January 28, 2010
Brian forwards this from Ann Coulter at Human Events:
Ann Coulter gets it right again!
Can't We At Least Get a Toaster?
by Ann Coulter
In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle last week ("The other Boston Massacre"), President Obama adopted a populist mantle, claiming he was going to "fight" Wall Street. It was either that or win another Nobel Peace Prize.
Now the only question is which Goldman Sachs crony he'll put in charge of this task.
If Obama plans to hold Wall Street accountable for its own bad decisions, it will be a first for the Democrats.
For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years.
Bankers get all the profits, glory and bonuses when their flimflam bets pay off, but the taxpayers foot the bill when Wall Street firms' bets go bad on -- to name just three examples -- Mexican bonds (1995), Thai, Indonesian and South Korean bonds (1997), and Russian bonds (1998).
As Peter Schweizer writes in his magnificent book Architects of Ruin: "Wall Street is a very far cry from the arena of freewheeling capitalism most people recall from their history books." With their reverse-Midas touch, the execrable baby boom generation turned Wall Street into what Schweizer dubs "risk-free Clintonian state capitalism."
Apropos of the Clintonian No-Responsibility Era, Goldman Sachs and Citibank became heavily invested in Mexican bonds after a two-day bender in Tijuana in the early '90s. Any half-wit could see that "investing" in the dog track would be safer than investing in a corrupt Third World government controlled by drug lords.
But precisely because the bonds were so risky, bankers made money hand-over-fist on the scheme -- at least until Mexico defaulted.
With Mexico unable to pay the $25 billion it owed the big financial houses, Clinton's White House decided the banks shouldn't be on the hook for their own bad bets.
Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman, demanded that the U.S. bail out Mexico to save his friends at Goldman. He said a failure to bail out Mexico would affect "everyone," by which I take it he meant "everyone in my building."
Larry Summers, currently Obama's National Economic Council director, warned that a failure to rescue Mexico would lead to another Great Depression. (Ironically, Summers' current position in the Obama administration is "Great Depression czar.")
Republicans in Congress said "no" to Clinton's Welfare-for-Wall-Street plan.
It's not as if this hadn't happened before: In 1981, Reagan allowed Mexico to default on tens of billions of dollars in debt -- Mexico claimed the money was "in my other pair of pants" -- leaving Wall Street to deal with its own bad bets.
As Larry Summers expected, this led like night into day to the Great Depression we experienced during the Reagan years ... Wait, that never happened.
At congressional hearings on Clinton's proposed Mexico bailout a decade later, Republicans Larry Kudlow, Bill Seidman and Steve Forbes all denounced the plan to save Goldman Sachs via a Mexican bailout.
So the Clinton administration did an end run around the Republicans in Congress and rescued improvident Wall Street bankers by giving Mexico a $20 billion line of credit directly from the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund.
Relieved of any responsibility for their losing bets, Wall Street firms leapt into buying other shaky foreign bonds. Soon the U.S. taxpayer, through the International Monetary Fund, was propping up bonds out of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, then Russia -- all to save Goldman Sachs.
The IMF could have saved itself a lot of paperwork by just sending taxpayer money directly to Goldman, but I think they're saving that for Obama's second term.
Throughout every bailout, congressional Republicans were screaming from the rooftops that this wasn't capitalism. It was "Government Sachs." As Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) put it, the same rules that apply to welfare mothers "ought to apply to rich Greenwich, Conn., investors who are multimillionaires."
But Wall Street raised a lot of money for the Democrats, so Clinton bailed them out, over and over again.
Before you knew it, once-respectable Wall Street institutions were buying investment products even more ludicrous than Mexican bonds: They were buying the mortgages of Mexican strawberry-pickers.
Why shouldn't Wall Street trust in suicidal loans no sane person would ever imagine could be paid back? Time after time, when their bets paid off, they pocketed huge fees; when their bets failed, they sent the bill to the taxpayers.
