Month: March 2009

Hot Damn! A GOP Budget Plan!

Yesterday I was watching the Obama Virtual Town Hall and listening to his answers to the questions that he was asked.  All in all it was a very interesting meeting.  But about 3/4 of the way through the town hall there was a breaking story interruption.

“GOP unveils a budget proposal”.  This caught my attention because for weeks I had been bad mouthing the GOP for their massive criticism with NO alternative offered.  I sat up straight and grabbed my note pad.

The usual suspects took to the mic, Boner, sorry, I mean Boehner, Cantor and the rest of the gang of NO stepped forward and gave their little speech.  And each talked with theor own flowery vocabulary and said basically what the NRCC has told them to say….Obama’s Budget….spends too much…taxes too much and borrows too much.  While none used those exact words….the same thought was there.

They talked and they talked and not once did I hear the “new” proposal…what I heard was the tired old mantras of tax cuts…domestic oil drilling…yada yada.  Basically, it was the typical Obama budget bashing session.  Nothing new.  But then there has been NOTHING new coming from the GOP.

We will have to wait until next Wednesday, when the House GOP presents their “new” proposal on the floor of the House.

I am still trying to figure out just what part of their ramblings would be breaking news….I am thinking that maybe they should have just called it what it was….REDUNDANT NEWS FROM THE GOP.

Jindal Defends Presidential Failure

Much has be written, said and tossed around about the comment that Rush madew when he said he wanted the president to fail.  Dems have used it in their attacks on everything Repubs try to say and the Repubs try to explain it away as meaning something other than the way it was said.

And then along comes Bobby, Jindal that is:

Jindal described the premise of the question — “Do you want the president to fail?” — as the “latest gotcha game” being perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans.

“Make no mistake: Anything other than an immediate and compliant, ‘Why no sir, I don’t want the president to fail,’ is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience or political obstructionism,” Jindal said at a political fundraiser attended by 1,200 people. “This is political correctness run amok.”

Amok?  Dammit!  That work has been used to death.  I guess it is easier than using a more telling descriptions like lose control or behave violently.  Simple words for simple minds.

But Jindal still, as usual for a conservative speaking made no attempt to tell the audience anything other than some lame ass talking point passed on to him by the NRCC.  As usual, the country means NOTHING to the GOP; it is all about 2012, not the survival of the people.

Oh sorry, I digress, again……then maybe Mr. Jindal could explain just what is meant by the term “I want the president to fail”…to me it is pretty straight forward and easily understood….but apparently I am not up on my politico speak.

It Is A “Pelosi Recession”?

Did I fall asleep and wake up in some Alternate reality?  Where after a recession of a Repub president somehow became the fault of a liberal?  I am still wondering how I got here from there.

It is the sole fault of one Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, at least according to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).

Monday morning, the NRCC sent out a fundraising e-mail to supporters from Michigan Rep. Dave Camp. The subject line of the e-mail reads, “End the Pelosi Recession,” and much of the message is an attack on the speaker.

“Pelosi and her cronies know how they are going to continue to bail out big businesses, pay for their pet projects and spend billions of government dollars this year: massive tax hikes,” Camp writes. “To put it simply, the Democrats’ Budget spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. We must work together to end the ‘Pelosi Recession,’ and start to rebuild our economy with sound and fair principles.”

She has managed to single handedly bring down the economy while a sitting Republican president was at the helm of the economy for 24 of her 27 months as speaker.  Damn the power!

And if you listen to the Repubs in Congress they are quoting the memo word for word, “the budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much”…..good dog.,….you will be rewarded later.  Are these some of the same Repubs that voted for the largest ever tax increase in the House…like the “mouth Cantor?

Sorry, I digress.  Just how revelent can this party be when the best they can do is try to blame a liberal for a recession that started with a president of their own party?  These guys and gals become more silly with each passing day.

Don’t Worry, Be Happy

A week or more of rising markets and a one day rise of 500 points and all is gravy fore the big dogs on Wall Street.  Joy, joy…do the dance of joy….well only if you are a Wall Street trader…Main Street still SUCKS!

Everything being done is for Wall Street and those happy go lucky guys that put usd in this pickle that we are clawing our way out of as we speak.

Geithner got his long waited vote of confidence from Wall Street on Monday and Tuesday he profit taking began…..but is the worse over…tee hee…HELL NO!

Paul Krugman sees it for what it is.

“This is more than disappointing,” Krugman wrote in The New York Times. “”In fact it fills me with a sense of despair.”

“The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt,” the Princeton University economist said, citing weekend reports outlining the plan.

“This isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets,” he added.

Krugman called it a recycled idea of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who later abandoned the “cash for trash” proposal.

