Aww

Kicking a guy when he's down - or is it up, given his new home?

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

Hutchison inquiry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Bailey_Hutchison#1993.E2.80.931994_prosecution

"-- The nice thing about the Boston Globe piece above, Temp, is it not only shows Dems gave Bush what he wanted (they have that power to accept or reject as you know, but our troll friends don't seem to know) but it also shows how the Dems supported spending on the wars. --"

You can go back to the Authorization of Force resolution for that, Fred. And grassroots Dems have been chastising their Congresscritters for the last year over the 2007 budget request that you linked. Bush played hardball - threatening to abandon troops in Iraq in a refusal to pull them out and end the war - and Dems weren't willing to face such recklessness. You'll notice that Congressional Approval plummeted when the funding resolution was passed. And you'll notice the Clinton Campaign has suffered terribly for Hillary's hawkishness at the start of the primary season.

Since March of '07, the support of the Iraq War has continued to decline. I'm not sure what your article is trying to prove other than that conservative Democrats are just as bad as conservative Republicans in regard bending over and taking it from the President. Certainly, the Riehl World election strategy - more hawkish GOoPers - isn't going to fly in '08 any more than it did in '06. The pro-war position is getting killed in the polls. But Republicans aren't going to field an anti-war candidate against Reid in Nevada or against Feinstein in California or against Hillary in New York. So noting that "Democrats did it too" isn't going to win you any more votes than it did last campaign cycle.

Given that Republicans lose on health care policy and economics as well as Iraq, you aren't going to be running on low taxes and deregulation this year either. So why would the majority of Americans continue voting for the GOP given this bombshell?

???

[Fred Beloit]

What bombshell? I see two bombshells: (1) Rev Wrights "preaching" to the sound of the Obama family's amens, (2) the invention and repetition of a lie about Hillary's battlefield service, a la Harkin.

[PseudoHarpo]

Well, Fred that is interesting. You certainly have an unusual way of approaching comments. But of course you don't know what you are talking about because the innocent are always with us. You can see them being dragged away by the police, who in turn are carrying their pipes, bbs, liquid explosives and other paraphernalia. Fred you are a foll and scoundrel. I can prove it. You read Pajamas Media.

[Fred Beloit]

By the way, another of the props of the anti-war argument is quickly giving away. That of the "world" hates us because of Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7324337.stm

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mccain-according-to-the-world/

Note to mushheads: BBC is one source.

[chris]

Wow, 35% approval for the US! I guess when you are a retired old fool like Fred with a leader with 28% approval 35% looks pretty good. Good luck filling up that tank, Fred!!!

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The average percentage of people saying that the US has a positive influence has risen to 35% from 31% a year ago, according to the survey.

Those saying the US has a negative influence fell five percentage points to 47%. --"

I can't wait for the November elections.
"People don't hate McCain! Look at the numbers! He was polling with a 31% approval rating just last month. Now he's up to a whooping 35%! White House here we come!"

I'm still waiting for Fred to find out the breakdown by nation, so he can pull a Hillary and tell us all which countries don't count.

[seekeronos]

"--- If black people are living in poor, urban areas and their a statistically higher percentage of the 18-25 age group, why wouldn't they have a higher rate of homicide? Of course, if you can show that black people in affluent rural neighborhoods are committing crimes after the age of 35, you can certainly make the case that it is some sort of cultural or racial phenomenon. I haven't seen either you or Fred make those claims, however. Simply pointing at higher than average homicide rates among blacks shows a correlation, but fails to demonstrate causation. Frequent fliers tend to have a higher income than people who take road trips, but flying on airplanes doesn't make you wealthy. ---"

But the very existence of the correlation demands that there must be causation. Exactly *what* the cause is, is the thing that must be investigated.

I do not beleive that Rev. Wright's "preaching" nor Sen. Obama's platitudes of change (or more pointedly, he use/abuse of dirty Chicago politicking) are sole or even direct causes of this. But they do have a significant indirect effect.

The causes for a generally higher rate of BxW and exceptionally higher BxB violence (and specifically, homicide) as a cross section of the 40-something million African Americans vs. the 200-something million European Americans have deep roots going back as far the Emancipation.

There is no accounting for the injustices and depredations of slavery nor the period of gross inequality that followed it until the 1960s.

