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: FJB who wrote (51918)6/6/2012 4:40:42 AM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Lefty HATRED on display:




Anti-War Activist Won't Rent Apartment to Veteran


by Breitbart News


Anti-war activist Janice Roberts, a 63-year-old Dorchester, Massachusetts resident, has refused to rent an apartment to Sgt. Joel Morgan, 29, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.



Roberts told Morgan, according to the lawsuit Morgan filed this week, that his military service presented a “conflict of interest” for her, since she was a peace activist. “Because of what you told me about the Iraq war … we are very adamant about our beliefs … it’s just not comfortable for us … and I’m sure now that you know this, it would not be comfortable for you,” Roberts said via voicemail to Morgan. “I would suggest you do the right thing and look for a place less politically active or controversial.”



Morgan, who is no longer active military, is in training to become a firefighter in Boston. “I’ve never been in that situation, so it was like, ‘I don’t understand what you mean, I just want to give you a check and rent an apartment,’” Morgan told the media.

breitbart.com



To: FJB who wrote (51918)6/8/2012 12:20:46 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Zimmerman prosecutor has history of going after critics



Posted by William A. Jacobson Friday, June 8, 2012 at 8:10am

Yesterday I posted about how Alan Dershowitz alleged that Zimmerman prosecutor Angela Corey called up Harvard Law School complaining about Dershowitz and treatening to sue for libel based on Dershowitz’s criticisms of her handling of the case.

The whole incident seemed strange, and reflected conduct that should be off limits for any prosecutor and certainly for a senior prosecutor on a high profile case.

It appears, however, that the Dershowitz incident was no isolated incident. According to Ron Littlepage, a columnist for the (Jacksonville) Florida Times-Union, Corey has done this several times before:

Last December when I wrote a column critical of how she handled the Cristian Fernandez case, she fired off a two-page, single-spaced letter on official state attorney letterhead hinting at lawsuits for libel.

In the letter, she called me out for my “lack of knowledge and objectivity about the workings of the criminal justice system.” Ouch. I think she called me stupid….

Then there’s Corey’s spat with Sandy D’Alemberte.

D’Alemberte is a former president of the American Bar Association, a former president of Florida State University and a law professor — not too shabby in the legal credentials department.

When Corey was appointed to head up the investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, D’Alemberte had this to say:

“I cannot imagine a worse choice for a prosecutor to serve in the Sanford case. There is nothing in Angela Corey’s background that suits her for the task, and she cannot command the respect of people who care about justice.”

Earlier, D’Alemberte had criticized Corey in the Fernandez case. The reaction then: A public records request from her office to FSU seeking all emails, text messages and phone messages involving D’Alemberte related to Fernandez.

Then there was this:

When David Utter of the Southern Poverty Law Center was on Melissa Ross’s radio program and had the audacity to say that Fernandez should be in the juvenile system instead of adult court, that prompted a 20-minute scream-fest from Corey in a call to the center’s director.

Similar criticism from Jeff Goldhagen, a professor and chief of the division of community pediatrics at Shands Jacksonville, elicited a similar response from Corey.

Something appears to be rotten in the state of Zimmerman prosecution.

legalinsurrection.com



To: FJB who wrote (51918)6/24/2012 10:24:27 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
The Dodd-Frank Downgrade
Wasn't reform supposed to make the financial system stronger?
Updated June 22, 2012, 10:31 p.m. ET.

We've never put much stock in the judgment of credit-ratings agencies. But by issuing a series of downgrades of giant banks this week, Moody's Investors Service may have performed a taxpayer service. Two years ago President Obama and Congressional Democrats told Americans they had strengthened the banking system and revoked too-big-to-fail privileges from the financial giants. Now Moody's can help Americans understand that the 2010 Dodd-Frank law has fulfilled neither promise. The law's signature achievements are higher costs, reduced opportunities and weaker banks.

Moody's conducted an extensive review of the 15 banks that are the largest players in the global capital markets. The Wall Street gang's all here—Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, etc. The result is a series of credit-rating downgrades. In other words, Moody's is opining that the risk that one of these financial giants will default on its bonds, while still small, has been on the rise

Taxpayers hoping that perhaps this is a sign that government has finally sworn off bailouts will be disappointed. In a handy bar graph, Moody's makes clear that government "systemic support" is still a significant factor that elevates the credit rating of every big bank in its review.

Interestingly, Moody's tends to rate the debt of bank holding companies lower than the debt of their operating subsidiaries. This makes sense given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is now sending clear signals on how it will pick winners and losers when a giant bank gets into trouble.

The FDIC's current approach, subject to change at the whim of the bureaucracy, is that it will seek to protect the creditors, and particularly the short-term creditors, of the operating subsidiaries while seeking to impose losses on the long-term creditors of the parent companies. Assuming investors believe the FDIC means what it says, and that this plan won't be scrapped the next time the FDIC's senior staff turns over, we're still trying to forecast all of the market distortions that could result.

Readers may recall that this special FDIC power to manage the failure of a financial giant, called "Orderly Liquidation Authority" in Dodd-Frank, was promoted by its backers as a way to rain fire and brimstone upon a failing bank and its creditors. Two years later, the latest forecast from the FDIC is for partly cloudy skies as the failed bank is nursed back to health and taxpayers supply liquidity to its subsidiaries.

Sometime since the enactment of the law, the regulators apparently decided that they have no idea how to liquidate a financial giant. They specifically don't know where they could find buyers for the biggest pieces—other than the remaining too-big-to-fail institutions, which would then become even bigger. And Congress gave up 200 years of legal tradition in the bankruptcy courts for this?

