milu's Blog

TPM TPMMuckraker TPMElection Central TPMtv TPMCafé (Talking Points Memo)

What Wall Street Should Do To Get Its Blank Check

 By Robert Reich - September 21, 2008, 1:48PM

The frame has been set, the die cast. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, presumably representing the Bush administration but indirectly representing Wall Street, and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, want a blank check from Congress for $700 billion or possibly a trillion dollars or more to take bad debt off Wall Street's balance sheets. Never before in the history of American capitalism has so much been asked of so many for (at least in the first instance) so few. Put yourself in the shoes of a member of Congress, including our two presidential candidates. The Treasury Secretary and Fed Chair have told you this is necessary to save the economy. If you don't agree, you risk a meltdown of the entire global financial system. Your own constituents' savings could go down with it. An election is six weeks away. Besides, in the last two days of trading, since rumors spread that the Treasury and the Fed were planning something of this sort, stock prices revived.

Now - quick -- what do you do? You have no choice but to say yes. But you might also set some conditions on Wall Street. The public doesn't like a blank check. They think this whole bailout idea is nuts. They see fat cats on Wall Street who have raked in zillions for years, now extorting in effect $2,000 to $5,000 from every American family to make up for their own nonfeasance, malfeasance, greed, and just plain stupidity. Wall Street's request for a blank check comes at the same time most of the public is worried about their jobs and declining wages, and having enough money to pay for gas and food and health insurance, meet their car payments and mortgage payments, and save for their retirement and childrens' college education. And so the public is asking: Why should Wall Street get bailed out by me when I'm getting screwed?

So if you are a member of Congress, you just might be in a position to demand from Wall Street certain conditions in return for the blank check. My five nominees:

1. The government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.

2. Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year's other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply-feathered nests?

 3. All Wall Street executives immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street PACs be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street's outsized political power - especially when that power is being exercised to get favorable terms from taxpayers?

 4. Wall Street firms agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.

 5. Wall Street agrees to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should distressed homeowners lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones? Wall Streeters may not like these conditions. Well, you should tell them that the public doesn't like the idea of bailing out Wall Street. So if Wall Street doesn't accept these conditions, it doesn't get the blank check.

Aftershocks

 

Calling Out the Culprits Who Caused the Crisis

 

Washington Post

 

By Eric D. Hovde

 

Sunday, September 21, 2008; Page B01

 

Looking for someone to blame for the shambles in U.S. financial markets? As someone who owns both an investment bank and commercial banks, and also runs a hedge fund, I have sat front and center and watched as this mess unfolded. And in my view, there's no need to look beyond Wall Street -- and the halls of power in Washington. The former has created the nightmare by chasing obscene profits, and the latter have allowed it to spread by not practicing the oversight that is the federal government's responsibility.

 

I find it hard to stomach the fact that investment banks that caused this financial crisis immediately ran to the government asking for assistance, which Bear Stearns received and Lehman Brothers, thankfully, did not. This is one of many eerie parallels that the current meltdown bears to the Great Depression, when Washington and the taxpayers had to step up and take unprecedented action to stabilize the financial markets and the economy. Unfortunately, the government today has already put enormous taxpayer resources at risk -- bailing out investment firm Bear Stearns, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insurer AIG, and proposing to buy risky assets from the banking system -- to stop the economy from plummeting into another depression. But these events only underscore the toxic relationship between Washington and Wall Street that has brought us to this point.

 

To understand the role of that relationship in our current troubles, let's go back to 1999. That was when the hype about the Internet reached its pinnacle. Technology spending by the government and corporations was booming as both sought to address economic and security fears surrounding the so-called Y2K problem, a potential massive computer shutdown at the start of the year 2000.

 

In the run-up to the millennium, the Federal Reserve, led by then-Chairman Alan Greenspan, began to pump money into the capital markets to deal with any financial problems that might arise from a Y2K meltdown. In the end, 2000 arrived to nothing but a wonderful celebration. But the monetary stimulus, coupled with the aforementioned hype, created an unfortunate bubble in Internet, technology and telecommunications stocks.

