Thinking Right

By Tim

March 17, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

Good morning all!!

Let’s see who is going to be the first to start the BLAME GAME??

By Redneck Convert

March 17, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

Well, as a godly conservative, I’m awful happy to see this Bear company get sold without innerference from the guvmint. Except maybe the $30 billion or so from the Fed. To us godly conservatives that’s small change.

Anyhow, this thing worked out exackly the way it should under the Free Innerprize system. If some guy is stupid and gets a mortgage he can’t afford the federal guvmint won’t and shouldn’t do nothing to help him. Screw him. But if a big co. gets in trouble for making the mortgage the federal guvmint steps right in and starts shoveling the money to the co. About $30 billion worth of shoveling. Leastwise, till the co. can get sold.

See, if you take good care of big business, like we all should, we can keep right on going. Sure, we got to keep right on borrowing money from China to pay the guvmint bills and printing more money to bail out this Bear co., but leastwise the rest of us got Prayer and the Minimum Wage and the Free Innerprize system.

I wish the librul Democrats was smart enough to see how things should work. But no, all we’ll get on this blog today is a bunch of carping from them. Bunch of morans. Leastwise, jbmlaw and Sister Dusty and Glenn and @@ will jump in and attack the librul Democrats and let people know what God’s Way should be. Somewhere in the Bible is a line about Prosper Big Business to come unto me for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

Have a good day everybody.

By Glenn

March 17, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Dia duit ar maidin. And a Happy St. Patrick’s Day to you. Viva San Patricio!

I should like to know what became of the $18 billion in assets held by Bear Stearns as of Friday morning. If Morgan Chase pays 10 cents on the dollar against Friday’s stock value, did $16.2 billion vanish because what BS’s “assets” represented were really stock values? Jbm? PoFo? How does this work?

Has Chairman Bernanke explained the compelling state interest in this action by the Fed? Is he obliged, by custom or law or common decency, to explain?

By ill bred

March 17, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Bear Stearns. Bear Market. Feds are a dancing bear to wallstreet, riding a bicycle on a wire holding an umbrella, (now that the droughts over), and balancing a fish on it’s nose.

When the tail wags the dog, Dustin Hoffman gets the oscar, but Americans get the lifetime deceivement award.

Stagflation. The only thing that can save us is globalization, so that some products will cost less and less, and like the roman empire, be more and more cheaply made so that when we end up like the Roman Empire, we’ll be wearing only 100 thread count togas.

TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!

By ron

March 17, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

Good morning Jim, Keep an eye on Lehman Brothers.The rumors there aren’t good either.Don’t worry about the blame game ,Tim,there’ll be plenty to go around.

By TW

March 17, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

BLAME GAME??

Tim - the big kid word for that is accountability.

By ill bred

March 17, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

Lets Play the Blame Game…..bush bush bo-bush banana nana bo bush me my mo-mush… Bush!

Fed fed fo fed banana nana bo bed me my mo med … Fed!

god god go god banana nan fo fod me my mo mod… god!

allah allah boballah banana nana fo fallah me my mo mallah….allah!

By Tim

March 17, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

TW@9:01

By BLAME GAME I mean right wing sheep blaming poor liberal buyers, and left side sheep blaming Rich conservative lenders. Both left side foolishness and rightside greed made it happen, but neither has the “stones” enough to own it.

By ill bred

March 17, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

They cant throw stones in their foreclosed glass houses?

By Curious Observer

March 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

Perchance did J.P. Morgan Chase say how it intended to pay back the $30 billion cash infusion to Bear Stearns from the Fed, or are we taxpayers expected to take it in the rear end again?

Ah, the marvels of capitalism!

By Glenn

March 17, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

Galdang you, ill bred. I may not have any respect for my Mother California, but—-can I help it if I was born the son of a harlot?—-it ain’t like I stopped loving her. I don’t know where you came up with that business of running down dancing bears, but the State Symbol of California is Monarch, the greatest of the Gold Rush dancers. After she retired from bullfighting, Monarch donned a tutu and got her groove on. She was bigger’n Lilly Langtree and Jenny Lind combined. When she died her glorious body was preserved and installed in the place of highest honor in the Bohemian Club in San Francisco. Today she lives in a museum. Folks who want to see her, pay as much as ten dollars for the privilege. Unlike some other Bears, Monarch’s stock never has dropped.

And don’t you forget it.

By Superfluous

March 17, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

Wallstreet feels entitled to fed money bailouts.

By Dennis

March 17, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “Those in Congress who rush to bail out subprime borrowers are egged on by populists….”

“Bear Stearns, which has a large mortgage business, is evidence that when lenders and borrowers get reckless, nobody’s immune.”

Mr. Wooten just can’t let “big bidness” take the blame for its own failures. He must include “borrowers” (granted some are to blame for their own situation) who all had no knowledge of one another nor an opportunity to collude with one another. THAT CAN’T BE SAID FOR THE BIG LENDERS!

If all of the tax breaks given to corporations had worked like the Bush administration claimed they would, we wouldn’t be in our present financial slump.

Mr. Wooten isn’t about to say that.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By I Told you the Chimp was a Fool, Repeatedly

March 17, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

When you idiots and zionist fanatics elected the Chimp in 2000, the euro cost 80 some cents, it now cost 157 cents, the the dollar could buy 120 yen, it now buys 96 odd yen, gold cost 265 bucks a troy ounce, it now is over 1,020 bucks. While you clowns have been screaming terrorism and hatered of arabs and muslims, the new york yew boys have been stealing everything that is not nailed down, and hocking the rest. Now for the really bad news, the idiots at the fed, yew boys all, a taking a forbidden step: THEY ARE NOW MONETIZING PRIVATE DEBT, TO BAIL OUT THEIR FELLOW YEW BOYS ON WALL STREET, PRIVATE EQUITY, AND HEDGE FUNDS. THAT DEVALUES EACH AND EVERY DOLLAR IN YOUR WALLET, AND IS HIGHLY INFLATIONARY. GOOD, YOU CLOWNS HAVE IT COMING….

By Peter

March 17, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Reminds me allot of Enron……well hopefully the banking sector will hold together.

We all have now seen the Bush administrations Fiscal policy’s both the doing nothing, and wasting America’s resources have led us down this path.

More American’s getting crushed financially today……after 7 plus years, we now have terrible inflation, an almost worthless dollar, and more debt than America can handle.

But don’t worry as we are borrowing more form the Chinese to support the MADE UP WAR !

By the time Bush is ready to leave office, we will be lucky if all heck has NOT broken loose in the state of the Economy !

By Superfluous

March 17, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Dammit dennis if U say that 1 more time…..

Where did the billions in Bear’s market cap go? Nobody really knows. It went to the same place that WMDs in Iraq went.

The 237 million went to the CEO of Bear Stearns for doing such a good job. He’s laughing at all of us. Suckers. With 20 billion, we could have stayed an extra week in Iraq. Seems a shame.

Anyone doubt how dead conservatism is now? Somebody sound taps…and get that flag at half-mast.

By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. The government bailout of Bear Stearns is not inconsequential to the market, and it may be the first intelligent move the Fed has made in the past five years. Any analysis must begin from the perspective of where the interest-sensitive portion of our economy has been since the beginning of the Bush Administration.

In January 2000 the economy was in free-fall, mostly from the collapse of the dot com bubble (famously described as “irrational exuberance.”) During post-election interregnum, the departing Clinton administration curiously imposed a large number and volume of regulatory shocks, mostly affecting the energy industry. While the economy was reeling from those purely-economic dislocations, Islamist terrorists attacked the United States, and inflicted a large, if localized, loss of life. Thus the Fed faced both a sharply-declining economy and a foreseeable government obligation to rebuild the depleted (due to neglect by a loathing administration) military. During this period the newly elected Bush administration, in yet-inexplicable deals with Senate democrats, massively increased spending in non-core areas of traditional government patronage (notably agriculture and education) and unilaterally implemented anti-trade regulations designed to “protect” the steel industry (which also punished the consumer.)

In an desperate effort to stir the economy from its doldrums, the Fed reverted to its traditional Keynesian playbook, borrowing pages from the Johnson Administration of the 1960s, often called “guns AND butter.” The Fed program was to keep interest rates low by constantly selling bonds from its seemingly endless supply. Most of the sales were funded by international dollar holders, notably our Chinese “friends” (often called the “murderous overlords of Tibet.”) Of course the long term effect of artificially low interest rates is to depress the value of the dollar, and those international entities that held dollars and dollar-denominated fixed rate investments have taken a financial bath, one that makes the Bear Stearns disaster look small by comparison.

Domestically, when there is no measurable financial reward for conventional business, business feels compelled to embrace unconventional business. Thus the explosion in those instruments we formerly called “junk” bonds, and the new junk was “subprime mortgages,” a phrase that was deemed oxymoronic at its origin. While one can defy the laws of gravity short term, the rule in economics is alternatively expressed as, “chickens come home to roost” (no, who is Jeremiah Wright?) or “water finds its own level.”

If you have waded through this much dry analysis, you now await the jbmlaw recipe for US market cure, which must start with correction. The world is about to abandon the dollar. Step one: raise interest rates by at least 300 basis points, to make dollar investments attractive to the world again. The immediate effect will be to freeze the construction market, but with the present oversupply of housing. Step two, renew the Bush tax cuts, as the prospect of the world’s largest tax increase on top of a collapsing economy will discourage even the most optimistic businessman. Step three, approve the Columbian free-trade treaty, as that will show the world the US is still open for business.

