View Story | 197 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Does nothing much but consolidate more power over our money in the hands of the Fed. The Fed is arguably an arm of the banking industry, and will abuse this increase in power just as they have abused the interset rates to favor wall St. Shrub decidered that we can't afford 4 billion to help mortgage holders, but we can still afford that 12 billion a month to watch over Exxon's oil in Iraq.
St. Ronnie was an asshole.
by manwithnoname on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:08:23 AM PDT
especially the past 7) have been all about separating most Americans from their money. All the benefits of increased productivity have gone to the top one-tenth of 1% of the income earners. We peons take all the risks, and Dick Cheney's buddied get all the rewards.
IGTNT
by blue jersey mom on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:10:30 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
used this turn of phrase so I can't give them proper credit:
Socialized Profiteering.
It's the perfect term for how our country now operates, don't you think?
The Rapture is not an "exit strategy" and Armageddon is not a "plan". Troutfishing
by MTgirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:01:48 AM PDT
Ok, it was cute at first, but now that I see dozens of posters with the April Fools Caps, it's irritating and unreadable.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Needs more coffee.
by Tracker on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:31:01 AM PDT
Sometimes I hate April Fools Day.
by Tracker on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:31:28 AM PDT
I did not do that, my comment just keeps coming up like that off and on - can other people edit our posts like that?
"God is not on the side of the heavy battalions, but of the best shots."- Voltaire
by armenia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:36:04 AM PDT
let's see
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain
by dotdot on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:54:55 AM PDT
fine
by dotdot on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:11 AM PDT
it's putting it in for me... lol
by dotdot on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:34 AM PDT
Seems that there is code written so that it randomly puts OMG in the subject line.
by dotdot on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:56:21 AM PDT
we are the victims, my friend.
~father...Father, the sleeper has awakened! ~Dune
by CWalter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:43:25 AM PDT
I finally figured that out
by Tracker on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:45:20 AM PDT
by armenia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:57:22 AM PDT
In this case, the program's job is to insert random capitalization and a Rick Astley video.
by Tracker on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:59:24 AM PDT
default to Rick Astley singing that same song.
My daughter said we've been "Rick Rolled."
I think I'm too old to know what that means.
by Brooke In Seattle on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:14:30 AM PDT
Haha! You've been duckroll'd, which is like being rickroll'd only different!
I also believe we must impeach Antonin Scalia for protection from his inhumanity.
by SciVo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM PDT
I HAVE to use that one...
in anti-mccain window stickers.....
Obama, anti-McSame, and 50% off all IMPEACH static cling window decals@ gotta-yell-it.com
by netguyct on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:48:50 AM PDT
McCain: Another 4 years of Socialized Profiteering
by MTgirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:39:03 AM PDT
Sorry, did I say PNAC? I meant toddlers.
-- Disagree? Please select your reason: [ ] retard, [ ] Freeper troll, [ ] witch
by DemCurious on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:35:45 AM PDT
I think even toddlers look after their toys better...
Only adults could be so clever. And by clever I mean outsmarting themselves while they think they've got all the bases covered.
The blowback from PNAC's actions is going to be life-altering for everyone. Dumb b**t**ds.
by MTgirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:06:21 AM PDT
I really do believe that there is a developmental issue, a serious one, behind most of this BS. There is one psychological theory in particular that I always think of in regard to most Republicans. Kohlberg's theory of moral development, too much to go into here, but, Kohlberg's ultimate conclusion is that a lot of people get caught up at some very elemental stages of moral development. Problem is, they still become "adults" in every other sense of the word. But they are walking around at a Kohlberg "1b" level which actually is a very toddler-like level of (moral) existance.
by armenia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:14:54 AM PDT
armenia has aptly assessed this administration at Stage 1 of moral development. A brief description and in context:
At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others. At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole. At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.
At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.
At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.
At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.
For further insight:
Kohlberg would like to see people advance to the highest possible stage of moral thought. The best possible society would contain individuals who not only understand the need for social order (stage 4) but can entertain visions of universal principles, such as justice and liberty (stage 6) (Kohlberg, 1970).
Source
This administration functions at a very primitive level and has a long way to go before it develops any moral conscience, impossible to achieve IMHO.
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster help us all.
