"No Corporation Left Behind"

Jonathan Hoenig - Owner of Capitalist Pig Hedge Fund.

Professional Bush apologist.

Oddly enough Lollimom that is precisely what i said last night when I first saw the text of Paulson's statement.

This is a sadly familiar refrain. Anyone got any Lehman shares?

Lollimom @ 1:

Like Randi says:

Privatized profits,

Socialized losses.

I think the exact slogan is Private profits, public losses. (I wouldn't use the word 'socialized' since it's politically supercharged, and just asking for a conservative talking points attack.)

That's pretty much what the American taxpayer has been stuck with since the Reagan revolution.

Rob (No Longer) In Toronto @ 6:

Oddly enough Lollimom that is precisely what i said last night when I first saw the text of Paulson's statement.

This is a sadly familiar refrain. Anyone got any Lehman shares?

I'm a LOOOOONG-time listener, and she's been saying this for months and months...just giving credit where credit is due.

Oh and Fannie and Freddie .... of course they are going to buy it out ... oh I mean buy shares to add liquidity to "support" it ..... hamstring with one hand and hold em up with the other.

Just the usual BS, to consolidate big money into one.

Pericles @ 8:

Lollimom @ 1:

Like Randi says:

Privatized profits,

Socialized losses.

I think the exact slogan is Private profits, public losses. (I wouldn't use the word 'socialized' since it's politically supercharged, and just asking for a conservative talking points attack.)

That's pretty much what the American taxpayer has been stuck with since the Reagan revolution.

Nope. She uses "Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses". I listener called in when she was in Air America and said that and she has used it ever since. The person that coined that phrase is Paul Krugman.

Rob (No Longer) In Toronto @ 6:

Oddly enough Lollimom that is precisely what i said last night when I first saw the text of Paulson's statement.

This is a sadly familiar refrain. Anyone got any Lehman shares?

Interestingly enough, I knew a few people who play the stock market for a living, and they made quite a bundle when the stockholders of Bear Stearns whined that the government backed price of $2 per share was too low, so it was increased. One person I was thinking of, who didn't own any 'BS' stocks to begin with, saw it crash from $200/shr to $2/shr, which was the government bail out price. He then bought a bundle of shares at $2 figuring the BS shareholders would whine that this wasn't enough, and he then re-sold them all when the price jumped up to $3. Apparently, knowing that the government will start giving out handouts whenever rich people whine is an insight that can make you rich yourself.

Pericles @ 8:

Lollimom @ 1:

Like Randi says:

Privatized profits,

Socialized losses.

I think the exact slogan is Private profits, public losses. (I wouldn't use the word 'socialized' since it's politically supercharged, and just asking for a conservative talking points attack.)

That's pretty much what the American taxpayer has been stuck with since the Reagan revolution.

Actually, I like the "socialized" form of it precisely because it is politically supercharged. There is no free market argument that can be made that doesn't sound ridiculous in justifying this kind of a bailout.

If they want to nationalize Fannie and Freddie then they should just do it. The bizarre structure that they have is rather phony anyway. They are truly neither public nor private institutions but they pretend to be whichever one is the most advantageous at the time. Good work if you can get it.

Maldoror @ 13:

Jonathan Honeig may believe his dog is a piece of property, but Jonathan himself is a piece of shit.

"I can smash this dogs head against the wall if I wanted too".

Hmm, that one did not work for Michael Vick. I remember when the Vick thing was going on and he called Vick a disgusting POS.

If the shoe fits.

Lollimom @ 15:

harley @ 7:

[crap deleted]

Troll elsewhere, troll.

Posting factual information and not your biased personal opinion is trolling?

Insert invective here >......................<

Pol Pot-O-Cheesesauce refrains from commentary. Voicing editorials while being raped is inappropriate behavior when I am being 'blessed' by the A-merry-gun government and big bidness.

Rob (No Longer) In Toronto @ 23:

Lollimom @ 10:

Rob (No Longer) In Toronto @ 6:

Oddly enough Lollimom that is precisely what i said last night when I first saw the text of Paulson's statement.

This is a sadly familiar refrain. Anyone got any Lehman shares?

I'm a LOOOOONG-time listener, and she's been saying this for months and months...just giving credit where credit is due.

Not saying that Randi might not be saying it (I work when she is on) .. but it is hardly her invention.

Amen. The hero worship is like blinders.

Rob (No Longer) In Toronto @ 18:

Pericles @ 8:

Lollimom @ 1:

Like Randi says:

Privatized profits,

Socialized losses.

