If this 4-1/2 minute video doesn't make you tear up thinking of all we have lost (and are in the process of losing still) I don't know what will.
I hope my kids will some day discover that there was a time in America when funny men and women could make us laugh at ourselves, our politicians and even our culture without anyone seriously taking offense. Perhaps they will learn that if a society must curtail its speech for fear of offending anyone, it will ultimately offend everyone.
Enjoy this piece of nostalgia, and note Orson Welles' prophetic lament at the end. Unfortunately the clowns in the video are amateurs compared to the ones running our government (and soon our lives.)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Mob Rule Coming to a Continent Near You?
“The time has come to address the entire robber banker culture. Investment banks have been run not for the benefit of society, customers, or even shareholders, but exclusively for the advantage of the bankers themselves…This is why we must stand outside their homes throwing rocks through the windows until they do.”
So says newspaper editorial Max Hastings in the U.K.'s Daily Mail. And he is not alone. College professors, union bosses and politicans in the U.K are stoking the fires of anarchy and mob rule, just in time for the G-20 summit in London next week. Some 2,000 protestors are set to descend on the meeting, causing trouble and hanging capitalist bankers in effigy.
Could it happen here? Consider: when AIG acting chairman Ed Liddy appeared before Congress last week he testified that many of his employees have received death threats in the wake of the AIG bonus "scandal" ginned up by our politicans. Barney Frank shrugged off his testimony, New York's attorney general Andrew Cuomo is suing to have the names of the bonus-receiving executives outed and a Republican U.S. Senator gently suggested that the executives might consider suicide. And then the U.S House of Representatives, including 85 shameless Republicans, voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses retroactively.
Never mind that the bonuses were specifically accounted for in the "stimulus" bill insisted upon by the President and passed by our dear members of Congress, none of whom read the final bill. Never mind that Connecticut Democrat Senator Dodd lied about his role in inserting the bonus waivers in the legislation (I am sure even liberal Connecticut voters would agree that Dodd is a walking advertisement for term limits, not that he is the only one). The politicians needed to divert attention away from their own reckless incompetence and who better to vilify than the very capitalists who they have showered with a gazillion dollars of bailouts, guarantees and the like.
When the New York Times published the resignation letter of AIG VP Jake deSantis, I thought for sure that average, hardworking Americans would applaud his ethic of hard work and duty to the company he served for many years. I felt that surely no one would begrudge him the right to the bonus that he was promised and deserved (especially since he took only a $1.00 salary).
Yet I saw nothing but scorn for Mr. deSantis in the press, including a column by Margaret Carlson pooh-pooing his plight. Is this what America has come to? Heaping scorn on a private citizen who was just doing his job, and then got stiffed on his way out the door?
So again, I ask: could the rule of the mob that threatens to storm the G20 summit happen here? I don't know. But Michelle Malkin thinks it can. It already has.
So says newspaper editorial Max Hastings in the U.K.'s Daily Mail. And he is not alone. College professors, union bosses and politicans in the U.K are stoking the fires of anarchy and mob rule, just in time for the G-20 summit in London next week. Some 2,000 protestors are set to descend on the meeting, causing trouble and hanging capitalist bankers in effigy.
Could it happen here? Consider: when AIG acting chairman Ed Liddy appeared before Congress last week he testified that many of his employees have received death threats in the wake of the AIG bonus "scandal" ginned up by our politicans. Barney Frank shrugged off his testimony, New York's attorney general Andrew Cuomo is suing to have the names of the bonus-receiving executives outed and a Republican U.S. Senator gently suggested that the executives might consider suicide. And then the U.S House of Representatives, including 85 shameless Republicans, voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses retroactively.
Never mind that the bonuses were specifically accounted for in the "stimulus" bill insisted upon by the President and passed by our dear members of Congress, none of whom read the final bill. Never mind that Connecticut Democrat Senator Dodd lied about his role in inserting the bonus waivers in the legislation (I am sure even liberal Connecticut voters would agree that Dodd is a walking advertisement for term limits, not that he is the only one). The politicians needed to divert attention away from their own reckless incompetence and who better to vilify than the very capitalists who they have showered with a gazillion dollars of bailouts, guarantees and the like.
When the New York Times published the resignation letter of AIG VP Jake deSantis, I thought for sure that average, hardworking Americans would applaud his ethic of hard work and duty to the company he served for many years. I felt that surely no one would begrudge him the right to the bonus that he was promised and deserved (especially since he took only a $1.00 salary).
Yet I saw nothing but scorn for Mr. deSantis in the press, including a column by Margaret Carlson pooh-pooing his plight. Is this what America has come to? Heaping scorn on a private citizen who was just doing his job, and then got stiffed on his way out the door?
So again, I ask: could the rule of the mob that threatens to storm the G20 summit happen here? I don't know. But Michelle Malkin thinks it can. It already has.
My Purim Video
For the Jewish holiday of Purim I produced a 10-minute video for our synagogue's Purim party.
For those of you who don't know the "players," it may not be as much fun to watch as it is for those who do. But I hope you will watch and enjoy anyway.
For those of you who don't know the "players," it may not be as much fun to watch as it is for those who do. But I hope you will watch and enjoy anyway.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
GSEs: Government Sheltered Enterprises
If we had anything resembling a fair and independent media then the Dems wouldn't control Congress today. If instead of slavishly hyping failure on the part of the Bush administration to regulate the financial services industry the press simply presented the facts and allowed them to speak for themselves, Americans might have learned the truth about the role that Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and company played in the recent housing market bust and related credit freeze. These Democrats did everything they could to keep the wraps on the corruption and accounting shenanigans at the GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), notwithstanding increasing pressure from the White House, Treasury and the Fed and even the GSE regulator (who is accountable to Congress) to reign in the massive bureaucracies.
This doesn't come as a shock to those of us who pay attention to these kinds of things. Many have seen this video of Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and others excoriating the inspector general of the agency overseeing the GSE's when he tried to raise the warning flag about problems at Freddie and Fannie in 2004. The money quote from Maxine: "Everything [with the GSE's] has worked just fine...what we need to do today is to focus on the regulator...so as not to impede [the agency's] affordable housing mission."