What else could be weighing on the ratings? Even Moody's acknowledges that banks have been building higher capital buffers and have more liquidity than they used to have, which would normally argue for higher credit ratings, not lower ones. It should be noted that this capital-building trend was under way regardless of Dodd-Frank as part of Adam Smith's natural healing process. Regulators have also long had the power to force banks to improve capital and liquidity.

Moody's focuses much of its attention on the risks and volatility of the capital markets businesses. And yes, Wall Street firms carry large risks. Underwriting the issuance of new stocks and bonds, lending money to home buyers, making markets in different securities, and taking particular trading positions all carry risks and do not lend themselves to steady, predictable earnings. But these risks are not new.

What comes through in the Moody's assessment and in any review of their returns on equity is that banks have lost significant ability to generate earnings to offset the inevitable losses. The lost earnings power is surely due in part to reduced leverage, which helps protects taxpayers.

But 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank and countless other federal efforts to put sand in the financial gears are also taking their toll. The Obama tax and regulatory frenzy, of which Dodd-Frank is a part, weighs on economic growth. Those are our words, not Moody's, but the rating agency does note that the abysmal economic environment is a drag on ratings for everyone.

Most investors understand that opinions from ratings agencies like Moody's do not arrive from a mountain top carved in stone. But when a bank can raise capital, improve liquidity and still suffer from a weakening credit rating, it does not suggest a healthy financial system, nor a vibrant economy. The goal of financial reform should not be weak banks, but strong banks that are independent of the taxpayer.

online.wsj.com



To: FJB who wrote (51918)6/29/2012 10:40:47 PM
From: RMF  Respond to of 71588
 
From 2000-2006 the Republicans made RECORDS for EARMARKS...

Isn't that TRUE??????

And you are trying to say that anything BAD that has happened with the banks is ALL because of Carter?

Doesn't that seem a bit silly?

What if we had kept Glass-Steagal? Would we have seen the mess we ended up with?



To: FJB who wrote (51918)7/15/2012 9:45:09 AM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
We used to be ambitious and enthusiastic; now the new normal is malaise. Shouldn’t we strive for more?
By Tom Keane
July 15, 2012


In 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter told the nation he had detected a malaise in America, “a crisis of confidence ... that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.” That malaise arguably lost him reelection, with candidate Ronald Reagan forcefully rejecting the notion that America’s best days were behind it. Reagan’s optimism bested Carter’s pessimism.

Might the same storyline play out again this year?

It’s not President Barack Obama claiming malaise. Politicians have learned well the lesson from Carter’s loss: Voters will blame leaders, not themselves, for such talk. Nevertheless, as suggested by a fascinating recent poll from Anderson Robbins Research, the Great Recession of 2008 has exacted a terrible cost on the country, one measured by Americans’ feelings of confidence and hope. Anderson Robbins calls it the “New Normal”: a dramatic resetting of our sense of what, exactly, is the American Dream.

The national survey, conducted this spring and commissioned by local communications firm Solomon & McCown, asked what respondents thought were the most important elements of the American Dream. Where once economic success and upward mobility would have ranked high, they ranked last in the poll. Respondents said they increasingly valued things such as good marriages (83 percent) and “a long and healthy retirement” (77 percent).

In other words, we just want to be happy.

And what’s wrong with that, you may ask? Nothing, really. It feels very European, a kind of inward-turning mindset where people get out of the rat race and focus on being content. But, to be blunt, America historically never was about being happy. For us, it’s been “the pursuit of happiness,” a phrase that is all about striving, not attaining. The American Dream required ambition and taking risks; it was about fame, fortune, and making things better for the next generation. No more, it seems. We’re all a bit frightened and ready to hunker down.

One can easily understand why. The 2008 recession was unlike any since the Great Depression. Vast amounts of wealth were lost, including homes and retirement accounts. And despite Herculean federal spending — and predictions of a much quicker turnaround — the recession’s effects have lingered. Unemployment and underemployment remain high; many people have simply given up, dropping out of the workforce altogether. Fifty-five percent of Americans feel personally scarred by the recession: 41 percent in Anderson Robbins’s survey say they “still have a ways to go,” while 14 percent say they may never recover. Indeed, the pollsters found that in general Americans now feel more “thrifty,” “determined,” and “worried.” Perhaps not surprisingly, we also feel a lot less “hopeful,” “charitable,” and “lucky.” Most profoundly, fully 59 percent believe that the next generation of Americans will have even fewer opportunities for achieving the American Dream.

The New Normal sounds like malaise to me.

One sees, perhaps, an opportunity for Mitt Romney. Pulling a page from the 1980 election, Romney might well seize upon Americans’ new-found gloom and blame it on the incumbent. “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” was Reagan’s famous question, and one suspects that the answer to that question today would also be negative. If Romney could convey an attitude as buoyantly upbeat as Reagan’s, he might well capture the votes of those distressed at this new version of the American Dream.

On the other hand, where in 1980 the impression of America’s place in the world was defined by the ignominy of the Iranian hostage crisis, Obama can point to dramatic successes such as the killing of Osama bin Laden. Moreover, much of the power of the American Dream resonates not for those who already have done well, but for those at society’s margins. That includes immigrants, gays, minorities, and even women — and Obama seems rhetorically far more in their corner than does Romney (and especially the version of Romney one saw during the primaries).

Of course, all of this assumes that Americans really don’t want the “New Normal.” I hope they don’t. Europe is a pleasant but dull place. I’d rather the excitement, spirit and — yes — frustration of the old American Dream than a timid world where we’re all just grateful to get by.

bostonglobe.com