why don't you bunk it first with a little more than a sentence declaring it to be so.

4/1/2009 3:20:21 PM

iPod

4/1/2009 5:34:22 PM

iCare

4/1/2009 5:41:38 PM

iThinkitsridiculous

4/1/2009 6:34:20 PM

i made u a mixtape

it came from my heart

i guess you wanted that best buy gift card instead

4/1/2009 7:22:28 PM

^^whatever happened to we're america, we don't give a FUCK

[Edited on April 1, 2009 at 7:33 PM. Reason : .]

4/1/2009 7:32:56 PM

while it means very little in the ultimate financial grand scheme, I think this is a great and appropriate gesture by the President (one he HAD to make, but made nonetheless).

Obamas to turn down White House redecorating allowance and pay for any changes out of pocket

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/03/30/2009-03-30_obamas_to_renovate_white_house_with_own_-1.html

4/1/2009 8:39:31 PM

^that should go in the "What has Obama done right" thread.

Also, that was hilarious at the end of page 18. sarijoul got OWNED. If you didn't see it, heres a shortcut -> message_topic.aspx?topic=556098&page=18#12780845

4/1/2009 9:28:29 PM

Really, a shortcut to page 18? The page right before this one? The one that if a user were to jump to the top or bottom of this page they could get to in one click? We really needed a shortcut for that?

4/1/2009 9:59:21 PM

Sure, why not? Clicking a link is easier than doing what you said.

4/1/2009 10:13:45 PM

why not? well, mainly because no one cares

4/1/2009 10:14:33 PM

4/2/2009 8:36:27 AM

Who is that between Medvedev and Obama?

4/2/2009 8:55:00 AM

maurice chevalier

4/2/2009 8:57:36 AM

Quote :

"Also, that was hilarious at the end of page 18. sarijoul got OWNED. If you didn't see it, heres a shortcut"

i got owned? really? i asked for him to produce a quote and it couldn't be produced. OMG OWNED!

4/2/2009 9:41:19 AM

Quote :

"Wednesday, April 01, 2009 Defending Dean Koh Guest Blogger I write to address three criticisms recently directed at Dean Harold Koh following the announcement that President Obama had nominated him for the post of Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State. (In the interests of disclosure, I was a former colleague of Dean Koh’s for ten years at Yale Law School.) Ordinarily, I would not dignify criticisms so wildly off the mark with a response. But the high uptake these criticisms have already received suggest not only that they will be taken seriously, but that they have a seriously appealing hidden barb. The criticisms are nicely summarized by former Bush speech writer Meghan Clyne in the March 30 issue of the New York Post, though Ms. Clyne is certainly not the only person to make them. According to Clyne, Koh believes that (1) “Sharia law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts;” (2) “The United States constitutes an ‘axis of disobedience’ along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq;” and that (3) “Judges should interpret the Constitution according to other nations’ legal ‘norms.’” The criticism that Koh believes sharia law could be applied by U.S. courts is false. This allegation was made by New York attorney Steven Stein, who asked Koh during a speech made to the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007 whether Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts. Stein alleges that Koh stated that in some cases it could. The host of the event, however, categorically denies that Koh made any such statement. Indeed, she wrote a missive to the Post requesting a correction, to which the Post has not yet responded. Meanwhile, the damage has been done—a Google search for “Harold Koh and sharia” turns up over a thousand hits only one day after the article’s publication. It is telling that a contested allegation at a social club would make more headlines than the eight books Koh has written or edited. The criticism that Koh believes that the United States, alongside North Korea and Iraq, is part of an “axis of disobedience” to international law, is equally off base. The quotation comes from a 2004 article, in which Koh argued that if the United States does not live up to its human rights obligations, it will have a harder time enforcing those obligations on other nations. Secretary of State Dean Acheson made this argument during the Cold War—an argument many historians believe contributed to Brown v. Board of Education. Koh’s point is not that we are morally equivalent to such countries as Iraq and North Korea, but that if we shortsightedly violate international law, we undermine our own capacity to persuade gross violators to improve their compliance records. The criticism that Koh believes that judges should interpret the Constitution according to other nations’ legal norms is also misleading. If one looks at Koh’s work as a whole—not just the eight books but the over 175 articles he has written—the idea that the United States Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” is its absolute bedrock. What Koh argues is that our world is already so interdependent that the legal practices of other countries can provide a means of reflecting on our domestic ones. His claims are about how the United States Constitution might absorb the norms of other traditions, not how it might be absorbed by them. Koh’s approach is not radical, but just a twenty-first century version of what the authors of the Declaration of Independence called according a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” What troubles me about these false or misleading criticisms is not just that they have been broadly purveyed by FOX News and other outlets to individuals who may not have the time or inclination to ascertain the truth. It is also that all three appear to be part of one broader unspoken criticism. This master criticism is that Koh, a Korean-American from a remarkably successful immigrant family, is somehow too disloyal to American interests to serve his country. I am not playing the race card on Koh’s behalf here, though it is certainly true that Asian-Americans have a history of being treated simultaneously as “honorary whites” and “perpetual foreigners.” I am simply pointing out the President’s opponents are playing the fear card in a time of national stress. Why else would such baseless criticisms be directed against the Dean and chaired professor of one of the top law schools in the country, who is one of the most distinguished international lawyers of his generation, and who has already served his government to bipartisan acclaim after a unanimous confirmation? We owe it to Koh, and to ourselves as a nation, to raise the level of discourse around this round of hearings. Kenji Yoshino Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law NYU School of Law "