The Obama Admin is losing its window of opportunity to take control of the banks.  The economic bubble has a slow leak and soon it will be an out of control balloon filled with crap as it crash against the waiting wall.  And it will be messy, to say the least.

Yes, there is confidence but not where they need it….Main Street is not amusede.

Was He Ready For Prime Time?

The president that is.  Last night he held his very first “official” prime time presidential news conference.  How did he do?

First of all, yes he is ready for his prime time appearances.  He has always been ready for prime time.  He handled himself very well even when asked the same question over and over.  Okay, I gave him his props on appearance , now what about substance?

As with all the buzz out of the admin, there are plenty of bolts but not much in the ways of nuts to tighten up the solutions.  The opening statement from President Obama and nearly all the questions revolved around the administration’s economic policies, with the discussion focused largely on the twin preoccupations of the US ruling elite: that every effort should be made to guarantee the wealth and profits of Wall Street, and that sufficient sacrifices should be imposed on the American people.

So, the substance, IMO, was not there for the average working stiff.  It was all about saving Wall Street and the Banks that have made life miserable for most of us living on Main Street.  We are asked to give the president some time for his policies to work in our favor.  But so far all the policies I have looked at are for the survival of profits on Wall Street.

He is asking the people, the workers, to further sacrifice and yet the bailouts keep being handed out to the very people that should be doing ALL the sacrificing.

In the end, he is ready for prime time and he is ready for the survival of Wall Street and he is ready to sacrifice the middle class to achieve this end.

New Twist To The Gun Debate

For decades the debate has been heated on both sides of the gun issue….should we control guns…should we not control guns……but now there is a bit of a new twist added to that debate.

Recently a story by the AP’s Suzane Gamboa sheds some new light on the issue.

Members of Congress may be alarmed by the surge in Mexican drug violence and its potential to spill across the border, but they grow silent when the talk turns to gun control as a solution.

Mexico’s drug violence has killed more than 9,000 people since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 as gangs battle each other for territory and fight off a government crackdown.

Underscoring the Obama administration’s concern over the violence and the potential for a large-scale spillover into the United States, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Mexico on Wednesday to show support for its crackdown on drug cartels.

Mexico has long tried to get the United States to curtail the number of guns — many purchased legally — that wind up south of the border, where gun laws are much stricter. The State Department says firearms obtained in the U.S. account for an estimated 95 percent of Mexico’s drug-related killings.

For his part, Obama has signaled a willingness to tighten restrictions on guns, calling the flow of drug money and guns “a two-way situation.” Yet 65 Democrats said in a letter to Holder that they would oppose any attempt by the administration to revive a ban on military-style weapons.

Congress did provide $45 million this year for Project Gunrunner, a federal program aimed at curbing the flow of guns. Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, a Texas Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said he will seek another $30 million over two years for the program and $30 million more to fund efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to crack down on gun trafficking.

Oh my God, I can see the letters now–they, whoever they are, will turn this into something it is not.  And this post will most likely generate interest.  I am not coming down on one side or the other, but I can see why this issue is being raised.

New Road For Afghanistan

America has signalled a radical new initiative to bring the Taliban into the Afghan political process as part of growing efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the war in Afghanistan.

The US ambassador to Kabul told the Observer that America would be prepared to discuss the establishment of a political party, or even election candidates representing the Taliban, as part of a political strategy that would sit alongside reinforced military efforts to end the increasingly intractable conflict.

The move will cause concern among allies struggling to keep pace with rapidly evolving US policy.

Other ideas being discussed include changing the Afghan constitution as part of potential negotiations, taking senior Taliban figures off UN blacklists to establish dialogue and possible prisoner releases.

The Obama administration’s plan to overhaul the Afghanistan war will include a reinvigorated effort to sap the strength and influence of Taliban leaders by luring away their foot soldiers, according to advisors involved in a painstaking strategy review.

The plan is based on the assumption that top leaders of extremist groups are unlikely to switch sides wholesale and would be unreliable allies if they did. Instead, the revised military effort will focus on eroding the power of militant leaders by drawing away low-level fighters — most of whom signed up for financial reasons.

Key to the strategy, according to administration officials, will be strengthening village elders and other local leaders as part of an overall shift in emphasis away from the country’s central government.

Under the plan, the administration would offer local leaders a variety of tools, including small-scale economic projects and training for local security forces, that they can use to convince insurgent fighters to lay down their weapons.
But the emphasis on local reconciliation reflects a growing belief that a heavy reliance on the country’s central government, led by President Hamid Karzai, has hindered the U.S.-led war effort.

None of these proposals will thrill the now sitting president of Afghanistan, but if it would lead to the American presence being lessened then I say screw him…..let’s get it on.

