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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (104102)11/11/2011 6:36:58 AM
From: manalagi  Respond to of 149317
 
YOU WANT A JOB, RIGHT?

By Ted Rall | Ted Rall – 11 hrs ago

Pizza baron Herman Cain leads in the polls. Yet nobody believes he can win the Republican nomination. The fact that the #1 candidate doesn't stand a chance is an improbable truism emblematic of our broken-down political system.

Partly it's that he's black. Republicans are racists.

Partly it's that the nomination was promised to Mitt Romney. He's been waiting. It's Willard's turn.

It's not the accusations of sexual harassment. Republicans are sexists. For the GOP touching the hired help (or wannabe hired help) is the droit du CEO.

The reason Cain isn't allowed to be president is money. Romney is spectacularly wealthy. Cain is merely rich. As of October Romney had used his white-male Wall Street connections to raise $14 million. Cain had a paltry $700,000.

After reports surfaced that Cain had groped Susan Bialek, a woman who asked him for help landing a job, Cain received $250,000 in contributions in a single day. Attempted rape--she says he tried to force her head into his special place--pays.

Unsurprisingly, the Cain campaign went to work smearing the credibility of his accusers. One of his proxies, right-wing radio talker Rush Limbaugh, took to pronouncing Bialek's surname "buy-a-lick."

Cain's main attack, however, is focusing on the women's finances. "Who Is Sharon Bialek?" asked a Cain campaign email to reporters.

It was a perfect illustration of what's wrong with the media.

"The fact is that Ms. Bialek has had a long and troubled history, from the courts to personal finances--which may help explain why she has come forward 14 years after an alleged incident with Mr. Cain, powered by celebrity attorney and long term Democrat donor Gloria Allred," said the Cain camp.

Well, sure, Bialek's past-due bills "might" explain why Cain waited so long to speak out. For that matter, she "might" be a delusional space alien who prefers Domino's. Heck, she "might" even have vomited at the thought of her groper becoming president.

Who knows anything, really?

Not Cain--he's never heard of neoconservatism. But I digress.

Back to Cain's smear campaign. The narrative is simple: this bitch is poor. I'm rich. She's lying about me to pay her bills.

The fact that the media plays along with such reasoning shows how elites wage class war against the 99 percent of us who work for a living.

"Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter," spat the Cain campaign. "In personal finances, PACER (Federal Court) records show that Ms. Bialek has filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois bankruptcy court in 1991 and 2001...Ms. Bialek has worked for nine employers over the past 17 years."

The New York Times added some context.

"Saddled with $17,200 in legal fees related to a paternity fight with the father of her infant son, Ms. Bialek filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001. Her income had dropped to $19,000 in 2000 from $38,000 the year before, court records show, and she had only a few thousand dollars in assets. Court records show that Ms. Bialek has continued to experience money troubles in recent years. The Internal Revenue Service in 2009 filed a lien against her for $5,176 in unpaid taxes, and an Illinois lending company won a judgment last year for $3,539."

Bialek and her attorney anticipated attacks that she was planning to profit from her account, announcing that she would not sell her story. That should have done the trick, but no. Cain's smear tactics appear to be working so far.

No one but Bialek and Cain know what happened that night back in 1997. Regardless of the truth, the implications of Cain's approach should be troubling. To follow Cain's argument to its logical conclusion, anyone who has ever had money problems can't be trusted to tell the truth.

Poor people are liars.

Rich people are not.

Which no doubt comes as news to former clients of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

Bear in mind, there is no evidence that Bialek or the other women committed perjury, or fraud, or embezzlement. Their characters are not at issue. Bialek's sin, if you agree with Cain, is that she's broke.

These days, who isn't?

Over a million Americans a year file bankruptcy. One in nine Americans have seriously considered it since the economy died in 2008. According to Cain, they are all--to a man, or is it just women?--lying sacks.

The I.R.S. filed liens against over a million Americans in 2010, a 60 percent increase from the year before. Are they inherently untrustworthy?

I've gone to court. I've had judgments against me. I don't think I was more honest before those things happened.

The Tories of Great Britain widened the gap between rich and poor, then cast the poor into debtors' prisons. Like their ideological forebears, Cain and his fellow Republicans want to criminalize poverty. Thanks to their pro-corporate policies, which have dominated the U.S. for 40 years, the economy is dead. The ranks of the poor, the dispossessed, the bankrupt and the tax non-payers like Susan Bialek have grown and continue to expand.

To be poor, Cain and the GOP argue, is for your word to be worthless.

Bialek may or may not be lying. Either way, her veracity has nothing to do with her income. "It's not about me," she told an interviewer. "I'm not the one running for president."