I think the exact slogan is Private profits, public losses. (I wouldn't use the word 'socialized' since it's politically supercharged, and just asking for a conservative talking points attack.)

That's pretty much what the American taxpayer has been stuck with since the Reagan revolution.

Actually, I like the "socialized" form of it precisely because it is politically supercharged. There is no free market argument that can be made that doesn't sound ridiculous in justifying this kind of a bailout.

If they want to nationalize Fannie and Freddie then they should just do it. The bizarre structure that they have is rather phony anyway. They are truly neither public nor private institutions but they pretend to be whichever one is the most advantageous at the time. Good work if you can get it.

Well, as part of the Corporate welfare, and socialism for the rich narrative, I agree, it works.

Back near the end of the 1800s one of the main demands of the original "populists" was that they wanted to be able to get loans directly from the federal government. Still seems like a good idea to me.

Republicans love welfare. Corporate welfare.

The hell with everyone else.

I find it beyond mind boggling that we have come to this point in time in our history, which obviously has taught us nothing. While other countries with overflowing stashes of worthless dollars are using them through their Soverign Wealth Funds to purchase valuable properties of value here at home like the Chrysler building, I have to wonder when Hank Paulson will establish the USA Poverty Fund?
If this wasn’t so scary it would be hilarious: Paulson has asked Congress for permission for the U.S Treasury to by Fannie & Freddie’s stock!! With what money, may I ask? The government debt is running at 10T$ and the total unfunded liabilities over 60T$! This means that the Treasury would merely increase its debt even further to invest in bankrupt companies! Countries such as China, UAE, Saudi, Kuwait etc have sovereign wealth funds to invest and diversify their surplus foreign currency to ensure the wealth of their countries continues for generations to come. The USA is going to have a Sovereign Poverty Fund so as to invest money that the country has not yet earned (and never will) in the worst investment choices on the planet! This will ensure that not only this generation is poor but generations of Americans to come will be poor, with the exception of a few elite bankers as Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase.
So Paulson proposes that the government buys bankrupt company stock ON MARGIN and the stocks take-off out of the gate this morning! There are certainly some sick puppies on Wall St who think that is a trade.
Considering that at the first sight of financial trouble at the IMF there was a rush to propose selling gold to bridge the gap between expenses and income, I can’t help but wonder when someone will propose selling the US gold reserves to buy Fannie and Freddie stock. This would certainly upstage Gordon Brown for the trade of the century selling englands gold at $250. an ounce and then losing billions as the price has now risen to nearly $1,000.
While the Working Group On Financial Markets is in high gear trying to pretend that all is well and that the rescue of the two mortgage delinquents is cause for celebration, what the analysts and media fail to recognize is that this is not ONE of the mortgage behemoths in trouble, it is BOTH. That means it is not a CORPORATE PROBLEM but a SYSTEMIC PROBLEM.
Can’t think of a better investment than gold right now!

harley @ 7:

Lollimom @ 1:

Like Randi says:

Privatized profits,

Socialized losses.

That is actually a phrase coined by Paul Krugman. She must be to busy talking over her listeners to mention that.

I heard Ralph Nader say this a lot in the 1990's. Randi Rhodes is smart but when she's not talking over her listeners she's busy patting herself on the back for coining common place phrases/ideas. I know, I listen to her almost everyday.

"Peace is a very complicated concept. When the lion gobbles up
the lamb and wipes his lips, then there's peace. Well, I ain't
for that peace at all."
-Abbie Hoffman

The above is the type of peace the new FISA bill brings us.

I think in the end, they're going to wind up printing money. I suspect that the devaluation of the dollar is in part, a recognition that they have no other choice to deal with borrow and spend then to print money.

I gotta say, I can't believe the zeal that the Republicans set about to reinstate stagflation with borrow and spend economics.

calgarylady @ 21:

Animals don't have rights ? Is this Hoenig guy for real ? I sure feel bad for that cute little dog.

For similar reasons I feel sorry for this one:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/abc/images/300-barney.jpg

Answer me this. Who f*cking voted for a guy who destroyed every freaking business he ever worked for? How hard is it to look at the track record and KNOW the same thing is going to happen again? Now we're watching the great depression rerun. I didn't want this for my kids. I didn't want my mother to see this again in her lifetime. I certainly didn't want it for me.

I want to personally thank all those who thought Bush would be a fun person to have a beer with and therefore they voted for him.

Elliot Spitzer lives....