But shouldn't this have been Page One material? Doesn't a congresswoman's attempt to intimidate a government regulator warrrant serious attention? It took internet blogger sleuths to find this stuff and feed it to YouTube and talk radio because the media elites shunned it. A journalism industry worth more than spit would have not only brought this shameless shilling and intimidation by Democrat bigs to light but would have asked the obvious question: why?
Well, there apparently was one "mainstream" media outlet that made a run at the story. In September Fox News Special Report ran this segment exposing the GSE protection racket. (Why it took months for this to hit my inbox is beyond me.) It has been viewed an incredible $3.4 million times since it was posted by ProudtobeCanadian.ca, a conservative group of...proud Canadians (who knew?). Think things today might be different if the story had been pushed by CNN, The New York Times and the rest of the elite media?
That this is not a scandal of huge proportions is itself a scandal of huge proportions, and future historians will have plenty to chew on in analyzing why a free and independent press would engage in a cover-up that rivals the cover-up they were covering up.
This doesn't come as a shock to those of us who pay attention to these kinds of things. Many have seen this video of Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and others excoriating the inspector general of the agency overseeing the GSE's when he tried to raise the warning flag about problems at Freddie and Fannie in 2004. The money quote from Maxine: "Everything [with the GSE's] has worked just fine...what we need to do today is to focus on the regulator...so as not to impede [the agency's] affordable housing mission."
But shouldn't this have been Page One material? Doesn't a congresswoman's attempt to intimidate a government regulator warrrant serious attention? It took internet blogger sleuths to find this stuff and feed it to YouTube and talk radio because the media elites shunned it. A journalism industry worth more than spit would have not only brought this shameless shilling and intimidation by Democrat bigs to light but would have asked the obvious question: why?
Well, there apparently was one "mainstream" media outlet that made a run at the story. In September Fox News Special Report ran this segment exposing the GSE protection racket. (Why it took months for this to hit my inbox is beyond me.) It has been viewed an incredible $3.4 million times since it was posted by ProudtobeCanadian.ca, a conservative group of...proud Canadians (who knew?). Think things today might be different if the story had been pushed by CNN, The New York Times and the rest of the elite media?
That this is not a scandal of huge proportions is itself a scandal of huge proportions, and future historians will have plenty to chew on in analyzing why a free and independent press would engage in a cover-up that rivals the cover-up they were covering up.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Magnificent Monday on Wall Street. Can it Last?
I read several news accounts describing the Treasury's new plan to rescue the financial sector by ridding banks of their "legacy assets." (While that sounds like priceless stuff you'd like to hand down to your kids and grandkids, the term its just a fancy name for the toxic real estate-related assets that have clogged credit markets for the past year or more.) The Public-Private Investment Program (I'll be the first to call it "Pub Pip") will apparently finance up to a trillion dollars of asset purchases by private investors and the taxpayers using $100 billion of already-authorized bank rescue money plus FDIC guarantees, Federal Reserve financing and what not.
(To tell you the truth I'm kind of tired of seeing the word "trillion" show up in every other paragraph of every financial news story of late. It just doesn't sound like a hell of a lot of money anymore. Pretty soon my wife'll come home one afternoon and tell me she just bought a dress on sale: "but hon, it only cost a trillion!" It would be nice if the next time I saw the term "trillion" it was printed on my 401K statement or the appraisal of my home's value. Of course the way the Fed is inflating money these days a trillion may not quite get me through next month.)
I read tax cheat Treasury man Tim Geithner's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today announcing Pub Pip. I'm pretty smart but I couldn't make heads or tails out of it, honestly. (I'm having a contest--if any one of my readers can tell me in 10 paragraphs or less how the plan works I'll buy him or her a free subscription to "This Week at American General," AIG's employee newsletter). But I guess the really smart guys on Wall Street liked it, because they sent the Dow soaring almost 500 points today. That didn't do me a whole lot of good since much of my net worth is now in cash.
But I'm happy for my friends and clients who saw their investments rise by 8% in one day, and I hope the rally continues. But I caution against what the now-discredited former Fed Chairman Greenspan called "irrational exuberance." The market rose almost entirely on sentiment and a sigh of relief that Mr. Geithner actually had a plan, not just a promise of a plan. (For a sobering reaction to the Treasury's new plan, click here).
The problem is that bear markets don't usually end with a bang. And bull markets don't usually start with one either. Bulls are built on a solid foundation of a strong financial system, a stable currency and a positive outlook for the political, regulatory and global environment. Bulls like a predictable tax system that at the very least does not punish risk-taking. Bull markets like government spending to be in the 20% of GDP range or less, not the 23% or 24% range it is fast getting to. And bulls sure don't like the idea of $9 trillion (oops, I said it again) in projected deficits over the next decade, 3 times the deficits racked up under the evil President Bush.
Bulls probably are not happy when the Russians and the Chinese threaten to introduce a new reserve currency because of America's rush to cheapen its own. Bulls look askance at protectionist policies like those that crept into the omnibus spending bill keeping Mexican trucks off our highways. Bulls shy away from economies in which entire sectors are under threat of government domination (financials; energy; health care) and those that are not face increased labor costs, taxes and regulation.
Bulls worry that the "quantitative easing" announced by the Fed last week (printing money to buy up government debt) will not work, and even if it does will result in massive inflation, thus throwing all deficit projections out the window. Bulls wonder whether any of this will inspire confidence in our trading partners and debt holders.
And finally, a bull would have to ponder whether our government's headlong rush to appease Iran, Hamas, Syria and other despotic regimes at the expense of our allies, particularly Israel, might lead to a bad end--bad for children, markets and other living things. It may be hard to predict what and when could go wrong, but its not hard to predict with confidence that if we sell out our friends to please our enemies, something unpleasant this way comes.
So have your fun with the market rally. I hope it endures long and profitably for those with the stomach for these sorts of things. I will probably wince with every uptick since I will not be benefiting from them. But until some of the systemic risk of the financial system is worked out, and until I am no longer frightened by the government's regulatory, energy, spending and tax policy, I will stand on the sidelines cheering.
I suspect I will know when its safe to come back on the field when my recurring nightmares featuring Barney Frank dressed as Nancy Pelosi finally cease.
