Today's big political news will be made by big political mouths, speechmakers with fine enunciation from Washington and Springfield. But I'm thinking about a little guy going down, a deese-and-dems guy with federal prison staring at him.
President Barack Obama will whine about multimillion-dollar bonuses to AIG suits with federal bailout money, forgetting to mention he voted for the deal. And Gov. Pat Quinn will announce his stupendous state income-tax increase, putting government in line ahead of financially strapped taxpayers and their kids.
But there's a fellow who'll likely be forgotten in all of Wednesday's political noise, Al Sanchez, who helped build a giant patronage army for Mayor Richard Daley and was the front guy at Streets and San.
Sanchez is just another in a long line of chumbolones falling on the sword for the mayor on patronage abuse. I saw him falling in federal court Tuesday and thought, without guys like Sanchez, there would be no Daley machine....
#1
"Those of us who live in Africa know from experience that this is the kind of thing we live with: white liberals climbing on the bandwagon of black nationalists movements, hoping to gain favours in return."
March 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may try to push through Congress a health-care overhaul, energy proposals and tax increases by using a partisan tactic that would thwart Republican efforts to block the measures. The administration and congressional Democrats are debating whether to use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to advance some of the biggest items on the president's agenda. The move would allow Democrats to approve plans to raise taxes by $1 trillion, create a cap-and-trade system to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions, and overhaul health care without a single Republican vote.
"You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them into the Chicago River," said Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who stepped down last month as Obama's pick for Commerce secretary. "It takes the minority completely out of the process."
Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments. Read the rest.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/18/2009 18:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11135 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What an opportunity to give sole ownership of these bills to the Democrats, should they manage to force this through. Nail this one home -- starting with the Stimulus bill, the Republicans have been completely excluded from any negotiations to address the concerns of the 48% of Americans who did not vote for the Democratic version of hope and change. That the Democrats, led by President Obama, are even considering this tactic for issues that really need to be worked through by all involved, should be trumpeted in triple forte.
#3
I don't know, TW. On Charlie Rose, our illustrious queen speaker said she wasn't partisan, and walked away without a beating for being a scumsucking liar. *spit*
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2009 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
They never learn. Destroy the process and the process won't be there to protect you when you lose power. What can be put up, can be taken down.
#5
The trunks never have the cajones to do to the donks what is done to them. They have less discipline, are more craven, and are more easily maligned by the MSM.
#6
The maneuver may carry a steep political cost because it is likely to poison relations with Senate Republicans
Washington, the town of mis-speak, double-talk, mis-direction, and downright deception all aimed at the American voter. "Reconciliation"-another example of nothing resembling reconciliation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."
The speaker, condemning raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, referred to the immigrants she was addressing as "very, very patriotic."
"Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?" Pelosi told a mostly Hispanic gathering at St. Anthony's Church in San Francisco. "It must be stopped....What value system is that? I think it's un-American. I think it's un-American."
Pelosi said she was invited to the church by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., as part of his 17-city, cross-country tour called United Families, which he says is intended to put a human face on the immigration debate. "We think that families are the cornerstone of our society and our nation, and an immigration system should preserve those families, not destroy them," Gutierrez told FOX News Capitol Hill Producer Chad Pergram on Tuesday.
The congressman is collecting petitions that ask President Obama to "stop the immigration raids and deportations that are tearing our marriages, families and children apart." He is expected to present those petitions when Hispanic members of Congress meet with the President Wednesday.
On Saturday night, Pelosi joined Gutierrez before a cheering crowd at St. Anthony's chanting, "Si se puede," or "Yes we can."
Referring to work site enforcement actions by ICE agents, Pelosi said, "We have to have a change in policy and practice and again ... I can't say enough, the raids must end. The raids must end. You are special people. You're here on a Saturday night to take responsibility for our country's future. That makes you very, very patriotic."
"I was embarrassed by what she said," said Rick Oltman, with Californians for Population Stabilization, an anti-illegal immigrant group. "Exhorting illegal aliens for taking responsibility for our country's future.... In fact, sitting there in the audience.... I really resented that comment."
"I think it was pandering to the crowd but also insulting to American citizens who consider themselves to be patriotic, who obey the rule of law," said Oltman, who shot a video of the rally.
#1
enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."
Funny, I actually agree with that statement. Of course my problem with it is the opposite of hers; I believe it is 'un-American' for the government to refuse to enforce the law.