As to the Fed bailout, the interference with the economy was a right thing to do. As all of the harm arose from injury inflicted by the Fed, it is appropriate for the Fed to mitigate the injury, and the bail out cushions the innocents surrounding Bear Stearns while still fully punishing the Bear Stearns decision-makers and the stakeholders who empowered them.

By OneForTheRoad

March 17, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

There’s plenty of blame to go around on this mess. Greed does strange things to people. Now there is a price to be paid. The sad part is that many innocent people will also have to pay. One silver lining I read about this morning is that, so far, there have been no golden parachutes mentioned for the Bear executives.

By Dennis

March 17, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

By Superfluous March 17, 2008 9:35 AM “Dammit dennis if U say that 1 more time…..”

Wooten’s just protecting his own portfolio.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it. :)

By Mid-South Philosopher

March 17, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

Does it occur to anyone else that our “economic institutions” are analogous to our schools in that both are “failing”?

Why do not the three great correctors of human endeavor: Roy Barnes, Teddy Kennedy, and Georgie Bush get together and come up with a reform effort?

Maybe they could call it No Corporation Left Behind!

We could have performance standards, standardized tests, and lists of failing companies!

Oh, I forgot. We have that already. It is called the stock market and we have the lists like Dow Jones, Standards and Poors, etc.

All we lack is an accountability program. What we need is more choice! More investors should be able to move their monies to China and India and to other “off shore” locations, unimpeded.

Come to think of it “Wiping the Corporate Behind, might be a better title for the new program.

On a purely serious note, those folks who think this economy is resilient and that in a few months all will be well are in for one of the greatest disappointments ever endured by the American people. It matters not whether a Republican or Democrat is at the wheel, there are some difficult days for us ahead. My concern is that, given our desire for instant gratification and more stuff, will we be up to enduring the coming economic disaster.

By Hugo Victor

March 17, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

Maybe there should be something like the FDIC for gaming franchises. So like, in Vegas they could hang out these big neon signs boasting: “This Casino FDIC-insured!” And then the gaming hotels could tell their shareholders, not to worry, that the House always wins, because it’s guaranteed by Uncle Sam. And then the Nevada Tourist Bureau could put it out that Vegas is now so family-friendly that even our Uncle Sam has moved in with them. That’s right, folks, our Uncle takes the “risky” out of “risky business”. He even takes the “business” out too! Come to Las Vegas!

Said Siegel, apocryphally, to Lansky, “I’m telling you, this could work, Meyer! All this place needs is plenty of water and good people!”

“But Ben,” replied Lansky, “that’s all Hell needs.”

Don’t worry, Mr. Lansky, the Fed carries Ben’s water.

By TW

March 17, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Tim - well said. And in the mean time, those of us in the middle get screwed.

By Superfluous

March 17, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

zzzzz

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

jmb is as usual an idiot, a mass murderer aka lt calley. jmb knows nothing of monetary history, he just thinks he knows all the right answers…wrong clown, all you know is easy flowing printing press money..that always has a bad ending…I could tell you how to save yourself, but I won’t, I want you to suffer with ALL the other neocons and super patriots out there…

By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

Dear Glenn @ 8:56, the $16.2 was “market capitalization,” which is often unrelated to actual assets (reflects investor expectations for the future.) After close Friday, the stockholder expectations for the company’s future fell markedly.

Many of the early posters suggest a sense of déjà vu, and I share that sense. We are at 1976 right now. Either our national misleaders will have the same lack of judgment that persuaded the Carter administration to increase Federal spending and keep interest rates low – you all remember how well that worked – or they will remember how Paul Volker pushed up interest rates and Reagan obtained tax relief – you all remember how well that worked, too.

By Peter

March 17, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Well George Washington..the comment you made about JBMLAW may have been a bit much calling him an idiot……

BUT he did make one comment that makes sense….

The World WILL abandon the Dollar!

We will lose the economic leadership of the world.

I would bet within 6 months, oil prices will be based on the Euro, then we as a country will REALLY feel the pain from exceptionally high gas prices.

Thank you George Bush….. your policy’s has led us to this.

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

Yeah Peter, calling that clown jmb an idiot was not accurate, I should have called him a Verbose Idiot.

By Disgusted

March 17, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

“… explaining metaphysics to the nation—/I wish he would explain his explanation.”

Thus was Lord Byron’s brush-off of the fatuous Robert Southey.

I felt the same way when I read jbmlaw’s contorted justification of the Fed’s intervention in the Bear Stearns chaos. Ain’t it wonderful how these anarchists/”libertarians” are all for getting the government out of our lives until a big business concern faces the consequences of its incompetence?

By ron

March 17, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Midsouth,Origionally I said five years of difficulty and that was a s.w.a.g.No one really knew the degree of difficulty.The Wall Street Boys now have a pretty good handle on the degree, but they’re not saying what it is yet.I’m not certain that even they know where the bottom really is.I read somewhere this morning that the Saudi’s are being urged to cut us loose.All oil in Euros won’t be a blessing.That’s looming in the future.This will be an interesting week.

By GayGrayGeek

March 17, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

Soooo…

Bailing out subprime borrowers is bad, Bad, BAD.

Bailing out subprime lenders is good, Good, GOOD.

Yep, gotta put Big Bidness first. Let’s keep using our tax money to bail out failing Big Bidnesses but but the blame, Blame, BLAME on those nasty borrowers. While the Big Bidnesses keep shipping our jobs overseas, so that soon there will be no one left in this country who can afford to purchase the products Big Bidness no longer makes here.

Wow, Jim, every time I think you’ve sunk to a new low, you surprise me.

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Here is a hint as to your future clowns: that which America has inflicted on other countries for the last 50 odd years is about to be inflicted on America and Americans.

By jm

March 17, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

I wonder what type of bonuses the board at Bear Stearns will vote themselves for this coup. I wonder if it will be in Bear Stearns $2.00 a share stock.

By Superfluous

March 17, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

The oil in Euros is a good thing. The pendulum will swing back to dollars, and when it does, gas will be cheap again. We cant really lose. We still have trust. The world trusts that we wont do anything non-capitalistic. Nobody really trusts any other country, not the way they trust the USA.

THe big picture is still good.

By Peter

March 17, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Yes those who say we need to have government regulations are NOT necessary, the markets will determine the best prices, are truly full of bunk today !

By OneForTheRoad

March 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

The irrational exuberance was the Greenspan name given to the tech bubble of 2000. The stock market was awash with worthless stocks that either had irrational P/E ratios or P/(0 to negative E) ratios. On top of that, we had the likes of Ebbers, Lay and others that were being ruled by their greed. Remember the off balance sheet crap that came out in the trials? Fast forward to present. The names have changed but the greed remains the same. These are the types of people that really should make one ashamed — ashamed to even be associated via genus much less species. Should any one even wonder why people complain about the likes of a Cayne, a Prince, etc., walking away with millions of dollars in stock options, golden parachutes, etc. These people deserve to be tarred and feathered right along with the worthless Boards of Directors that were, at best, complicit. Ideally, the Fed should let them all go belly up. Unfortunately, to do so would bring down all the innocent and hurt them more than those that should be hurt. Bears to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here we are…

By Dennis

March 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

By GayGrayGeek March 17, 2008 10:01 AM “Soooo… Bailing out subprime borrowers is bad, Bad, BAD. Bailing out subprime lenders is good, Good, GOOD. Yep, gotta put Big Bidness first. Let’s keep using our tax money to bail out failing Big Bidnesses but but the blame, Blame, BLAME on those nasty borrowers. While the Big Bidnesses keep shipping our jobs overseas, so that soon there will be no one left in this country who can afford to purchase the products Big Bidness no longer makes here.”

You’re on target. It wasn’t that corporations weren’t making enough profit before our manufacturing jobs were sent out of the country. They were making plenty. But the bottom line was bigger and bigger profits and to hell with Americans. Now that chicken is coming home to roost with some equality across the board.

I don’t doubt that this “recession” is going to last for awhile and maybe we’ll even see a few tuxedo types wearing some of their own cheap products made by their own cheap labor manufacturing plants in another country. It’ll serve’em right.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Captain Freedom

March 17, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

THE Captain was indeed shaken by the prospect that Our Leader had directed his minions to interfere with the Vengeful Godly Hand of the Market by providing a handsome welfare check to the solons of Bear Stearns. THE Captain was looking forward to the specter of the fallen Bear Stearns board of directors selling pencils on street corners to keep up with their many homes and club memberships.

But THE Captain is heartened that He misread the situation, and He offers a Federally Insured Captain Kudo to jbm for comforting THE Captain in His time of need. For if a staunch gLibertarian like jbm approves, this is most certainly not a case of governmental interference.

Further, Mr Wooten provides another glorious proof of his infallibility with this nugget of wisdom:

Watch the stock market today. Either the panic will spread or the quick and decisive action by the Federal Reserve could calm the jitters.

This is why Mr Wooten is a giant of the punditocracy. The man is simply incapable of making a failed prediction. THE Captain is certain that one of the proposed outcomes is going to happen, and thanks Jim for the heads up.

THE Captain will go a step further and say that Mr Wooten is the intellectual equal of the Godly Alan Greenspan (yes, he of the Christ Killer Tribe, but a good egg all the same), for it was Greenspan who just yesterday let us know that the economic storm would indeed be bad, but that once it was over everything would be okey-dokey again. It is easy to see why Greenspan and Wooten are considered to be among the superior intellects of our time.

