SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (38565)11/21/2009 10:11:58 PM
From: sandintoes  Respond to of 71588
 
Some of them are already....



To: calgal who wrote (38565)11/23/2009 1:02:54 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Strains in Party Threaten Democrats' Plans
Lawmakers Feel Pressure to Respond to Voters' Economic Pain as White House, Allies Focus Efforts on Passing Health Overhaul
NOVEMBER 23, 2009.

By PETER WALLSTEN and NAFTALI BENDAVID
WASHINGTON -- The Democratic Party's broad ruling coalition is starting to fracture as lawmakers come under increasing pressure from the left to respond to voter anger over joblessness and Wall Street bailouts.

Tensions boiled over this week, with an angry party caucus meeting Monday in the House, and black lawmakers Thursday threatening to block legislation in protest of President Barack Obama's economic policies. Along the way, members of both parties grilled Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner over his ties to Wall Street, and some called on him to resign.

The squabbling is turning up pressure on the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress to respond, a challenge when their focus is on passing a health-care overhaul. That appears less important to voters than finding solutions to economic woes, suggesting the weak labor market could overwhelm Mr. Obama's domestic agenda. The dilemma facing party leaders: trying to keep core supporters excited without undermining more conservative members from right-leaning districts.

"The 2008 election wasn't about health care. It was about the economy," said David Beattie, a Democratic pollster whose clients are running for office in competitive states including Colorado, Florida and Georgia. "But we've been addressing health care and energy. People are hurting, and they want something done to alleviate that."

Mr. Obama's aides and his allies are scrambling to mollify supporters and minimize anxiety among independent voters who are fleeing the Democrats over economic issues. Congress is seeking to pass a bill in December aimed at creating jobs, although concerns about the deficit will likely keep it limited in scope. Congress is also looking to speed the much-delayed passage of a transportation bill, which could encourage spending on infrastructure projects.

The strains represent a turnaround from earlier this year, when Mr. Obama enjoyed soaring approval from his base and White House aides spoke in sweeping terms about turning that loyalty into an enduring political force.

"There's tremendous concern about the lack of results on Main Street for all of the money that's been borrowed and spent," said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.), one of the more liberal members of his party. Lawmakers representing one of Mr. Obama's most loyal constituencies, the Congressional Black Caucus, have been vocal in their unhappiness.

The White House has met privately with black caucus members. But officials have given no indication of a course change. Aides say passing health care and other agenda items will excite the political base.

"What the American people need and expect from the White House is a continued focus on reforming health care, changing the outdated financial rules and doing everything we can to continue to grow the economy and put Americans back to work, which is exactly what we are focused on," said spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki.

The rough week comes on the heels of other disputes pitting Democrats against their leadership. Abortion-rights activists remain angry over the House health-care overhaul that would place limits on coverage for the procedure. Latinos and immigrant-rights activists are frustrated the White House has supported curbs on illegal immigrants participating in the health plan.

Others complain the White House seems slowing its push for cap-and-trade legislation, hasn't prioritized legislation making it easier for unions to organize, and looks to be on track toward a major troop escalation in Afghanistan.

"People support the president, but I think most of them are just frustrated with the pace of change," said Brian Melendez, chairman of the Democratic Party in Minnesota.

The White House has geared some domestic policies around winning support in Congress from Democrats elected in conservative districts. That has frustrated liberals, who turned out in force to elect Mr. Obama.

Asked by liberal talk-radio host Bill Press this week if Mr. Obama had shown enough leadership on health care, Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.), a key member of the black caucus, said, "Of course not." He added: "Holding hands out, and beer on Friday nights in the White House, and bowing down to every nutty right-wing proposal about health care...is doing a disservice to the Barack Obama that I first met."

Surveys show Mr. Obama still enjoys strong support from such key constituencies as blacks and Latinos. Enthusiasm among working-class Democrats, a group Mr. Obama has struggled with, has slipped. In an October Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 53% of Democrats without a college degree said the country is on the right track, compared with 64% in the spring.

Contributing to the atmosphere was a third week of revelations about errors in reports filed by recipients of stimulus money, casting doubt on the number of jobs that can be credited to the $787 billion package.

The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey (D., Wis.), issued a statement Monday that called the errors "ludicrous" and demanded the administration work "night and day" to correct them. "Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it," Mr. Obey said.

