Thursday, July 15, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 15, 2010


Book 'em, Danno!
Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704746804575367402389009686.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news

U.S. senators or Senate employees received 30 loans - far more than had previously been known - under a controversial lending program at Countrywide Financial Corp. that provided cut-rate terms to favored borrowers.

* "FRIENDS OF ANGELO..."

The information is contained in a letter sent to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who has been spearheading the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation into Countrywide's so-called VIP mortgage program.

* ISSA IS A GOOD MAN.

No specific loan recipients were named in the letter. But Mr. Issa's letter said borrowers on a dozen loans listed their place of employment as the office of "Senator Robert Bennett."

* WE NEED THE NAMES. I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHO IS TAINTED - IF IT IS FOUND THAT THEY RECEIVED CUT RATE LOANS OR OTHER SPECIAL TREATMENT THAT IS.

Available public records don't indicate that Sen. Bennett, a Utah Republican and member of the Senate Banking Committee, received a Countrywide home loan.

* HOW ABOUT HIS WIFE... HIS KIDS...???

Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND), have previously been identified among the high-profile individuals who received such loans. (Until the Issa letter, no other senators or their staff members had been linked to the "VIP loan program.")

In his letter dated July 13, Mr. Issa wrote that on seven loans not tied to Mr. Bennett's office, the borrowers listed their place of employment as "U.S. Senator." Another 11 listed the "U.S. Senate." In response to questions, a spokesman for Mr. Issa said the House committee didn't receive the names of the borrowers from Bank of America. (More than one loan could have gone to the same person, such as a mortgage and a separate home-equity line of credit. Mr. Conrad received four Countrywide loans, a spokesman for the senator said. Mr. Dodd reportedly received at least two. Their loans were presumably included in the 30.)

The letter said the House committee's investigation had found that Countrywide used the VIP loan program to "build relationships with government officials."

* TRANSLATION: BRIBERY.

The Senate Ethics panel looked into the loans to Messrs. Dodd and Conrad, and last year cleared both men of any rule violations.

* OF COURSE IT DID! (*SNORT*) THE SYSTEM IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE; WE ALL KNOW THIS!

Mr. Issa's efforts to investigate the VIP loan program were stymied for a time by the unwillingness of the House oversight panel's chairman, New York Democrat Edolphus Towns, to issue a subpoena to Bank of America for the VIP program records. (Last August, The Wall Street Journal reported that public loan documents indicated Rep. Towns had received two mortgages from the VIP program.)

Countrywide's business and financial-reporting practices are under criminal investigation by the Justice Department, which has declined to comment on the probe.

* WHERE'S THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN THE GOVERNMENT "VIP's...???" HMM...???

The Securities and Exchange Commission has a pending civil fraud suit against three former top company executives, including longtime Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo.

* AGAIN... WHY IS THERE NO SEC CIVIL FRAUD SUIT AGAINST THE LIKES OF CHRIS DODD AND KENT CONRAD...???

July 15, 2010 at 9:05 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/finance-bill-favors-interests-of-unions-activists/

The financial reform bill expected to clear Congress this week is chock-full of provisions that have little to do with the financial crisis but cater to the long-standing agendas of labor unions and other Democratic interest groups.

Principal among them is a measure to make it easier for unions, "environmental groups" and other activist organizations that hold shares to put their representatives on the boards of directors of every corporation in the United States.

* IN OTHER WORDS, SHORT-CIRCUITING THE NORMAL DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OF PUBLIC COMPANY BOARD ELECTIONS.

[T]he legislation would [also] impose costly new burdens on airlines, utilities and other non-financial businesses that were victims rather than villains in the crisis, simply because they use financial derivatives to hedge their businesses against risks such as fluctuations in oil prices, interest rates and currencies. Such hedging practices played no role in the crisis, though they helped many businesses weather the financial turbulence and recession that followed in the aftermath of the Wall Street storm.the legislation would impose costly new burdens on airlines, utilities and other non-financial businesses that were victims rather than villains in the crisis, simply because they use financial derivatives to hedge their businesses against risks such as fluctuations in oil prices, interest rates and currencies. Such hedging practices played no role in the crisis, though they helped many businesses weather the financial turbulence and recession that followed in the aftermath of the Wall Street storm.

Other provisions of the financial legislation, which goes before the full Senate on Thursday for a vote and likely passage, favor Democratic constituencies directly by requiring banks and federal agencies to hire and do more business with them. ("The interjection of racial and gender preferences into America's financial sector deserves greater media exposure" before Congress debates and passes the massive 2,400-page bill, said Kevin Mooney, a contributing editor for Americans for Limited Government's daily newsletter.)

The powerful new consumer protection agency that is the centerpiece of the reform bill also would provide substantial employment opportunities and funding for Democratic and social-activist groups such as the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), critics say.