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/04/defending-dean-koh.html




[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 9:56 AM. Reason : removed sarcasm]

4/2/2009 9:54:39 AM

I suppose I didn't do enough research on Koh, I'll have to dig a little more. Nicely done though.

4/2/2009 1:51:24 PM

SHOCKING

4/2/2009 5:40:55 PM

oh STFU I post sources/citations for most of my points you ass.

4/2/2009 6:18:52 PM

Quote :

"^that should go in the "What has Obama done right" thread. "

this is the credibility thread. what I quoted gives him credibility.

4/2/2009 11:04:13 PM

he called out euros' "insidious anti-americanism" to their faces today. that was cool

4/3/2009 11:15:41 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879462053487927.html


Too many conflict of interests in this administration. You should by now no longer be surprised that the policies being enacted by this administration are designed to do everything possible in the short term to save the jobs and lifestyles of those on Wall Street that made bets and lost, even if it means running the rest of the country into the shitty on the long term.

I don't necessarily put this all on Obama, I don't expect him to be able to know who to pick as economic advisers other than seeing what their track record was. Maybe a proper vetting would have shown Summers to be in the pockets of Wall Street and he would have looked elsewhere...and maybe if that would have happened, Geithner (also a Wall Street friend) wouldn't have been suggested and we'd be in a different place. But these are the guys we have. So don't be surprised at the proper fucking they are going to give us to help their friends in Wall Street out. Think about it from Geithners perspective. He spends 4 years (maybe less) saving those guys asses, and they'll take care of him generously with a consulting job or a position high up in their firms.

4/4/2009 9:28:41 AM

Jesus, right after I post that I read this

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/04/administration-seeking-to-circumvent.html

Is Obama doing this? Complicit? Or is this all Geithner? This is unreal.

4/4/2009 9:34:00 AM

unbelievable.

4/4/2009 5:16:04 PM

Quote :

"unbelievable"

why?

4/4/2009 7:25:18 PM

^^^ Honestly I'd say a little of both. Obama wanted these sorts of policies, but he's being led by the nose in the same way Bush was. I honestly think Obama truly believes what he's doing is right, but his inexperience in these matters is leading him to put his trust in other people and he's not taking a hard look at what they're doing or enacting. Similarly, Bush's trust in people he had known for a long time allowed them to walk all over him and dictate policy in ways that went far beyond what he intended. Obama could improve all of this vastly if he would a) slow things down and b) stick to what his (proclaimed) beliefs are.