—T.W. Farnam, Damian Paletta and Louise Radnofsky contributed to this article.
Write to Peter Wallsten at peter.wallsten@wsj.com and Naftali Bendavid at naftali.bendavid@wsj.com

online.wsj.com



To: calgal who wrote (38565)2/11/2010 5:13:56 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 71588
 
Obama's Owned -- You Can Bank On It
by Ann Coulter

02/10/2010

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are bristling with the news that Republicans have decided now is the time to suck up to Wall Street. As the saying goes, there is no truer friend than a Wall Street arbitrageur -- they are the salt-of-the-earth, the most loyal men who ever drew a breath!

What are Republicans thinking? While not every money-manipulator on Wall Street deserves to be treated like a heroin dealer, lots do. Could the Republicans be a little more discriminating in picking up the Democrats' old friends?

The Democrats are acting as if they want to punish everyone in the financial services industry, including the innocent, while the Republicans seem to want to protect everyone on Wall Street, including the guilty.

How about just punishing the guilty? The Democrats can't do that because the list of Wall Street's biggest offenders may turn out to be eerily similar to the list of Obama's biggest campaign contributors.

Employees from Goldman Sachs gave more to the Obama campaign than any other organization except the University of California -- with Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase quickly following in sixth and seventh place.

Whatever Obama has in mind for punishing the financial industry, I promise you, he won't punish his friends. After JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon took a $17 million bonus this week, and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein got a $9 million bonus, Obama said he didn't begrudge them their bonuses, saying, "I know both those guys."

Obama seems to be hoping that his vague bluster about "obscene profits" will lure Republicans into embracing Wall Street welfare recipients -- thereby losing Americans forever.

Never bet against Republicans being outwitted.

Risk-taking and speculation are good. But the Democrats' crony capitalism is the worst of both worlds: risk-taking without any real risk for the risk-takers. It's like gambling with your rich daddy's money, except we're the rich daddy.

Obama, like the rest of his party, is an ideologue who doesn't understand or particularly like the free market. He fundamentally believes in the efficacy of the welfare state, whether the beneficiary is a layabout single mother or a rich Wall Street banker.

As Peter Schweizer describes in his magnificent book "Architects of Ruin," the Democrats have been bailing out investment houses from their bad bets since the Clinton administration. The bankers got all the profits when their risky bonds were paying -- and then gave massive donations to their Democratic benefactors. But once the bets went bad, it was the taxpayers' problem.

Heavily leveraged securities packages put together by Goldman Sachs and others were the HIV virus that killed the American economy. And the reason investment firms piled leverage on leverage on leverage was that they knew the government would bail them out if their house of cards collapsed.

On one hand, Goldman put together toxic securities packages for their clients, but on the other hand, Goldman knew the mortgage securities being sold on the market were crap, so they also took out lots of insurance with AIG on crappy products being traded on the market.

It would be as if, anticipating a major earthquake, Goldman bought massive insurance policies on every house on the San Andreas fault line.

There's nothing wrong with taking risks and making bets, provided that if you bet wrong or if you bankrupt your betting partner with wild gambles: You lose.

The problem was that Goldman and AIG, among many others, knew they wouldn't lose. Twenty years of Democratic bailouts have led them to understand that when their bets go bad, the taxpayer will save them.

Which is exactly what happened.

When the earthquake hit toxic securities, the insurer, AIG, couldn't pay up. Normally, that would result in the insurer going bankrupt, an orderly proceeding in bankruptcy court to distribute AIG's assets, and Goldman recovering only a portion of the insurance payout on the crappy products.

But instead of AIG going bankrupt and Goldman taking a hit, the U.S. taxpayer made good on AIG's securities insurance. In a deal arranged by former Goldman CEO and current Obama BFF, Hank Paulson, Goldman ended up being paid -- by you -- an astonishing 100 cents on the dollar.

So Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein's boast that his firm didn't want TARP money and has paid it all back is completely irrelevant. Goldman took billions of dollars -- that's millions with a "b" -- of the AIG bailout money. How about paying that back?

It took The New York Times a year and a half to figure out Goldman's jackpot winnings from the AIG bailout -- $12.9 billion, according to the Times -- so the first thing Republicans ought to do is hold hearings to determine who benefited from the Democrats' crony capitalism, and not take their bluster as fact.

The next step should be to get all the bailout money back.

When the government steps in to save the very financial institutions that poisoned the nation's financial system with contaminated securities and derivatives -- all while the bankers get to keep the fees and bonuses on their bad bets -- we are not talking about a free market.

We're talking about regular Americans being forced to foot the bill for the gambling habits of left-wing multimillionaires by buying the malefactors more chips every time they lose.

Republicans should defend any investment houses that never benefited from a government bailout. But anyone who took huge gambles, lost and got bailed out with taxpayer money should be tortured and then shot, miraculously brought back to life, tortured some more, then shot a few more times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
humanevents.com