(To tell you the truth I'm kind of tired of seeing the word "trillion" show up in every other paragraph of every financial news story of late. It just doesn't sound like a hell of a lot of money anymore. Pretty soon my wife'll come home one afternoon and tell me she just bought a dress on sale: "but hon, it only cost a trillion!" It would be nice if the next time I saw the term "trillion" it was printed on my 401K statement or the appraisal of my home's value. Of course the way the Fed is inflating money these days a trillion may not quite get me through next month.)
I read tax cheat Treasury man Tim Geithner's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today announcing Pub Pip. I'm pretty smart but I couldn't make heads or tails out of it, honestly. (I'm having a contest--if any one of my readers can tell me in 10 paragraphs or less how the plan works I'll buy him or her a free subscription to "This Week at American General," AIG's employee newsletter). But I guess the really smart guys on Wall Street liked it, because they sent the Dow soaring almost 500 points today. That didn't do me a whole lot of good since much of my net worth is now in cash.
But I'm happy for my friends and clients who saw their investments rise by 8% in one day, and I hope the rally continues. But I caution against what the now-discredited former Fed Chairman Greenspan called "irrational exuberance." The market rose almost entirely on sentiment and a sigh of relief that Mr. Geithner actually had a plan, not just a promise of a plan. (For a sobering reaction to the Treasury's new plan, click here).
The problem is that bear markets don't usually end with a bang. And bull markets don't usually start with one either. Bulls are built on a solid foundation of a strong financial system, a stable currency and a positive outlook for the political, regulatory and global environment. Bulls like a predictable tax system that at the very least does not punish risk-taking. Bull markets like government spending to be in the 20% of GDP range or less, not the 23% or 24% range it is fast getting to. And bulls sure don't like the idea of $9 trillion (oops, I said it again) in projected deficits over the next decade, 3 times the deficits racked up under the evil President Bush.
Bulls probably are not happy when the Russians and the Chinese threaten to introduce a new reserve currency because of America's rush to cheapen its own. Bulls look askance at protectionist policies like those that crept into the omnibus spending bill keeping Mexican trucks off our highways. Bulls shy away from economies in which entire sectors are under threat of government domination (financials; energy; health care) and those that are not face increased labor costs, taxes and regulation.
Bulls worry that the "quantitative easing" announced by the Fed last week (printing money to buy up government debt) will not work, and even if it does will result in massive inflation, thus throwing all deficit projections out the window. Bulls wonder whether any of this will inspire confidence in our trading partners and debt holders.
And finally, a bull would have to ponder whether our government's headlong rush to appease Iran, Hamas, Syria and other despotic regimes at the expense of our allies, particularly Israel, might lead to a bad end--bad for children, markets and other living things. It may be hard to predict what and when could go wrong, but its not hard to predict with confidence that if we sell out our friends to please our enemies, something unpleasant this way comes.
So have your fun with the market rally. I hope it endures long and profitably for those with the stomach for these sorts of things. I will probably wince with every uptick since I will not be benefiting from them. But until some of the systemic risk of the financial system is worked out, and until I am no longer frightened by the government's regulatory, energy, spending and tax policy, I will stand on the sidelines cheering.
I suspect I will know when its safe to come back on the field when my recurring nightmares featuring Barney Frank dressed as Nancy Pelosi finally cease.
The Gold-en Years?
You are no doubt hearing a lot about gold lately. The internet pop-ups for gold dealers are ubiquitous (everywhere), and it seems every other commercial on talk radio urges us to buy gold bullion, gold ETFs or gold coins.
If you are a contrarian, you might conclude that with all the hype about gold it is exactly the wrong time to buy. The again, after hearing that the Fed is about to monetize our debt by asking the Treasury to print up to a thousand billion dollars, not to mention the next trillion dollar bank bailout plan announced just today, on top of the $5 to 7 trillion of bailouts, guarantees and the like since last fall, one might feel justified in hearing a massive inflationary timebomb ticking away. Inflationary pressures are bullish for precious metals.
Is this the right time to buy gold? I have no idea, but in case you are interested you ought to watch this 4 minute interview with Ambrose-Evan Pritchard, international business editor of the U.K. Telegraph and a man who closely follows the gold market.
For a note of caution on gold in the short-term check out this from the Wall Street Journal on Friday. For a more bullish take, see this article from Bloomberg.com.
If you are a contrarian, you might conclude that with all the hype about gold it is exactly the wrong time to buy. The again, after hearing that the Fed is about to monetize our debt by asking the Treasury to print up to a thousand billion dollars, not to mention the next trillion dollar bank bailout plan announced just today, on top of the $5 to 7 trillion of bailouts, guarantees and the like since last fall, one might feel justified in hearing a massive inflationary timebomb ticking away. Inflationary pressures are bullish for precious metals.
Is this the right time to buy gold? I have no idea, but in case you are interested you ought to watch this 4 minute interview with Ambrose-Evan Pritchard, international business editor of the U.K. Telegraph and a man who closely follows the gold market.
For a note of caution on gold in the short-term check out this from the Wall Street Journal on Friday. For a more bullish take, see this article from Bloomberg.com.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Making Money. Literally.
I read an email by one of blogger Hugh Hewitt's readers, whose nom de plume is Banker Guy, who implied that Ben Bernanke is the one adult in government who has a clue. Banker Guy likens Treasury man Geithner to a hapless team quarterback who is stuck for a gameplan. When the quarterback asks for the next play, Coach Obama is unavailable by virtue of being interviewed by Jay Leno. "Then," says BG, "all of a sudden, a walk-on player runs onto the field, grabs the ball, and starts running through the opposition toward the goal line … its Ben Bernanke!"
Banker Guy is particularly taken with Wednesday's stunning announcement that the Fed will expand its balance sheet another $1.2 trillion through the purchase of $300 billion in long-dated Treasuries, $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities (Fan/Fred), and another $100 billion in
U.S. agency debt. Called "monetizing the debt" or "quantitative easing," the debt buy-back program essentially requires the Treasury to print money. Lots and lots of it. BG says this has spurred "some real optimism in the markets."
With all deference to Banker Guy, I am wondering why, if the Fed's debt monetization policy is
such a brilliant play, the Dow is down now over 200 points since it was announced. And if Bernanke is providing such "sound leadership," why did the Dow drop 122 points today in a slide that began just as the Fed chairman was speaking to community bankers at noon? I think Bernanke's policy is rightfully seen as a monetary "Hail Mary" pass, only riskier.