 

At the center of this bubble were the large Wall Street investment banks, which understood the profit potential in promoting the technology boom to overeager clients looking for the investment of a lifetime. From mid-1999 to mid-2000, Wall Street firms took approximately 500 companies public, raising a total of nearly $77 billion for these companies through initial public offerings, or IPOs. For every IPO, the investment banks themselves earned an underwriting fee of 6 percent, returning them an enormous profit.

 

But apparently that was not enough for Wall Street. As the middlemen between the insatiable investor demand for anything technology-related and young tech entrepreneurs needing to raise capital, the investment banks demanded the opportunity to invest in these companies before the public offerings, when the companies's stocks were valued at a fraction of what they would bring post-IPO. It wasn't uncommon for Wall Street firms to invest tens of millions of dollars in "anything.com" before taking it public, charge a multimillion-dollar fee for the public offering and then watch their investment multiply within a matter of months.

 

Main Street investors, meanwhile, did not realize that the investment banks had essentially thrown away their underwriting guidelines, which had been in place since the Depression, to take companies public. Among these guidelines were rules requiring that a company be in business for more than five years, be profitable for two or three consecutive years and have certain levels of revenue and profitability. The business models of many of the companies that went public simply weren't viable. Once the Internet bubble burst and the dust settled, America's corporate landscape was littered with bankruptcies and mass layoffs, and investor losses have been estimated at more than $1 trillion.

 

In an effort to offset the economic strain from these losses, the Fed once again rapidly increased the money supply and slashed short-term interest rates to 1 percent -- a level that hadn't been seen in more than 45 years. This enormous monetary stimulus (along with significant federal spending) energized the overall economy, but it also led to the greatest housing boom -- and possible bust -- this country has ever encountered. From 2002 to 2006, housing values appreciated at an astounding rate of 16 percent per year. It became impossible for the typical American family to buy an average-priced house using a conventional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Wall Street found another perfect opportunity to propel and take advantage of another forming bubble.

 

The result was the explosion of toxic new mortgage products that enticed homebuyers into supporting escalating housing prices while eliminating the need for the traditional 20 percent down payment. Whether it was interest-only loans, low- or no-doc "liar loans," or piggyback home-equity loans, the mortgage and banking industries found a way to place almost anyone with -- or even without -- a credit score into a home. Wall Street played its part by packaging those mortgages into complex financial products and selling them to other investors, many of whom had no idea of what they were buying or the associated risks.

 

Once again, the investment banks raked in billions of dollars in fees, giving them incentive to keep lowering underwriting standards, allowing mortgage companies to originate and sell even the most unscrupulous home loans, which Wall Street then dumped onto the investment community. Wall Street never once questioned the ethics of these activities; it too was focused on the enormous rewards that allowed its firms to pay out an unfathomable $62 billion in bonuses in 2006 alone. Without Wall Street, the housing bubble would have ended shortly after the Fed started to raise interest rates in 2004, because no lenders would have originated these toxic mortgages if they had to keep the loans on their own balance sheets.

 

The price of all this greed? Sadly, because of the actions of the investment banks, the mortgage industry and the rating agencies, the investment community has now incurred an estimated $1 trillion and more in losses. Even more troubling, housing prices have dropped 20 percent from their July 2006 highs, with the very real likelihood that housing could contract another 15 to 20 percent -- essentially wiping out more than $4 trillion in housing values. This would be the biggest hit since the Depression to Americans' most important asset.

 

What is even more remarkable is that at the same time, firms such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman not only made billions of dollars packaging and selling these toxic loans, they also wagered with their own capital that the values of these investments would decline, further raising their profits. If any other industries engaged in such knowingly unscrupulous activities, there would be an immediate federal investigation.

