "It's not time to tax the domestic oil industry. If you want to tax something, tax either foreign oil or tax gasoline, but do not take away from this industry in this country at a critical time, when we are trying to get off of OPEC oil and get on our own resources."
* YEAH. EASY FOR PICKENS TO SAY. IF GAS WERE $1,000 A GALLON HE COULD STILL AFFORD TO JOYRIDE 24/7/365. (*SMIRK*)
* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... MORE ENERGY AT CHEAPER PRICES - THAT'S THE GOAL! (OR AT LEAST IT SHOULD BE! IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, OBAMA'S GOAL IS JUST THE OPPOSITE - LESS ENERGY AT MORE EXPENSIVE PRICES; THE MAN IS AN ENVIRONMENT IDEOLOGUE.)
http://taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=3438&action=Headlines%20About%20TCS
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) withdrew his fiscal 2011 earmark requests Wednesday... "I realize I am one junior senator in the minority, but given our country's fiscal condition, I could not in good conscience keep my name next to any earmark requests this year," Corker said in a statement. "It is not necessarily the overall cost of federal earmarks, which represents a very small portion of the overall budget that poses a problem; it's the process, which is fundamentally flawed and lacks oversight."
Corker withdrew his requests in a letter to top members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
He joins Sens. John McCain (R-AZ0, Jim DeMint (R-SC), Tom Coburn R-OK) and Mike Johanns R-NE) in eschewing earmark requests.
DeMint and others have called for Senate Republicans to take a break from earmarks; House Republicans have already been asked by their leaders to not take earmarks this year.
Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Thune of South Dakota said that while earmarks account for a fraction of federal spending, Republican efforts to denounce what they call Democratic deficits are complicated by "the perception" that earmarks contribute to the deficit.
Many Senate Republicans express irritation with colleagues who avoid earmarks, arguing the money is spent regardless and will otherwise be directed by federal agencies.
"It's ridiculous," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), "They are letting President Obama decide how to spend the money for them. I trust myself more than him."
* AND THIS IS A PRINCIPLED STAND... I CAN SEE THE LOGIC (INDEED, RON PAUL IN THE HOUSE AGREES WITH INHOFE).
* THAT SAID, I'M PERSONALLY ALIGNED WITH THE "ANTI-EARMARK" CROWD. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THE NEGATIVES OF THE EXISTING EARMARK SYSTEM FAR OUTWEIGH THE POSITIVES. (*SHRUG*)
http://taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=3430&action=Headlines%20About%20TCS
A USA TODAY analysis of this year's spending bills found Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky ranked among the top 15 lawmakers who sponsored earmarks for private companies.
Reid was the sole sponsor of $20.7 million in earmarks for companies in his home state...
McConnell directed $21.4 million to companies in his state....
By contrast, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California had one earmark worth $3 million for a San Francisco-based biopharmaceutical company...
House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio had none. (Boehner has a policy of not requesting any earmarks.)
House Republican leaders decided to forgo all earmark requests this year, although four GOP lawmakers have defied their leadership by requesting money for their districts anyway.
* RON PAUL (R-TX); ANH "JOSEPH" CAO (R-LA); DON YOUNG (R-AK) AND HENRY BROWN (R-SC).
In the above rant, you addressed not one point that I made. The whole thing is ad hominem, and therefore, fruitless.
You don't seem to be able to draw the distinction between process (which isn't dependents on "facts") and substance (which is verifiable empirically.)
You therefore miss the Big Picture, because your nose is always to the ground, peering through a magnifying glass at a limited range of details.
What I'm speaking of is pattern recognition. You analyze everthing by minutely examining the make-up of today's snapshot.
ROB WRITES...
"In the above rant, you addressed not one point that I made."
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Rob... again... it's all in the newsbites... my blog postings archived.
(*SHRUG*) (*SMILE*)
Rob. LEARN! "Exploit" my newsbites. "Exploit" all my hard work! It's all yours... free... the links are there if you want to "bypass" my "editing."