"You can count on Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else." -- Winston Churchill
by bleeding heart on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:01:01 AM PDT
under Bernanke, it used them pretty wisely. Think about what the fed did, it new that this year (especially March on) was going to see a huge number of ARM resets that would have crippled many homeowners and it bailed them out by getting the interest rate (Libor and the treasury) down low enough that resets would not raise their mortgage payments. Bernanke has succeeded at his #1 priority (for now) and that is to prevent an absolute collapse of our economy. The homeowner bailout has already happened through interest rate policy. Any other government bailout is only going to help those who cannot be helped at this point.
by SilverOz on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:41:01 AM PDT
The interest rate cuts only fuel inflation which is about the only thing that will "trickle down" to the average American. Granted; they have done a very creative juggling act to cover the true inflation rate, but when we seriously dilute the value of the dollar to placate Wall St., I see more and deeper trouble ahead.
by manwithnoname on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:57:32 AM PDT
were the resets, especially considering it is quite likely that inflation has already peaked with us headed into a recession. We can afford a little inflation to stave off (if they are successful) a complete meltdown.
by SilverOz on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:59:58 AM PDT
...who are not driving today to protest the fact that they are actually losing money on every trip now that diesel fuel prices are over $4.00, thanks to the collpase of the dollar. Or anybody else that has to buy food, gasoline, imported goods, etc, etc, etc...
I want my Two Dollars!
by Ken in MN on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:09:35 AM PDT
Oil is up due to global demand, food is up due to an absurd ethanol policy (and global demand). Also, the truck drivers that are protesting today are the independents who must compete against the much more efficient (economically) large trucking companies. I blame all those people in the third world who have the audacity to want to join industrialized society more than I blame the weak dollar.
by SilverOz on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:19:33 AM PDT
independents now? So many lease to own trucks from "big trucking" firms are independents. They basically hold all the risk of ownership while still driving for the company. It is quite a recent scam.
If we want peace, why do we give weapons and call it "aid"?
by gdwtch52 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:19:09 AM PDT
There's a shortage of truck drivers and the big companies are suffering for their sins, a little.
Single payer universal healthcare coverage saves money and saves lives.
by freelunch on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM PDT
when no banks want to write new loans? When you look at the current financial meltdown, interest rates are not the issue. Questionable paper, lower and lower wages and job insecurity ... these are the things to talk about. Any idiot can lower the interest rate ... and our idiots at the Fed do it constantly!
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
by JuliaAnn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:09:19 AM PDT
You would think that lowering the CC rates would encourage consumer spending, but no one ever seems to think of this.
Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers
by groggy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM PDT
the financial meltdown (they offered loan facilities for that). They lowered the rates in order to lower the yield on short term treasuries and Libor in order to prevent all those coming ARM resets from resetting higher. And it looks like they succeeded.
by SilverOz on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:30:28 AM PDT
by freelunch on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM PDT
which is how ARM's are rest. Go to calculated risk and do some reading and you will see how most of these ARM's actually will reset either on equal terms or even lower for some. This is a fact.
by SilverOz on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:07:44 PM PDT
The economy hasn't been growing. Most of the people who bought these things don't have any equity. How often is the reset after the first one?
by freelunch on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:48:03 PM PDT
The ARMs are still resetting higher. SOME are not resetting as high as they would have, but different banks use different interest rate measures as the reset basis, most of them long term rates, which have not fallen.
Banks are refusing to negotiate lower interest rates with customers, and are unwilling to refinance properties whose values are "upside down" (home value lower than the amount owed on the loan). Foreclosures are accelerating. Inventory is increasing. The real estate death spiral is in full swing.
Here's a sample of a few cities from California:
City# Homes for Sale# in Foreclosure%Berkeley2555661%Oakland3,4682,54673%San Francisco1,90353130%San Diego10,7686,12157%Los Angeles8,3094,90459%
Dump Steny Hoyer
by mataliandy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:42:16 AM PDT
Switching from Low-sulfur diesel (500 pm) to Ultra-low sulfur diesel (15 ppm) has added at least $0.25 or so per gallon to the price.
It needed to be done, of course, it just is unfortunate it happened during a period of high fuel prices.
by RyoCokey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:18:52 AM PDT
Bernanke has succeeded at his #1 priority (for now) and that is to prevent an absolute collapse of our economy.
He has simply hidden the collapse a bit longer. When the banks are insolvent, there is no interest rate that will make them solvent.
He simply added water to the big wheel on the steamroller that's in the process of flattening our economy. This slowed it down, but by adding weight, will only make the economy that much flatter.
by mataliandy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:08:09 AM PDT
... should be opposed on principle. Bush has shown that he has no interest in governing this country for the people. Delegating the economic crisis to a Wall Street financier isn't exactly confidence-building, either.
Congress should tell Bush where to shove his long-term reform plans, and take the lead on helping Americans in distress right now.
We can reregulate business in the next administration. It ought to be one of the issues we attack McCain on, in fact.
Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.
by Dallasdoc on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:59:02 AM PDT
for "steal." This has been true for decades.
Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.
by Jim P on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:25:51 AM PDT
moving toward more right wing policies.
fact does not require fiction for balance
by mollyd on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:08:00 AM PDT
us out of our national health, vacations, labor protections, etc. all under the banner of reform. It's about time we "reformed" the right out of existence.
by unclejohn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:23:13 AM PDT
well said - always.
"The truth shall set you free - but first it'll piss you off." Gloria Steinem
Iraq Moratorium
by One Pissed Off Liberal on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:26:43 AM PDT
night. Over the weekend the media generally panned it saying that it was off topic and most noted that it provided LESS regulation not more. It seemed to me in my casual survey of the responses that even some of the anti-regulation types were unhappy about the deregulation.
Yesterday, the morning shows covered the plan less enthusiasm than I had expected such an obedient crowd to have. The weekend criticism seemed to provoke a response from Secretary Paulson saying that this plan had been in the works since last spring or summer before the crisis and that it wasn't meant to fix the current problems just to improve conditions for business in general - lol. They further noted that Paulson expected this reform to be a long-term reform project. lol again because Secretary Paulson isn't likely going to be around "long-term".
This morning Dodd and others were doing the rounds on the shows saying that a modernization plan is something we should talk about but that it won't get done this year because it is too complicated and because we have problems right now that must be addressed first.
I suspect BushCult was trying to "help" McCain and that what they thought was going to be a really big hit turned out to be a dud. Funny.
by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:38:44 AM PDT
at with a jaundiced eye. Patriot Act, Authorization to use military force, Protect America Act, FISA/Teleco immunity....if it starts out as Hurry, hurry we're all in danger, you should stop and slowly think it over.
by gdwtch52 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:23:21 AM PDT
if they really did do it in a hurry or they have had it waiting in the wings all along.
by armenia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:39:13 AM PDT
I didn't exactly address that aspect of this release, but it is clear that they thought that it was going to be received positively by Wall Street allies and that they thought they could sneak it past the public without it being scrutinized. They thought they could use this crisis to jam through their radical, screwed up plan to destroy the last vestiges of the FDR banking system. The problem is that even the anti-regulation crowd is now thinking that a bit more regulation is needed to protect their investments and so they didn't jump on the bandwagon waiving the flag as I think BushCult expected they would. That was super-funny.
I also heard this morning that the community bankers around the country were not keen and that because there are a lot more of them than there are CEOs of Citi, Bears Stearns, etc., this thing is probably not going to get a second look before people move on.
This is really FUNNY:
SMALL banks, state officials and others have begun an assault on the Bush administration's sweeping plan to overhaul the US financial regulatory system. Their criticism presages the long fight between regulators, financial institutions and a host of others if the proposals become legislation. "It reads like amateur hour and it's because none of those guys ever worked in a regulated, chartered bank," said Camden Fine, president and chief executive of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington trade group representing small banks, referring to the authors at Treasury.
SMALL banks, state officials and others have begun an assault on the Bush administration's sweeping plan to overhaul the US financial regulatory system.
Their criticism presages the long fight between regulators, financial institutions and a host of others if the proposals become legislation.
"It reads like amateur hour and it's because none of those guys ever worked in a regulated, chartered bank," said Camden Fine, president and chief executive of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington trade group representing small banks, referring to the authors at Treasury.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...
As the profits become more scarce, we'll see more and more of these divisions emerge in what was on the whole a reliable constituency for the GOP. Ha ha.
Oh and interestingly some people are now saying that one of the best places to keep your money is in community banks because they are so much more heavily regulated and are less likely to be exposed the way these mega-conglomerates are. So regulation is becoming a selling point. LOL
by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:19:17 AM PDT
Bush administration's balls!! Those guys have got some BIG BALLS! (but a nasty little Dick!)
by gdwtch52 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:27:14 AM PDT
Glad to see someone touting the value of smaller institutions. The big banks were/are getting seriously creepy! From the small fish consumer side, there is absolutely nothing positive about keeping money in a large bank (e.g B of A) other than not being able to spit without hitting one of their ATM's. On the downside: Their constant mergers are dumbfounding and have provided no benefit whatsoever to me as a customer. Their fees are deliberately obfuscated and obscene. Their savings and checking account interest rates are pathetic.
Who the hell needs banks this big? Their purpose is what? Kind of like the dot com boom where some marketing geeks decided there should be a half dozen internet sites selling dog food.