Finally, another FDIC Captain Kudo to the aptly monikered Superfluous, who points out that “Nobody really trusts any other country, not the way they trust the USA.” This is a de facto truism, and supports THE Captain’s belief in the infallibility of Our Nation (as long as we do not allow the government to fall into the hands of Islamunistolesboblacksupremacist Democrats).

By GayGrayGeek

March 17, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

Dennis - “It’s the economy, stupid”. And, unfortunately, there are too many Stupids out there who either can’t, or just won’t, connect the dots between “now that my job has been moved overseas, the only one I can find is at Wal-Mart as an overnight shelf stocker at minimum wage with no benefits” and “Duh-Bya Will Make Sure Big Bidness Stays Big”.

By getalife

March 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Yeah Jim,

The gave them 200 billion.

Why don’t you call for the resignations of w and cheney?

The first gop hack to do this will be famous.

By Glenn

March 17, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Jbm,

Thanks for throwing pearls before swine. Even we hogs for slaughter have to eat, and getting an expert backgrounder, with an instant analysis as a FREE BONUS GIFT, is far more than we deserve. Hence PoFo the Lawgiver and his slop bucket.

I appreciate your explanation of the evaporating $16.2B. If that kind of property is routinely counted in a financial institution’s assets, and even commonly accounts for the bulk of those assets, then what is a retail customer to make of e.g. a bank’s claims to hold X-billion in assets? Should we regard it as so much puffery? Should we look into the components/contents of that “Asset” pie chart, and learn to judge whether the institution’s various subspecies of “asset” are well apportioned viz one another?

Oh yes. And congratulations on becoming at 9:45 the world’s first libertarian “neocon”. A man of distinction!

By Captain Freedom

March 17, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

THE Captain is relieved that His Leader and Yours will take decisive action today:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush will make a statement on the economy on Monday following a morning meeting with top economic advisers, the White House said.

Pace Wooten, THE Captain predicts that the stock market will either soar, tank, or shrug with indifference in response. You heard it here first.

THE Captain is certain that Our Leader will issue a clear and forceful proclamation that both re-assures jittery investors and consumers while simultaneously striking terror into the hearts of English teachers everywhere.

Perhaps He will even do a little dance like when He was waiting for the Supplication of St John.

By Curious Observer

March 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

And congratulations on becoming at 9:45 the world’s first libertarian “neocon”. A man of distinction!

LMAO!

By OneForTheRoad

March 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

What the heck is this lovefest between Glenn and jbmlaw?

By TAFKAH

March 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

Riddle this, ambulance chaser:

The value of the Bear Stearns hq building sits at approx. 1 billion dollars. JP Morgan (dancing in his grave) picks up this prime real estate, plus the entire Bear portfolio, for a quarter of that.

What exactly did JP buy aside from the building? It seems that the Bear portfolio must have had a negative valuation for this deal to happen. Did JP buy nothing more that the right to foreclose on a bunch of failing loans? And a bunch of Bloomberg terminals, natch.

School us, please, as Glenn assures us that you are a man of rare genius.

By getalife

March 17, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

“It’s no mystery,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). “You have a very unhappy electorate, which is no surprise, with oil at $108 a barrel, stocks down a few thousand points, a war in Iraq with no end in sight and a president who is still very, very unpopular. He’s just killed the Republican brand.”

Man up Jim and call for their resignations.

What are you waiting for?

By Captain Freedom

March 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

THE Captain can just hear the smirking liberals making fun of the notion that Our Leader might say something intelligent. Well, THE Captain says that you pansy a*******ed bedwetting hypereducated America haters can go straight to he11. Because THE Captain has proof that Our Leader talks some pretty good words:

Question: Let’s say that OPEC did pump more oil. How much do you think that that would bring down oil prices, by $20, $30?

BUSH:You know, I don’t know. You’re going to have to ask the experts that. I’m just a simple president.. But I really don’t know what it would do. I do know that the main problem is supply and demand and excess supply would probably help.

Clear talk from a Man Who Knows. God Bless America.

By OneForTheRoad

March 17, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Mr. Morgan must indeed have a certain sheen in the eye socket as he sits upright in his grave while basking in the irrational exuberance of “What goes around comes around”. After all one good hedge fund failure deserves another, and another, and another…I wonder who, past and or present, at Bear Sterns had to come in on their knees begging JP Morgan for help? JP Morgan may even have a few new shoe shine boys working for them as of Sunday afternoon.

By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Dear Disgusted @ 9:58, actually I have mixed feelings about the Fed intervention (your note suggested you were, appropriately, perplexed by my utilitarian analysis.) The purist in me says to let the market sort it out, but I do understand the Fed’s view, that it is cheaper for the Fed to absorb this one loss rather than to allow the loss to multiply.

Dear jm @ 10:06, I (respectfully) think you err. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are revving up their engines even as we speak. If Dickie Scruggs were not going to jail, he would already have something filed.

Dear Peter @ 10:13, I understand your view, that lenders should not lend to poor people. That argument is internally sound. I don’t think that sort of regulation would have political legs.

Dear Glenn @ 10:51, bank accounting is peculiarly different from all others. The odd regulatory constraint is that (generally) all assets are kept at the lower of book or market. I know that the old Trust Company of Georgia for years had Coca-Cola stock in its vault that it carried on its books at its original 1900 acquisition value, almost a comic understatement. Since the early 1980s the bank regulators have urged banks to embrace an aggressive loan review function, my pre-law area of emphasis. With improving standards for appraisal (notably bypassed by the mortgage “bankers” who created the subprime crisis we face today) true commercial banks are generally in sound condition.

“It is hard to imagine any time in history when such rampant pessimism about the economy has existed with so little evidence of serious trouble. “True, retail sales fell 0.4% in December and fourth-quarter real GDP probably grew at only a 1.5% annual rate. It is also true that in the past six months manufacturing production has been flat, new orders for durable goods have fallen at a 0.8% annual rate, and unemployment blipped up to 5%. Soft data for sure, but nowhere near the end of the world. “It is most likely that this recent weakness is a payback for previous strength. Real GDP surged at a 4.9% annual rate in the third quarter, while retail sales jumped 1.1% in November. A one-month drop in retail sales is not unusual. In each of the past five years, retail sales have reported at least three negative months. These declines are part of the normal volatility of the data, caused by wild swings in oil prices, seasonal adjustments, or weather.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120147855494820719.html

Dear TAFKAH @ 10:59, while I am not privy to the Bear Stearns deal, it sounds quite a lot like the conventional FDIC purchase and assumption deals, with which I am intimately familiar, from all sides. My guess is that the write-down of assets produced a near-zero net worth, but more importantly left the bank with insufficient liquidity to meet its maturing obligations (the other definition of “insolvency.”) The debt in the firm more than offset the value of the building and all paper assets. Chase probably has purchased select assets (perhaps even with a right to kick back some bad ones discovered late) and agreed to assume all debts of Bear Stearns, to facilitate clearing the market. The true value to Chase is the customer base.

By Dennis

March 17, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

By GayGrayGeek March 17, 2008 10:41 AM “Dennis - “It’s the economy, stupid”. And, unfortunately, there are too many Stupids out there who either can’t, or just won’t, connect the dots between “now that my job has been moved overseas, the only one I can find is at Wal-Mart as an overnight shelf stocker at minimum wage with no benefits” and “Duh-Bya Will Make Sure Big Bidness Stays Big”.”

Who knows? We may even see a few “columnist” who “Thinking Right”, and having encouraged big tax breaks for corporations and unregulated enterprises and a needless war wishing they too could get on at WalMart.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By TAFKAH

March 17, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

While you take us to school, jbm, please discuss the impact that repeal of Glass-Steagal had on the past twenty-odd years of economic activity, which you managed to avoid in your earlier treatise. You asserted that businesses were “forced” to embrace junk investments. I assert that there was no force; it was a consensual deep d1cking all the way.

Given the investment/banking industries’ concerted effort to make these risky behaviors legal (and add to this the chages to the bankruptcy laws and consumer credit regulations, plus changes in the regulations governing the behavior of insurance companies), is it not perhaps more accurate to say that the investment gangsters embraced this behavior, with no regard for the risk, because they knew the Feds would never let them fall?

By Glenn

March 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

GayGrayGeek @ 10:41,

Could you point us to a single Wal-Mart full-time job without benefits?

By Dennis

March 17, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

Bulls and Bears? Try this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/17/ccview117.xml

This is not a situation where some country is trying to reclaim its own natural resources from the U.S. This is of our own doing.

And as a consequence, the leaders in the White House and our Congress aren’t going to be able “as usual” to use the U.S. military to “solve the problem.”

(Perhaps, also, this is another time to remember and ask, just who was behind closed doors with Dick Cheney and his energy folks).

Interesting, too, not one of our presidential candidates who can “lead this country” has spoken out about this.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By GayGrayGeek

March 17, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Glenn - I have four acquaintances who work as overnight shelf stockers for Wal-Mart in full-time, 40-hour-per-week positions, where they are paid between 5.85 and 6.05 per hour with no bennies.

Two of them are HIV-positive, and receive all of their medical services via charity and public-assistance programs because of the combination of lack of benefits and their pre-existing conditions. The other two, having NO pre-existing conditions, also receive all of their medical services via charity and public-assistance programs because of the lack of benefits.

Just because you don’t want to believe that such folks may exist in Wal-Mart World doesn’t mean that they aren’t there.

By Translator

March 17, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Per TAFKAH @ 11:30,

I know something you don’t know, jbmlaw, you pedant who can’t even begin to condescend like I do.