#2
So, is she also against the cops coming in the middle of the night to arrest a robbery suspect? After all, he/she is being taken away from his/her family, in front of the tender children and his/her loving spouse, and denied his/her right to make a living (selling stolen merchandise).
#6
Too bad this wont make front page news (or even buried news) in just about any Cali newspaper. Davis was tossed out on his ear for trying to give out licenses to illegals among other ideas. Nancy keeps going to far.
#7
"Those of us who live in Africa know from experience that this is the kind of thing we live with: white liberals climbing on the bandwagon of black nationalists movements, hoping to gain favours in return."
#8
Davis was tossed out on his ear for trying to give out licenses to illegals among other ideas.
Davis had the entire state as his constituency. Nancy only has to worry about San Francisco. We're not all as nuts as the folks in San Francisco. Besides that, Davis had other problems such as a $36 billion deficit. But Arnold is catching up to him.
#10
"We think that families are the cornerstone of our society and our nation, and an immigration system should preserve those families, not destroy them," Gutierrez told FOX News Capitol Hill Producer Chad Pergram on Tuesday.
--and this guy is a Rep? Hey Luis, I love the bait and switch but you're wrong. The cornerstone of our Nation is laws based on the U.S. Constitution you f*cking idiot. Re-read the original intent of the 14th Amendment, not for what you wish it would say.
Nancy Pelosi is quite possibly the stupidest elected official in U.S. history.
WASHINGTON If not distancing itself from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the White House is placing firmly on his shoulders responsibility for how the government handled the $165 million in bonuses paid to about 400 executives and traders at American International Group Inc.
"Secretary Geithner last week engaged with the CEO of AIG to communicate what we thought were outrageous and unacceptable bonuses," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.
Then he volunteered the answer to a question being asked all over Washington: Did Geithner still enjoy President Barack Obama's confidence, given the whopping bonuses the failed insurance giant paid Friday after receiving taxpayer bailout money?
"The president has complete confidence" in Geithner, Gibbs said.
Is Obama satisfied that Geithner informed him of the impending bonus payments in a timely fashion?
"Yes, the president is satisfied," Gibbs replied.
Those, of course, are statements that wouldn't need to be made if Geithner's status were clear. Not just a president's confidence, but his "complete confidence" can be a well-worn political signal that the person allegedly enjoying it should start circulating a resume.
In case anybody missed the point: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel categorically dismissed to The Associated Press any suggestion that Geithner is in trouble.
AIG is the demonized insurance giant now 80 percent owned by the government after getting $170 billion in federal bailout funds to pay money it owed to U.S. and foreign banks. Geithner told senior White House officials about the bonuses last Thursday and they in turn told Obama the same day, according to a timetable provided by the White House.
Geithner sent a flurry of letters to lawmakers Tuesday night on measures he's taking including bringing in Attorney General Eric Holder to try to recover as much of the bonuses as possible.
For the time being, Geithner, formerly president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, remains a key player in the gargantuan task of slowing the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.
But his future could soon be as murky as the economy's. His short tenure has been shaky at a time when the new president and the Democratic-led Congress are trying to project confidence to the markets and the nation.
When asked, Democrats issued statements of support for Geithner that ranged from concise to vague, but none called for his resignation.
Geithner's nomination was dogged at the start by news that he initially failed to pay $34,023 in self-employment taxes earlier in the decade when he worked for the International Monetary Fund. As treasury secretary, Geithner oversees the Internal Revenue Service.
Although he was confirmed with a third of the Senate voting against him Geithner's rollout of Obama's stimulus package was widely panned for being short on substance and delivered in a televised statement that made him look younger than his 47 years, and more uncertain. The markets tanked.
Not helping his cause was the news this week that Geithner failed to persuade AIG chief executive Edward Liddy to change or cancel plans to pay the bonuses Friday.
Whatever Geithner's culpability in the AIG debacle, Republicans did much to get the speculation going Tuesday by uttering the "R word," resignation.
"I don't know if he should resign over this," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the Senate Banking Committee's top Republican.
The White House swiftly hit back, supported by Sen. Chuck Schumer, like Geithner a New Yorker and an early supporter of Geithner's nomination.
"Secretary Geithner is a capable, smart and dedicated leader of the Treasury Department. He is the right person for the job in these challenging times," Schumer said in response to a request for comment.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was less concise. Asked how much confidence he had in Geithner, the Nevada Democrat avoided replying directly. Instead, he reframed the premise and suggested a discussion of "what we have accomplished this Congress" and issued something short of a blunt endorsement of Geithner's service.