(*CHUCKLE*)
Truly, I don't know what else to tell you.
ROB CONTINUES (ON A SUBSEQUENT POST)...
"What I'm speaking of is pattern recognition."
(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
Funny... me too! My newsbites serve as the path for following "the pattern."
(*SHRUG*)
Rob. I know you honestly BELIEVE you're making some sort of point...
(*SHRUG*)
But I just don't see it; all I read is babbling. Other than making it clear you're irritated by the facts and analysis I present, I'm at a loss to identify any rebuttal offered.
(*SHRUG*)
I don't mean this to be an "ad hominem;" I'm simply being honest with you.
BILL
http://blog.american.com/?p=12786
One thing can be said about the current debate over the administration’s financial regulation plan, or at least Senator Chris Dodd’s version: the debate has sharpened the issues so that Dodd, the Democrats, and the administration can no longer hide behind slogans.
Does the bill, as [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell (R-KY) said, “institutionalize too big to fail?”
Of course. There can’t be any reasonable doubt about this.
The bill authorizes the Fed to regulate all non-bank financial institutions that are “systemically important” or might cause instability in the U.S. financial system if they failed. These words mean something - that the companies designated for Fed regulation are too big to fail. It’s so obvious that it should not have to be repeated, but it seems that Dodd and the administration believe that as long as they don’t actually say these companies are too big to fail no one will notice.
(*SNORT*)
* THING IS... AS LONG AS THE MSM REFERS TO THE DODD PLAN AS "REFORM" AND DELIBERATELY SKEWS THEIR REPORTING AND "ANALYSIS" TO BUTTRESS THE DEMOCRATS POSITION... (*SHRUG*) UNDERSTAND... SUPPORT FROM AND COVER BY THE MSM MEANS THAT IF THIS IS INDEED DODD AND THE ADMINISTRATION'S BELIEF... WELL... THEIR "BET" IS NOT AS CRAZY AS IT SOUNDS.
The market will see immediately that the government has created Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs in every sector of the financial system where these large companies are designated for Fed regulation, including insurance companies, hedge funds, finance companies, bank holding companies, securities firms, and any other kind of financial institution the government wants to regulate.
(*SHRUG*)
* YES... BUT "THE MARKET" ISN'T THE ONE WITH THE UP OR DOWN VOTE ON THE LEGISLATION. (*SIGH*)
Since these firms will be too big to fail, they will be seen in the market - as Fannie and Freddie were seen - as ultimately backed by the government and thus safer firms to lend to than small firms that are not government backed. This will permanently distort the financial market, favoring large companies over small ones, and eventually force a consolidation of each market where these firms exist into a few large competitors operating under the benign supervision of the government.
* AND SELF-INTERESTED POLITICIANS SEEKING THIS NEW POWER WOULD OBJECT... (*PAUSE*)... WHY...???
* THIS IS THEIR OBJECTIVE, FOLKS! THEY WANT THE POWER! THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS HOW THIS "DISTORTS" FINANCIAL MARKETS. (BTW... WHAT FEDERAL JOB DO YOU THINK OBAMA WILL GIVE FORMER-SENATOR DODD COME NEXT YEAR...???)
Does the bill, as McConnell has said, provide for permanent bailouts?
Yes, again without question.
[P]aying off the creditors when the government takes over a failing firm is a bailout. It doesn’t matter that the management lose their jobs, or that the shareholders get nothing. When the creditors are aware that they will get a better deal with the failure of a large company than they will get with a small one that goes the ordinary route to bankruptcy, that is a bailout.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/16/americas_constitutionalist_revolt_105195.html
So much is being written in the mainstream media about who the tea partiers are, but very little is being recorded about what these folks are actually saying.