* JEEZUS... (*SHAKING MY HEAD AT THE SHEER BRAZENNESS*)

Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who also sought to help write a bipartisan Senate bill more narrowly focused on the problems that led to the crisis, said he fears that an activist director of the consumer agency could use agency power to direct loans to favored constituencies, regardless of whether the loans are sound or pose risks to the banking system.

* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE DELIBERATELY MOVING THE NATION TOWARDS SOCIALISM. THERE'S NO OTHER WORD FOR IT. (AND PARTISAN SOCIALISM AT THAT!)

July 15, 2010 at 9:17 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703394204575367421573463984.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

[S]ince February 2009 the U.S. economy has lost a net 2.35 million jobs.

* TO REITERATE... TWO MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND JOBS... (*SIGH*)

Using the White House "created or saved" measure means that even if there were only three million Americans left with jobs today, the White House could claim that every one was saved by the stimulus.

(*SMIRK*)

All of these White House jobs estimates are based on the increasingly discredited Keynesian spending "multiplier," which according to White House economist Larry Summers means that every $1 of government spending will yield roughly $1.50 in higher GDP. Ms. Romer thus plugs her spending data into the Keynesian computer models and, presto, out come 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs, even if the real economy has lost jobs.

To adapt Groucho Marx: Who are you going to believe, the White House computer models, or your own eyes?

(*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)

The White House also naturally insists that things would be much worse without the stimulus billions spent on the likes of Medicaid payments, high speed rail projects, unemployment benefits and windmills. Mr. Obama said recently in Racine, Wisconsin that the economy "would have been a lot worse" and the unemployment rate would have gone to "12% or 13%, or 15%" if government hadn't spent all of that money.

This is called a counterfactual: a what would have happened scenario that can't be refuted.

What we do know [for sure, with no ifs, ands, or buts,] is what White House economists at the time said would happen if the stimulus didn't pass.

They said the unemployment rate would peak at 9% without the stimulus (there's your counterfactual) and that with the stimulus the rate would stay at 8% or below.

In other words, today there are 700,000 fewer jobs than Ms. Romer predicted we would have if we had done nothing at all.

If this is a job creation success, what does failure look like?

July 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792704575367020548324914.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

* NO CUTTING AND PASTING... NO EDITED VERSION... JUST THE LINK.

* FOLKS... THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT OBAMA MADE AN END RUN AROUND THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE "RECESS APPOINTMENT" OF DR. DONALD BERWICK. THERE'S SIMPLY NO DISPUTING THAT OBAMA DELIBERATELY MISUSED A PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN A WAY UNINTENDED BY THE FOUNDERS.

* FOLKS... IT'S CLEAR WHY OBAMA DID WHAT HE DID. JUST READ HENNINGER'S COLUMN.

July 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/15/morning-bell-why-the-obama-stimulus-failed/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Today, President Barack Obama will attend a groundbreaking ceremony in Holland, Mich., for a South Korean-owned factory that will make batteries for electric cars. The purpose of the trip is to highlight the “success” of the President’s $862 billion economic stimulus package...

* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...

Specifically, this factory is being subsidized by $151 million of stimulus funds from an even larger $2 billion honey pot of stimulus money set aside for electric car battery investments.

This one plant is expected to employ 300 workers.

That works out to more than $500,000 per job created.

(*DEEP BREATH*)

$500,000 per job.

(*EVEN DEEPER SIGH*)

This plant, in a nutshell, explains why the President’s stimulus plan has been an objective failure.

The American people know the President’s stimulus has failed. ... So how on earth can the White House claim they “saved or created” 3 million jobs?

By rerunning the same economic models that predicted the stimulus would prevent unemployment from ever rising above 8%.

That’s right. The White House’s 3 million jobs number is not based on any real world data.

(*SMIRK*)

[W]hat does the actual objective real world data show?

When the President first began selling his stimulus plan to the American people in November 2008, he promised it would create 2.5 million jobs. But as employment fell at the end of 2008, President-elect Obama increased his employment promise by one million to 3.5 millions jobs created.

* WITH ME SO FAR...? (*WINK*)

At the time, employment stood at about 135.1 million.

* 135.1 MILLION PLUS 3.5 MILLION EQUALS...??? (*SMILEY SMIRK*)

Using these two data points, one can objectively establish the Obama jobs target for December 2010 at 138.6 million.

Fast forward to July 2010 and the latest jobs report shows total U.S. employment at almost 130.5 million.

* AND SO...

This means President Obama’s stimulus has failed to meet its own standard for success by 7.4 million jobs.

* BINGO!

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... READ THE REST OF THE REPORT. FAR FROM "SAVING," LET ALONE "FIXING" THE ECONOMY, PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SCHEMES ARE DESTROYING THE ECONOMY. THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE!

July 15, 2010 at 12:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792704575366511597951610.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEFifthNews

* HAVE YOU FOLKS HEARD ABOUT THIS...?!?!