With nothing to fear, the big financial houses bought, repackaged and resold investment products that included loans like the one issued by Washington Mutual to non-English-speaking strawberry pickers earning a combined $14,000 a year to purchase a $720,000 house.
But the financial wizards on Wall Street were trading these preposterous loans as if they were bars of gold. They may as well have bet the entire U.S. economy on a dice game in an alley off 44th Street.
Every mortgage-backed security bundle was infected with suicidal, politically correct loans that had been demanded by community organizers such as Barack Obama -- as is thoroughly documented in Schweizer's book.
On the off chance that mammoth mortgages to people who could barely afford food somehow went bad, Wall Street firms could be confident that their Democrat friends would bail them out.
Even the Republicans would have to bail them out this time: They had strapped the dynamite of toxic loans onto the entire economy and were threatening to pull the clip. Wall Street had infected every financial institution in the country, including completely innocent banks.
But now Obama says he's going to "fight" Wall Street, which is as plausible as claiming he'll "fight" the trial lawyers.
As Schweizer demonstrates, whenever the Democrats "regulate" Wall Street, the innocent pay through the nose, while Wall Street swine lower than drug dealers and pornographers end up with multimillion-dollar bonuses so they can run for governor of New Jersey and fund lavish Democratic fundraisers in the Hamptons.
Republicans should respond the way they always have: Support the free market, not looters and welfare recipients on Wall Street, especially the Democrats' friends at Goldman.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:04 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1052 words, total size 7 kb.
Alan Caruba IMO say's it all when he comments Obama's the State of the Union.
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-repeating-same-mistakes-and-lies.html
Because the climate policies have the most effect on the World's future, this remark registered and commented:
From Climate Depot, this link with a short video:
You Watch, You Decide: Obama Laughed at After Calling Climate Change Evidence Overwhelming?
Despite the lack of evidence Obama still intends to push through a Climate Bill.
This means that he is prepared to take the world hostage and introduce devastating policies without a solid scientific basis.
Well, based on all the other responses I think he will be isolated and non of his objectives will be fulfilled.
I liked the Republican response:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/27/politics/stateofunion/main6148483.shtml
I remembered the best State of the Union I witnessed ever from one of the best US Presidents in history:
Just to remember how things could have been if the US had some intelligent Leadership. It's the speech of Ronald Reagan one year after the devastating Presidency of Jimmy Carter had ended with the release of the Iranian hostage taking of the US Embassy Staff in Teheran:
Reagan understood perfectly that Government spending was wrecking the economy in those times.
Today the US has a President who follows an opposite agenda aimed to enrich a select group of his supporters short term but to wreck the US and the World Economy permanently.
The USA and the World are in desperate need of a new Reagan.
The lost decade has been followed by a lost presidency because this would have been the State of the Union address we would have loved to hear:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.php?id=42687&admin=40
Posted by: Ron de Haan at January 28, 2010 11:34 AM (coRkP)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_answer_for_america_more_of_1IboSZ3t6WFW12qZnpv10J
Posted by: Ron de Haan at January 28, 2010 01:04 PM (coRkP)
Jan 27, 2010 Got Ideas About a Climate Bill? Kerry, Graham and Lieberman Want to Hear From You
By Darren Samuelsohn of ClimateWire
Update Watch as Obama is laughed at during his state of the
union address after referring to the “overwhelming scientific evidence
on climate change”. First the audience laughs, then Pelosi, next Biden
and finally Obama himself smirks at the insanity of his remark.
Key Senate climate bill advocates are searching for something—anything, really—that can serve as a legislative compromise for capping U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.The lawmakers’ fishing expedition has led them into a series of meetings with moderate Democrats and Republicans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as they try to maintain momentum on an issue in the face of stiff opposition from senators who want to keep the focus on the economy.
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) all said over the past week that they have been making it perfectly clear to everyone that they are open to new ideas when it comes to tackling climate change.