 

Why is Washington so complicit in this intricate and lucrative affair? First, the Fed laid the groundwork for both these asset bubbles by lowering interest rates to historic lows. In an attempt to protect his legacy after the Internet-bubble collapse, Greenspan provided unprecedented stimulus to re-inflate the economy and maintain his popularity with Wall Street. (Remember the "Greenspan put"?) But in doing so, he spawned the largest debt and asset bubble in U.S. history.

 

At the same time, federal regulatory agencies such as the SEC stood idly by as Wall Street took advantage of the investment public during both the Internet and the housing bubbles. The SEC took almost no action against Wall Street after the dot-com implosion. And in the midst of the housing bubble, in 2006, only the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency pushed for any level of regulation to address subprime lending.

 

One has to wonder why Treasury secretaries under Presidents Clinton and Bush -- Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson, respectively -- took no action to curb these abuses. It certainly was not because they did not understand Wall Street's practices -- both are former chief executives of Goldman Sachs. And why has Congress been so silent? The Wall Street investment banking firms, their executives, their families and their political action committees contribute more to U.S. Senate and House campaigns than any other industry in America. By sprinkling some of its massive gains into the pockets of our elected officials, Wall Street bought itself protection from any tough government enforcement.

 

This is no doubt the same reason why so many members of Congress were consistently blocking attempts to reform and downsize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are essentially giant, undercapitalized hedge funds. These two entities have been huge money machines for Democrats in both the House and the Senate, many of whom recently had the gall to ask why these companies hadn't been reformed in the past. Nor should several Republican congressmen and Senators who likewise contributed to watering down legislation aimed at reforming these institutions be let off the hook.

 

Wall Street's actions are now profoundly hurting American families, communities and the entire U.S. financial system. People are being thrown out of their homes. Once seemingly indestructible financial entities are succumbing to the crisis they have created and have jeopardized the stability of the global financial system. Isn't it ironic that the same firms that preached free-market capitalism are now the ones begging for a taxpayer bailout? Many investment professionals operating in my world believe, as do I, that we are facing the greatest financial crisis since 1929.

 

Fortunately, today we have safety nets, such as federal deposit insurance, that were non-existent during the Great Depression. Yet there has not been a time since the 1920s when Wall Street has enjoyed as much influence over Washington as it has for the last 12 years. Let's hope that this influence fades rapidly -- and that this financial crisis doesn't end the same way as the one of nearly 80 years ago.

 

Eric D. Hovde is chief executive of Washington-based Hovde Capital and Hovde Acquisitions.

 

 

 

ON CAPITOL HILL

Lawmakers Left on the Sidelines as Fed, Treasury Take Swift Action » 

 By Lori Montgomery Washington Post Staff Writer

 Thursday, September 18, 2008; Page A01

The frenetic pace of the financial crisis has forced the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to make rapid-fire decisions in recent days, leaving Capitol Hill lawmakers effectively impotent -- and frustrated.  Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concern yesterday that they have had no control over when and how federal money has been used to curb the panic on Wall Street. While many have been convinced that the moves so far have been necessary to prevent a wider financial meltdown, they said they felt confined to the sidelines as power to make momentous decisions has been concentrated in very few hands. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she has dispatched Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to determine whether Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke should retain authority to unilaterally bail out failing firms, as he did Tuesday with a loan of $85 billion to insurance giant American International Group.

Congressional leaders learned of the rescue late Tuesday during a hastily called meeting in the Capitol with Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who explained the deal after it was done. "My instincts and my gut tell me they made the wrong move. But I don't have all the information they do," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, who yesterday fielded furious calls from constituents. "People are angry because they see this as their tax dollars bailing out Wall Street speculators. And in some cases, it is." Paulson and Bernanke have taken the lead not only from lawmakers but from President Bush. Bush has left direct management of the crisis to them and other advisers, and has limited his public remarks on the economy.

On Tuesday, he canceled plans to brief reporters after meeting with his economic advisers. Yesterday, asked by reporters why Bush had not addressed the issue of the economy more directly in the midst of a crisis, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush was wary of holding news conferences in general because he didn't want to distract from the presidential campaign. "I grant you that it's been a while," she said, "and I understand that people want to hear from the president during this time."

