Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (70532)	3/25/2009 3:34:02 PM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Resigned Mark Steyn The Corner This resignation letter from an AIG exec is worth reading: <<< I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down... The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press... I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.” >>> Read it all here nytimes.com I wonder if Senator Grassley (Republican, of course) is pleased that AIG honchos are now doing as instructed and falling on their swords. As I said a few days ago, if you own even modest assets (a small house, a savings account) and you think that in a battle between the political class and the business class it's in your interest for the latter to lose, you're a fool who entirely deserves the vaporization of his wealth on which Barney Frank & Co have embarked. Likewise, watching a couple of dozen ACORN activists pretending to be indignant citizens leading a ton of news reporters willingly colluding in the fraud around suburban avenues in Connecticut, a talented executive would have to be completely desperate to offer his services to any entity bailed out by the government. We have a president who shows no instinct for economic issues; a Treasury Department that, in a supposed crisis, is just one designated fall guy rattling around an all but empty building for whose senior positions no one has even been nominated; and thug legislators-for-life who bear far more direct responsibility for this mess posing as champions of da liddle guy in order to extend their already disastrous "oversight" ever deeper into the private sector. Things are going to get a lot worse. But don't worry: If AIG throws their departing exec a leaving party, Congress will pass a bill deeming any such event a 97 percent taxable benefit. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (70532)	3/25/2009 3:43:54 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

What Should Have Been Asked Last Night Jerry Taylor The Corner Question — Mr. President, you said a moment ago that the era of reckless, highly-leveraged investments that put us all at risk are over. But the program your administration announced this week would provide for massive taxpayer subsidies for exactly that — highly leveraged, risky investments on the taxpayer's dime to purchase "toxic" mortgage-backed securities. It seems to me that you are condemning exactly the thing you are promoting to save the banking system. What am I missing here? Question — Mr. President, you have repeatedly decried the fact that both businesses and individuals have for too long saved too little, and have lived for too long on on credit. Yet your recovery plan is premised on the idea that we need to get business and individuals to spend more and save less than would otherwise be the case without government. I am confused. Can you explain why the proverbial "hair of the dog that bit us" is the best economic answer going forward? Question — Mr. President, the program you announced today that would allow the federal government to take over and close troubled financial institutions beyond those in the banking sector would — as Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke told lawmakers today — allow the government to put companies like A.I.G. "into conservorship, unwind it slowly, protect policyholders and impose haircuts on creditors and counterparties." Don't we already have a well-developed system to do exactly that — bankruptcy? What does the federal government add to that process? And why is allowing companies like A.I.G. to go bankrupt so unthinkable when you seem to be proposing exactly that? Question — Mr. President, a staple of Democratic party rhetoric over the years is that the GOP is the party of big business and the Democratic party is the party of the working man. Yet it would appear to the casual observer that Wall Street banks have hijacked your administration and are moving heaven and earth to socialize their staggering losses. Do you find it worrisome that Republicans are now increasingly inclined to argue that what's good for Citigroup is not necessarily good for America, reversing the long-established rhetorical order of the political universe? And how comfortable are you with your progressive allies who are now wondering aloud about an administration that argues that bankruptcy is only an option for "the little people"? corner.nationalreview.com