Day: May 13, 2009

2009 Anal-Ocity

It is like the proverbial snowball rolling downhill……the hits just keep presenting themselves.

This anal statement comes from the mouth of Texas Republican representative Pete Sessions:

In an interview, Mr. Sessions cited rising unemployment in asserting that the administration intended to “diminish employment and diminish stock prices” as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy to consolidate power.

Mr. Sessions, in his seventh term, said Mr. Obama’s agenda was “intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it.

These are just the best stuff on the web.  So if I am reading this right, Rep. Sessions is saying that unemployment is the fault of Obama and that it is some grand plan to reshape society.  God I love these morons, makes my job so much more enjoyable.

NOTE:  we have decided that the hits are too numerous for a one time vote, for that reason there will be a mid year vote and that winner will be added to the list at the end of the year.

we also are thinking about giving a special award to the group or person with the most anals in a year…..we are thinking of calling the award the Hemorrhoid Head Award.

Please let us know your thoughts and if anyone has a good anal statement they want to add to the list, please send them and we will include them in the posts.


Is The Environment As Important As They Say?

With the win of Obama last November I have heard many in the environmental movement say that a better day was coming for the planet and for programs to save us from ourselves.  I pray all are correct…but so far I have not seen that change that was coming.
In his budget, Obama included a serious proposal for a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon dioxide emissions. While a cap-and-trade system at best can only slow the rate of increase, it can be one important part of a more broadly-based climate change program. This is one of the proposals expected to have the most difficulty passing Congress this year. As a kicker, however, the Environmental Protection Agency has finally declared that global warming is a hazard to human health and welfare and that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity should be regulated. Even if the cap-and-trade system doesn’t pass Congress, the EPA can play a crucial role in starting to tackle climate challenges. (In one of the more ridiculous examples of Bush White House bumbling, the White House dealt with an earlier EPA report on carbon, which had been ordered by the Supreme Court, by refusing to open the e-mail to which the report was attached!). It will be possible for the EPA to take a larger role on these issues due in part to a large increase in its budget, another policy Obama deserves major credit for.

The commitment to “clean coal,” something which we should indeed put money into researching but which for the present is just an illusion. His administration also leans too much toward the development of more nuclear power plants, even though there is no realistic plan to deal with nuclear waste, not to mention the potential for accidents (like the Japanese nuclear reactor which was damaged in an earthquake recently), and not to mention the health risks for miners and their families and communities who dig up and process the uranium.
We also need to be mindful that ice at the poles is melting faster than the worst predictions of a few years ago, carbon dioxide emissions worldwide are still increasing, and that no president or administration by itself can accomplish what needs to be done. The environmental movement and organizations, in alliance with labor, civil rights, and other mass movements, need to apply pressure on Congress, including on many Democrats, to get with the program, to seriously tackle the life-threatening nature of the environmental challenges that face the whole world. The Obama administration does not act in a vacuum, it acts based in part on public understanding, public pressure, international pressure, and the necessity of saving humanity.

The Dems have the power to make a difference in climate change–will they do the right thing or the most profitable thing?

Things To Get Better Than Forecast

The admin cheerleaders are predicting that the economy will be getting much better by the end of the year.

The Obama administration projected that the U.S. economy will expand at a 3.5 percent annual rate by year-end, a rebound that would be almost twice as strong as private forecasters expect.

As early as the end of this year, GDP may rise at a 3.5 percent annual rate, the same pace projected for all of next year, helped by a $787 billion stimulus package, the administration said in the report today. That’s more optimistic than the 1.8 percent fourth-quarter growth estimate in the monthly Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey released May 10.

The administration expects “housing starts to reach bottom this year and to begin a robust recovery as relative housing prices stabilize,” today’s report said.

The Federal Reserve’s “novel” policies of extending funds to banks to boost liquidity and purchasing short- and long-term Treasuries also will help underpin the recovery, the White House said. Still, a doubling of the Fed’s balance sheet to about $2 trillion “holds the potential for an explosive increase in the nation’s money supply,” it said.

With each passing day the news coming from the Obamna economic team keeps getting better and better…..personally, I do not see it, but then I am not trying to convince a country of my outlook.

So You Want To Return The TARP Money?

Banks that want to pay back their federal bailout funds and free themselves from government restrictions on compensation and dividends will have to sever their ties to another financial assistance program.  Financial firms eager to return infusions from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program will have to demonstrate that they can operate without debt guarantees provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., a senior government official said.

The new requirement will make it harder for some institutions to get out from under government rules attached to the bailouts, another shift in a changing landscape for banks. It also illustrates the government’s desire not to have banks abandon the bailout program if they are not financially prepared to do so.

The bailout program has been unpopular in Congress and prompted a new round of conditions earlier this year following news reports about lavish spending on perks, retreats and corporate planes.

Initially, the government required banks that wanted to repay early to raise money from the private sector. Then Congress eased that rule but attached greater restrictions on the government funds. Among the rules restricting banks were conditions on employee compensation, bonuses and dividend payouts. Congress also required the Treasury to review previous compensation payments.

Banks have become increasingly wary of the bailout funds, chafing at the restrictions and worried that acceptance of the money somehow tagged them as troubled institutions. As a result, a handful of banks have returned a small amount of money and bigger institutions have indicated a desire to repay.

The Senate approved an amendment to broader legislation that could make it less costly for financial institutions to exit the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The measure, passed by unanimous consent, addresses the warrants the Treasury received in exchange for purchasing preferred stock in hundreds of banks. The warrants give the Treasury the right to purchase common stock at a later date so taxpayers can receive more of a return on their investment when the banking industry recovers.

The legislation removes the program’s requirement that Treasury liquidate the warrants within ten days after a TARP recipient repays the government. Treasury could hold on to the warrants and extinguish them at a later date, or not at all.