The economic picture, Reid said, revolves around the fortunes of the housing market.
"I feel very comfortable with what the treasury secretary has done, what the housing secretary has done," Reid said. "Housing is the main focus of the problems we have with our economy. That's where it started, and everyone says, until we work out the housing issue, we will never be at the bottom of this economic crisis."
#1
Appointing all these political cronies is starting to bite the Big O admin in the a$$. It will continue to accelerate. Competent people need not apply.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2009 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
the O gave him "a vote of confidence". In sports this happens right before the firing
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2009 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The one thing Timmy has in his favor is that there are a lot of vacancies in important positions at Treasury. Fire his happy ass and the highest ranking person there is going to be the front desk receptionist.
Round two of the Obama White House's politicization of the 2010 census.
The U.S. Census Bureau is working with several national organizations to help recruit 1.4 million workers to produce the country's 2010 census, including one with a history of voter fraud charges: ACORN.
The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.
Everything is political to these guys.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States -- currently believed to be more than 306 million people.
A U.S. Census "sell sheet," an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN "play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful," including by "help[ing] recruit census workers."
The bureau is currently employing help from more than 250 national partners, including TARGET and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), to assist in the hiring effort.
Can you imagine the howls if George Bush had recruited church groups to help with the 2000 census?
But ACORN's partnership with the 2010 Census is worrisome to lawmakers who say past proven allegations of fraud should raise concerns about the organization.
"It's a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it's not just the lawmakers' concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country," Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told FOXNews.com. "We want an enumeration. We don't want to have any false numbers."
Posted by: ed ||
03/18/2009 09:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So, how many people can ACORN find in a studio apartment? And how many of them will be named "Jive Turkey", "Mickey Mouse" and "N.O. Body"?
#3
1 Million 400 000 people? That is ridiculous. France did its census with 40 000 people. Yes fourty thousand. Agreed France is more densely populated but thta doesn't justify such disparity (six to one) in the number of peole interviewed. the whole thing stinks to the high heavense and not only for the waste of tax payer's money. Hint: It is harder to control 1,400,00 people than 40,000.
No. This is not teh way. You must either organize a parallel census or an organ ization to recoup the results: (eg how it is that you get ten times more people in this place that entrioes in the phone guide?) and challenge them on the courts and in the public opinion.
#3
I want to be first to forecast that some techie, some where (Russia, China, India?) will eventually find a way to hack the tele-prompter and insert Mike's lyrics from "I am a Walrus". You saw it here first.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/18/2009 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I would like to see "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts - in fact I am one".
#6
In spite of the gaff, though, it sounds as if Obama treated Cowen a heckuva lot better than Brown. Maybe there's some kinda Boston/Chicago type connection there.
After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.
Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.
The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.
This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.
Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases are trumped up.
Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said no. The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for misrepresenting himself. These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.
Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.
Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a loss of confidence in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.
Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.
Screening of airplane passengers is hardly perfect. While armed marshals are helpful, the program covers less than 3 percent of the flights out of Washington D.C.'s three airports and even fewer across the country. Sky marshals are costly and quit more often than other law-enforcement officers.
Armed pilots are a cost-effective backup layer of security. Terrorists can only enter the cockpit through one narrow entrance, and armed pilots have some time to prepare themselves as hijackers penetrate the strengthened cockpit doors. With pilots, we have people who are willing to take on the burden of protecting the planes for free. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American carriers have military backgrounds.
Frankly, as a matter of pure politics, we cannot understand what the administration is thinking. Nearly 40 House Democrats are in districts were the NRA is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We can't find any independent poll in which the public is demanding that pilots disarm. Why does this move make sense?
Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?
#3
He really is trying to get us all killed, isn't he? I asked that question yesterday when it was reported that he wants servicemen to pay for their own insurance to get their wounds treated after they've been in combat serving our country. What other conclusion can we draw?
#6
Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?
#8
Liberals *like* crime. It keeps people scared, and scared people are more likely to look to government to solve their problems.
Look at shit holes like Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. Totalitarian dictators run those places with an iron fist. If three people meet on a street corner, the secret police know about it. So why do they all have insanely high crime rates? Same reason -- just another means of controlling the masses.
Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.
The Washington Post reports a "mob effect" at A.I.G financial products division:
A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.
With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.
Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?