By Eliot Spitzer Thursday, February 14, 2008 Washington Post

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

oh yeah.......Too Big to Fail

jeanne @ 44:

I want to personally thank all those who thought Bush would be a fun person to have a beer with and therefore they voted for him.

I always found moronic that a lot of these retards who voted for Bush thought a recovering alcoholic would make the ideal beer drinking mate.

Which may explain why night life and parties in general suck the big one in most parts of this country...

Well, Freddie and Fannie are government chartered corporations. They've been somewhat run by the Federal government since day one, so it's not a real surprise that they would be bailed out by the Feds.

But here's the real scary part: roughly half of all mortgages are done through these two companies. Sure, you might have a mortgage from XYZ Bank, but if you read the fine print, XYZ borrowed the money from FME or FRE. So it's very likely that ultimately your mortgage is with these guys.

Andew @ 46:

Elliot Spitzer lives....

By Eliot Spitzer Thursday, February 14, 2008 Washington Post

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

That's why he had to go. FISA works in a fascist state.

This Fox tainted food headline is the type of framing that makes me sick.

Should "meat recall" company be sued for animal abuse?

First, the obvious, "animal abuse"? Of course, frame it like that, and it's a frivolous lawsuit. But if you were to say, "Sued for killing hundreds of pets" (which is what they did), the audience might just come to the conclusion that there's substance to this suit.

Secondly, instead of calling it the "tainted meat company" or "the company that sold tainted meat that killed animals," Fox has graciously made the company the hero (because "they did the right thing, they recalled the meat").

It's so easy to turn a reasonable lawsuit into "a bunch of whiney liberals" if you just tweak a few words.

Damn Corporate Welfare Bums are always Whining.

Yeesh!

The game as Naomi Klein pointed out is to privatize the profits and nationalize the debt. This is probably the biggest boondoggle in US history. Stop worrying about Obama and start looking at the transfer of wealth. This is seriously breathtaking and the game isn't over.

My advice to those who are watching their 401K's deteriorate is to move your retirement money into self directed IRA's and buy gold or invest in stocks on your own. Fidelity, et al are throwing your hard earned money into a black hole from which there will be no retreiving it.

Kahoneez @ 63:

" Wealth is not destroyed , it's merely transferred "

I would suggest watching , " The Money Masters - How Bankers Gained Control of America " on YOUTUBE .

James Madison - "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."

Woodrow Wilson after helping to create the Federal Reserve ,- " I am a most unhappy man, I have ruined my country ......a Gov. by the opinion & duress of a small group of Dominant men " .

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution...if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Amen ..in a secular way

mudshark @ 17:

I was listening to the radio today discussing this issue. IndyMac. There was reportedly people lined up outside the bank waiting to withdraw their money before it was gone. People were reportedly waiting for hours to get in.

Heres a link to this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25673878

Snacky dog is property, if i want to bash his head in against a brick wall thats my right.

"We know that the gold which the devil gives his paramours turns into excrement after his departure…"
--Sigmund Freud

The Democrats are the party of (among other nefarious interests) Wall Street, which just brought us financial fraud and credit crisis on a global scale unlike anything seen in generations. In some respects, due to all of the new derivative "securitization" that has cropped up over the recent decade or so (whereby dog vomit is bundled together and disguised as A rated securities), the scale is unlike anything we've ever seen.

What did you expect?

Some (inconvenient) facts that the mindless party loyalists here who put party before country will either ignore or make excuses for:

Fact: Democratic presidential candidates carried all five money-center states in each of the four presidential elections between 1992 and 2004. In 2008, nine of those states' ten incumbent U.S. senators were Democrats.

Fact: The Clinton White House and the leadership of the Democratic party supported repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which is the 1930s legislation that prevented common ownership of banks, investment firms, and insurance companies. Other Wall Street deregulation supported by Clinton and leading Democrats had the net effect of unleashing credit card companies. This helped fuel not only to the stock market bubble, which burst in the spring of 2000 (more than six months before Clinton left office), but also to a huge increase in mergers and acquisitions and to aggressive marketing and interest-rate practices by credit card issuers.

Fact: In 2004, The hedge-fund industry gave 71% of its outlays to Democrats, with New York senator Charles Schumer as their leading beneficiary.

Fact: In 2006, the Private Equity Council gave 69% of its campaign donations to Democrats. The hedge funds favored the Democrats by approximately three to one.

Fact: In 2007, Hedge-fund employees' contributions to the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee out-numbered those to its Republican rival by approximately nine to one. In House races, Democrats received four-fifths of the money.