Nights of rioting in Belfast, Northern Ireland, involving children as young as nine...

* HUH...?!?!

In recent days, images flashed around the world of police trying to control violence in the mainly Catholic Ardoyne area of North Belfast, with crowds throwing petrol bombs and makeshift barricades set alight by protesters.

* HUH...?!?!

[A]uthorities called the civil unrest "recreational rioting."

* HUH...?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

They say the riots, which have left more than 80 police officers injured...?!?!

July 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704682604575368940917717562.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEFifthNews

The Swiss government asked the U.S. Justice Department...

* ERIC HOLDER'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT!

...to release sealed transcripts in the Roman Polanski case just days before a Los Angeles judge was told that the Swiss did not request that information, according to a letter from Swiss officials that points to apparent miscommunication in the case.

* AND WHO TOLD THE JUDGE THIS...??? HOW DID THIS COME ABOUT...???

The [Swiss] officials said that the denial of access to the information was the key factor in the refusal to extradite the filmmaker to the U.S., according to the letter to the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland.

A [Los Angeles] district attorney's spokeswoman said their office was never notified [by Holder's federal DOJ] of the Swiss request and did not know that the Justice Department had turned it down.

* SO TO BE CLEAR... DID THE DOJ ACTUALLY REFUSE THIS REQUEST "ON THE BEHALF" OF THE LA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - WITHOUT ASKING THE LA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THEIR POSITION - OR DID HOLDER'S DOJ SIMPLY IGNORE THE REQUEST FROM THE SWISS AS WELL AS FAIL TO PASS IT ON TO THE LA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE...???

* (JEEZUS... WHERE THE HELL IS THE EDITOR ON THIS PIECE...?!?!)

The letter dated Monday was obtained by the Associated Press on Wednesday night. It provided a time line of when the request was filed and when it was turned down. The letter blamed the denial of extradition solidly on the refusal by the Justice Department to show transcripts of testimony by the film director's original prosecutor to Swiss officials.

* OK. SO IN OTHER WORDS, "YES," HOLDER'S DOJ TOOK IT UPON ITSELF TO SCREW UP LA'S CASE AGAINST POLANSKI.

* THE QUESTION IS... UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY? THE QUESTION IS... FOR WHAT PURPOSE? DID DOJ DELIBERATE TORPEDO THE POLANSKI EXTRADITION...???

"Since the additional documents requested were not transmitted in full, extradition of Roman Polanski to the United States of America is thus denied,'' said the letter [from Swiss officials].

Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said she had no comment on the matter.

(*SHRUG*)

July 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_bi_ge/us_investment_banker_fraud_1

A wealthy Manhattan investment banker who was once a top fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton and other big-name Democrats has been sentenced to 12 years in prison for bank fraud.

Hassan Nemazee was sentenced Thursday in federal court in Manhattan.

He had reached a plea deal in March. He has admitted to three counts of bank fraud and one count of wire fraud.

* HMM... IF 12 YEARS IS WHAT HE GOT ON A PLEA... CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT HE MUST HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH ORIGINALLY...???

Nemazee had been the national finance chairman of Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

* HEY... NO ONE IMPORTANT, RIGHT...??? I MEAN... HE WAS ONLY THE NATIONAL FINANCE CHAIRMAN...

(*SNORT*)

July 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704682604575369382547871788.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

The Securities and Exchange Commission has reached a $550 million settlement with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that will resolve its lawsuit against the firm alleging that it misled investors in a subprime mortgage product, the agency announced Thursday.

The SEC sued Goldman in April, charging it with fraud in marketing of a complex financial product called Abacus 2007-AC1 that was based on mortgage-backed securities.

* HMM... REMEMBER WHEN FRAUD USED TO BE... er.. umm... A CRIME...???

* REMEMBER WHEN FOLKS CONVICTED OF FRAUD WENT TO JAIL...???

* HEY... REMEMBER HASSAN NEMAZEE, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON'S FORMER NATIONAL FINANCE CHAIRMAN...???

"This settlement is a stark lesson to Wall Street firms that no product is too complex, and no investor too sophisticated, to avoid a heavy price if a firm violates the fundamental principles of honest treatment and fair dealing," said Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement.

* HMM... I WONDER...

* I WONDER HOW MANY GOLDMAN SACHS PARTNERS LOST THEIR FORTUNES, WERE FORCED INTO PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY...

* I MEAN... NO ONE WENT TO JAIL...

* HEY... IS PAYING OFF A FINE A TAX DEDUCTIBLE "BUSINESS EXPENSE...???

Shares of Goldman climbed more than 4% late Thursday after the SEC announced that its enforcement division would make a "significant announcement."

* HMM... SHARES ROSE...

(*SHRUG*)

* WHY IS IT I'M LESS THAN CONFIDENT THAT JUSTICE - AS YOU OR I WOULD RECOGNIZE IT - WAS DONE HERE?

July 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)