I may not like many of Obama's ideas, and I hope many of them fail to get past the podium but that doesn't mean I want him, or our country, steamrolled by the "Democratic Mandate"™. The cure for 8 years of Bush is not 8 years of Bizaro Bush.

[Edited on April 4, 2009 at 7:26 PM. Reason : faldjk]

4/4/2009 7:25:31 PM

^ the conflicts of interest listed in those articles have nothing to do with a "democratic mandate". If anything, they are a big-business Republican's dream - Summers and Geithner are apparently about as business-friendly as they come. They are obviously going completely out of their way to make sure their buddies on Wall Street get paid at any cost, including the tax payers.

4/4/2009 8:02:15 PM

^ When I mentioned Democratic Mandate I was mostly referring to Pelosi et al writing the previous stimulus bills.

Christ, I try to say something decent about the guy in defense of some things that have happened, something I also said about Bush many years ago, and you're still looking for nit picky things to jump on. I know you are very sensitive to anything that might question Him and His Change™, but contrary to popular belief, not everyone who didn't vote for Obama, nor buys into his Hope and Change message, is an uneducated redneck trying to keep the darkies down.

4/4/2009 9:20:34 PM

Stuart Varney from the 4/4 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page....

Quote :

"Obama Wants to Control the Banks Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic. Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics."

If this is true, this would be very sinister.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

4/5/2009 12:03:18 AM

it doesn't sound sinister - it sounds like he wants to try to exhibit some control over the companies which we are giving 100's of billions of dollars..... doesn't sounds like an unreasonable expectation

4/5/2009 12:14:56 AM

Quote :

"it sounds like he wants to try to exhibit some control over the companies "

(let me finish your statement) That want to give the money back so the govt isnt controlling thier private business...which he is refusing.

Yeah, nothing at all wrong with that scenerio.

4/5/2009 12:40:44 AM

my understanding was that not allowing them to pay it back right now was so other banks, who still need the money, won't be pressured into paying back as well

though i guess it is probably a sinister plot by obama and the treasury to rule over the banking industry. that makes more sense.

[Edited on April 5, 2009 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

4/5/2009 1:07:01 AM

Quote :

"my understanding was that not allowing them to pay it back right now was so other banks, who still need the money, won't be pressured into paying back as well "

LOL, now that is a rational thought. I know I tried to pay off some debt and they told me no, that would put too much pressure on others who couldnt pay off thier debt too. LOL

Ok, lets assume you are 100% correct. He isnt allowing one to pay back thier loan, which allows them power over that company, bc others might feel pressure. It still goes back to our point that its all about power. Even YOUR thought backs our point.

4/5/2009 8:50:42 AM

Quote :

"If this is true, this would be very sinister. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html"

Mr. Varney is a host on the Fox Business Channel.

rofl

That opinion piece is so devoid of information that I can barely begin to discuss his point of view. A couple things that strike me as odd

Quote :

"Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation)."

Hmm, what retaliation? Removal of a CEO? Doubt it.

Quote :

"Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money."

Prominent and profitable? Why were they even at the TARP trough?

Quote :

"The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists."

What, that this insolvent institution will be FDIC'd? Seriously, what adverse conditions can be placed on a such an entity that has no taxpayer stake? Shit just doesn't add up. If they are prominent and profitable, then what would the government do...shut them down for being...successful?

Quote :

"And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? "

At current interest rates, how much more favorable can it get?

Quote :

" Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now."

Well, except for those historically low interest rates that both Democrats and Republicans pushed for for decades.


I can appreciate the opinion this guy is attempting to push here and I would be inclined to getting behind it with a good case, but with what little bit he has presented here, this amounts to nothing more than the partisan hacks in TSB spouting off their politics with no basis in reality. But it's from Fox, so I guess I can't be too surprised.

4/5/2009 10:17:21 AM

Quote :

"Prominent and profitable? Why were they even at the TARP trough?"