Fact: The Senate Democrats recently backed off a proposal that would have addressed the tax code anomaly that allows the earnings of private equity and hedge fund managers to be taxed at 15 percent, lower than the tax rate paid by many middle-class Americans. We should expect no less from the party of Wall Street.

Fact: Led by Barack Obama and followed by Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential contenders have raked in the cash from Wall Street, far outstripping the Republican opponents in donations from this sector. Seven of the Obama campaign's top fourteen donors consisted of officers and employees of all of the same Wall Street firms that have been engaged in fraud and malfeasance on a massive, global scale and are now in the process of looting the public treasury to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

These firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. Obama is also heavily funded by Chicago hedge fund billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin of Citadel Investment Group.

The remaining six of Obama's top fourteen donors are corporate law firms, five of which that are registered lobbyists and a sixth which is no longer a registered lobbyist but does work for Wall Street.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

John it's just your imagination, it's all a state of mind, and of course you are whining.

Ruthless People @ 31:

calgarylady @ 21:

Animals don't have rights ? Is this Hoenig guy for real ? I sure feel bad for that cute little dog.

Conservatives believe everything is subservient to them. Property if you will. Dogs, cows, chickens, brown people, poor people, the entire fucking planet...all for them to consume and abuse without the least bit of regard for waste or for the suffering for any other sentient being. This is what separates conservatives from enlightened folks.

You left out women and children.

Rob (No Longer) In Toronto @ 23:

Lollimom @ 10:

Rob (No Longer) In Toronto @ 6:

Oddly enough Lollimom that is precisely what i said last night when I first saw the text of Paulson's statement.

This is a sadly familiar refrain. Anyone got any Lehman shares?

I'm a LOOOOONG-time listener, and she's been saying this for months and months...just giving credit where credit is due.

Not saying that Randi might not be saying it (I work when she is on) .. but it is hardly her invention.

I am glad that she is getting that line out there though, especially in that formulation as it is my favorite one and shows the fundamental dishonesty of the so called free-market that we hear so much about but never manage to see when the crap hits the fan.

Exactly!

So much BS talk about the Free Market. Government help Me but not that guy over there.

jeanne @ 44:

Answer me this. Who f*cking voted for a guy who destroyed every freaking business he ever worked for? How hard is it to look at the track record and KNOW the same thing is going to happen again? Now we're watching the great depression rerun. I didn't want this for my kids. I didn't want my mother to see this again in her lifetime. I certainly didn't want it for me.

I want to personally thank all those who thought Bush would be a fun person to have a beer with and therefore they voted for him.

a-FREAKIN-men. Bush and his operatives may have stolen the election twice, but they couldn't have done it without the help of the most vacuous, willfully uninformed voter jackasses on the planet. Tyrants and fools are always waiting in the wings to take hold of the halls of power, but they can do nothing until the voting public allow them. It is THESE voters that I hold personally responsible for this mess. I'm with Rev. Wright: "America's chickens have come home to roost."

jeanne @ 44:

Answer me this. Who f*cking voted for a guy who destroyed every freaking business he ever worked for? How hard is it to look at the track record and KNOW the same thing is going to happen again? Now we're watching the great depression rerun. I didn't want this for my kids. I didn't want my mother to see this again in her lifetime. I certainly didn't want it for me.

I want to personally thank all those who thought Bush would be a fun person to have a beer with and therefore they voted for him.

In truth, I think it was because Clinton did TOO GOOD A JOB! The world was a peaceful place, and for the first time in three generations, the federal government was in the black, with cash in the bank. It came down to a choice between the highly experienced Gore, and a green, untested, inexperienced guy named Bush, who's only virtue was that he was promising to give us more of our money back. Since the world was such a peaceful place, the voting public figured they'd go with the guy who was dangling a bigger tax rebate in front of their nose. It was probably the most irresponsible voting pattern I've ever seen in my life, and we've definitely paid the price for our greed and folly. (The second election was a different story. That one was based more on fear than greed, and fear is a more potent motivating factor. The take home message from the 2004 election was that any jackass imbecile can win re-election to a second term by starting a war in his/her first term. The public will never change presidents in the middle of a war.)

Ruthless People @ 31:

calgarylady @ 21:

Animals don't have rights ? Is this Hoenig guy for real ? I sure feel bad for that cute little dog.