As our CDs mature, we're moving them to a local bank and a credit union and slipping our savings into them also.
by JohnnySacks on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:22:09 AM PDT
Big banks, but don't have a choice. My credit card was bought by Chase and my mortgage was bought by Citi - nobody gave me a choice on these, and I can't just pay them off (that mortgage is another 8 years out at least). Irony of ironies, I refinanced my mortgage 2 years ago with Amro to get away from Chase, and Citi bought it.
by bfitzinAR on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:21:48 PM PDT
it was going to be such a hit, why the friday night news dump? That timing is usually reserved for things they hope will get lost in the weekend news cycle.
"YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who
by Reepicheep on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM PDT
used to keep the general public out of the discussion, not necessarily the elites who usually spin for them. You use the weekend to control the messaging through limited and presumably favorable channels so that by Monday everyone has either forgotten about it or is spinning in favor of the story. None of that happened.
by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:22:09 PM PDT
Alan Sloan, Washington Post summed it all up very well in his description of capitalism running amok:
Add to that (referring to the cascading failures of investment counterparties) the Wall Street ethos: If you take big, even reckless, bets and win, you have a great year and you get a great bonus -- or in the case of hedge funds, 20 percent of the profits. If you lose money the following year, you lose your investors' money rather than your own, and you don't have to give back last year's bonus. Heads, you win; tails, you lose someone else's money.
This is NOT the foundation of a sustainable economic society.
by JohnnySacks on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:00:32 AM PDT
of our economy in this HuffPost column. As anyone who has read American Theocracy knows, Phillips has a thourough understanding of the dangers posed by Big Finance.
Of course, the problem is that one can't run a Dem prez campaign w/o being able to ante up $100mm, and that ante can't be raised w/o considerable help from Wall Street. It's the one aspect of the Obama phenomenon that concerns me a little. Hopefully, if he can bring in solid Dem majorities w/ him, he'll have less reason to worry about the Street.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:27:15 AM PDT
Hillary and Obama said they were for public campaigns and would support/sign legislation in that direction - but they had to get elected first.
by bfitzinAR on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:25:31 PM PDT
the SEC. It's a recurring theme with neocons,
"regulation bad, free markets good"
In a world full of angels this might work. Our world is full of greedy bastards.
Deregulating the S&L's was their first big success story. Remember how that turned out?
by groggy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:36:15 AM PDT
Thievery is not a crime.
Bush and his cronies want to make their thievery legal.
by freelunch on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:00:21 AM PDT
by SingleVoter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM PDT
no, no one remembers that.
We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!
by ScrewySquirrel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:09:42 AM PDT
One of the defining emotions of modern conservatism is rage against unelected judges and bureaucrats allegedly forcing Americans to live their lives in a faithless and opportunity-restricting manner. Yet I hear nary a peep from the usual ideological founts about our national economic policy being ceded to an unelected Federal Reserve. What's happening is that, rather than being governed for the benefit of the financial class, we are about to be governed by the financial class. I don't think that's going to work out well.
by eightlivesleft on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:15:41 AM PDT
IMHO, we've been governed by the financial class for some time now. They don't call the Senate the Millionaires Club for nothing.
by MTgirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:13:51 AM PDT
Sorry for the weirdness, and the subject line was supposed to read "About to be?"
Strange.
by MTgirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:15:47 AM PDT
by MTgirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:23:58 AM PDT
by gdwtch52 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:24:20 AM PDT
about all that oil that they are pumping unmetered out of the ground and shipping away. Where is it going?
If it were appearing on the market then the market would know and it wold even conceivably affect oil prices.
Is Iraq's oil being stockpiled somewhere? Exhausted or semi exhausted oil wells would make good storage.
Is it that Bush wants troops there until all the oil has been pumped? Are Iraq's oil fields going to turn out to "have a lower yield than projected" while some other field has an unexpected upturn?
Is this feasible or fantasy?
Best Wishes, Demena
by Demena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:25:12 AM PDT
Demena, had not looked at it from that angle.
by armenia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:04:47 AM PDT
generally speaking, to maximize their profits. It boosts the amount that they're allowed to pump in their oligopolistic collusion. So...which OPEC petrosocialist is geographically closest to Iraq and politically cosiest to Bush? If your conspiracy theory has legs, I think that you wouldn't have to look any further than Saudi Arabia.
by SciVo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM PDT
USA's stored reserves?
by Demena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:15:36 PM PDT
Bush's support of deregulation has contributed to the present economic disaster. So, he wants us to trust him to redo all the economic regulatory agencies. Then, the job will be done (in line with his positions), and his successor doesn't have to worry about that.
"I'm not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Obama in 2002
by Frank Palmer on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:47:55 AM PDT
of Wall Street banks, including JP Morgan, Chase, Lehman Bros., Rothschild, Goldman Sachs and a few others whose names escape me. We can be sure that they have the interests of the average American at heart.
by unclejohn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:15:56 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 197 comments