They weren't at the trough. They were FORCED to take the money. And the reason they were forced is because the gubment didn't want to show who the weak banks really were. Thus, they forced secure banks to take money, too, so as to avoid a run on the stocks of the other banks.

4/5/2009 10:44:42 PM

Are you kidding? By most measures, the top 5-10 (some say 20) are insolvent under GAAP and M2M accounting rules. These are the banks that are deemed too big to fail. Look at the TARP money that they were given - well over $1 billion. You have to go down the TARP list to around the 23 financial institution - excluding the automakers, American Express and 1 or 2 others - to find a TARP payout less than 1 billion like mentioned in that opine. I am very suspicious that a regional player was forced into taking TARP under any nefarious guise as mentioned in this piece. I can see a scenario where there was a preliminary audit or suspicion that the regional player was stressed and had the money forced on them, but a prominent and profitable one? gtfo

4/6/2009 7:50:42 AM

Quote :

"I am very suspicious that a regional player was forced into taking TARP under any nefarious guise as mentioned in this piece."

As well you should be. But it doesn't change the fact that dubya didn't want to reveal who was really in trouble and who wasn't. Thus the reason some solvent companies were forced to take TARP money when they didn't need it

4/6/2009 2:22:00 PM

Please just present evidence of that fact because nothing you are stating, or that was stated in that opinion fluff piece from Fox news really adds up. Most of the TARP receivers, despite all their pomp about not needing it and not wanting it are bankrupt. Their grand standing stems from the fact that they know they are too big to fail and would rather find another means to fuck the taxpayer while keeping their bonuses in tact. The battle between Wall Street and DC has grown to nearly epic proportions with the bankstersfraudsters essentially winning at every turn. Just like they won with TARP initially then decided they didn't like the loopholes for congress to exert authority on them. Don't like government telling you what to do, get your stooge Geithner to come up with a better plan than his predecessor to get the toxic junk off your books on the taxpayers dime without that pesky congress looking over your shoulder. Done.

4/6/2009 7:57:38 PM

Well, part of the shenanigans here is that the federal gubment is allegedly threatening to audit the hell out of this company for the next five years if they come forward.

so yeah, it's a bit of a conspiracy theory, I agree, but it doesn't seem implausible. It has, however, been pushed on numerous blogs, so take it for what it's worth, I guess.

The one reference I can find to it in a reputable news source is here:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/622532.html

4/6/2009 8:09:42 PM

Supposedly the President of Wells Fargo tried to leave the table when they were pushing TARP but was told he could not leave until they had his signature borrowing billions of dollars.

The argument at the time was that the stigma of being a borrower could ruin a bank and therefore sound banks should be forced to borrow.

That said, even Citibank turned a profit last quarter. All these banks are profitable. There is nothing about being profitable that erases your insolvency.

4/6/2009 8:24:53 PM

1) you're still just spouting anecdotal evidence. "supposedly"?

2) "That said, even Citibank turned a profit last quarter. All these banks are profitable." hhhhhahahahahhhh
aaaaaaaaaahhhhaaaaahahahahaaha


hhhhhhaaaaaaaaaahahahahhhaaaaaaa

4/6/2009 8:34:04 PM

Which blogs? Is this one of those things that Drudge or Bortz posted and then everyone echo chambered it and suddenly its a viral thing?

Thanks for that link btw, it basically confirms the points I am making, I'll highlight them

Quote :

"The Treasury basically ordered nine of the nation's biggest banks, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo & Co., to participate in the program."

Hmm, did it force everyone else, too?

Quote :

"“It's not something we signed up for,” Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis said in an interview last week with the Observer, referring to TARP's introduction."

Of course not, these guys thought then, and probably still do that if someone will just help them out during this time of crunched credit that they'll be able to return to profitibility once the broader economy picks up. Nevermind the fact that they fucked up immensely to get us here. This how deluded they really are.