Then along came Dr. King and his dream, and along with it, the politics of (racists like) Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX) whose "war on poverty" was all but a fancy label on an ancient idea: keeping the "undesirables fat, dumb, and (economically) separated" in the ghetto.

By playing upon existing cultural liabilities (yes, they exist) and multiplying them with class/race tensions, it was quite easy to keep the black man feeding at the slop-trough of entitlements and non-opportunity in the stead of encouraging a culture of hard work, learning, and self-improvement.

Such models for self improvement were indeed cultivated, but not entirely along the lines that Dr. King would dream about; thus rose the Louis Farrakhans, and the slimebag Al Sharptons, and the Jesse Jacksons and the Malcolm X and the rest of those demagogues (among whom Wright is a member) - men who would preach hateful or divisive rhetoric and never seek to change the mind of the black man from seeking handouts at the mercy of entitlement system, but rather to command their own destinies, earn, learn, and re-invest their political and financial capital into the improvement of both their communities and the nation at large.

Perhaps some of these demagogues do work for the better of their communities, but they have a trail of racism just as odious as any of the likes of LBJ, Robert Byrd, Truman, or such other men.

Where does this leave the average 18-25 year old who cannot see his way out of the ghetto? Not in very good straits, I'd say. But going down the same path their older brothers and fathers trod with irresponsibility and violence without regard for the consequences whilst looking for "something for nothing", or more likely, "something for as little effort as humanly possible", we get this current situation that has the _appearance_ of hopelessness.

Therefore, it behooves African Americans to seek out role models along the lines of Booker T. Washington and other accomplished men, rather than scumbaggish thugs like "Akon" and "Fifty Cent" who trivialize and glorify the "thug lifestyle".

What a strange phenomenon this is -- the successful, non-adversarial black man trends to make the sluggards, the druggards, the drunkards, and the whoremongers of their race think that that successful man is a direct challenge to them, and makes them "look bad" (arguably, he does).

There is considerable negative cultural pressure from blacks on their fellow blacks to sink to that lowest common denominator; the nail head that sticks out gets hammered with the "Uncle Tom" or "House N*gger" epithets for daring to break the slow, languorous stride to the Welfare Office.

Therefore, I believe that this problem can be solved, but it will take considerable time and coordination.

First, we must remove the barriers to success imposed by unlimited, multi-generational welfare and harvest the potential in the Black community; not by way of entitlement but by recognizing merit. Multi-generational Welfare, like any other form of dynastic, inherited wealth, is an enemy of meritocracy.

Second, remove and/or reduce the cultural resistance against self-improvement and against assimilation into majority culture.

Third, cease from special recognitions of "Black History Month" as though it were some alien thing apart from the rest of American History. The sad story of slavery, the joy to be shared in Emancipation, and the revitalization and respect for our fellow man despite his sins, and the recognition of special accomplishments of men and women of colour should be made for who and what those accomplishments are, not "just because" they happened also to be black.

This was the core failing of LBJ's tiresome "war on poverty", along with the urban renewal (read: urban blight) and welfare programs that came with it: Division. Strife. Failure. It was primarily intended to keep the poor (and in particular, minorities) in their places.

If we have a model that clearly failed, it behooves us to determine the point of failure, and do the thing opposite of that which fails.

Unite. Bind up the broken limbs. Succeed.

[chris]

Yet another honor for you and your esteemed leader

http://sfist.com/2008/03/31/presidential_me_1.php

[PsuedoHarpoSoAshamed]

"I'm still waiting for Fred to find out the breakdown by nation..." One has to admire determined, even dogged, investigators like Moe. The data by nation is in the BBC link I provided, you careless and lazy lady. Do you want coffee with the links too? And yes it would be too much trouble.

[Fred Beloit]

What Pseudo... said. I will add this for chris. chris, you mutt, the average of 35% includes countries like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. If they didn't hate us, I would be disgusted. You really want to use that infected average?

[IslamoLlama]

"-- But the very existence of the correlation demands that there must be causation. Exactly *what* the cause is, is the thing that must be investigated. --"

Um... no. I can draw correlations between the rise and fall of pop culture stars and the ebbs and flows of Wall Street (I could peg Britney Spears to the housing market) and note a correlation. When one goes up, so does the other. But no causation would exist.