 Republicans in the House have scheduled a news conference for today to protest the string of bailouts that began in March with Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns and extended in recent weeks to mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as AIG. The latest decision was particularly hard to swallow, some lawmakers said, because it came just one day after Paulson refused to intervene to save Lehman Brothers Holdings and indicated that further rescues were unlikely. "Just how long can the poor beleaguered taxpayer be expected to bear all the losses and bear all the risk?" said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), one of the protest's organizers. "Lehman Brothers must have the worst lobbyist in town, since they are the only ones that appear to have lost out on the bailout mania."

Republicans and Democrats alike said the crisis is in part the result of insufficient government regulation on Wall Street. Frank and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, both plan hearings aimed at exposing regulatory failures and developing a new system for managing the bad assets of financial institutions collapsing under the burden of their investments in a plummeting housing market. With Congress scheduled to adjourn next week, no one expects quick action, and there's a good reason for that, said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

"No one knows what to do," Reid told reporters. "We are in new territory here. This is a different game." Even Bernanke and Paulson aren't sure how to fix the system, he said, "but they are trying to come up with ideas."

This Story

• Markets in Disarray as Lending Locks Up
• ON CAPITOL HILL: Lawmakers Left On the Sidelines As Fed, Treasury Take Swift Action
• ANALYSIS: Scrambling to Clean Up After A Category 4 Financial Storm

View All Items in This Story View Only Top Items in This Story

One idea that's rapidly gaining currency is the creation of a new federal entity that would acquire "toxic" mortgage-backed assets from failing firms and hold them until the housing market improves. Economists including former Fed chairman Paul Volcker and former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers have endorsed the idea. Summers, who served in the Clinton administration, is scheduled to speak to Senate Democrats at a luncheon today.

Setting up such an entity also would give lawmakers a chance to determine the parameters of future bailouts, as opposed to leaving the decision in Bernanke's hands. While most lawmakers said they trust Bernanke's judgment, Frank said he was troubled to learn in the meeting Tuesday that Bernanke has legal authority to use the central bank's reserves of $800 billion to make loans to any entity under any terms he deems economically justified.

"No one in this democracy -- unelected -- should have $800 billion to dispense as he sees fit," Frank said. "It may be that there is so much bad debt out there clogging our system that we may have to have some intervention. But it shouldn't be the unilateral decision of the chairman of the Federal Reserve with the backing of the secretary of the Treasury."

Pressed by lawmakers at the Tuesday meeting to justify the AIG rescue, Bernanke argued that the insurance giant was deserving of government help because of its broad reach into global financial markets. But several lawmakers said it was not clear to them how Bernanke and Paulson were deciding which firms would be allowed to fail and which would be saved.

"They made very clear that they could give us no assurance that there wouldn't be other shoes that would drop," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "They also did not draw any bright line distinction in how they would handle things going forward."

Conrad said Paulson and Bernanke also could not say what the effect might be on the federal budget, which is already running up near-record deficits. Nor could they say what the ultimate cost to taxpayers might be.

"These massive amounts, it is deeply troubling," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. "You start by taking $29 billion for Bear Stearns, $200 billion with Fannie and Freddie. Not to mention the discount window stuff. It is mounting. And it is deeply troubling."

If Bernanke and Paulson have a coherent strategy, many Republican lawmakers say they do not understand it, either. Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Republican Conference, yesterday urged the administration to send an "envoy" to Capitol Hill to explain their decisions, as well as the "the nature of the events that are unfolding in front of us" at this "historic moment."

"There's a great deal of confidence in Bernanke, but that reservoir is not limitless," Putnam told reporters. "People need to understand what the guiding principles are behind this ad-hoc strategy and how you decide that AIG is worthy of a bailout and that Lehman is not and that Bear Stearns is and Fannie. There has to be some better understanding of that."