(Ted Rall is the author of "The Anti-American Manifesto." His website is tedrall.com.)

news.yahoo.com



To: Road Walker who wrote (104102)11/12/2011 5:03:34 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
Cantwell voted against the bank bailouts — “turning the keys of the Treasury over to Wall Street,” she called it. She held up the financial reform package passed by leading Democrats last year until she could get stronger language limiting high risk and arcane securities bets. But now that the rules are being formulated for the so-called Dodd-Frank law, she is angry at how Wall Street prevailed. There are still not enough cops on the beat, she says.

Apparently, the SEC is still not doing its job. According to a DC judge, the cash awards that the SEC is demanding are not sufficient given the nature of the crimes but more importantly SEC enforcement is still lame. From the article, it appears part of the blame can be attributed to the laws in place. How do you get the current Congress to come up with stronger laws?

Unlike Warren, Senator Cantwell is not given to class-war speeches. Through two terms, she has been almost an invisible senator. In person, she underwhelms, a charm deficiency that has given rise to a nickname of “Senator Cant-smile.”

But behind the scenes, Cantwell has been relentless, her work shaped by two epic financial battles in her home state. She had no sooner upset the incumbent, Senator Slade Gorton, in 2000 — winning by barely 2,000 votes — than she found herself enmeshed in a fight with the criminal energy firm Enron. The company had rigged the West Coast power market, and were caught on audio tape saying how they stole from “Grandma Millie.”


She is very Seattle.

The other great financial trauma was the collapse of Washington Mutual, the Seattle-based bank that died after a deep dive into the sub-prime market. It was a story of a homegrown bank lured into the big time by questionable lending at a factory pace.

Seattle is still paying for this one......and will pay for it for decades to come. A huge loss.



To: Road Walker who wrote (104102)11/13/2011 4:06:45 AM
From: ChinuSFO  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
US politics: da goods in da box
The nomination process may be farcical, but it is pretty good at weeding out people who ought not to be president

Those who wish to serve the American people in the republic's highest office embark on an almost medieval series of trials of character and endurance. They must avoid the political equivalents of the slough of despair, the sucking bog of emotionalism, the dreaded stupidity tree, the equally dreaded pit which awaits the overly clever, the dungeon of sexist blunders and other Pythonesque terrors on their way to the castle in which languishes the enchanted princess, otherwise known as their party's nomination for president. It is a harsh business: one misstep, one ill-chosen word, one witness to earlier misdeeds can bring you down and, often, not just down but out.

The intricate arabesque the successful candidate must trace can resemble that of a skier zigzagging down a slope dotted with barrels of nitroglycerine. The process has a farcical dimension, and sometimes induces a state of almost catatonic caution in the candidates. But it is pretty good at weeding out people who ought not to be the president of the United States, and the way the Republican field is now narrowing is heartening. Michele Bachmann's early star has fallen, while this week Rick Perry oopsed his way to likely oblivion when he couldn't remember a major government department he had proposed abolishing.

Oddly enough, given Texas's oil history, this was the department of energy. As Perry subsides into the scenery, so Herman Cain is flailing because of allegations of sexual harassment. Even though these have so far not damaged him as much as was expected, there seems to be a growing understanding among voters that the United States of America is not a pizza, or even a pizza company. To riff on the jingle from the Godfather's restaurant chain he once ran, da goods may not be in da box.

Then there is Newt Gingrich, who has had so many incarnations in American politics he could be a figure in one of his own alternate history books. He has a new support group, entitled Time for Newt, and has been gaining ground, yet wherever he goes he is accompanied by the faint rattle of skeletons in the closet.

So, for the moment, the finger points to Mitt Romney. To date there is nothing much against him except that 30 years ago he strapped his dog to the roof of the car when he and his family went on holiday to Canada. Nothing much, that is, except his constantly changing positions on a variety of important political issues. Yet, while he is undoubtedly a devious man, he is also a serious politician running a serious campaign. If he became president many Americans would be unhappy, but they wouldn't be scared that they had put a fruitcake into the White House. This is important because the Republican tilt toward saner choices, if that is what it is, is taking place in a new context. It is not just the Occupy movement which suggests that American public opinion may have finally begun to focus on questions of inequality and class, with the old hot-button issues of the American culture wars fading in importance.

Voters this week rejected an anti-abortion proposal in Mississippi; struck down, by a large majority, a law restricting the collective bargaining rights of public employees in Ohio; and restored same-day registration at the polls in Maine. They also got rid of an Arizona senator who had pursued anti-immigrant legislation.The results in these and other votes represent not so much a victory for the Democrats as a victory for common sense. If it was not Mark Twain who said that the trouble about common sense is that it is not so common, he certainly did say: "Really, what we want now is ... a law against insanity." Americans are not about to pass such a law, but they are beginning to look askance at extreme legislation. As the columnist Gail Collins put it this week: "From sea to shining sea, there was a very strong anti-nutcase tenor to the results." Amen to that.

guardian.co.uk