Solving the problem means finding the root cause. Poverty, lack of education, concentration in urban areas. These will see white people and black people alike victims of homicide.

"-- There is no accounting for the injustices and depredations of slavery nor the period of gross inequality that followed it until the 1960s.

Then along came Dr. King and his dream, and along with it, the politics of (racists like) Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX) whose "war on poverty" was all but a fancy label on an ancient idea: keeping the "undesirables fat, dumb, and (economically) separated" in the ghetto. --"

Firstly, you should remember that Johnson himself came from a poor single family home. His rise to success has many parallels to Clinton's rise some three decades later. Secondly, calling Johnson a racist makes about as much sense as calling Lincoln a racist. Both of them adhered to a certain degree of conventional wisdom that we regard today as rank foolishness. But calling a man who bullied hard against his own party to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts a racist sets the bar absurdly high for anyone who attempts to right past wrongs they have committed.

Secondly, we saw the wages of a welfare state. You're absolutely right. Johnson's War on Poverty was a failure. We see the evidence of that today, with a homeless population reaching into the millions and an unemployed population stretching into the tens of millions. Welfare, combined with a blossoming drug culture, made an absolute mess of our country. We have since reformed dozens of social programs in attempts to stress "hand-up not hand-out" style outreach. EITC progressively rewards low wage earners with more money the more hours they work. Pell Grants target top achievers in under-performing schools to separate wheat from chaff. Social Security mandates a certain amount of personal savings for retirement, so no one will ever be forced into retirement broke. And after the market collapse earlier this year, aren't we all glad we didn't try to privatize the system and dump the trust into Wall Street? The entitlement system is slowly being refined after 80 years of implementation. And we are better off today than we were 80 years ago. I would hardly call that a failure.

"-- Therefore, it behooves African Americans to seek out role models along the lines of Booker T. Washington and other accomplished men, rather than scumbaggish thugs like "Akon" and "Fifty Cent" who trivialize and glorify the "thug lifestyle". --"

I could say the same thing about Whites who look towards Kevin Federline and Paris Hilton as their ideological peers. But you don't have to go back 100 years just to find a respectable and universally admired black figure. How many black kids grew up watching Reading Rainbow's LeVar Burton? How many aspiring black businessmen look to Chris Gardner as a role model? I mean, horray for stereotypes, right? But I know more than my share of black guys who don't particularly like rap music any more than my white Texas friends like country. The "thug lifestyle" isn't unique to skin color either. Economic status, education, and urban lifestyle (surprise, surprise) give us white rapers too. Where's the condemnation for M&M?

Either way, it doesn't go very far in addressing equality of opportunity. If rich begets rich, educated begets educated, suburban homeowner begets suburban homeowner - and we've already determined that white people are more rich, educated, and property endowed than their black peers - why would we assume that poor, uneducated, propertless people (white, black, asian, whatever) would magically turn themselves into millionaires just by giving it that extra effort?

It is the nature of the marketplace for money to collect upon itself. Money buys power and power gets you money. A money-less, powerless people - no matter the race - will be at a disadvantage against richer and more powerful peers. Americans came a thousand miles across the Atlantic Ocean to escape the Aristocracy that haunts Old Europe to this day. Regulation and redistribution are necessary functions of a government that seeks to maintain a minimum disparity between rich and poor. And these social programs - after generations of trial by fire - have proven themselves valuable additions to the nation. Just as $30 billion bailouts keep the economy from collapsing, so do $300 food stamps keep America from turning into a third world country. You may not like doing it, but its a requirement of a sound and reliable national infrastructure.

[templar knight]

Moe, another one of your heros, in a political party yet to be determined, succumbed to a prostitute. He was one of the owners of Air America, and he is married to a Democratic Senator by the name of Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Surely he must be a stealth Republican, yeah...that's it.

[chris]

The prostitute was a woman, ergo it was surely not a republican. Do you ever work? Grilling and supporting lesbian athletics can hardly take up all your time.

[templar knight]

Do I ever work? I tell you what, mutt, I work when I want to, as that is one of the perks I have with the company I work for(you see, I own part of the company). What's it to you?

[BobInStamford]

"contemplating why his BMW loan payments were re-adjusted for the new hyperinflationary rate of 122% passed by the Fed."