By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Dear Glenn, minor correction in my note hit me at lunch, banks for the longest time did not have to mark investments to market, and I do not know whether that ever changed or not. I remember some pressure for change around 15 years ago, but do not know. The peculiarity of that old system was that a bank could conceal market losses in the form of lower earnings over the life of the security.

By Superfluous

March 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

I havent posted since 10:12.

Glenn and Jbmlaw, I warned you about trying to id impersonators. You cant.

I like wooten sticking his neck out with his prediction of the bear buyout’s effect on the markets: “either the panic will spread or the fed action will calm the jitters.”

and he gets paid. I forget just how ignorant the average reader is, and how easily amused and distracted he is.

The market may go up, it may go down, but it may also finish evenish, give or take, approximately so, either or, neither nor, kettle of fish, barrel of monkeys, cheerio, pip pip, six of one, all that rot…

remarkably unremarkable.

By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

Dear TAFKAH @ 11:30, I disagree with all you write except 1% of your final sentence. The portion you have correct is from: “is it not perhaps more accurate to say that the investment gangsters embraced this behavior, with no regard for the risk, because they knew the Feds would never let them fall?” The doctrine of “too big to fail” applies only to the largest financial institutions, and arises from an economic truism (that many smaller institutions rely on the larger – failure of the larger would break the smaller.) Nevertheless, even when there is a “bail out” the shareholders are wiped out, the employees are all fired, and the directors and officers are sued for all they own – not exactly “no regard for the risk.” In that world, why regulate? – there is eternal internal justice there.

The repeal of that portion of Glass Steagall that limited the interest rates paid by banks has been a nearly pure blessing. (If you don’t believe it, try to explain disintermediation to someone who has never know interest rate limits.) That portion of Glass Steagall erecting barriers between banking and investment and insurance has not yet been entirely repealed (the insurance portion). The repeal broke the cartel on the investment industry and made it possible to by and sell stocks cheap – leftists would prefer to not allow the riff-raff to benefit from the joys and woes of capitalism, since such people are too stupid to administer their own finances. The portion of Glass Steagall that created FDIC is still in place, so I guess your question is too vague for me to offer a unified answer.

The “force” that compelled mortgage bankers (reminder, mortgage bankers have nothing to do with legitimate banking, this is strictly a term designed to legitimize an industry of sharks) to get into higher risk transactions was, of course, the competitive “market force.” We would agree that if the mortgage-“banking” industry had not been created by the 1970s leftist congress that drew section 8 of RESPA so broadly, all mortgages would still be originated by legitimate bankers. Those who do not see the analogue to the present telecom/intelligence legal liability should draw a deep breath from the subprime crisis.

By deegee

March 17, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

And if you think this administration can’t get more embarrassing, Cheney is in the middle east this week making a idiot of himself in front of the Saudis, and Dana Perino either doesn’t know or thinks that we are too stupid to understand that inadequate supply is not the cause of the high price of oil in the U.S.

“Arguably the most pressing item on his agenda will be his bid to persuade Opec, the oil cartel, to rein in prices by boosting output. The trip comes amid mounting fears over the impact of soaring prices on the US economy after oil hit a record $111 a barrel on Thursday.

“Our economy has weakened and part of the reason is because of higher oil prices,” Dana Perino, White House press secretary, said last week. “We think that more supply would help.”

By TAFKAH

March 17, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

After conferring with his economic aides at the White House in the morning in the first of two meetings on the turmoil, Mr. Bush singled out the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., saying that he had shown “the country and the world that the United States is on top of the situation.”

“I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for working over the weekend,” Mr. Bush said.

The 2008 version of “heckuva job, Brownie”.

“One thing is for certain,” Mr. Bush said in brief remarks in the Roosevelt Room. “We’re in challenging times.”

Sharp as a tack, that fella. Markets only dropped about 50 points after he re-assured an anxious nation with these words.

God, we are so f******* e d.

By Kenneybunked

March 17, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

Ted Kennedy apparently has been caught dumping fuel from the bilge of his yacht into the bay he uses.

If this were Bush or Senior HW Bush, do you think this would have been overlooked by the lamestream media as it apparently is now? No, neither do I. Yes, these Democrats really care about the environment don’t they? Just think, they want to take more of your tax dollars for their so-called environmental causes and junk science.

By Troll Patrol

March 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

My original idea that those among us who voted twice for George W. Bush should be banned from voting for life must now be amended. Those among us who voted twice for Bush should be banished to the sands of Iraq without sufficient equipment and no armament. You should really all be place in grave danger just as you’ve done to the rest of us.

JBM, just shut up, you sanctimonious horse’s patoot. You hide behind the claim of Libertarianism yet you’d defend Bush and Wooten to death, which sounds to me like a pretty good alternative to your blather.

By Apocalypse Hussein

March 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

Obama Supporters: The Urgency of Now is upon us……..

It is more important than ever that you donate to this campaign. We are so close but not there yet! It’s going to take every single one of us to get Obama into the White House.

As you are aware, Obama has been under attack for the past few weeks. He is the frontrunner and leads both Hillary and John McCain in the polls so it’s no surprise that he’s been hit from all sides—-even the media lately.

Now more than ever Obama needs for us—-his supporters—to stand up strong and in unison behind him. He’s doing his part. He’s taking the heat dead on and he’s doing great. He’s the best candidate ever and we are so fortunate to have a candidate like him and to be a part of his campaign!

These attacks are not only meant to tear Obama down..they are meant to tear us down as well. Those attacking him want us to be discouraged. They want us to lose hope. They want us to stop volunteering online and off—donating and making calls. It’s a psychological game they are playing…but they will lose because we know better and know just what they are trying to do. We know that we MUST fight harder in the face of these attacks. We will make more calls, we will volunteer more of our time online and off and we will donate more than ever before! We must show them that WE ARE IN IT TO WIN IT and we are with Obama all the way!!

Will you help Obama today? Let’s all stand strong with Senator Obama. Please go to www. barackobama. com to DONATE. The amount you give is not important…….the fact that you give is. Give $5.00 or $500 dollars and anything in between or above. Give what YOU can afford but give something. If you have never given before…the time to give is now. If you have already given or are a regular giver—like I am—-then please consider giving again. I certainly will. In fact, that is the first thing I’m going to do right after posting this!

TOGETHER WE RAISED 55 MILLION Dollars for the Obama Campaign in the month of February. We raised 36 Million in the month of January. Both were record breaking amounts!! Let’s Make History again in March! WE CAN DO IT!! YES WE WILL!!!

GO NOW TO WWW. BARACKOBAMA. COM TO DONATE!!!

By Apocalypse Hussein

March 17, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

In the capsule version of the Barack Obama story, his mother is simply the white woman from Kansas. The phrase comes coupled alliteratively to its counterpart, the black father from Kenya. On the campaign trail, he has called her his “single mom.” But neither description begins to capture the unconventional life of Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, the parent who most shaped Mr. Obama.

Kansas was merely a way station in her childhood, wheeling westward in the slipstream of her furniture-salesman father. In Hawaii, she married an African student at age 18. Then she married an Indonesian, moved to Jakarta, became an anthropologist, wrote an 800-page dissertation on peasant blacksmithing in Java, worked for the Ford Foundation, championed women’s work and helped bring microcredit to the world’s poor.

She had high expectations for her children. In Indonesia, she would wake her son at 4 a.m. for correspondence courses in English before school; she brought home recordings of Mahalia Jackson, speeches by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And when Mr. Obama asked to stay in Hawaii for high school rather than return to Asia, she accepted living apart — a decision her daughter says was one of the hardest in Ms. Soetoro’s life.

“She felt that somehow, wandering through uncharted territory, we might stumble upon something that will, in an instant, seem to represent who we are at the core,” said Maya Soetoro-Ng, Mr. Obama’s half-sister. “That was very much her philosophy of life — to not be limited by fear or narrow definitions, to not build walls around ourselves and to do our best to find kinship and beauty in unexpected places.”

Ms. Soetoro, who died of ovarian cancer in 1995, was the parent who raised Mr. Obama, the Illinois senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination. He barely saw his father after the age of 2. Though it is impossible to pinpoint the imprint of a parent on the life of a grown child, people who knew Ms. Soetoro well say they see her influence unmistakably in Mr. Obama.

They were close, her friends and his half-sister say, though they spent much of their lives with oceans or continents between them. He would not be where he is today, he has said, had it not been for her. Yet he has also made some different choices — marrying into a tightly knit African-American family rooted in the South Side of Chicago, becoming a churchgoing Christian, publicly recounting his search for his identity as a black man.

Some of what he has said about his mother seems tinged with a mix of love and regret. He has said his biggest mistake was not being at her bedside when she died. And when The Associated Press asked the candidates about “prized keepsakes” — others mentioned signed baseballs, a pocket watch, a “trophy wife” — Mr. Obama said his was a photograph of the cliffs of the South Shore of Oahu in Hawaii where his mother’s ashes were scattered.

“I think sometimes that had I known she would not survive her illness, I might have written a different book — less a meditation on the absent parent, more a celebration of the one who was the single constant in my life,” he wrote in the preface to his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” He added, “I know that she was the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known, and that what is best in me I owe to her.”

In a campaign in which Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has made liberal use of his globe-trotting 96-year-old mother to answer suspicions that he might be an antique at 71, Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, invokes his mother’s memory sparingly. In one television advertisement, she appears fleetingly — porcelain-skinned, raven-haired and holding her toddler son. “My mother died of cancer at 53,” he says in the ad, which focuses on health care. “In those last painful months, she was more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well.”