Conservatives believe everything is subservient to them. Property if you will. Dogs, cows, chickens, brown people, poor people, the entire fucking planet...all for them to consume and abuse without the least bit of regard for waste or for the suffering for any other sentient being. This is what separates conservatives from enlightened folks.

i don't think you can say that about all conservatives as a blanket statement. look at santorum and libby for example. those two really seemed to love their dawggies.

Snackie Dog should shit in Hoenig's bed tonight.

Pericles @ 82:

jeanne @ 44:
In truth, I think it was because Clinton did TOO GOOD A JOB! The world was a peaceful place, and for the first time in three generations, the federal government was in the black, with cash in the bank.

lol. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered by the Clinton administration, mostly children, didn't think the world was all that peaceful. Ditto all of the civilians and civilian infrastructure bombed by the Clinton administration in the former Yugolslavia. But when a Democrat does it it's not a war crime I guess.

The self-delusion of party hacks like you is really something to behold. Go up a few posts to #70 and read about how Democrats, the party of Wall Street, are every bit as responsible for the economic mess we find ourselves in as Republicans. The chickens are coming home to roost from the last two decades of bad economic policy. These problems didn't just magically spring up in the last few years.

And enough with the bald-faced lie about how the federal government was in the black under Clinton. The federal debt grew EVERY YEAR under Clinton. This can easily be verified on the U.S. Treasury Department's site. Cash in the bank. lol. And private debt, which is a much larger problem in this country, skyrocketed. Because the Clinton administration followed the same, exact idiotic debt-fueled, loose monetary policies (under Greenspan) and neoliberal "free trade" policies that the Bush administration did. If you recall, the technology and stock market bubble burst in the Spring of 2000, over 6 months before Clinton left office.

It was the Clinton administration which gave us the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which is detailed above.

Idiot.

The dow is at 166.90 i want it to go to green!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pericles @ 82:

jeanne @ 44:

Answer me this. Who f*cking voted for a guy who destroyed every freaking business he ever worked for? How hard is it to look at the track record and KNOW the same thing is going to happen again? Now we're watching the great depression rerun. I didn't want this for my kids. I didn't want my mother to see this again in her lifetime. I certainly didn't want it for me.

I want to personally thank all those who thought Bush would be a fun person to have a beer with and therefore they voted for him.

In truth, I think it was because Clinton did TOO GOOD A JOB! The world was a peaceful place, and for the first time in three generations, the federal government was in the black, with cash in the bank. It came down to a choice between the highly experienced Gore, and a green, untested, inexperienced guy named Bush, who's only virtue was that he was promising to give us more of our money back. Since the world was such a peaceful place, the voting public figured they'd go with the guy who was dangling a bigger tax rebate in front of their nose. It was probably the most irresponsible voting pattern I've ever seen in my life, and we've definitely paid the price for our greed and folly. (The second election was a different story. That one was based more on fear than greed, and fear is a more potent motivating factor. The take home message from the 2004 election was that any jackass imbecile can win re-election to a second term by starting a war in his/her first term. The public will never change presidents in the middle of a war.)

Don't underestimate the total complicity of the MSM to give Bush a pass on everything in 2000 and 2004. They literally ran cover for him, and they are doing the same thing for McSame now. If it wasn't for their refusal to cover the REAL John McCain, Obama would be up by 20% right now in the polls.

They are nothing but corporate traitors who hate America (for its freedom), and have nothing but contempt for its citizens.

Back in 2000, the MSM knew dumb-ass was lying through his fucking teeth about taxes, his military record and everything else in that Orwellean bullshit phrase he coined, the so-called "compassionate conservative!" Cokie Roberts even admitted to it a year or two ago!

As much as we may hate it, the corporate MSM still has enormous power to control the direction of the debate in an election year, and they know it. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch so willingly overpaid to get the WSJ? Propaganda is a GOP investment!

jax @ 70:

"We know that the gold which the devil gives his paramours turns into excrement after his departure…"
--Sigmund Freud

The Democrats are the party of (among other nefarious interests) Wall Street, which just brought us financial fraud and credit crisis on a global scale unlike anything seen in generations. In some respects, due to all of the new derivative "securitization" that has cropped up over the recent decade or so (whereby dog vomit is bundled together and disguised as A rated securities), the scale is unlike anything we've ever seen.

What did you expect?

Some (inconvenient) facts that the mindless party loyalists here who put party before country will either ignore or make excuses for:

Fact: Democratic presidential candidates carried all five money-center states in each of the four presidential elections between 1992 and 2004. In 2008, nine of those states' ten incumbent U.S. senators were Democrats.