Loan payments?? Debt isnt useful unless the opportunity cost is low or it is deductible. Incidentally, you seem to do a lot of posting during working hours. Perhaps you should get your mind off of Jesus and on to your family and providing for them.

[templar knight]

"Just as $30 billion bailouts keep the economy from collapsing, so do $300 food stamps keep America from turning into a third world country."

The amount of ignorance on display in these two statements is staggering, and the only thing worse is the lack of education that has allowed this ignorance to thrive. Both of these actions reduce the wealth of the nation, and make us poorer as a people. And while I agree with the food stamp handout as a neccessary evil to keep people from starving, I would never agree with spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money to bail out corporations who have made bad business decisions.

[BobInStamford]

You can't think of Bear as a corporation. Regular corps just make stuff or provide services. Big investment firms have a reach into EVERYTHING. If one fails, there is a confidence problem (not to mention the fact that they write/hold a lot of paper etc) - not something that this economy needs. Give Paulson (yes, him) credit for proposing further controls on the industry. Unfortunately, it was the right call to secure JPM's investment in Bear if thats what it took to keep it solvent.

Deregulation and/or turning a blind eye simply leads to greed. What I'd like to know is how much did the banks make off of the subprimes before the collapse.

FYI, wait until the home equity meltdown this summer. The ugliness will continue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/business/27loan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[seekeronos]

"--- What I'd like to know is how much did the banks make off of the subprimes before the collapse. ---"

Me too. I'm sure it is more than most of us here will see in a lifetime... but woe to the last bank in line (or more pointedly, the homeowners who lose in the end) to catch that molten potato-shaped lump of lead.

We are in for quite the display of economic policy gymnastics, as "Helicopter Ben" and Paulson try to stave off a depression that could make the Japanese Asset Bubble of the 1990s look like a bump in the road.

Gold and Silver coin is looking better than ever, and perhaps oil and grain futures too, if you are into that sort of thing.

[seekeronos]

BTW, kudos to Bob for actually contributing something of value to the discussion.

[Fred Beloit]

Disguised accusations have been made: "What I'd like to know is how much did the banks make off of the subprimes before the collapse." The accusations are several. At a minimum: (1)Banks got into sub prime mortgages to make a quick buck. (2)They succeeded in making a quick buck as they had planned. (3)Those poor folks who took out these mortgages were just innocent victims looking for a home of their own (but when you have a mortgage the home isn't your own; the home is owned by the bank).

Boob wants us to know the truth. Is this the truth? Alas, no. He just wants to make a fast and dirty propaganda claim against the capitalist system. The truth is a lot more complex than that.

Subprime Mortgage

What does it Mean? A type of mortgage that is normally made out to borrowers with lower credit ratings. As a result of the borrower's lowered credit rating, a conventional mortgage is not offered because the lender views the borrower as having a larger-than-average risk of defaulting on the loan. Lending institutions often charge interest on subprime mortgages at a rate that is higher than a conventional mortgage in order to compensate themselves for carrying more risk.
Borrowers with credit ratings below 600 often will be stuck with subprime mortgages and the higher interest rates that go with those mortgages. Making late bill payments or declaring personal bankruptcy could very well land borrowers in a situation where they can only qualify for a subprime mortgage. Therefore, it is often useful for people with low credit scores to wait for a period of time and build up their scores before applying for mortgages to ensure they are eligible for a conventional mortgage.

More here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-blame.asp

[seekeronos]

Taking a wild stab here, but I figured the banks Bob was referring to were the investment banks and hedge fund trading firms that traded the badly rated sub-primes bundled with better securities in order to get AA and AAA ratings, and pawning them off as something good for unsuspecting i-banks and other investors further up the channel.

Bear-Stearns just happened to be the among those last unfortunate groups left "holding the bag" which had a high percentage of these rather ugly securities... which, had the market allowed the cycle to continue, would have likely bundled those same securities off to higher bidders/suckers.

I strongly suspect that there will be other Fed-sponsored buy-outs (bail-outs) of some other big i-banks before the dust settles.