We know that this is a decentralized grassroots movement, with many different voices hailing from many different towns across the country. But the tea-party message comes together in the "Contract From America," the product of an online vote orchestrated by Ryan Hecker, a Houston tea-party activist and national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots.
With nearly 500,000 votes recorded in less than two months, this Contract forms a blueprint of tea-party policy goals and beliefs.
Of the top-10 planks in the Contract, the No. 1 issue is protect the Constitution. That's followed by reject cap-and-trade, demand a balanced budget and enact fundamental tax reform. And then comes number five: Restore fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government in Washington.
Note that two of the top-five priorities of the tea partiers mention the Constitution.
Filling out the Contract, the bottom-five planks are end runaway government spending; defund, repeal and replace government-run health care; pass an all-of-the-above energy policy; stop the pork; and stop the tax hikes.
What's so significant to me about this tea-party Contract From America is the strong emphasis on constitutional limits and restraints on legislation, spending, taxing and government control of the economy. Undoubtedly, the emphasis is there because no one trusts Washington.
As I read this Contract, tea partiers are reminding all of us of the need for the Constitution to protect our freedoms. They're calling for a renewal of constitutional values, including - first and foremost - a return to constitutional limits on government.
The tea partiers who responded to this poll are demanding a rebirth of the consent of the governed. The government works for us, we don't work for it.
You, and your blog, would be much more interesting if you would do what I do and frequent sites and publications with which you generally DISAGREE, clip quotes from those, and refute the points they put forward.
I can't debate a "news bite." I can only debate a person. I state my opinion and you throw a block quote at my head. No fun there.
[fixed a typo]
Rob,
In all candor... swearing on my original issue copy of Michael Jackson's Guide to Single Malt Scotch... I read tons and tons and tons of stuff with which I disagree.
As I've noted time and again, Barker's Newsbites represent but a small (tiny, actually) portion of my daily reading.
(And then there's TV and radio...)
These "newsbites" are basically excerpts of information and opinion which I view as the sort of info the average American should be exposed to, but... (*SIGH*)... isn't.
Anyway... (*GRIN*)... as you've by now hopefully noticed... I've "given" you your own thread here at Usually Right.
Take advantage of it!
BILL
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/index.htm
General Electric filed more than 7,000 income tax returns in hundreds of global jurisdictions last year, but when push came to shove, the company owed the U.S. government a whopping bill of $0.00 [ZERO].
How'd it pull off that trick? By "losing" lots of money.
GE had plenty of earnings last year - just not in the United States.
For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit. That left GE with no U.S. profit left for Uncle Sam to tax.
(*SNORT*)
Thanks to its deductions and adjustments, GE reported an actual U.S. federal income tax rate of negative 10.5%. It got to add a "tax benefit" of $1.1 billion back into its reported earnings.
(*SARCASTIC APPLAUSE*)
[W]hat about the $10.8 billion profit overseas? GE is "indefinitely" deferring income tax payments on those profits...
GE isn't the only "Top 5" company on this year's Fortune 500 list that owed no income taxes. Bank of America, which suffered major losses in 2009, included a tax benefit of $1.9 billion in its annual profit.
(*SARCASTIC THUMBS UP*)
You may read it, but you don't quote it and refute it. You just quote stuff you agree with and then go *RIGHT ON!* Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee.
ROB WRITES...
"You may read it, but you don't quote it and refute it."
No. I don't. (Or at least rarely do I do so.)
Rob. There are only so many minutes in the day. My goal with "Newsbites" is to get as much factual info and analysis as possible out there with the goal of reaching folks who might not (well... let's call a spade a spade... rarely will) be so informed absent reading it here.
AGAIN... you wanna challenge a particular newsbite... a particular fact... a particular analysis of mine or of a piece's author... knock yourself out, bud!
(Hey... com'on... I always reply to you!)
Anyway...