Perhaps investors have had time to think about the implications of the debt purchase program. Having run out the clock on its ability to manipulate rates at the short end, the Fed is trying to bring down mortgage rates by buying back billions of medium-term Treasuries,
agency debt, etc. To my knowledge this is without precedent.
The Fed's stated purpose is to free up private credit markets, something that trillions of dollars in bailouts, guarantees and credit facilities established since last summer have not accomplished (apparently). But the real story seems to be that the Fed is not convinced that recovery is imminent notwithstanding the bits and pieces of positive news that sparked the bear
market rally of the past weeks. Rather the policymakers appear to be still concerned, perhaps even panicked, that we are danger of falling into a deflationary spiral.
Even if it succeeds, the massive debt purchases will weaken the dollar, increase tensions with our trading partners, and perhaps ultimately lead to a catastrophic bursting of
the bubble in Treasuries. Why would the Fed embark on a policy which is designed to create massive asset inflation when the risk of success is bad and the risk of failure could be catastrophic?
According to Larry Kudlow, the four killers of prosperity are high taxes, high inflation, protectionism (currency devaluation) and increased regulation. It seems to me that Bernanke's prescription will result in all four.
I hope that Banker Guy is right, and I am wrong.
Banker Guy is particularly taken with Wednesday's stunning announcement that the Fed will expand its balance sheet another $1.2 trillion through the purchase of $300 billion in long-dated Treasuries, $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities (Fan/Fred), and another $100 billion in
U.S. agency debt. Called "monetizing the debt" or "quantitative easing," the debt buy-back program essentially requires the Treasury to print money. Lots and lots of it. BG says this has spurred "some real optimism in the markets."
With all deference to Banker Guy, I am wondering why, if the Fed's debt monetization policy is
such a brilliant play, the Dow is down now over 200 points since it was announced. And if Bernanke is providing such "sound leadership," why did the Dow drop 122 points today in a slide that began just as the Fed chairman was speaking to community bankers at noon? I think Bernanke's policy is rightfully seen as a monetary "Hail Mary" pass, only riskier.
Perhaps investors have had time to think about the implications of the debt purchase program. Having run out the clock on its ability to manipulate rates at the short end, the Fed is trying to bring down mortgage rates by buying back billions of medium-term Treasuries,
agency debt, etc. To my knowledge this is without precedent.
The Fed's stated purpose is to free up private credit markets, something that trillions of dollars in bailouts, guarantees and credit facilities established since last summer have not accomplished (apparently). But the real story seems to be that the Fed is not convinced that recovery is imminent notwithstanding the bits and pieces of positive news that sparked the bear
market rally of the past weeks. Rather the policymakers appear to be still concerned, perhaps even panicked, that we are danger of falling into a deflationary spiral.
Even if it succeeds, the massive debt purchases will weaken the dollar, increase tensions with our trading partners, and perhaps ultimately lead to a catastrophic bursting of
the bubble in Treasuries. Why would the Fed embark on a policy which is designed to create massive asset inflation when the risk of success is bad and the risk of failure could be catastrophic?
According to Larry Kudlow, the four killers of prosperity are high taxes, high inflation, protectionism (currency devaluation) and increased regulation. It seems to me that Bernanke's prescription will result in all four.
I hope that Banker Guy is right, and I am wrong.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
America and Israel: Rupert Murdoch Gets It
Media titan Rupert Murdoch was awarded the National Human Relations Award by the American Jewish Committee on March 4th. In his acceptance speech he laid out a cogent and forceful case for a continuing special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. This quote struck me as the heart and soul of his remarks:
Murdoch notes that Israel is further handicapped by the global media, which is decidedly tilted towards the terrorist entity. The media willingly serves as agents for Hamas in spreading lies about Israel in the form of edited (or in some cases fabricated) images and soundbites. The narrative is always the same--Israel the brutal occupier and oppressor rains death and destruction on the victims of Gaza.
When Hamas lobs missiles at Israeli towns the media shrugs. Yet Israel's measured response is cause for a war crimes tribunal.
Good for Mr. Murdoch. Kudos to the American Jewish Committee for recognizing him.
Read the speech here.
IN THE WEST, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States...[m]aybe we should startMurdoch nails the dilemma Israel finds itself in vis-a-vis Hamas: while its conventional military forces can flatten Gaza, Israel is constrained by the fact that it is accountable to its citizens for every life lost, including Palestinian lives. By contrast Hamas is accountable to no one, and the death of "innocent" Palestinians by Israeli fire is nothing more than grist for its propaganda mill.
wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel.
Murdoch notes that Israel is further handicapped by the global media, which is decidedly tilted towards the terrorist entity. The media willingly serves as agents for Hamas in spreading lies about Israel in the form of edited (or in some cases fabricated) images and soundbites. The narrative is always the same--Israel the brutal occupier and oppressor rains death and destruction on the victims of Gaza.
When Hamas lobs missiles at Israeli towns the media shrugs. Yet Israel's measured response is cause for a war crimes tribunal.
Good for Mr. Murdoch. Kudos to the American Jewish Committee for recognizing him.
Read the speech here.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Thomas Paine: "A Nation of Cowards"
The American patriot Thomas Paine has resurfaced, and he's talking common sense about everything from control of our borders to bank bailouts.
You ought to hear what he has to say about Congress. (Sample: "The biggest traitors among you hold elected office.")
Finally, Paine sets forth a "We the People" stimulus package we can all agree with.
Get your teabags ready.
You ought to hear what he has to say about Congress. (Sample: "The biggest traitors among you hold elected office.")
Finally, Paine sets forth a "We the People" stimulus package we can all agree with.
Get your teabags ready.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Mark Steyn: "The Brokest Generation"
A fabulous piece by Mark Steyn in this weekend's OC Register on what we are doing to our kids. An excerpt:
This is the biggest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world.