“My approach here is we really must do something this year,” said Lieberman, who has been co-sponsoring cap-and-trade bills since 2001. “The two problems of American energy dependence and global warming will only get worse. We’ve just got to do the most we can. I’m not being rigid or ideological about it. So anybody who wants to try to make the problem better, it’s worth considering.”
“We’re just going to keep everything on the table and not putting out a framework at this point,” said Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The trio last fall indicated they plan to compromise on more nuclear power and expanded oil and gas drilling. But they had resisted calls to pare back their plans on an economywide cap-and-trade program, saying that was the lowest-cost alternative for industry.
Until now.
All three now say they are willing to listen to senators who would prefer alternative ideas, including starting first with emission limits on the electric utility industry and then perhaps phasing in other parts of the economy. “You ask about the power sector, to do that alone wouldn’t be my first choice, but if it’s all we can do in the end, I’d consider it, sure,” Lieberman said yesterday.
“Some people have mentioned different sectoral approaches, we’re looking at that,” Kerry said. “We’re looking at everything. What we want to do is make sure that we get the job done. And we’re not wedded to any one way of trying to do that, so we’re looking at options.”
Another option is the “cap and dividend” approach that forgoes trading of greenhouse gas credits. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman met yesterday with Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), co-sponsors of a bill that does just that.
They are also meeting soon with Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio), both of whom have to varying degrees considered the power plant-only approach.
Graham last week said he was appealing to Republicans to sign off on a limit for greenhouse gas emissions, and he too was open to different ideas. “I think you’ve got to price carbon,” he said. “You can have a hybrid system of emission controls and taxes.” Several longtime cap-and-trade supporters also have offered some cover to the Senate trio as they search out a compromise.
“I don’t think anybody has given up on cap and trade,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “I think big, comprehensive bills are very difficult to do in this environment, regardless of what it is. I tend to be an incrementalist. I say do what you can do, when you can do it. Because everything is opportunity and timing. If you have both, you can get it done. If you have only one, it’s very difficult to get it done.”
“There’s going to be some significant compromises that are going to have to be made if we’re going to get an energy bill done,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.). “We knew it two weeks ago. We knew it last week. We know it this week. This is nothing new. We knew we’d not be able to get a major energy bill done without some significant change.”
Cardin said a deal that notches 60 Senate votes also could withstand any divisions that emerge from the left. “My expectation, if we succeed, there’ll be strong support for what we do from the environmental community,” Cardin said. “Will it be universal? I doubt it. But if we’re going to be able to get a bill done, there are compromises that are going to have to be made, and some groups are not going to be happy about it.
“Our goal is to make sure we reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Cardin added. “There’s different ways you can accomplish that.”
The ‘fence’ grows
Kerry, Graham and Lieberman may have reason to be optimistic after a pair of moderate Democrats indicated they are not entirely closed off from negotiations. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said yesterday that she is open to a broad climate and energy bill as an alternative to the U.S. EPA climate regulations expected in the coming months. “I am for a legislative solution, not a rulemaking, not an unaccountable rulemaking process,” said Landrieu, one of three Senate Democrats who co-sponsored a resolution that would strip EPA of that authority. “I’m for an accountable legislative process to achieve that, and I’d be open to some modification of cap and trade that really recognizes the importance of the refining industry here. Because we’re going to have a supply shortage of oil and refined products. We need to do it all. We need to be producing more and particularly more natural gas. “I think there’s a way forward, but it’s most certainly going to be bipartisan, and it’s most certainly going to be from the center out,” Landrieu added.
Also opening the door again was Sen. Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat who held out until the very end during last month’s Senate deliberations on health care reform legislation. Nelson in past interviews has questioned whether Congress had any interest in tackling such a complicated subject as climate change in an election year, but he did not rule it out last week.
“I’d hope energy policy would still be alive and well,” Nelson said. “I’d hope it can have strong, bipartisan support, at least that’s what I’m hoping.”