#2
It will be interesting to see who the executives or board members were of the AIG PAC that gave out the money. I wonder if any of them are recipients of retention bonuses.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/18/2009 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
I remember when Cheney was a bad choice because he "had ties to halliburton"
#4
I'm wondering, if the government really goes after the AIG execs, if some of those execs don't start spilling their guts about the corruption they paid for in Obama and the dhimocrats.
(APP): The US President Barak Obama has suspended his Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra on corruption charges. Kundra had been in office for barely a week. He had to proceed on forced "leave" as the FBI had initiated an investigation into corruption charges against several persons, including the CIO, say media reports.
The agency has raided and searched Mr Kundara's office. Before joining the White House Office of Management and Budget as Obama's info czar, he was Director of a Telecommunication-Infrastructure Company.
The federal agents of the USA have already arrested an Indian-American businessman and a Washington DC government official on corruption charges and searched the offices of the capital city's chief technology officer as part of a corruption probe.
Those arrested include Yusuf Acar, a contracting officer for Washington's city government, and Sushil Bansal, a former employee.
The CIO and his coterie are accused of swindling the city of several million dollars through over-invoiced purchase orders for equipment and inflated billing for work by non-existent employees.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But I thought a few days ago, that he wasn't a target. Maybe with all the AIG noise they hope this one will slip through unnoticed.
#3
The CIO and his coterie are accused of swindling the city of several million dollars through over-invoiced purchase orders for equipment and inflated billing for work by non-existent employees.
#4
Vivek Kundra reinstated as White House CIO President Barack Obama's [Images] Indian- American infotech czar Vivek Kundra [Images] was on Wednesday 'reinstated' to his job at the White House, five days after he went on leave following Federal Bureau of Investigation's raids at his previous office, in a corruption case related to employees working there.
White House officials said Kundra, 34, returned to the job after it became clear that he was not the 'target of investigations,' a media report said. "Kundra has been informed that he is neither a subject nor a target of the investigation, and has been reinstated," Assistant White House Press Secretary Nick Shapiro was quoted as saying by the CNN.
Posted by: ed ||
03/18/2009 8:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
How soon before we see Obama, like Diogenes, roaming Washington DC (and perhaps Chicago) with a lamp searching for an honest man....
The U.S. Federal Reserve announced Wednesday it will spend up to US$300 billion over the next six months to buy long-term government bonds, a new step aimed at lifting the country out of recession by lowering rates on mortgages and other consumer debt.
At the same time, the Fed left a key short-term bank lending rate at a record low of between zero and 0.25 per cent. Economists predict the Fed will hold the rate in that zone for the rest of this year and for most - if not all - of next year.
Fed purchases should boost Treasury prices and drive down their rates. That would ripple through and lower rates on other kinds of debt. The last time the Fed set out to influence long-term interest rates was during the 1960s with Operation Twist, conceived by the Kennedy administration.
We're repeating all the mistakes the Japanese made in their lost decade ...
The Fed also said it will buy more mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help that battered market. The central bank will buy an additional $750 billion, bringing its total purchases of these securities to $1.25 trillion. It also will boost its purchase of Fannie and Freddie debt to $200 billion.
"This is not only going to keep mortgage rates low for a long period of time," said Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. "The mere announcement may produce a honeymoon effect and bring mortgage rates down to even lower levels in the coming days."
In addition, the Fed said a $1-trillion program to jump-start consumer and small business lending could be expanded to include other financial assets. The program - which is rolling out this week - currently is focused on spurring lending for autos, education, credit cards and loans for business equipment. The government already has announced an expansion to include commercial real-estate assets. Any broadening of the program would be beyond that area.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues are taking the new steps as the economy sinks deeper into recession. Since the Fed last met in late January, "the economy continues to contract," the policy-makers observed. "Job losses, declining equity and housing wealth and tight credit conditions have weighed on consumer sentiment and spending," they said.
Businesses, meanwhile, are facing weaker sales prospects and credit troubles have them cutting inventories. Problems overseas have crimped demand for U.S. exports, dealing domestic companies another blow, the Fed said.
Across the Atlantic, the Bank of England last week began buying government bonds from financial institutions as it turned to other ways to help revive Britain's moribund economy. The Bank of England, like the Fed, already had lowered its key interest rate to a record low of 0.5 per cent.
Finance leaders from top economies have discussed co-ordinating actions from their governments and central banks to provide a more potent punch against the global financial crisis.
Still, the Fed hoped its actions, the government's banking rescue effort, and President Barack Obama's $787-billion stimulus of increased government spending and tax cuts eventually will help revive the economy. "Although the near-term economic outlook is weak, the committee anticipates that policy actions .... will contribute to a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth," the Fed said.