If you're an 18-year-old middle-class hopeychanger, look at the way your parents
and grandparents live: It's not going to be like that for you. You're going to
have a smaller house, and a smaller car – if not a basement flat and a bus
ticket. You didn't get us into this catastrophe. But you're going to be stuck
with the tab, just like the Germans got stuck with paying reparations for the
catastrophe of the First World War. True, the Germans were actually in the war,
whereas in the current crisis you guys were just goofing around at school,
dozing through Diversity Studies and hoping to ace Anger Management class. But
tough. That's the way it goes.
If our kids do end up as the "brokest generation," I dare say they'll not be thinking too well of us a few decades hence.
This is the biggest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world.
If you're an 18-year-old middle-class hopeychanger, look at the way your parents
and grandparents live: It's not going to be like that for you. You're going to
have a smaller house, and a smaller car – if not a basement flat and a bus
ticket. You didn't get us into this catastrophe. But you're going to be stuck
with the tab, just like the Germans got stuck with paying reparations for the
catastrophe of the First World War. True, the Germans were actually in the war,
whereas in the current crisis you guys were just goofing around at school,
dozing through Diversity Studies and hoping to ace Anger Management class. But
tough. That's the way it goes.
If our kids do end up as the "brokest generation," I dare say they'll not be thinking too well of us a few decades hence.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
"Trickle-Down Poverty"
1980s Reagonomics was ridiculed by the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) as "trickle down" economics. Ronald Reagan's theory, formally known as "supply side economics," held that marginal tax rate reductions on the wealthy would increase their productivity and income, incentivize them to grow their businesses and add jobs and so benefit the less wealthy and working poor. As we know, the critics were wrong in everything except their nomenclature--wealth, income and jobs did "trickle down" from the wealthy to everyone else and ignited an economic and stock market boom that lasted for decades.
Read what investment manager Thomas E. Nugent has to say about President Obama's complete reversal of the policies that Reagan championed and implemented. We'll know soon enough whether Obama's policies lead to economic prosperity like Reagan's did.
Read what investment manager Thomas E. Nugent has to say about President Obama's complete reversal of the policies that Reagan championed and implemented. We'll know soon enough whether Obama's policies lead to economic prosperity like Reagan's did.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Hillary, Haman and the Jews
This week Jews celebrated the holiday of Purim, which, according to some, is a day even holier than Yom Kippur. (In fact, Yom Kippur, usually translated as "day of atonement," literally means "day like Purim"). According to the Jewish Sages, the biblically mandated holy day of Yom Kippur presages the day a millennium later on which the Jews would be saved from a high Persian official named Haman by a G-d whose "face" had up to that point been hidden. Purim's message to the Jews today, as it has been to the Jewish people since their exile from the First Temple over over 2400 years ago, is that G-d is in control of events great and small. The designs and plans of the most mighty of men to oppress or destroy the Jews can instantly "turnabout" and suddenly the Jews marked for destruction are redeemed and their would-be destroyers are destroyed.
It is impossible to predict the future course of events. But there are disturbing signs of late of a trend that if not halted or reversed could lead to a dark and difficult period for the Jews. Perhaps at no time since Hitler and the Nazis snuffed out the lights of European Jewry have events warranted a comparison to those days in ancient Persia which seemed so bleak and yet ultimately led to triumph for the Jews.
To wit:
1. Anti-Jewish attacks are on the increase in Europe and the U.S. I referred in an earlier post to incidents in Amsterdam, London, France, Scandinavia and even Miami and Chicago in which Jews or their institutions were physically attacked or threatened. Anti-Jewish incidents in the U.K. in particular have created a sense of panic and gloom in religious Jewish communities. Says CNN.com, "the Community Security Trust, a non-governmental organization which monitors anti-Semitism in Britain, recorded more than 200 incidents in the month of January alone, the highest monthly total it has seen since it began keeping records in 1984."
2. These incidents are either ignored or justified by much of the world media. They are tossed off as an understandable display of raw anger at the brutal policies of Israel's government, or the anti-Jewish nature of the attacks are pooh-pooed. In the face of the horrific attacks in Mumbai in which a Chabad rabbi and his wife were targeted for killing, The New York Times and others went to great lengths to suggest that the Jews were more or less hapless bystanders who got caught in the crossfire, not intended victims.
3. The elite governmental and quasi-governmental world bodies are invested in an unprecedented level of hatred towards Israel. This manifests itself in a variety of ways. The United Nations General Assembly cast a troubling vote roundly castigated Israel during Operation Cast Lead (Israel's military campaign to halt rocket attacks from Gaza against its citizens) for using "disproportionate" force, while failing to condemn the deliberate targeting of civilians by the rulers of Gaza. The European Union engages in similar diatribes against Israel, such as the one this week accusing Israel of illegally annexing East Jerusalem (which, it should be recalled, was conquered by Israel in a defensive war 42 years ago). The U.N. Human Rights Council is run by totalitarian countries with a single-minded obsession with condemning Israel. And "Durban II," the U.N. -sponsored second conference on "racism" scheduled for this spring in Geneva has a hate-filled agenda of Israel-bashing destined to outdo its 2001 orgy of anti-Jewish hate in South Africa.
4. Iran marches relentlessly toward nuclear capabilities while the world pretends to wring its collective hands. The IAEA, the hapless and ineffective U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, released a report the other day complaining that Iran is blocking access to its nuclear facilities and refuses to respond to questions about its nuclear intentions. In an appearance that surely has Teheran quaking, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice (no great supporter of Israel herself) asked a Security Council subcommittee "to vigorously support the IAEA in its continuing investigations of these critical matters." At the same time, a U.S. diplomat downplays Teheran's ability to go nuclear "any time soon." That's comforting, since Iran makes no secret of its desire and intention to blow Israel--a U.N. member state--to smithereens (with nary a tut-tut of protest from that great world body).
5. President Obama signalled his desire to change the long-standing pro-Israel bias of American Middle East policy by the timing and substance of his remarks to al-Arabiya television early in his thus-far unimpressive presidency. In choosing the quasi-Saudi-controlled channel as the situs of his first media presidential interview Obama sent an unmistakable message to Jews--prepare for an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy centered on appeasing Israel's enemies. The substance of the interview hammered home the point: Obama practically endorsed the shelved Saudi peace plan of a few years back which effectively calls for a "one-state" solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It goes without saying that the "one state" the Saudis have in mind would not long remain a Jewish state, or for that matter a state with Jews.