Random Thoughts

Once again these are notes that I have taken and they did not necessarily warrant an entire post.
1–She recently gave birth to eight kids, so maybe she’ll end up having an equal number of PR flacks. Victor Munoz, the latest rep for octuplets mom Nadya Suleman, has told Usmagazine.com that he’s resigned. And while no one’s exactly accused Suleman of good judgment lately, she can probably do better than a publicist who offers up these choice quotes along with news of his resignation: “It’s pretty much a free-for-all over there right now. They are freaking out … Nadya got real greedy. This woman is nuts.” Munoz is the second publicist to leave the octo-nest; an earlier rep quit after her firm received a slew of hate mail.

2–Palin’s daughter and financee have called it splits…was there any doubt?  He is a cockhound and she is a conquest….Wasilla…..lock up your daughters.

3–In Iraq, shoe thrower gets 3 years in prison.  What would he have gotten if he had actually hit old what-hius-name?

4–Was 6500 the bottom of the stock market?

5–Last week Obama was a prick because his stim plan would do no good for the country–this week after 3 days of steady growth in the markets, he is a prick for being too optimistic.

6–“Punching bag” Rhianna and “boxer” Chris Brown (is he kin to Bobby Brown?), are recording a duet—I have heard it has a good BEAT and should be a big HIT…….what is this girl thinking?

7–Do people realize that the rise in the stock market is nothing but bargain hunters taking profits, right?

8–Is it just me or is competitive eating just a cover for gluttony?

9–Pres. Bush gets a $7 million book deal–the publish is Charmin Toilet tissue.

10-At least 13 firms receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a key lawmaker said Thursday. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout, said two firms owe more than $100 million apiece.

11-10,000 wanna-be models stampede in NYC and 3 people are hurt that is because the combined weight of all those models was 54 lbs.

A Form Of McCarthyism?

To begin with–HA HA HA!

I have heard all the right wingnuts call the outrage directed against AIG as a form of McCarthy-ism.  First of all, what total crap that is!  Rush and FOX News needs to do a bit of research on the meaning of “McCarthyism” before they start their lips moving, maybe then they will not look so damn foolish.

The charge of McCarthyism is both absurd and odious. The McCarthyism of the 1950s was a campaign by the American ruling class to demonize all socialist and left-wing thought. It was based on a lie—that socialists were criminals. The campaign destroyed the lives of many workers and intellectuals in the drive to fully subordinate the institutions of American society—the unions, the media, the universities—to the capitalist system and the global aims of US imperialism.

The popular outrage against bonuses for financial executives is, on the contrary, entirely justified. These are individuals who amassed their wealth on the basis of parasitism and speculation. Now that the financial house of cards has come crashing down they are demanding that the public treasury foot the bill, while insisting that there be no consequences for their own standard of living.

Social being determines social consciousness. The social character of the American ruling class has generated a corresponding social psychology—one that is profoundly anti-democratic. It is typical of an aristocratic social layer to view the society upon which it parasitically feeds with a mixture of fear and hostility. It views democratic institutions—even in the thoroughly eroded form that they take in the American political system—with contempt, as unnecessary constraints on its personal prerogatives.

Please when you hear do-do from the right wingnuts call them on it!  I do.

What To Do With Toxic Assets?

Geithner is expected to announce the creation of a new government entity, called the Public Investment Corporation, which will oversee the bailout. This agency will be backed by $100 billion not yet allocated from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that was proposed by the Bush administration and authorized by the Democratic-controlled Congress last October.

The first prong of the three-part plan involves the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the agency created in the 1930s to insure the savings of ordinary bank depositors. The FDIC will establish partnerships with hedge funds and other private investment firms to buy whole home loans—as distinct from loans packaged into mortgage-backed securities–from banks that agree to sell them. (In this, as in the other parts of the plan, the participation of banks and investment firms is entirely voluntary).

The other two prongs of the administration plan are directed at the banks’ money-losing securities backed by mortgages and other forms of consumer and commercial debt. One will expand a Federal Reserve program, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which was launched last week to extend low-cost loans and guarantees against losses to hedge funds and private equity firms that purchase new securities backed by auto loans, credit card debt, commercial mortgages and small business loans.

TALF will be enlarged to include the purchase of previously existing asset-backed securities, including those backed by residential mortgages. In addition, the Fed will be required to offer longer-term loans to private investors than under the original TALF plan, possibly as long as seven years. This is designed to provide sufficient time for markets to recover so that the investors can reap big profits before their loans come due.

Finally, the government will establish a so-called “public-private partnership,” in which the Treasury Department hires a number of investment management firms to buy mortgage-backed and other securities from the banks. The Treasury will match, dollar-for-dollar, money from private investors who participate and will also loan funds to increase the investment funds’ purchasing power.

All this is to free up money so that loans can be made and revivie the economy…..but if no one is working or buying or building….then who will be asking for the loans?