By Apocalypse Hussein

March 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

Obama leads Clinton 1,626 to 1,503 according to the latest NBC delegate count, which includes gains for the Illinois senator after John Edwards’ delegates were divvied up after conventions by Iowa’s 99 counties over the weekend. Within that number, NBC calculates that Obama leads the pledged delegates, 1,409 to 1,250, while Clinton holds a lead among the superdelegates, 253 to 217.

By Captain Freedom

March 17, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Apocalyslamunist -

Your calls to contribute to Barack Osama will fall on deaf ears until THE Captain hears Barack Osama pledge that Jesus had blue eyes and looks just like Jeffrey Hunter.

Until then, Barack Osama is a divider, not a uniter, a racialist splitter.

Until then, Barack HUSSEIN Osama is a KIll WHITEY firebrand, a veritable Black Panther in an Armani suit.

Until then, THE Captain stands shoulder to shoulder with Godly McCain supporters like the Revs. Hagee and Paisley, decent God-fearing preachers who are striving to unite all REAL AMERICANS and who know better than to say anything controversial or insulting to a large segment of Our Nation.

By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Dear TP @ 12:41, you omitted significant material in your argument, which essentially reads, “don’t confuse me with the facts my mind is made up.” Please enlighten us.

By Peter

March 17, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

OK anyone have the numbers on the approval rating today for George Bush?

Also Dick C came out today and made this statement…….

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Vice President Dick Cheney told reporters Monday in Baghdad that the five years in Iraq since the war’s start has been “well worth the effort.”

Please somebody tell me who it was worth it for ?

Was is worth the effort for the American Economy ?

Was it worth the effort for the common American ?

OR was it worth the effort for the Haliburton’s of the world, and the oil leaders of the world ?

Will somebody also tell me where the Iraq oil money is going ?

By Apocalypse

March 17, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

Pelosi’s stance on delegates boosts Obama

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

“If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party,” Pelosi said in an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

By Glenn

March 17, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

GayGrayGeek,

Thank you for the forthright response. My question was in earnest, your answer disturbing. I neither want to believe nor do I want to disbelieve anything about Wal-Mart’s compensation packages. They either are fair and above board, or they are not. You’ve pointed me toward the latter conclusion, of course. I asked because I took seriously your earlier allusion to exploitation at Wal-Mart and I was hoping you’d lead me, with such specifics as you’ve now provided, from the smoke to the fire.

Superfluous,

As I haven’t ID’d anyone, I don’t know what you’re referring to, and I doubt that you do.

Jbm,

Am I to deduce from your prolix treatise at 12:07 that you deigned to teach us from your ivory lectern that there is no point in a layperson’s trying to ascertain whether a bank that claims a billion in assets actually has something like a billion dollars’ worth of assets? Or, put in non-snide terms, it seems that I, as a retail customer, should not regard such claims as any comprehensible measure of a financial institution’s solidity, but should look instead to the federal government’s guarantees for some measure of security. Is that correct?

By ron

March 17, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

Nancy Pelosi also said that the plane she had wasn’t big enough to fly her ego to California and back,but she was proven wrong.

By TAFKAH

March 17, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Glenn @1:05:

Last week, Bear scoffed at any notion they might be in trouble. Before the week’s end, the fedra gummit declared the investment banks to have sound liquidity.

So who ya gonna trust? We have reached the pinnacle/nadir of economic market deregulation. The S&L debacle was just a taste of things to come, but nobody wanted to face the truth that large institutions hold disproportionate leverage and cannot be trusted to act in any manner other than self-interest.

The gLibertarian approach pretends that you/we have the information and range of options that allow us to act rationally in the marketplace; it pretends that the game is not rigged.

By all accounts, Bear Stearns market behavior over the past several years has been egregious in its self-interest. It has been one of the prime motivatours in the subprime fiasco. It refused to participate in the LTCM hedge fund bailout, alone among the big investment institutions. But the game is fixed…they are too big to fail, and we will pick up the tab.

And eventually, the seas will calm, and everyone will forget what happened, and we’ll be off to the casino on another spree.

By AmVet

March 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

My original idea that those among us who voted twice for George W. Bush should be banned from voting for life must now be amended. Those among us who voted twice for Bush should be banished to the sands of Iraq without sufficient equipment and no armament. You should really all be place in grave danger just as you’ve done to the rest of us.

(And more meaningful that simply sewing a scarlet A(ss) on their clothing!)

So all in all, not a bad idea Troll Patrol!

Then IF they get back from that dune infested “democracy” make sure the process to mend their broken bodies is arduous, at great personal expense and unsatisfactory.

Now THAT’S personal responsibility, Support the Troops style!

By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Dear Glenn @ 1:05, your pithy analysis is, for the industry, embarrassingly accurate. (Caveat, if there is a holding company in place, the quarterly and annual written statements may have some useful information.) Much of this is Bismarckian sausage.

By Apocalypse

March 17, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

CHICAGO—Citing his judgment and ability to lead, admirals and generals from the United States Army, Navy and Air Force that together have served under the last nine Commanders-in-Chief today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president.

In offering their endorsement, the generals and admirals recognized Obama’s judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, his respect for the Constitution and rule of law, his leadership on behalf of America’s servicemen and women and his ability to conduct the diplomacy necessary to restore America’s standing in the world.

“Those of us who have served, worn the cloth of our nation, and gone into harm’s way know that to be successful we must have the strongest sense of trust in our Commander in Chief. We must be confident that he or she has listened to the best possible advice, that he or she has garnered the best possible information from all possible sources, that he or she has analyzed and weighed all the possible consequences and outcomes, and that he or she has made the decision to exert military force as a last possible resort,” said Admiral (Ret.) Robert “William” Williamson (USN). “Of this I am certain: Senator Obama will do all of those things and much more to ensure the safety and f reedom of our citizens, our allies, and coalition partners. He has all the great qualities and attributes required to carry out the most difficult duties of the Presidency.

“I spent a career involved in coalition warfare, and I am keenly aware of the importance of working with allies,” said Brigadier General (Ret.) James Smith (USAF). “Senator Obama brings a powerful approach to dealing with national security challenges by truly leveraging multinational relationships. He brings a new face of America to the rest of the world.”

“Senator Obama has a profound, even scholarly knowledge of our Constitution and he has the deepest respect for the rule of law. As a career naval officer, I trust his judgment, his temperament, and his ability to analyze complex international situations and relationships and to make military decisions that are in the best long term interests of the United States,” said Admiral (Ret.) Don Guter (USN). “It will take the powerful leadership of Senator Obama to forge the consensus we need to right our ship of state, restore our honorable place in the world, and secure the safety of our nation.”

“As a child of the Greatest Generation I learned that the attraction, glory and resilience of America come from the principle of “We the People.” In my four decades in the national security arena I developed an increasing appreciation for the intent and expectations of this principle, particularly in terms of the Common Defense and Domestic Tranquility,” said Brigadier General (Ret.) David McGinnis (ARNG). “In recent years, enticed to believe that these roles belonged to a chosen elite, each of us have paid an increasing price in loss of power, liberties, and national treasure. Today, by every measure, our current strategic situation is not good. It is from that perspective I believe only Senator Obama offers us the opportunity to reclaim our Republic, restore our national dignity and ensure our overall security. I salute his leadership, embrace his candidacy, and commend his courage.”

Obama is the grandson of a soldier who marched in Patton’s Army. Throughout his career, he has exercised the judgment and leadership required of a Commander-in-Chief. In 2002, he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, cautioning that it could lead to “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences” at a time when conventional Washington was lining up for war. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has worked across the aisle to secure the world’s most dangerous weapons and as a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, he has compiled a record of standing up for America’s troops and veterans, leading a bipartisan effort to improve care for injured troops, passing laws to fight homelessness among veterans, and increase screening for Traumatic Brain Injury. Over the course of the last year, Obama has unveiled a comprehensive national security agenda that includes detailed plans to secure America from the threat of terrorism, responsibly end the war in Iraq and renew American diplomacy to restore our standing in the world.

By TAFKAH

March 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

ron proves himself a rabid gobbler of Hannity c0ck chowder by trotting out the discredited Pelosi airplane story.

what next ron? missing ‘w’ keys on the White House computers?

wipe your chin, that mansnot drool is disgusting.

By Dennis

March 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

By jbmlaw March 17, 2008 12:28 PM “The portion of Glass Steagall that created FDIC is still in place, so I guess your question is too vague for me to offer a unified answer.”

When the nation finally goes broke, and we are headed fast and faster in that direction especially now that other nations don’t want our money, the FDIC won’t make a bit of difference.

Your money will be just as worthless as mine. But you can’t say you weren’t warned.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By GayGrayGeek

March 17, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Glenn - My apologies for mischaracterizing your query. Wal-Mart has done a semi-successful job of proselytizing a message of “We treat all our employees GREAT!” when the reality is actually something quite different. I took your skepticism as having bought in to that propaganda, and I was obviously wrong. Again, my apologies for misunderstanding your earnest request.

By Redneck Convert

March 17, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

Well, I sure learned a bunch from this here blog today. Till today I didn’t know you can’t go by the amount a co. says it is worth.

Before closing time today I’m going down to Suntrust Bank and make a offer of $25 for the whole shee-bang. I bet they jump on it. They are probly broke and just telling people they are worth all those billions of $.

Its amazing how much a co. can lie and get by with. This is Free Innerprize at its best. Its better than making a bargain for a used car.