 

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/c.goJTI0OvElH/b.95
3489/k.B86E/Action_Center_Home/siteapps/advocacy/Action
Item.aspx?c=goJTI0OvElH&b=953489&aid=11288

 

 

Troy Davis is still scheduled to be executed on September 23.
Clemency DENIED: help stop the imminent execution of Troy Davis!

On Friday, September 12, the Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles voted to deny clemency for Troy Anthony Davis. Troy Davis is still scheduled to be executed by the state of Georgia on September 23, even though his serious claims of innocence have never been heard in court.

Urge the board to reconsider its decision today!

Troy Davis was convicted of murder solely on the basis of witness testimony, and seven of the nine non-police witnesses have since recanted or changed their testimony, several citing police coercion. Others have signed affidavits implicating one of the remaining two witnesses as the actual killer. But due to an increasingly restrictive appeals process, none of this new evidence has ever been heard in court.

Take action and then forward this action to ten friends!

The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles gave no reason for its denial of Troy Davis' clemency petition, yet Board members do have the authority to reconsider their decision. On July 16, 2007, the Board did stay Troy Davis' execution, stating that it would "not allow an execution to proceed in this State unless and until its members are convinced that there is no doubt as to the guilt of the accused" (emphasis added).  Take action for Troy Davis. Troy Davis was sentenced to death despite a tainted case and serious claims of innocence. © Georgia Department of Corrections
The failure of courts to hear the compelling evidence of innocence in this case means that massive doubts about Troy Davis' guilt will remain unresolved.

Urge the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to reconsider its decision and prevent this execution from proceeding!

In solidarity,

Sue Gunawardena-Vaughn
Director, Death Penalty Abolition Campaign
Amnesty International USA

A lot of people here think that they can say anything and just because they say it that makes it true. You wish.  If you give an authoritative statement such as has Ave Maria that: Soros gave Obama $500 million you have to substantiate that, give evidence.  Citing a website is NOT giving the source of the evidence.  One must give the precise link as to that specific bit of information.

Evidently, a number of you here don't get it.  so, I suggest that for those who are not lazy and afraid of scholarship that you look up what basic debating consists of.  Opinions are one thing but as in the case of Commander who ranted about illegals being at the bottom of the housing mortgage crisis you really have to give some proof; otherwise, empty rhetoric, zero.

Red dog doesn't know that you must compare similar categories to make an accurate comparison not compare the proverbial apples and oranges.  Rather than look up what I mean by that or discern the details I gave him explaining my points  he just deleted the valid points I made.  What an intellect.  blame others for your lack of scholarship.

I AM STILL WAITING FOR AVE MARIA OR Y3 TO GIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF SOROS' GIVING OBAMA $500 MILLION.  (Funny but they seem to have disappeared.  So, much for their scholarship.) It looks like I have caught them in a lie.  So, this is precisely what I am talking about.  Also, AM said that Soros wants to start a Marxist, socialist society when the reality and truth is the opposite: that Soros has founded the Open Society which promotes democracry around the globe.  So, another blatant lie.  That is why some people don't want to have to back things up - they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Look, I am not one of these crime experts on what to do when you get abducted, etc. but don't they tell you to never go in the car??

Well this poor woman had a second chance when she went into the convenience store with these bad guys.  She should not have returned quiessently back to the car. 

And the men who were bold:  Why didn't they keep her in the store?  Protect her?

I know that it is easy to say but the poor woman should have been kept from leaving the store.  That would have been real bold action.  And look the bad guys didn't even have a real gun.

Since May of 2000 oil drilling has been ongoing at the Bakken Formation: oil and gas shale in Wyoming, N. Dakota and Saskatchewan, Canada.

But Navymom says that the Dems and moderate Reps don't want you to know about it??

Why would the Dems, et al. care if we, the people, know that there has been oil drilling since May 2000.  So one has to wonder where NM gets her disinformation from??  The Dems are not holding anything up but that is what Navy mom is saying.