Fact: The Clinton White House and the leadership of the Democratic party supported repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which is the 1930s legislation that prevented common ownership of banks, investment firms, and insurance companies. Other Wall Street deregulation supported by Clinton and leading Democrats had the net effect of unleashing credit card companies. This helped fuel not only to the stock market bubble, which burst in the spring of 2000 (more than six months before Clinton left office), but also to a huge increase in mergers and acquisitions and to aggressive marketing and interest-rate practices by credit card issuers.

Fact: In 2004, The hedge-fund industry gave 71% of its outlays to Democrats, with New York senator Charles Schumer as their leading beneficiary.

Fact: In 2006, the Private Equity Council gave 69% of its campaign donations to Democrats. The hedge funds favored the Democrats by approximately three to one.

Fact: In 2007, Hedge-fund employees' contributions to the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee out-numbered those to its Republican rival by approximately nine to one. In House races, Democrats received four-fifths of the money.

Fact: The Senate Democrats recently backed off a proposal that would have addressed the tax code anomaly that allows the earnings of private equity and hedge fund managers to be taxed at 15 percent, lower than the tax rate paid by many middle-class Americans. We should expect no less from the party of Wall Street.

Fact: Led by Barack Obama and followed by Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential contenders have raked in the cash from Wall Street, far outstripping the Republican opponents in donations from this sector. Seven of the Obama campaign's top fourteen donors consisted of officers and employees of all of the same Wall Street firms that have been engaged in fraud and malfeasance on a massive, global scale and are now in the process of looting the public treasury to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

These firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. Obama is also heavily funded by Chicago hedge fund billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin of Citadel Investment Group.

The remaining six of Obama's top fourteen donors are corporate law firms, five of which that are registered lobbyists and a sixth which is no longer a registered lobbyist but does work for Wall Street.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

It’s called Corporate welfare.

Even most self described Libertarians lack the balls to see Rands mad process of boom and bust seen through.

And politicians are even more afraid of it.

After all the Johnsons next door might loose their mansion and who knows what that might lead to.

BTW Someone get snacky dog away from that psycho.

Ruthless "The Whiner" People @ 97:

What kind of a closet f*g would name his dog "Snacky Dog"?

The kind that eats babies the rest of the time.

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

the U.S. authorities will provide additional liquidity to the troubled mortgage groups and pledged to buy stakes in the pair should market conditions worsen.

if market conditions worsen? IF? Are you kidding me?

And where are these "U.S. authorities" going to get this additional liquidity from? Ooops. I guess they forgot to mention that part.

This is the kind of crap "news" that people get from the MSM. All the things that would get peoples blood boiling where conveniently left out.

Let's see... Freddie Mac was trading in the 60's last year and now it is trading around 5! yeah, FIVE! Woo hoo! Where can I sign up to invest in some of that shiznit? Oh never mind, I see my government is getting ready to buy some of that for me. Such good timing too... with the housing market tanking and all.

Oh but don't worry, it is the "U.S. authorities" that will be paying for it

*bangs head on desk*

Jonathan Heonig’s comment on Fox News concerning the lack of rights for animals is demonstrative, so completely illustrative of the how badly infirmed the self-aggrandized mind tends to be.

The matter of the rights of animals, to life, to comfort, to freedom from abuse, from exploitation – well – to anything was simply not part of the conversation…at all. The ‘argument’ for lack of another name is carried forth entirely from the perspective of the human - of the overlord. The welfare of the animal, indeed of any animal, is of sole and unaccountable concern to this most imperfect of beings.

Mr. Hoenig brings along his ‘show dog.’ And concerning his stated intentions we certainly would wish to take him at his word. But given his unconcealed revelry in the unchecked and absolute superiority of ‘man’ one wonders, for those of us unfortunate enough to empathize with the plight of other life, one wonders truly if this oh-so-vulnerable creature served as little more than a prop. A prop for the callousness and cruelty of an individual who must hide as much under the banner of legal pretense.

Minds like Mr. Hoenig don’t seem to have the capacity - the development to wonder, to question on their own how he has come by the ‘right’ to inflict suffering on this animal or any other for that matter. It is one thing to presume his living property, who it is reasonable to assume does not wish not to suffer, does not inherently have any rights. It is quite another to ascribe to oneself the ‘right’ to brutalize that which in all likelihood wishes to live, and to do so free from pain and suffering.

This is the hellish hubris of Man on display in all its misery and contemptuousness. Its indifference is only bested by its capacity to excuse brutality; to offer excuses for savagery. To hell with Mr. Hoenig…oh were it that simple….