Quote :

"BB&T Corp. chief executive Kelly King, whose Winston-Salem bank has a long history of shunning government interference, said at a recent investor conference that BB&T was “doing just fine” without the $3.1 billion in TARP money it accepted in the fall, and has found the program “offensive and disruptive to our long-term business plan.” But King also said he expects it to take at least one to three years before BB&T can repay TARP. “I'm not going to cavalierly eliminate it until I am sure that we are headed into” a better environment for raising capital, Kelly said. "

Really, the money quote. Let me read that again. Schhwwwaatt? I have a feeling that there was in fact some sort of strong arming going on behind the scenes, something along the lines of "we are going to scrutinize your books in greater detail if you don't take this TARP". The bottom line though is, I doubt seriously the government could just force the money on these people. How would that even work? We're going to put a deposit on your books, you can't refuse to accept it...? On top of that, the banks that took the funds most certainly thought they were getting really cheap money with few strings. WHY WOULDN'T THEY TAKE THAT DEAL UNDER TIGHT CREDIT CONDITIONS?

4/6/2009 8:34:56 PM

Quote :

"The bottom line though is, I doubt seriously the government could just force the money on these people."

Then you are too naive

4/6/2009 8:38:01 PM

I'm talking about the institutions that are well capitalized and just plain didn't need it. Show me 1 bank that had the TARP funds forced on it under this scenario, just 1.

4/6/2009 8:40:20 PM

Thank you agentlion, instead of just calling me names you took the time to tell me what I said that you found unlikely. So, evidence:

"One after another, big-bank CEOs like Vikram Pandit of Citi, Ken Lewis of BofA, and Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan are telling investors they will turn a handsome profit in the first quarter, their best money gain since 2007."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWMxM2I2OTEzNmE4ZDg3Yzk4YjRmZDAzYmU3ZTc2ZjA=

Quote :

"I'm talking about the institutions that are well capitalized and just plain didn't need it. Show me 1 bank that had the TARP funds forced on it under this scenario, just 1."

When the President asks you to sign something you sign it. It is the fact of government that you do not go out of your way to annoy them, so unless it is giving away the shop, when the President of the United States asks you for a favor you give it.

4/6/2009 8:55:08 PM

^ That would make great sense...IF THEY ACTUALLY WANTED TO CONTINUE TO KEEP THE FAVOR INSTEAD OF GIVING THE FUNDS BACK.

4/6/2009 9:14:31 PM

Don't be silly. The president asked them to take the money; he didn't tell them to keep it forever. Even then, the assertion was as long as the favor had no real downside that was fine, now that the favor has real teeth attached to it, refusing becomes your only choice.

4/6/2009 9:29:10 PM

Quote :

"telling investors they will turn a handsome profit in the first quarter, their best money gain since 2007"

yeah, i know - i saw "leaked internal memos" and whatnot.
1) i'll believe it when i see it
2) if banks are making a "handsome profit" in this environment, then something is fishy

4/6/2009 9:40:16 PM

Quote :

"Even then, the assertion was as long as the favor had no real downside that was fine"

Yeah, I already pointed this out. The question still stands, of those not insolvent, why would they need to take the TARP funds if the intentions were only to mask the ones that were. And if the handout was given with this wink in mind, why are the institutions scrambling to give it back...well, the ones that are as the above link is already showing some that will keep it. I suppose in tin hat land, this is all part of the ruse to hide from the public which big banks were stressed and which werent.

4/6/2009 9:55:00 PM

Quote :

"1) i'll believe it when i see it 2) if banks are making a "handsome profit" in this environment, then something is fishy"

You have no idea how banks work do you? A bank can be rediculously profitable and STILL be insolvent to the point of bankruptcy. Banks don't work like most other business models.

To enlighten you, a bank works by borrowing in the short-term and lending in the long-term. Given that, there is no question that a bank would be profitable: it is now borrowing at 1% and lending at 5%, so in current market conditions any bank still with open doors should be wildly profitable. But, if everyone cashes out their 1-month CDs or defaults on their mortgages then the bank, which was profitable on paper every step of the way, shuts its doors and goes away.

4/6/2009 10:14:34 PM