I question the notion that such deep regulation may be necessary, and if whether savaging the dollar even further to fix what is a natural correction to a pandemic fit of greed may worsen the crisis down the road, is a sound approach.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The amount of ignorance on display in these two statements is staggering, and the only thing worse is the lack of education that has allowed this ignorance to thrive. Both of these actions reduce the wealth of the nation, and make us poorer as a people. And while I agree with the food stamp handout as a neccessary evil to keep people from starving, I would never agree with spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money to bail out corporations who have made bad business decisions. --"

Then you know exactly bupkiss about economics and the US Banking System. Bear Sterns took a bunch of needless risk and created a massive hole in the market. They had hundreds of billions of dollars in worthless mortgages on their books. But they were just one thread in the weave, and letting BS collapse would have exposed an even bigger financial problem. See, JP Morgan - the guys who bought Bear Sterns - was heavily invested in Bear Sterns assets. If BS went under, JP Morgan would have lost hundreds of billions of its own money. By plugging the worthless commodities hole with $30 billion, the Fed bailed out JP Morgan. Had JP Morgan suffered a massive blow, the millions of JP Morgan investors would have also taken a hit. They, too, would risk going under. And their fiscal insolvency would affect the people whom they owed money. And on and on and on down the line. Until your boss, or your clients, or your neighbors' bosses, or their clients suddenly find their credit pools evaporating such that they can't meet your payroll. And that's when you become unemployed.

How did this giant mess happen? Banking deregulation and the shadow economy created by hedge funds and private equity firms sold people a false bill of goods. How do we prevent it from happening again? Force private firms to open up their books and shine a little sunlight on the private sector. How many people would have purchased a so-called 'AAA' bonds based on a bunch of zero down payment ARMs tied to people with unreported income? How many would have invested in Bear Sterns if they'd known this was the majority of its portfolio?

But once you discover this giant mess, it's pure childish petulance to declare that you refuse to clean it up. Refusing to bail out Bear Sterns would be like coming home and finding out your dog crapped on your rug, then declaring that you aren't going to be the one to clean it up. You can housebreak your dog, punish your dog, get rid of your dog, or let your dog off with a warning until he shits on your rug again. But its flat stupidity to live in dog shit because you aren't the one who crapped it out.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe, your feeble attempts to form apt analogies are really not doing much for your creds. Why don't you use some other method of debate? But I'm not hopeful for change. And I can't change if you are hopeless. See if hope were a pencil and change was a mammogram, well then...never mind.

[Fred Beloit]

The History of Hedge Funds by Mario Gabelli

"With the significant help of Tremont Partners, Inc., a publicly traded company on NASDAQ, and its research arm TASS Investment Research Ltd., the world's leading experts on the hedge fund industry, I present the following history of hedge funds and give a few reasons I believe hedge funds offer an attractive alternative for sophisticated investors. (In the spirit of full disclosure I point out that we are large shareholders of Tremont)"

http://www.gabelli.com/news/articles/mario-hedge_102500.html

[IslamoLlama]

Lulz! Sharp retort Fred. I would have gone with, "I know you are but what am I" if it wasn't being used by TK on a regular basis. If Bear Sterns goes bankrupt, it drags down the entire economy and we get to do Great Depression 2: Electric Bogallo.

Clear enough for you, Fred? No more Bear Sterns = Economic Collapse = Vaporized 401(k) retirement account / pension money / parent's trust fund = you eating dog food out of a trash can. There. Forget metaphors or syllogisms. You are too smart for that crap. Only laying it out for you straight will make any sense. So now you understand why we had to bail out Bear Sterns. And - assuming you aren't eating dog food out of a trash can already - this should encourage you to vote for people with similar fiscal sensibility. Not that you have much choice, of course. The banking industry is a top donor to all three top Presidential Nominees.

[templar knight]

"No more Bear Sterns=Economic Collapse=.....you eating dog food out of a trash can."

Bull. You don't know that. And I doubt whether you know anything about economics, either. Regardless of whether we have the bailout now, which happened in the case of Bear Sterns, the facts are these: the longer we drag this mess out, the costlier it will get. The market will correct itself, and the longer it takes, the worse the correction will be. That is economics.

[Fred Beloit]

If, if, if. Do re mi mi mi: If they made me a king, I'd be but a slave to you. Please if me no more ifs.

"If Bear Sterns goes bankrupt, it drags down the entire economy and we get to do Great Depression."

You state this as if it were a fact. It is not a fact, it is a supposition.