6. While the U.S. has declared its intention not to attend the anti-Israel "Durban II" conference, it left the door open to re-engage the conference organizers if the draft agenda is changed suitably. The U.S. has also announced it will join the U.N. Human Rights Council as an observer or perhaps run for a membership slot. Either way it is prepared to lend an air of legitimacy of the Council, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Organization of Islamic States and exists for the sole purpose of de-legitimizing Israel.
6. Obama's diplomatic and foreign-policy appointments thus far are troubling to say the least from a pro-Israel perspective . One of them, Chas Freeman, who was nominated as National Intelligence Council chief, withdrew his nomination under enormous pressure from AIPAC and other members of the so-called "Jewish Lobby" over concerns that published statements of his evince a bias against Israel. (Ironically, in blaming the "dark forces" of the "Lobby" for his withdrawal Freeman vindicated those opposed to his nomination). But he is just the tip of the iceberg. Consider:
It is impossible to predict the future course of events. But there are disturbing signs of late of a trend that if not halted or reversed could lead to a dark and difficult period for the Jews. Perhaps at no time since Hitler and the Nazis snuffed out the lights of European Jewry have events warranted a comparison to those days in ancient Persia which seemed so bleak and yet ultimately led to triumph for the Jews.
To wit:
1. Anti-Jewish attacks are on the increase in Europe and the U.S. I referred in an earlier post to incidents in Amsterdam, London, France, Scandinavia and even Miami and Chicago in which Jews or their institutions were physically attacked or threatened. Anti-Jewish incidents in the U.K. in particular have created a sense of panic and gloom in religious Jewish communities. Says CNN.com, "the Community Security Trust, a non-governmental organization which monitors anti-Semitism in Britain, recorded more than 200 incidents in the month of January alone, the highest monthly total it has seen since it began keeping records in 1984."
2. These incidents are either ignored or justified by much of the world media. They are tossed off as an understandable display of raw anger at the brutal policies of Israel's government, or the anti-Jewish nature of the attacks are pooh-pooed. In the face of the horrific attacks in Mumbai in which a Chabad rabbi and his wife were targeted for killing, The New York Times and others went to great lengths to suggest that the Jews were more or less hapless bystanders who got caught in the crossfire, not intended victims.
3. The elite governmental and quasi-governmental world bodies are invested in an unprecedented level of hatred towards Israel. This manifests itself in a variety of ways. The United Nations General Assembly cast a troubling vote roundly castigated Israel during Operation Cast Lead (Israel's military campaign to halt rocket attacks from Gaza against its citizens) for using "disproportionate" force, while failing to condemn the deliberate targeting of civilians by the rulers of Gaza. The European Union engages in similar diatribes against Israel, such as the one this week accusing Israel of illegally annexing East Jerusalem (which, it should be recalled, was conquered by Israel in a defensive war 42 years ago). The U.N. Human Rights Council is run by totalitarian countries with a single-minded obsession with condemning Israel. And "Durban II," the U.N. -sponsored second conference on "racism" scheduled for this spring in Geneva has a hate-filled agenda of Israel-bashing destined to outdo its 2001 orgy of anti-Jewish hate in South Africa.
4. Iran marches relentlessly toward nuclear capabilities while the world pretends to wring its collective hands. The IAEA, the hapless and ineffective U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, released a report the other day complaining that Iran is blocking access to its nuclear facilities and refuses to respond to questions about its nuclear intentions. In an appearance that surely has Teheran quaking, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice (no great supporter of Israel herself) asked a Security Council subcommittee "to vigorously support the IAEA in its continuing investigations of these critical matters." At the same time, a U.S. diplomat downplays Teheran's ability to go nuclear "any time soon." That's comforting, since Iran makes no secret of its desire and intention to blow Israel--a U.N. member state--to smithereens (with nary a tut-tut of protest from that great world body).
5. President Obama signalled his desire to change the long-standing pro-Israel bias of American Middle East policy by the timing and substance of his remarks to al-Arabiya television early in his thus-far unimpressive presidency. In choosing the quasi-Saudi-controlled channel as the situs of his first media presidential interview Obama sent an unmistakable message to Jews--prepare for an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy centered on appeasing Israel's enemies. The substance of the interview hammered home the point: Obama practically endorsed the shelved Saudi peace plan of a few years back which effectively calls for a "one-state" solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It goes without saying that the "one state" the Saudis have in mind would not long remain a Jewish state, or for that matter a state with Jews.
6. While the U.S. has declared its intention not to attend the anti-Israel "Durban II" conference, it left the door open to re-engage the conference organizers if the draft agenda is changed suitably. The U.S. has also announced it will join the U.N. Human Rights Council as an observer or perhaps run for a membership slot. Either way it is prepared to lend an air of legitimacy of the Council, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Organization of Islamic States and exists for the sole purpose of de-legitimizing Israel.
6. Obama's diplomatic and foreign-policy appointments thus far are troubling to say the least from a pro-Israel perspective . One of them, Chas Freeman, who was nominated as National Intelligence Council chief, withdrew his nomination under enormous pressure from AIPAC and other members of the so-called "Jewish Lobby" over concerns that published statements of his evince a bias against Israel. (Ironically, in blaming the "dark forces" of the "Lobby" for his withdrawal Freeman vindicated those opposed to his nomination). But he is just the tip of the iceberg. Consider:
- Samantha Powers, the professor, intellectual and human rights activist who withdrew as an advisor to Obama's campaign last spring after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." Powers has reemerged as a foreign policy advisor to the administration. She is known as a Palestinian sympathizer who believes the American Jewish community is too influential.
- George Mitchell, Obama's emissary to the Middle-East, is in the mainstream of elite opinion on the matter of Israel,which is itself problematic. According to columnist Caroline Glick of The Jerusalem Post, Mitchell's "first order of business... is to pressure the outgoing government to destroy the so-called outpost communities in Judea and Samaria and expel the hundreds of Israeli families who live in them." In the most optimistic scenario Mitchell will promote and implement the same failed policies that he recommended to President Clinton in 2000, the basic elements of which are (1) to publicly state that both sides are equally to blame for the Palestinian terror war against Israel; and (2) pressure Israel into making concrete and irrevocable concessions in exchange for Palestinian promises of "100 % effort" to fight terror. More likely, reflecting the decided shift in American policy away from Israel, Mitchell will go further and attempt to pressure Israel to quickly agree to give away the Golan, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
- Robert Malley, who is not now a formal advisor to Obama but who is known to influence his thinking, is a revisionist activist who is an apologist for Yassir Arafat who has co-authored article after article with former Arafat crony Hussein Agha blaming Israel for Palestinian terrorism. His think-tank is funded in part by George Soros and his work is used by Israeli Leftists to oppose Israel's Palestinian policies.