(*SMILING SHRUG*)
BILL
P.S. - Hey... if anything I tend to bend over backwards to acknowledge good arguments against my own positions and spend plenty of time slamming Republicans when I feel they deserve slamming and giving kudos to Democrats when I feel that is merited.
P.P.S. - Oh... and let me offer you this advice - this "head's up" on process, on "Bill's methods" if you will: Whenever I run across something that seems to back up my case but sounds perhaps "too good to be true" I make sure to fact-check prior to posting. Doing so is just another way of getting alternate viewpoints since invariably I'll have to slog through various sources to get at the truth.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Goldman-rallies-for-Obama-in-Wall-Street-_reform_-90957879.html
In his self-styled war against Wall Street, President Obama appears to have a powerful ally: Goldman Sachs.
The nation's largest investment bank, famously cozy with top government officials in both parties, has tipped its hand to its shareholders, indicating that major financial "reform" proposals will help Goldman's bottom line.
Goldman Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn...want Uncle Sam to mitigate "uncertainty about counterparties' balance sheets." That is, they want the government to reduce the risk that Goldman's debtors or insurers will run into trouble.
Blogger Ira Stoll, at his Web site The Future of Capitalism, put it well: "It's one thing for some elderly retail depositor to ask the FDIC to protect her from risk by guaranteeing bank deposits. But the idea that the government needs to run around setting capital requirements to protect Blankfein and Cohn from the risk that their counterparties might go under or get in a liquidity crunch seems a bit odd. Let them protect themselves."
Also at play in Goldman's call for stricter capital requirements and standardization of derivatives: the confidence game. Much of America has lost some faith in the markets. Regular investors are still a bit scared of the stock market. Financial firms are lending less. Goldman thrives on free-flowing capital. If Obama signs a financial "reform" and declares that it now safe to enter the waters of the stock market, that's good news for Goldman.
* GOOD NEWS FOR GOLDMAN INDEED WITH U.S. TAXPAYERS HOLDING THE BAG SHOULD THAT...er... NEWFOUND "CONFIDENCE"... er... TURN OUT TO HAVE BEEN MISPLACED.
Restoring public confidence in the markets should be the job of those who profit from your investing in the market - it should not be the job of the federal government.
* EXACTLY! THE "REGULATION" GOLDMAN SUPPORTS BASICALLY IS GEARED TOWARDS AN END RESULT OF: HEADS, GOLDMAN WINS; TAILS, GOLDMAN WINS. (*SMIRK*)
Another pillar of Obama's financial reform is the "Volcker Rule," which would restrict the trading banks can do. The Volcker Rule would bar "proprietary trading" by Goldman (that is trading simply to benefit Goldman's bottom line) but would not restrict dealings "related to" serving the bank's clients. But even Goldman's most notorious financial dealings, transactions with failed insurance giant AIG, were client-related, Goldman told shareholders: "The net risk we were exposed to," Blankfein and Cohn wrote, "was consistent with our role as a market intermediary rather than a proprietary market participant." In other words, almost any deal Goldman would make could be tied to a client, meaning the Volcker Rule couldn't touch Goldman, even if it cramps the style of smaller, less well-connected banks.
Goldman is lobbying hard on financial regulation, but that doesn't mean they're lobbying "against" regulation. And they certainly shouldn't be considered White House foes: Goldman was Obama's No. 1 corporate source of funds in 2008.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F48TMO1&show_article=1
The government has accused Goldman Sachs & Co. of defrauding investors by failing to disclose conflicts of interest in mortgage investments it sold as the housing market was faltering.
* DON'T GET TOO EXCITED. WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...
The Securities and Exchange Commission said in a civil complaint...
(*THROWING MY HANDS UP IN THE AIR*)
* SEE... THAT'S WHY I WROTE "DON'T GET TOO EXCITED." NO ONE'S IN DANGER OF GOING TO JAIL. ANY FINES WILL BE "CORPORATE" AND NOT PERSONAL. (HELL.. NO DOUBT FINES ARE EITHER PARTIALLY OR PERHAPS EVEN FULLY "EXPENSIBLE.")