Furthermore, "The Bakken potential resource, while large by US onshore field standards, will have only a minor effect on US production or imports. Using 2006 US imports and consumption for comparison, the Bakken undiscovered resource of 3,649 million barrels of oil, if subsequently discovered and fully developed, would provide us with the equivalent of six months of oil consumption or 10 months of imports, spread over 20 or more years. In reality, the reserves developed are likely to be many times smaller than this value." http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

The Bakken Formation: How Much Will It Help?

Posted by Gail the Actuary on April 26, 2008 - 10:00am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: Bakken, Bakken Shale, williston basin [list all tags]

This is a post by Piccolo, a petroleum engineer working in the petroleum industry.

 

Today, the National Labor Committee is releasing a new report "Guest Workers Trafficked to Kuwait, Stripped of their Passports and Forced to Work Seven Days a Week at a U.S. Military Base, while Cheated of Half their Wages." Full report: http://www.nlcnet.org/reports.php?id=601

 

Hundred of thousands of foreign guest workers-among them 240,000 Bangladeshis-have been trafficked to Kuwait. Seventy-seven-hour work week at U.S. military base: At least 310 of the Bangladeshi guest workers trafficked to Kuwait were assigned to a U.S. military base, Camp Arifjan, where they were forced to work 11 hours a day, seven days a week cleaning tanks, rocket launchers and missiles, as well as office and living spaces. The guest workers were stripped of their passports and cheated of nearly half the wages due them, earning just $34.72 for working 70 hours, when they should have earned at least $63. In just the first seven months of 2008, while working at the U.S. base, the guest workers were cheated of over $250,000 in wages. The Kuwaiti companies working under contract with the U.S. military base also illegally withheld three months of the workers' wages. Supervisors threatened to beat the workers if they asked for their proper pay. The workers are housed in squalid dorms, with eight workers crowded into each small 10-by-10-foot room, sleeping on narrow, double-level bunk beds. Because of the underpayment of wages, some guest workers at the U.S. military base were so poor that they were forced to take second jobs in order to survive. One worker, Mr. Sabur, was working 131 hours a week and trying to get by on just three hours sleep a day.

In early 2008, food prices soared in Kuwait, pushing the workers even deeper into misery. On July 27, 80,000 cleaning workers-including on U.S. military bases-joined a work stoppage to demand their proper wages and respect for their rights. The strike was overwhelmingly peaceful, though there were limited instances of violence. Workers from the U.S. military base who had not participated in the demonstration were attacked in their dorms by Kuwaiti police, who fired teargas and kicked and beat the workers with clubs. The workers were imprisoned for five days, where they were again beaten, before being forcibly deported to Bangladesh without the $5,000 or more in back wages due them.

"It would be a horrible turn of events if Operation Desert Storm and all the sacrifices made by U.S. troops have in some way freed Kuwait to traffic in hundreds of thousands of foreign guest workers, who are stripped of their passports, forced to work long hours, cheated of their wages, and then beaten and deported when they ask that their most basic rights be respected," said NLC director Charles Kernaghan. Operation Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait cost the lives of 294 U.S. servicemen, 458 wounded and 183,000 Gulf War veterans who are now permanently disabled. ________________________________________

Tragic, the recent story of the local woman killed by a security guard from her school where she taught.  Look, for some there was never a relationship, for others there was a relationship; however, short-lived it may have been.  And we all know that breaking up is not fun.  But it does happen and one must move on.

What is it about these guys who can't let go and move on??  Are you that deficient?

If so, go find a good therapist and become a new you - sufficient and interesting in your own right.  do some work on yourself.  Don't grab onto a woman as some kind of lifesaver.  Save your own life.  Study, get some new hobbies. Get a life and be mature.

No, with all the higher productivity of the workers wages have diminished by 2% in just the last year.  Add to that the exceptional, almost exponential increase in food and fuel prices.  This is how much the fat cats and this administration care about the people.  They hoard the profits.  Let the people suffer.  That's Republicanism.

I really respect him for that. When just about all, if not all other candidates, both R & D, McCain took a righteous stand against corn ethanol. Now we, the people, will have to fight tooth and nail to get Congress to eliminate that deleterious monstrosity. Lard, inefficiency (the most it will replace oil is 7%) and it is harmful to the environment.