- Most troubling of all is Hillary Clinton, the newly minted Secretary of State, who is a dedicated and professional liar (unlike her husband who is merely a pathological one). This is evidenced not only by her presidential campaign statements claiming falsely to have been shot at in the Balkans but also her cynical courtship of the Jewish vote during her first Senate campaign in which she repudiated her warm embrace of Suha Arafat earlier in the 1990s. She is deeply dangerous since she will surely use her current position to advance her interests. And if her interests are served by implementing Obama's appeasement agenda, then so be it.
Hillary's moves so far are cause for concern. Her first action item on her first Middle East trip as secretary was to attend a donor's conference in Sharm-al-sheik in which the U.S. pledged almost a trillion dollars for reconstruction in Gaza following Operation Cast Lead, untethered to any conditions concerning halting Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel. Since all money to Gaza flows through the dirty and bloody fingers of Hamas, this is essentially a giveaway to a terrorist entity we don't officially "recognize."
Hillary then proceeded to Jerusalem, where she appeared all smiles with Ehud Olmert, the disgraced soon-to-be former Israeli prime minister. Hillary reportedly admonished Israel for not doing more to help rebuild and re-arm Hamas even while Hamas continues to lob missiles into southern Israel at its pre-Cast Lead pace. She also criticized the mayor of Jerusalem for demolishing illegally built structures in East Jerusalem as "unhelpful," even though the city's order applies to Jewish and Arab owned structures alike.
Hillary intentionally declared a two-state solution (which many observers find untenable given among other things the rivalry between Hamas and Fatah) as "inescapable" presumably for the purpose of limiting the negotiating room of incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Some ally.
Finally Hillary made a big show of sending two U.S. envoys to Syria to feel out that brutal dictatorship for signs that it is ready to engage with Israel. It remains to be seen whether Syria, or for that matter any of the thug Arab regimes that surround Israel, will come in for the same criticism and harsh rhetoric that seems to be reserved only for our allies these days.
It is possible that these dark omens for Israel and the Jews are merely fleeting ones. However the observable phenomenon point to increased pressure on Israel to give up its claim to Jewish lands and thus to participate in its own de-legitimization. Sadly, its greatest friend and ally seems to be its greatest threat. It all adds urgency to the warning of journalist Claudia Rosett that "the world is tacitly coming to accept not only persecution of the Jews, but the possibility of a second genocide."
I'm not suggesting that Obama and Hillary are modern day stand-ins for the evil plotters of the Purim story. But clearly there are actors on the world stage who are gunning for Israel and the Jews, including some who are at or very close to the center of power in Washington. The events of Purim give us confidence that ultimately those who have evil designs on the Jews and Israel will be instruments of a great "turnabout" in which they are destroyed and the future of the Jews is finally secure.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Coming Money Bubble: A Visual Aid
By now you know I am a huge fan of Glenn Beck--radio talk show host, author and now host of a new show on FoxNews at 5:oo pm. Glenn explains how the huge increase in money supply spells big trouble for the country in the not too distant future. (about 5 mins.)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
It's Doesn't Have to be all Gloom and Doom
The editorialists at The Wall Street Journal put the current economic crisis in perspective. The basis for recovery lies in several factors that if allowed to play themselves out will bring the markets and the economy back:
The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.
Housing prices have fallen 27% from their...peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.
In the midst of the fog of fear and anxiety, it is heartening to see that the seeds of an eventual recovery are being sown now. But in any newly planted garden too much rain and not enough sunlight will retard or even prevent growth; Obama's policies are clearly having the same effect on the economy:
Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
Obama's team is trying to rescue banks while he is assailing bankers. His tax proposals punish the very venture capitalists and entrepreneurs whose investments will be necessary to help falling real estate and financial assets find a bottom. Users of fossil fuels will be taxed in order to incentivize them to switch to as yet unavailable alternative energy sources. Manufacturers will have to buy permits from the government to use energy resulting in higher utility costs to you, me and the "working folks" who Obama claims to represent. Private capital is being edged aside in favor of government "investments" in banks, auto companies and other private firms.
The Journal notes that on January 1st the Dow was at 9000, almost 35% higher than it is today. This decline is almost entirely attributable to Obama's policies, which are scaring away both small and institutional investors. The markets crave certainty, but the only certainty out there is that taxes and regulation will increase, energy costs will climb, and wealth will be transferred from investors and producers to shirkers and bureaucrats, with a little taken off the top for the politicans and their favored executives and donors.
How all this ends up helping the people in the middle that Democrats always talk about is not clear to me.
The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.
Housing prices have fallen 27% from their...peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.
In the midst of the fog of fear and anxiety, it is heartening to see that the seeds of an eventual recovery are being sown now. But in any newly planted garden too much rain and not enough sunlight will retard or even prevent growth; Obama's policies are clearly having the same effect on the economy:
Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
Obama's team is trying to rescue banks while he is assailing bankers. His tax proposals punish the very venture capitalists and entrepreneurs whose investments will be necessary to help falling real estate and financial assets find a bottom. Users of fossil fuels will be taxed in order to incentivize them to switch to as yet unavailable alternative energy sources. Manufacturers will have to buy permits from the government to use energy resulting in higher utility costs to you, me and the "working folks" who Obama claims to represent. Private capital is being edged aside in favor of government "investments" in banks, auto companies and other private firms.
The Journal notes that on January 1st the Dow was at 9000, almost 35% higher than it is today. This decline is almost entirely attributable to Obama's policies, which are scaring away both small and institutional investors. The markets crave certainty, but the only certainty out there is that taxes and regulation will increase, energy costs will climb, and wealth will be transferred from investors and producers to shirkers and bureaucrats, with a little taken off the top for the politicans and their favored executives and donors.