Obama has urged Americans to be patient, saying it will take time for his revival programs to work.
Bernanke has repeatedly said that stabilizing America's financial system is key to turning around the economy. If that can be done, then the recession might end this year, setting the stage for a recovery next year, he said. But even in this best-case scenario, the nation's unemployment rate - now at quarter-century peak of 8.1 per cent - will keep climbing. Some economists think it will hit 10 per cent by the end of this year. The recession that began in December 2008 2007 already has snatched a net total of 4.4 million jobs and has left 12.5 million searching for work.
And the economy is still sinking. It contracted at 6.2 per cent in the final three months of 2008, also the worst showing in a quarter-century. Analysts believe the economy in the current January-March quarter is contracting at a pace between 5.5 and six per cent or more. They expect the economy also will continue to contract in the April-June quarter.
#2
Wont happen ever with Donks in the exec and congress. I don't believe there has EVER been a time where a donk has been in favor of LOWER taxes on the top earners or money makers including businesses.
#4
IIRC, JFK did, Valentine. Of course, he's the last Dem to call for tax cuts to stimulate the economy....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/18/2009 21:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Neither taxes nor the velocity of money is the issue here. It's the "bezzle," first defined by John K. Galbraith. Google it. Some examples, courtesy of Karl Denninger:
"== Liar loans: The borrower can't possibly pay off the loan on the original agreed terms and the institution that makes the loan "passes it" to an investor fully aware that the borrower almost certainly lied about credit capacity.
==Overly-rosy projections about growth in property values: The speaker is either incompetent (doesn't understand exponents - a fundamental mathematical concept) or is intentionally deceiving people.
== Overly-rosy projections about the stock market: "The market always comes back" and "over long periods of time it outperforms other investments." Both true, but both misleading; if you're 18 you might be able to wait for it to come back, but the market has remained flat to down from a given level for more than 20 years before. How long did you say it was before you intended to retire?
-----In short The Bezzle is "the lie" that is always present in business.
The truth is always some degree of lying in business transactions - always has been, always will be. And so long as The Bezzle doesn't become the underlying theme in business, it simply bankrupts the people who try to run it when they get discovered.
But when The Bezzle becomes the underlying premise and basis for business transactions that entire segment of the market is doomed.
Eventually the embezzled discover the fraud, and they get angry that the embezzlers stole their money. They revolt in whatever way they are able - if there is no law that gives them recourse and no government support for outing the bad actors they either turn to lawless actions or simply withdraw from the marketplace, refusing to continue to be a victim of someone else's grand scheme of theft... President Obama has ratified The Bezzle instead of working to put a stop to it, and as such he both owns and is responsible for the continuation of the slide in the markets since the election...Government is not responsible for the fraud, but it is responsible for turning its head and refusing to look, investigate and prosecute.
Government profited from the increased tax revenue and "fake wealth" that was "created" as a consequence of The Bezzle, and the campaign bribes, er, contributions that flowed from it.
Now government must choose - either put a stop to The Bezzle, here and now, or watch the market dismantle it piece by piece, firm by firm, and deal with the collateral damage - another 10-20 million unemployed (at minimum) and a Depression worse than the 1930s."
#6
Now government must choose - either put a stop to The Bezzle, here and now, or watch the market dismantle it piece by piece, firm by firm, and deal with the collateral damage - another 10-20 million unemployed (at minimum) and a Depression worse than the 1930s."
Eleven executives who received lavish bonuses of at least $1 million from American International Group (AIG) have quit their jobs.
"Eleven of the individuals who received 'retention' bonuses of one million dollars or more are no longer working at AIG, including one who received 4.6 million dollars," New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said in a letter to Barney Frank, chairman of the financial services committee in the US House of Representatives.
The government has provided $180 billion in taxpayer money to help AIG stay in business and now owns nearly 80 percent of the insurance company.
Cuomo said his office found that AIG had paid more than $160 million in bonuses to employees at the company's Financial Products Subsidiary 'whose performance led to crushing losses and the near failure of AIG'.
Then again, as Tom Maguire notes at Just One Minute, AIG had all sorts of business, some of which were actually profitable, and the guys who quit might have been the guys who knew how to save the company.
He added that the top bonus recipient at AIG last year received more than $6.4 million and the top 10 received a total of $42 million. "Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing a taxpayer bailout," Cuomo said.