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Well, George does not want to start a BANK RUN, but George just withdrew a pile of his cash from the bank….cause the FDIC has less than 50 billion bucks to cover ALL the commercial banks. Now that idiot jmb may trust the yew boys to bail out the FDIC along with the FAT CAT yeW boy investment banks, but George does not, GEORGE THINKS THE FED WILL STIFF THE LITTLE GUY LONG BEFORE THE FAT CAT NEW YORK YEWS….Read this: In the grand casino of derivatives trading, JPMorgan Chase is overwhelmingly and unabashedly the biggest player of them all. As you can plainly see in the table above, it controls …

$91.7 trillion in derivatives, or over 53% of all derivatives held by U.S. commercial banks, among which are …

nearly $7.8 trillion in the oft-inflammable credit derivatives, or 55.6% of the total.

And all with little more than $1.2 trillion in assets! Or scroll back up a few pages in the OCC’s report to the table under Graph 5A, which I’ve also reproduced here:

The table shows how much each bank has in credit exposure to defaults by trading partners (like a Bear Stearns). And it measures that credit exposure in proportion to the bank’s capital. For each one dollar of its capital …

Wachovia has 83.3 cents in exposure …

Bank of America has $1.12 in exposure …

Citibank has nearly $2.53 in exposure, and …

JPMorgan Chase has more than $4.16 in exposure! In other words, if its counterparties default, JPMorgan Chase’s capital could be wiped out more than four times over.

Now, HSBC’s exposure is greater. But that reflects strictly its U.S. operations. Overseas, recent profits indicate that it’s in a relatively stronger position. That leaves JPMorgan Chase as the most vulnerable, in our view.

YES, GEORGE PREFERES HIS FRESHLY PRINTED GREEN PAPER TO BE IN HIS HOT HAND RATHER THAN IN THE COLD DARK RECESSES OF JMBLAW’S EVIL LITTLE MIND.

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

George knows that ALL of you are rather SLOW, so George will explain slowly: JPMorgan Chase had to buy Bear because a bankruptcy by Bear would have collapsed the delicate ballance of derivitive trades on JP’s books. Each trade is ballanced by an off setting trade, and all is well as long as the ballance is maintained, but if a MAJOR counterparty defaults, the ballance is lost, and the whole thing collapses..THE FED HAS NOT ASSUMED THE COUNTERPARTY ROLE OF BEAR IN ALL TRADES….JP’s take over was designed to SAVE JPMorgan Chase, NOT BEAR STEARNS. WHEN JPMorgan Chase FAILS, THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF DERIVITIVES COLLAPSES, AND WITH IT THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD’S BANKING AND FINANCE SYSTEM.

By Apocalypse

March 17, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

Clinton has refused to put out her tax returns,

she will not release records of her time in the White House

and her unwillingness to give even the most basic information about the special funding she has requested as a United States senator

leaves many Americans wondering what it is she has to hide.

On earmarks, is she hiding information about donors she requested earmarks for? The role lobbyists and corporations played in her office as she requested more than a billion dollars for their pet projects? Favors she’s now embarrassed to be associated with?

Short of actually releasing the information that Senator Obama has already released, she should answer the following the questions to shed some light on the projects that she has requested:

Taxpayers For Common Sense has estimated that Senator Clinton has received $2.2 billion in earmarks over her Senate career. What earmarks has she requested during that time period and for what programs?

Since Clinton now says she plans to release her requests for FY 09, why isn’t she releasing them for previous years?

We know that Clinton has requested at least two earmarks linked to top fundraisers and donors – GM lobbyist Steve Ricchetti and billionaire Alan Gerry. Will her campaign release the other earmark requests she has made that are linked to fundraisers, campaign donors, or donors to the Clinton Library?

Has Senator Clinton proposed any earmarks that Bill Clinton has personally advocated for?

Last year, Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Durbin and supported by Senator Obama to require public disclosure of earmark requests. If that amendment were to be offered again, would she support it?

CLINTON, WHO HAS REQUESTED MORE EARMARKS THAN HER PRESIDENTIAL RIVALS, GAVE MILLIONS IN EARMARKS TO A LOBBYIST AND “HILLRAISER” AS WELL AS DONORS TO HER CAMPAIGN

By ron

March 17, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Tafkah,my boy,You must be gazing longingly into a mirror,’cause that ain’t me you’re seeing.Now I happen to like that Pelosi story and I trot it out on special occasions to rile folk.It works so well.Nothing like a fish rising to the bait.ut in your case,you’re a little undersized so I’m going to toss you back.

By Apocalypse

March 17, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Clinton Co-Sponsored 66 Earmarks The Defense Bill And 220 Earmarks In 6 Other Spending Bills. In the defense bill, for example, The Seattle Times found that Clinton sponsored 66 earmarks totaling $150 million. Obama sponsored six earmarks totaling $34 million; all were for nonprofit organizations. McCain didn’t ask for any earmarks this year. In contrast to McCain, Clinton boasts about scores of earmarks she delivers each year throughout her home state of New York. In the defense-bill earmarks Clinton sponsored, she mostly handed out business to defense contractors with operations in New York. The Seattle Times counted more than 220 earmarks for Clinton in six other recent spending bills. Those who get earmarks usually donate to election campaigns. Clinton’s campaign has received $60,000 from those to whom she gave earmarks — a pittance of the $116 million she’s raised. She received a like amount from those same donors for her Senate race. [Seattle Times, 2/8/08 < http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004171198_earmarks08m.html > ]

Clinton Secured $2.2 Billion In Earmarks From 2002-2006. “Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, has calculated that Clinton landed 360 earmarks worth $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006 in various spending bills. The beneficiaries have ranged from defense giant Northrop Grumman Corp. to New York-based Telephonics, which won $5 million for helicopter equipment.” [AP, 6/14/07]

Clinton Secured The Second Most Earmarks Of Any Senator For The Defense Authorization Bill. Clinton has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin. By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama has only one request in the defense bill. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, most of which were also sought by Sen. Charles Schumer…Clinton’s beneficiaries include defense giant Northrop Grumman, which secured $6 million for the AN/SPQ-9B radar; New York-based Telephonics, which won $5 million for a standardized aircraft wireless intercom system for the National Guard Black Hawk helicopter fleet; Plug Power Inc., another New York state company, which got $3 million for fuel cell power technology; and Alliant Tech Systems (ATK), which won $3.5 million for the X-51 B robust scramjet research. [The Hill, 6/13/07]

Clinton Defended Giving Earmarks To Campaign Donors. Clinton and Senator Charles Schumer directed $123 million from the Department of Defense budget to New York projects that were not specifically requested by the Pentagon. A spokesman for Clinton, Philippe Reines, defended the funding that the senator asked members of the Joint Conference Committee on Defense Appropriations to include in the 2006 defense budget. Many of the pet projects were secured for companies with political action committees that had contributed to Clinton’s and campaign committees. Beneficiaries ranged from a Buffalo nanotechnology firm slated to receive $2 million to a cancer research program in Cold Spring Harbor that got $1.5 million. “Senator Clinton has asked the Appropriations Committee to support defense projects for New York firms and institutions which will promote our national security,” Reines said. “And she is pleased that the conference committee agreed in providing funding for these vital projects.” [New York Sun, 12/28/05]

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

My data comes from U.S. Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), you can verify it here: http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2007-137a.pdf

By dave

March 17, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Hmmm…so funny… if this all happened under Clinton’s watch: Housing market crash, record deficit, record high for oil, record high for gas prices, stock market tanking… you would lay the blame 100% on his shoulders….yet I don’t see you blaming this current administration one single percent for what is taking place.

Will you NOW finally admit that this has been the worst President and Vice Pres. in history?

Know what folk….the scary part is…this has only just begun, it’s going to get worse much worse…

Hey..thanks for voting for Bush…TWICE! Thanks so very much!!!

By OneForTheRoad

March 17, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

So Jim,

Who do you blame in the Enron and Qwest meltdowns? There were no home loans — no borrowers that did not know any better and no predatory lenders. There were the greedy corporate crooks though. You do remember the names — Lay, Skilling, Ebbers, Koslowski, to name a few of those that got caught. Even Martha Stewart could not resist the temptation. It is GREED, Jim. Greed that drives these people to cheat each and every one of us.

By Dusty

March 17, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

Well, since I am neither a stockmarket expert, banker or attorney, I shall simply watch and wait on the financial world to turn. Comme ci. Comme ca.

Some of you seem to be in a state of unrest. Perhaps a little riot downtown would give rage relief. (George Washington can cut down another cherry tree if he can find one standing.) Or maybe a little rock throwing at a bank or a federal facility would help.(Not the penitentiary. They might shoot back.) Anyway, either you or your tension would be gone.

If not, let the Obamamites wrestle the Hillarytites for St. Patrick’s Day. Winner gets another delegate and all the beer he can drink.

There now. Feel better? Always glad to help.

By dave

March 17, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

Ahhh… will SOMEONE PLEASE replay the many speeches from “Dubya” where he basically took credit for the “record home ownership” among minorities that were taking place….

…you know… those very same ones who got all of the subprime loans… will you at least play some of those speeches for us jim?

he was right…i DO give him credit for the reord home ownership under his watch…just as I do the record foreclosures, the record deficit, the record oil prices, the record high price of gas..

soon to come (I’ll bet you on it)…record unemployment!!!! YAY conservatives!!!! ;-)

By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Dear Dave @ 3:15, make it easy for us: exactly what did he do, or what did he fail to do, to cause “Housing market crash, record deficit, record high for oil, record high for gas prices, stock market tanking.” Or are you just blowing smoke? Please cite the causative policies or legislation, with enough explanation that you do not sound like a moonbat or a conspiratorialist.