How all this ends up helping the people in the middle that Democrats always talk about is not clear to me.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Rick Santelli Sets the Record Straight
Remember Rick Santelli, the CNBC personality with the "rant heard round the world" against the proposed mortgage bailout of President Obama from the Chicago Board of Trade? After a hit piece in Playboy accused Santelli of timing his "rant" to aid the "tea party" protest movement in coordination with right-wing online groups, Santelli hit back. In a CNBC.com column, Santelli said:
Just for the record I have NOT been in favor of any of the bailouts not in the Bush administration nor the Obama administration. Not for the banks, the insurance companies, or the homeowners that purchased homes they can no longer afford. I have consistently questioned the notion that hard working Americans that have played by the rules should be on the hook for others ill fated financial behavior. This is very easily proven....the record is in the video archives of CNBC for any media outlet interested in representing the facts. Furthermore, the "rant heard around the world" (as it has been named by the media) on February 19th was spontaneous....not scripted....and any person, organization, or media outlet that claims otherwise IS INACCURATE.
Why does the Leftist media feel so threatened by Santelli that they must set out to destroy his credibility and impugn his motives? Perhaps its because they can't sustain a debate on the merits of Santelli's impassioned argument. This is textbook methodology on the Left: instead of challenging ideas, they destroy the individual with the ideas. The idea is to intimidate the opposition and his ilk into silence. This is toxic for the body politic.
Thank G-d that some people can't be intimidated. Rush Limbaugh is one of them. Rick Santelli, it would seem, is another.
Just for the record I have NOT been in favor of any of the bailouts not in the Bush administration nor the Obama administration. Not for the banks, the insurance companies, or the homeowners that purchased homes they can no longer afford. I have consistently questioned the notion that hard working Americans that have played by the rules should be on the hook for others ill fated financial behavior. This is very easily proven....the record is in the video archives of CNBC for any media outlet interested in representing the facts. Furthermore, the "rant heard around the world" (as it has been named by the media) on February 19th was spontaneous....not scripted....and any person, organization, or media outlet that claims otherwise IS INACCURATE.
Why does the Leftist media feel so threatened by Santelli that they must set out to destroy his credibility and impugn his motives? Perhaps its because they can't sustain a debate on the merits of Santelli's impassioned argument. This is textbook methodology on the Left: instead of challenging ideas, they destroy the individual with the ideas. The idea is to intimidate the opposition and his ilk into silence. This is toxic for the body politic.
Thank G-d that some people can't be intimidated. Rush Limbaugh is one of them. Rick Santelli, it would seem, is another.
AIG Bailout: That Worked Out Well.
See if this makes sense:
1. In September, AIG Inc. borrowed $85 billion from the U.S. government which got in exchange a high-interest rate and an 80% interest in the company.
2. In October, in order to address growing problems at AIG, Uncle Sam loans another $40 billion.
3. In November, the U.S. invests another $40 billion in capital, for a total package of $150 billion. CEO Edward Liddy (appointed by the government) said that AIG was "on the road to recovery
4. Today AIG announced a $62 billion 4th quarter loss, the largest in U.S. corporate history.
5. Today the government announced it will increase its stake in AIG by $30 billion, while relaxing the terms of repayment to the taxpayers of AIG debt.
6. The government said that the cost of doing nothing "would be extremely high" while admitting it doesn't know the real risk to taxpayers of doing "something." This is the same argument it made $80 billion ago.
7. The total amount of TARP money available to AIG is $70 billion, 10% of the total TARP program. The likelihood of more AIG bailouts is high, according to economists.
8. AIG is subject to the restrictive compensation limits imposed by the "stimulus" package passed last month, which may actually harm its ability to retain its hghest performing employees, according to the company.
9. Citigroup has received $50 billion and Bank of America $45 billion in Treasury money. In addition the government has guaranteed hundreds of billions of potential bank losses.
10. The government is now in the insurance business, the banking business, the auto business, the health care business, the energy business and likely to be in the radio talk show business.
11. Don't you feel better now?
1. In September, AIG Inc. borrowed $85 billion from the U.S. government which got in exchange a high-interest rate and an 80% interest in the company.
2. In October, in order to address growing problems at AIG, Uncle Sam loans another $40 billion.
3. In November, the U.S. invests another $40 billion in capital, for a total package of $150 billion. CEO Edward Liddy (appointed by the government) said that AIG was "on the road to recovery
4. Today AIG announced a $62 billion 4th quarter loss, the largest in U.S. corporate history.
5. Today the government announced it will increase its stake in AIG by $30 billion, while relaxing the terms of repayment to the taxpayers of AIG debt.
6. The government said that the cost of doing nothing "would be extremely high" while admitting it doesn't know the real risk to taxpayers of doing "something." This is the same argument it made $80 billion ago.
7. The total amount of TARP money available to AIG is $70 billion, 10% of the total TARP program. The likelihood of more AIG bailouts is high, according to economists.
8. AIG is subject to the restrictive compensation limits imposed by the "stimulus" package passed last month, which may actually harm its ability to retain its hghest performing employees, according to the company.
9. Citigroup has received $50 billion and Bank of America $45 billion in Treasury money. In addition the government has guaranteed hundreds of billions of potential bank losses.
10. The government is now in the insurance business, the banking business, the auto business, the health care business, the energy business and likely to be in the radio talk show business.
11. Don't you feel better now?
Sunday, March 1, 2009
We Surround Them--The Unveiling
Talk Radio and Fox News host Glenn Beck talks sense. His 9 Principles and 12 Values empower ordinary G-d fearing Americans to look inside themselves and to their families and their communities for strength in these perilous times.
Glenn's We Surround Them Project, like the American Tea Party movement, is a grass roots effort to show America who really runs our country--we do. I hope you will join me and millions of Americans March 13th for the unveiling of Glenn's project on the Fox News Channel at 5:00pm eastern.
Until we have true political leaders who speak for us, we need to speak for ourselves.
Glenn's We Surround Them Project, like the American Tea Party movement, is a grass roots effort to show America who really runs our country--we do. I hope you will join me and millions of Americans March 13th for the unveiling of Glenn's project on the Fox News Channel at 5:00pm eastern.
Until we have true political leaders who speak for us, we need to speak for ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)