Nelson said he has not had detailed conversations yet with Kerry, Graham and Lieberman. But he said he is open to negotiations on setting a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. “I want to see what the legislation does,” he said. “I said I can support cap. I have trouble with cap and trade, the trade part of it. So if it’s cap and trade, watered down, and it’s only the trade watered down, that won’t satisfy me.”
The recent comments from Landrieu and Nelson shift the senators from “probably no” back to the “fence sitter” category on E&E’s analysis (pdf) of the Senate global warming debate. They join 27 others, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Several other Senate “fence sitters” are sending signals they are a long way from a “yes” vote.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said yesterday that he is focused on a much different set of issues. “You ask, is there a way? The answer is, I don’t know. But at a time of economic anxiety, it will be more difficult,” he said. “Without the global cooperation from China, India and elsewhere, it just makes it that much harder.”
“I’m very skeptical of cap-and-trade as a concept,” said Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who said he would rather see the Senate move legislation he co-sponsored with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) that emphasizes funding for clean energy technology (E&ENews PM, Nov. 16, 2009).
McCain said he is still waiting for an invitation from President Obama to talk about the climate issue. “He hasn’t for the past year, but you can always hope,” the 2008 Republican presidential nominee said.
As for the utility-only approach, Voinovich and Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar are the most prominent Republicans to speak up with any level of interest on the issue (E&E Daily, Dec. 3, 2009). Both have said they are studying the topic while giving no guarantee they will get behind any specific legislation.
Lugar said yesterday he has not yet spoken with Kerry about the power plant-only strategy. Asked if he thought it had a better chance of passing, he said, “Not necessarily, and I’ve not really advocated that. I hypothetically talked about a lot of things, as I’m sure he has.”
Voinovich said his staff are working on an analysis of limiting emissions just on power plants. Once finished, he said he would meet with Kerry “and just see if there’s any area where something can be done.”
For now, Voinovich said he is much more interested in focusing on the energy provisions included in a bill (S. 1462 (pdf)) adopted last spring by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “My initial feeling ... is that we ought to look at the energy bill, which is pretty bipartisan, and look at that in terms of how it could be enhanced to achieve some real reductions in emissions,” he said.
Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), the lead sponsor of that energy bill, gave himself some wiggle room when asked if he would like to see a more comprehensive bill get across the finish line. “I want to see us pass what we’ve been able to report out of committee,” he said. “If we’re able to pass more, that’s great too.”
In the search for votes, Lieberman said he is counting on Graham and at least two more Republicans. “We assume we have Collins and Snowe.” But try telling that to the Mainers.
Collins sidestepped questions about her meeting with the Senate trio. “Stay tuned,” she said. And Snowe, who will meet next week with Kerry, Graham and Lieberman, insisted that the economy is a much more pressing issue for her compared with cap-and-trade legislation. “Climate change is a key issue,” Snowe said. “But right now, there are so many factors affecting business’ ability to create jobs or preserve jobs that we have to factor that into the equation. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not dismissing, because I’ve been a leader on that effort in the past, but I also think we have to recognize what can we do and what’s the art of the possible.” See this report.
Icecap Note: Go here and tell these senators what they can do with a climate change bill. Call or write or both. They are not paying attention to what’s happening. Flood their switchboards. Get them to focus on what is important. Many of these senators have lobbiests on their backs (or maybe filling their pockets) and many had already been counting the money the cap-and-tax bill was going to bring in and some have connections to the Chicago Climate Exchange (right up to the top).
Posted by: Ron de Haan at January 28, 2010 01:34 PM (coRkP)
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/28/real-threat-to-national-security-climate-change-regulations/
Posted by: Ron de Haan at January 28, 2010 02:19 PM (coRkP)
Thanks, Ron!
I missed the State of the Bunion, er, Union address; down with the flu. I'm not surprised that Lindsey Graham Cracker is still pushing this with Dems.
Your right; this is key in remaking America and the World. Obama and these statist jackasses will not quit.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at January 29, 2010 08:59 AM (e6n2C)
Powered by Minx 1.1.2-pink.