Iowa's senior senator Charles Grassley said on Tuesday that the AIG executives should either resign or commit suicide for the damages they have inflicted on the company.
The government-appointed AIG boss Edward Liddy claimed in a Saturday letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that the bonuses were necessary to retain 'the best and brightest talent'.
The issue of retention payments to AIG employees has been under question since the group was bailed out in mid-September and received nearly $1 billion in retention payments for 2008 and 2009.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Condensed version of this story:
Congress Acts Like It Doesn't Read the Legislation it Passes.
#2
At Mr. Wife's Fortune 500 employer, even middle managers receive up to half their wages as performance bonuses. However, bonuses are portioned out from the net profits the entire company earns, based on business unit and individual performance, calculated in some terribly complicated but no doubt logical way. Bottom line, if the company had no profits, there would be no money for bonuses... all the way up to the top. Loans don't go to profitability, I believe, but it appears AIG defines things differently.
#3
TW, these are retention bonuses. They go to hard to replace people. My wife gets these bonuses. They are awarded in one year and paid out if you stay another 2 years for example.
It's common for people paid these bonuses to leave shortly after recieving the bonus. The fact they leave after recieving the bonus is good evidence the bonuses work, because the purpose of the bonus is to keep the individual for the period until the bonus is paid.
And BTW firing someone shortly before they are due to recieve a retention bonus would almost certainly result in legal action by the person involved.
#4
Agreed, phil. And the White House, Bush and PBHO knew about these agreements long ago. They were kept under wraps so that the shouting would start after the checks cleared.
If you want to beef about these, your real question should be whether it would have been better to let AIG (and Bear Stearns) go BK instead of nursing them.
I tend to believe so, though the crisis would have been deeper, it would have been shorter, less expensive, and better lessons would have been learned. I don't like socialism and that's where we're headed.
But enough on the bonuses. The guys did the work and should get the amount agreed to at the start of the deal. If we start rewriting contracts, we'll look like zimbobway soon.
#6
"Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing a taxpayer bailout," Cuomo said. ....The government-appointed AIG boss Edward Liddy claimed in a Saturday letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that the bonuses were necessary to retain 'the best and brightest talent'.
#8
Its a shell game. If AIG had gone Chapter 11 the judges would look at these contracts and renegotiate or nullify them or make them last in line. I understand the contracts were committed only after the first round of bailout. If so, then there may be a fraud case here. I received bonuses for 15 years and only because my company and its divisions made profit. We were in the engineering and construction business and when we priced out a job we included a 20% hair cut on our gross margin for profit sharing should the project perform and succeed. If you lose money because you thought you were the smartest guy in the room - no bonus especially retention bonus - who'd want a smart guy who turned his business into a loser?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/18/2009 10:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It doesn't matter if some of the beneficiaries performed well. Nobody gets bonuses during an austerity regime. Period.
Posted by: Thriling Oppressor of the Heathen Rus5144 ||
03/18/2009 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#10
While I don't believe that bailout money should go to bonuses of any kind, especially when I believe the company should have gone bankrupt anyway, the fact that the dhimocrats and the White House knew about the bonuses and approved the money and now are making a huge fuss about is a disgrace. They gave them the money without strings, they don't have a single legal right to demand it back. I think they are desperately trying to cover their own bribes they received from AIG by demonizing the company.
#12
Congress is the problem all right. Here is a concise statement as to the real nature of the problem.
----------- 545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of epresentatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, theFederal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget... He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of theOrlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2009 16:26 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I am sooooo emailing that piece by Charlie Reese to people.
#14
Here is the AIG thing in a nutshell. Comment from the Belmont Club:
-------------- 4. Fat Man:
The feigned outrage over bonuses to AIG employees is like a three card monte game. The real purpose is distract the spectators while the card players confederates pick their pockets. AIG was a conduit for over $170 billion to its counter-parties like Goldman Sachs. The bonuses were 1/10th of 1% of that amount, and what is worse, 1/100th of 1% of the $1.5 trillion that Congress has appropriated since Jan 20. The spectators are the taxpayers. The three card monte players are the politicians.
Mar 18, 2009 - 2:29 pm
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2009 20:08 Comments ||
Top||
#15
This administration is 'all in' with distraction and deflection. Unfortunately for them, the American people are savy enough to see through it.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."
WASHINGTON If not distancing itself from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the White House is placing firmly on his shoulders responsibility for how the government handled the $165 million in bonuses paid to about 400 executives and traders at American International Group Inc.