 

Let's clean up the environment and Congress. 

S. Osstia has historically always been an integral part of Georgia and recognized by the U.N. and all countries, other than Russia, as Georgian territory.

Russia does not like that former Soviet republics are seeking NATO membership.  But for Georgia to enter NATO its territory must be united and integral.

Russia has no business in going into Georgia.  It just shows that Russia is continuing as an imperialist, brutal neighborhood hegemon.

To Listen Is Taxing

New campaign ads distort, rather than enlighten. Sunday, August 10, 2008; Page B06

BARACK OBAMA and John McCain have important differences on tax policy. These are fair game for campaign ads, and no one expects 30-second spots to be suffused with nuance. But Mr. McCain's latest attack on the Obama tax plan crosses the line from reasonable argument to unacceptably misleading. "Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000," the announcer warns. The basis for this statement is the senator's vote for the fiscal 2009 budget resolution, a nonbinding blueprint that assumed that all the Bush tax cuts would expire as scheduled. However, Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year.

If anything, he has lavished too much in tax breaks on the middle class, proposing an expensive $1,000-per-family additional tax credit and, last weekend, piling on top of that an immediate, presumably one-time, $1,000-per-family rebate for energy costs. "The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers," the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center reported. "By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by 4.6 percent, or $2,100 annually." In fact, the center found, Mr. McCain was less generous than Mr. Obama to middle-income taxpayers, trimming their taxes by about 3 percent of income, or $1,400 annually, by 2012.

The McCain ad continues in the same dishonest vein: "He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family." Mr. Obama would increase taxes on small business -- but only the tiny sliver that earn more than $250,000 a year. He would -- unwisely, in our view -- lower taxes on seniors, excusing those making less than $50,000 a year from paying any tax whatsoever. As for going after people's "life savings," Mr. Obama would exempt 99.7 percent of households from paying the estate tax. He would tax the "life savings" only of couples who leave a combined estate worth more than $7 million.

Mr. Obama is not blameless in the ad wars. He asserts that Mr. McCain would give new tax breaks to "Big Oil," without making clear that this is part of an overall reduction in the corporate tax rate. A radio ad released Friday warns that "there's something John McCain's not telling you: It was McCain who used his influence in the Senate to help foreign-owned DHL buy a U.S. company and gain control over the jobs that are now on the chopping block in Ohio." Sorry, but there's something Mr. Obama's not telling voters, either.

"Foreign-owned DHL," which acquired Airborne Express, likely saved jobs that were on the chopping block in 2003, when the merger took place. Then, Mr. McCain opposed an ill-considered provision by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), pushed by DHL rivals Federal Express and United Parcel Service, that would have blocked its takeover of the struggling No. 3 Airborne. The current controversy involves a move by "foreign-owned DHL," now struggling itself, to outsource air cargo operations to, yes, American-owned UPS.

Mr. Obama should tamp down the xenophobic rhetoric. Mr. McCain should stop trying to scare voters by mischaracterizing Mr. Obama's tax plan.

Actually, it is very unpatriotic to act and talk like we will  never raise taxes.  It is delusional and unreal to talk as though we can have a good society and wars abroad without taxes.  What kind of leader is that?

With a $53 trillion debt McCain's ads about Obama's raising taxes is unseemly, disengenuous and wholly uncivic-minded.  Let's face it, candidates either lie about what they are going to do re taxes or say very little.  But with a $53 trillion debt we will have to raise taxes, no matter who wins the election.  So, don't be conned by subterfuge and lies.

I respect a candidate who does not engage in scare tactics, especially when he knows that taxes will have to be raised.

 

by going to China for the Olympics. Before landing in Beijing Pres. Bush spoke out, I believe, more than once, on freedom, democracy and human rights for the Chinese people.  Now, we learn that bad guy Mugabe made it as far as Hong Kong before he was told by the Chinese that he was not welcome at the Olympics. 
That already is an accomplishment!