I am not a fan of President Bush’s domestic policies, save the tax cuts and conservative Court nominations, but it seems to me the Fed is the culprit in your diatribe, generally for the commodities (oil and gas), and the housing bubble. The stock market “tanks” every few years anyway – often due to a tax increase, wonder if anyone is threatening to impose one now? - but we well above where we were after the dot com crash. I think you are right to affirm that the deficit is rising quickly with the new democrat congress. So please, enlighten us, cite the policy or program with the relevant cause and effect argument.

By Apocalypse

March 17, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

Another one for Obama by kos Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:41:20 AM PDT

Late last week I blogged this AP article which claimed Clinton had picked up the support of three new super delegates. It turns out the AP was wrong, as bean counter extraordinaire Chuck Todd notes:

By our count, the Clinton campaign hasn’t publicly announced the support of a new superdelegate since just after February 5. Indeed, since Super Tuesday, Obama has gained 47 new superdelegates, while Clinton has lost seven (including Eliot Spitzer). Does Clinton have a bigger problem on the superdelegate front than folks realize?

Actually, make that 48 supers for Obama.

Todd says Clinton has lost seven and Obama gained 47 (48 after today’s addition) since Feb. 5. I don’t know when those additions and subtractions occurred in relation to March 4, so I can’t add them to my little chart above.

Another Superdelegate for Obama

17 Mar 2008 09:18 am

Margie Gavin Woods, from Illinois.

That makes 48 for Obama since Feb 5, and zero for Clinton.

By dave

March 17, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

jbm, historically the stock market has ALWAYS performed better under a democrat in office compared with a rep. It’s very easy to google it and find that to be a fact. (Even in the WSJ you’ll find it doing a search).

Do you not think that record spending has led to this economic meltdown? If you keep buying up the store with your credit card and making only minimum payments, eventually your worth (like our dollar) becomes…hmmm….nearly worthless. Living on borrow money is no way to be “conservative” with your spending. Spending has increased all the way around the board (even with giving tax dollars to churches…YAY!!!)…

If you spend spend spend…somehow you need to get the money from SOMEWHERE to pay for all the toys. But buying all of the toys and not worrying about getting a raise…that has not worked out very wel has it my friend? “Conservative” principles of economics?…hardly! ;-) This admin has been a true “hero” of spending money and daddy into the poor house while in college with their credit card. Looks like he did EXACTLY what he did in his youth…and as a young adult with all his failed businesses….good idea giving him the keys to the office huh?

By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

Instability in the System

For the past few months, the largest story in regulatory compliance has been the easing of regulatory pressure. The regulators’ focus swings back and forth, between their macro-financial (“safety and soundness”) concerns and their statutory compliance obligations. When the financial world is stable, compliance is the top concern; when there is distress in the domestic banking system, compliance takes a back-seat in the regulators’ agenda.

From January 1, 1934 through December 31, 2004, 3,553 financial institutions failed, an average of 50 per year. (Please note, that 1/1/34 was after the huge number of post-crash bank failures – only nine institutions failed in 1934.) From 1982 – 1993, 2,858 institutions failed; this is 80% of the failures in the 70+ year history of deposit insurance, and an average of 240 institutions per year during that period. Thus, excluding the 12-year spike during the oil patch and thrift crisis, the historical average for FDIC has been one failure per month, with a broad cyclical variance lagging the national economy.

However 2005, was a landmark year – for the first time in the history of FDIC, no institution failed during a calendar year. And 2006 was the second time. From June 25, 2004 until February 2, 2007, no financial institution failed in the United States, the longest period of stability in the FDIC era.

Generally, the financial institutions that fail are small and suffer from a broad insider abuse of the credit facility. The modern FDIC rarely actually pays off depositors at a failure. Most failures today are handled through an agreement with a stronger financial institution, for the latter to purchase certain bank-quality assets and to assume all insured deposits. These so-called “purchase and assumption” agreements are far more convenient for customers, as they continue to bank at the same location, with the same employees, and with the same documents they have worked with for years.

As FDIC employs a lot of finance wonks, it publishes a massive volume of terribly-interesting numbers, available on all financial institutions, for many different periods.
http://www.fdic.gov/quicklinks/analysts.html

Our conclusive observation, however, is that the current “instability” is no cause for panic; we’ve seen worse.

By Dusty

March 17, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Notice to Dave..

Cut the verbiage and say “Bush did it!” Concise is nice.

Notice to Apocalyse..

Cut the verbiage and say “I work for Obama”. Concise is nice.

By Glenn

March 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

TAFKAH,

I appreciate your 1:15. In fact all of these overviews are helping me to understand how to contextualize the bursting of BS. (Actually, BS does spontaneously combust sometimes, in feedlots and stockyards. It can be quite dangerous for neglected hoof stock. But then I learned once, following such a fire at Harris Ranch in CA, that singed cattle make for great fajitas.)

Jbm sez water finds its own level in these matters, but you seem to be saying that the money keeps rushing to the bottom, to scoop cheap shrimp-like financial instruments from that big category he calls “junk”. Geo. Washington seems to be saying that the derivatives favored by Morgan Chase may be mostly junky too.

What is keeping the “water”, the investment capital, from seeking a middle between blue-chip investments and junk?

Also, General Washington: how squirrely are the derivatives in which Morgan Chase deals, and are any of them of JPMC’s own devising?

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

George just knew that party at fault in the wrong way driving murder in cobb would be a dirty stinking wet back HISPANIC SCUM BAG: FROM THE AJC:” killed was the driver of the Mercury minivan, Nicasio Rodrigo Vicente-Hernandez, 29, of Kennesaw.”

By Jackie

March 17, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Most conservatives believe this traumatic event is necessary, yet, the bail-out for individuals suffering from the sub-prime problem is deemed welfare?

By GayGrayGeek

March 17, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Notice to Dusty…

Cut the verbiage and say “I Drank The Bush Kool-Aid - TWICE!”. Concise is nice.

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

DUSTY IS A COW! Concise is nice.

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Take what relatively new Fed Chairman professor Ben Bernanke famously said in a speech at the National Economists Club in Washington, in November 2002…

Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost… We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

In other words, if you want to juice an economy… turn on the printing presses and make it as easy as all get-out to borrow money at a low, low rate of interest. Bernake and others in the Fed think that’s no problem. They think they can handle it, just so long as short-term interest rates don’t go to zero.

B****** HAPPENS, JMBLAW HAPPENS, COINSIDENCE? I THINK NOT

By Dusty

March 17, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

G-GEE & GeorgiePorgie,

Poor ignorant babies, you cannot “rhyme”.

Get your mommies to help you some other time.

By Superfluous

March 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

Gee, with a secure grasp of economics like jbmlaw’s who needs Keynes?

I never knew theory like that was possible.

Greenspan was right to retire, for there was someone looking over his shoulder, ready to explain things he couldn’t.

Bush has eroded confidence in the USA as a monetary and economic icon. Everything is connected. He is such an obvious fool, that financiers are dismayed. It’s not over for the US, but until Obama enstills the lost confidence back into the global insurance markets, all 300 million americans will be eating beans and franks, (the good hands people would help here).

A dollar today is what 20 cents bought in 1970. So I was making 12K as a band teller in 1972. That’s 60K today. See how worthless money is thanx to Bush? Bush is the worst american that ever lived. If Tojo had won WW2, we’d be better off now than if we had won and everything had been the exact same as it was up until Bush stole the election. (the dirty rat).

Face it. Believe it. Know it. Accept it. Live it.

Obama 08. he wont let things get worse than if the nips captured DC, like W done did for sure, cheney 2

By GayGrayGeek

March 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

Jackie - to PaleoCons, it’s All About Big Bidness. The “little people” don’t need any help because, well, with any help they might not be the “little people” any more, and we just mustn’t have that!

By OneForTheRoad

March 17, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

Just remember to check your body thoroughly after wading into the financial cesspool. If you have to get a loan, place money in a 401k or IRA, invest in stocks or bonds, you may have multiple leeches clinging to you — sucking the blood out of you. Once it has anesthetized you, it just sucks and sucks and sucks — much like the government and taxes. I mean fees. Or, was it taxes and fees.

By Superfluous

March 17, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

Leeches? The one thing I hates worse than hitler is leeches. Ugglespittlepoo!

I hates leeches.

Thanx to 14daRoad, I cant get all those dirty pictures of leeches out of mind! Leeches! Leeches!

Cant you tone it down next time, sluggo?

By Jackie

March 17, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

News reports indicate investors have taken a $800 Million dollar hit for Bear Sterns.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the conservatives had gotten their way in investing Social Security in the markets?

As an aside, most conservatives label Social Security as an “entitlement.”

Who would have been responsible for this money?

By GayGrayGeek

March 17, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this

Dusty - in the real world, where the sky is blue and Bush is a Liar, the words “twice” and “nice” actually do rhyme.

Time for those remedial “Hooked On Phonics” books again, I take it?

By Dusty

March 17, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

Superfluous,@4:05

You have more than explained your ID.

Your liberal propaganda is fetid.

Bush is the worst Amrican that ever lived. U R Trash! Move to Cuba pdq.

If Tojo had won WWII we’d be better off now. U R A Traitor! Move to North Korea pdq!

Bush stole the election. U R A Liar! Move to Venezuela pdq!

Even Obama would be ashamed to have you call his name. Nobody wants an ignorant imbecile speaking for them.