(*SNORT*)
...that Goldman failed to disclose that one of its clients helped create - and then bet against - subprime mortgage securities that Goldman sold to investors.
Investors in the mortgage securities lost more than $1 billion, the SEC said. The agency is seeking to recoup profits reaped on the deal.
* LOSSES TO INVESTORS... PROFITS TO GOLDMAN... (*SMIRK*) OH WHAT A SURPRISE.
Goldman Sachs denied the allegations...
The civil lawsuit filed by the SEC in federal court in Manhattan was the government's most significant legal action related to the mortgage meltdown that ignited the financial crisis and helped plunge the country into recession.
(*MIRTHLESS MANIACAL LAUGHTER*)
The SEC is seeking unspecified fines and restitution...
* WELL NOW THAT WILL CERTAINLY TEACH 'EM! (*SNORT*)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2010-04-15-pension-probe-settlement_N.htm
The Obama administration's former auto industry czar personally arranged a secret pay-to-play deal that helped his private investment management firm win a $100 million New York public pension fund investment, according to a federal court complaint filed Thursday.
Details about allegations against Steven Rattner, a co-founder of the Quadrangle Group, emerged in Quadrangle settlements of the complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and of a parallel probe by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.
Disavowing Rattner as it paid a $12 million SEC settlement, Quadrangle termed his conduct in the New York pension fund deal "inappropriate, wrong and unethical."
Rattner is a prominent Democratic fundraiser who oversaw the federal bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors before leaving the White House post and Quadrangle last year.
* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...
Criminal and civil authorities have not accused him of wrongdoing. But the settlements, which don't cover Rattner, appear to raise the possibility he could face charges.
(*JUST SITTING HERE SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
"Mr. Rattner does not agree with the characterization of events released today, including those contained in Quadrangle's statement," one of his lawyers, Jamie Gorelick, said in a statement.
* JAMIE GORELICK...??? JAMIE FRIGG'N GORELICK...?!?! HOLY TONY SOPRANO BATMAN...!!! (*SMIRK*)
* FOLKS... THERE'S A KLEPTOCACY EMBEDDED DEEP WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WITH TENACLES WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TOO. OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND MANY (MOST...???) OF OUR STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE RIDDLED WITH CORRUPTION.
Rattner...also allegedly negotiated Quadrangle's secret hiring of Hank Morris, the chief political aide of then-New York comptroller Alan Hevesi - the pension fund's sole trustee.
* ALAN FRIGG'N HEVESI... ANOTHER CORRUPT DEMOCRAT.
(*MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)
The best way to "get the word out" is not merely to repeat it until it becomes like the boy who cried wolf. The best way to get your point of view accepted is to shine a light on the opposing point of view and then shoot it down. If Hannity says something I disagree with, and then you repeat it, I just say "Been there, heard that."
Here is an example from my blog, of how it can be done.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575186280627409178.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed an education bill Thursday that...would have eliminated tenure for new teachers and required merit-pay plans linking salaries to student learning progress.
[The bill] had been approved on near party lines: No Democrats voted for the bill, but a handful of Republicans in both chambers voted against it, making the prospect of a veto override unlikely.
The governor, who once supported the bill, denied that his veto was tied to his plans for the U.S. Senate race. He said he opposed the measure following an outcry of opposition from teachers, parents and local school officials, according to the Associated Press.
(*SMIRK*)
* I REALLY DO WONDER IF CRIST WILL HAVE THE BALLS TO RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT IN CLEAR CONTRADICTION TO HIS PROMISE NOT TO MADE ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY ONLY A FEW WEEKS AGO. (*SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)
Thanks for the advice, Rob.
I'll stick with what I'm doing.
BILL
* But seriously... thanks; just because I don't take your advice doesn't mean I don't appreciate it!
Post a Comment