By George Washington

March 17, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

Mindless rhyming is a sign of serious mental illness…..

By Dusty

March 17, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

GayGrayGeek 4:26

TWICE and NICE also rhyme with MICE. Is that why you SAY you are GRAY?

By OneForTheRoad

March 17, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Superflu,

I know it hurts — well, actually it doesn’t (remember the anesthesia) — but I just call them what they are. They don’t like to be called what they are. Leeches. What’s worse than a leech? A hungry leech. What’s worse than a hungry leech? A greedy, hungry, blood-sucking leech. OK. Maybe I’m being superfluous now.

By Jackie

March 17, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

@GayGreyGeek,

I thought Dubya was not very bright until I saw a book review on CSPAN, “The True Cost of War (Joseph Stiglitz)”, a Nobel Prize economist explaing what the actual war costs are and how the neocons were gaming the system. Further evidence of this is indicated by the book “Lies of the Neocons” showing how they followed a philosophy of chaos and disruption to gain and maintain power. They essentially would bankrupt the country to maintain control.

The problem we have now is figuring out where the next big shoe will drop.

Cheyney, McCain, Graham and Lieberman are not in Iraq for their health. I believe it is a planning meeting on their attack on Iran for their oil.

By OneForTheRoad

March 17, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

Jackie,

Can you think of anything more outrageous than a blood-sucking (i.e., paid with taxes and fees collected from those that work) politician that uses the label, “conservative”, AND tells people that paid into social security that it is an entitlement. It just makes me want to attach leeches to them and let them experience first-hand the slow painless loss of blood.

By GayGrayGeek

March 17, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

Dusty - sorry that a Paleocon like you still can’t read enough to know that two words rhyme.

By Curious Observer

March 17, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Can you imagine what would have happened if the conservatives had gotten their way in investing Social Security in the markets?

From the Office of the Commissioner, Social Security Administration

To All Social Security Recipients

SUBJ Enlistment Orders

You may have noticed that the Social Security Trust Fund is now at a zero balance, although we are using a few trillion dollars to fund the current year’s federal budget. Recent adverse events in the stock market have effectively rendered Social Security bankrupt.

However, you need not be concerned about the issue. Effective upon your receipt of this memorandum, you and any dependents are to pack one bag per person and report immediately to the nearest US Armed Forces recruitment office, thereupon to be sworn into service in the newly formed Elderly Persons Army (“Old Folks Army”).

As you may be aware, I have for some time been concerned about the drain on our economy occasioned by Social Security recipients, who I’m sure you will agree are leeches on the public. At long last, the collapse of numerous financial institutions has enabled the implementation of the final phase of the Republican Revolution.

Good luck, you old coots. And remember that we will always Support the Troops with our yellow ribbons and other gestures!

[signed]

jbmlaw

By Jackie

March 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

@OneForTheRoad,

I notice where some of the conservatives that Dubya inherited an economy that was in a Recession in 2001. The classic definition of a Recession is 3 consecutive months of negative growth. The OMB and CBO numbers do not show this to be the case. Dubya had a budget surplus and the debt level was $5 Trillion dollars.

Now that their economic theories was crashed, many are trying to justify this meltdown with the pronouncements “Clinton did it!”

Trying to parse words and given a historical overview of the Great Depression is not relevant. That was then, this is now. What will be done to stop the forecasted 2 Million home foreclosures this year, with the same or greater number being forecast for 2009.

Financial experts say this is causing a deflationary spiral that can not be corrected with refinance. People are walking away from their homes, burning them, or other methods to relieve themselves of the responsibility.

The problem is not only those mortgages that are sub-prime.

Since the many conservatives have a proclivity to point out the shortcomings of the liberals, I wonder what words will be used to “fix” this conundrum.

I do believe, if this problem is not handled quickly, it will consume ALL OF US!

By Dusty

March 17, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

Well,…Holy Toledo!

The clock says GO!

Time has run out.

I must be about…

Like Clint would say ..Make my day!

Love the USA.. that’s the only way.

By robert cockerham

March 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this

I have a different opinion of Bear Sterns. I was swindled out of a lot of money by a pump and drop stock scheme backed by the Genovese crime family. They were able to convince me that it was all above board by clearing the transactions through Bear Sterns. I had to hire a securties attorney who specialized in fraud out of Texas. He told me that Bear Sterns was more than willing to work with these mob backed Long Island stock firms. Later I saw a series of article about these stock swindles and the common thread was Bear Sterns. I saw good riddance.

By Jackie

March 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Here is further evidence that things are REALLY BAD.

Mr. Greenspan, the Repub banker wrote this article:

” Greenspan sees many casualties from crisis: report

Mon Mar 17, 5:02 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - There will be many casualties from the unfolding financial market crisis, which will lead to a large-scale overhaul of international banking regulations, codes and risk management, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said. ADVERTISEMENT

Writing in the Financial Times, the former Fed chief said much of the financial system’s risk-valuation models failed, not because they were too complex but because they were “too simple to capture the full array of variables governing that drive global economic reality.”

“The crisis will leave many casualties. Particularly hard hit will be much of today’s financial risk-valuation system,” he wrote.

While insisting that current risk management models and econometric forecasting methods remain “soundly rooted in the real world,” he said risk management can never be perfect.

“It will eventually fail and a disturbing reality will be laid bare, prompting an unexpected and sharp discontinuous response,” Greenspan said.

He added, however, that he hoped one of the casualties from the worst U.S. financial crisis since World War Two would not be the spirit of broad self-regulation within financial markets.

Although he said the Basel II international banking regulatory framework would almost definitely be revamped and financial institutions’ financial models would need to be re-drafted, Greenspan warned against over-regulation.

“It is important, indeed crucial, that any reforms in, and adjustments to, the structure of markets and regulation not inhibit our most reliable and effective safeguards against cumulative economic failure: market flexibility and open competition,” he said.

Greenspan article at FT.com: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/edbdbcf6-f360-11dc-b6bc-0000779fd2ac.html

Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan pauses during testimony on Capitol Hill in a 2005 photo. There will be many casualties from the unfolding financial market crisis, which will lead to a large-scale overhaul of international banking regulations, codes and risk management, Greenspan said. (Shaun)”

By Dusty

March 17, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Before I leave may I recommend a book by Professor Merle Black of Emory? The title is “Divided America: the Ferocious Power Struggle in American Politics”. The theme is the power struggle between conservatives and liberals that is tearing the country apart.

By Clinton hates us

March 17, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this

Jackie, but it IS all Clinton’s fault!! You see, those years in which the top tiny percent paid more taxes and average Americans were doing better, making more money, enjoying peace, prosperity, and job growth, and having (dare we say it?) “HOPE…” that was the problem! Optimism and a belief that one can achieve goals for one’s self and one’s family is a dangerous thing! In the 80’s, lots of families found out that medical bills can make you homeless real quick. In ‘91 we had a recession (although the Pres. said it wasn’t) and just enough fear of the sand dwellers that people were careful and didn’t give in to this “hope” business. Then Clinton came along and told us life could be good, and it WAS! “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with America.” Dang! We believed it, and we worked it. Coming down off that good feeling is harsh!

If the Big Guy had really loved us, instead of whispering sweet things in our ear and giving us those thoughtful little gifts, he would have kept us down here in the dirt where we belong. Praise BUSH! Here we are again, where we belong, right on schedule.

By AmVet

March 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

Woo hoo!

$42 million later, I get in the mail today my Economic Stimulus Payment Notice!

I don’t know about you poor schmucks, but I plan on a life of luxury with that windfall!

Thank God (and his proxy on earth, GWB) all of our collective worries are over!

By Jackie

March 17, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

@jbmlaw,

“By jbmlaw

March 17, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

Instability in the System

For the past few months, the largest story in regulatory compliance has been the easing of regulatory pressure. The regulators’ focus swings back and forth, between their macro-financial (“safety and soundness”) concerns and their statutory compliance obligations. When the financial world is stable, compliance is the top concern; when there is distress in the domestic banking system, compliance takes a back-seat in”

If you were a board-member of officer of a financial institution, you would be arrested. You have not performed your fiduciary responsibilities in dealing with the finances of others. You would be brought up on charges for Sarbanes-Oxley and RICOH.

You can obfuscate, to some degree, but you can not manipulate the law to fit your set of facts.

By OneForTheRoad

March 17, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Can you picture the appropriate cover for this book of a divided America? The Democrat and Republican politicians holding onto the taxpayers wallet and stretching it to the point of failure. Leeches.

By dave

March 17, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this

Greenspan knew this was coming…why do you think he finally stepped down after all these years with so many administrations…there have NEVER been bigger boneheads calling the shots for a 6 year period before these dr. evils took the helm..(well thank allah…until the dems took control of both houses again in late 2006 to try and keep things in check) …

this is going to be bad and ugly for a long long time…

the currnet admin has probably set us back not only years….generations perhaps…with all the damage they have causes not only here at home..but to our world wide reputation and financial stability… but who cares? all of their oil company buddies have made record profits for the past 2 years…

see all the other “records” i spoke of in my posts above..

well..1 good record had to be on their side…

fools that votes dubya not once…but twice…

vote for McInsane…and your literally “brain dead”…

By @@

March 17, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

Alright, I’ve only read the first couple of posts and I’m ready to place “the blame”.

It’s the government sponsored education system that failed to teach their students about the concept of STRONG ARMing.

It’s the individuals who look across the street thinking the neighbors grass is greener without realizing that weeds grow there too.

It’s those who want to hold a share, but don’t want a share in a hole.

It’s the……..