Cuomo Threatens Subpoenas For AIG Bonus Info

NYTimes:

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of New York on Monday sent a letter to the American International Group, demanding more information about the employees who are set to receive about $165 million in bonus payments. Mr. Cuomo’s letter, demand[s] the information by 4 p.m. on Monday under threat of subpoena . . .

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Background Conference Call on the new SBA program

I listened to the conference call on the background of the new program to unfreeze the small business credit markets. The thought of both Treasury and the SBA is that by opening the secondary markets, this will help to ensure that the money is there to help small businesses, and by extension, Main Street. It is considered the primary goal to immediately unfreeze the market, and secondarily to get private sector investors back into the market.

The purpose of this call was to fill in the financial details related to the overall plan that the President outlined earlier today. 

My question to them was: 

Karen Mills was nominated back on the 20th of December to head the SBA. She's not on this conference call, and she wasn't at the meeting earlier today with President Obama and Secretary Geithner. She has not had a hearing. Is there a problem with her nomination? 

The line went silent.

After a bit, Jen Psaki said that the White House was confident about her nomination, and that if I wanted to take this offline, I could email Ms. Psaki, and she reeled off her email address. She then said "and let's move on..."

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

NY Times uncritically quoted Cheney
saying Bush administration detention policies were "done legally"

In a March 15 New YorkTimes article, reporterA.G. Sulzberger quoted withoutchallenge former Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion in an interview onCNN's State of the Unionthat the Bush administration's policies on detentions and intelligencegathering were "done legally" and "in accordance with ourconstitutional practices and principles." Sulzberger did not note thatthe Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected Bush administration policiesregarding detentions, that the Justice Department has[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903160015

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

It's About Time

Chris Cillizza has the page one story in today's Washington Post: President Obama will kick off an all-out grass-roots effort today urging Congress to pass his $3.55 trillion budget, activating the extensive campaign apparatus he built during his[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mydd/~3/RNFtXqJT1AA/3763

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

AIG Finally Discloses Who Got The $$$; Obama Vows
to Try to Block Bonuses

Download | Play    Download | Play

After all the weekend uproar over the millions in bonuses, AIG decided to come clean on how their our bailout money was spent:

AIG and the Federal Reserve have been pressured for months by some members of Congress to reveal the names of the banks and other institutions that were paid after the company -- teetering on the brink of failure because of plummeting investments -- received an $85-billion loan from the Fed in September.

AIG's downward spiral was accelerated by losses related to its huge business of insuring high-risk mortgage securities against default, via complex agreements known as credit default swaps. As the housing meltdown worsened last year, AIG's guarantees, which the company had sold to major banks and brokerages in the U.S. and abroad, came back to haunt it.

The federal rescue of the insurer has since doubled in size, and U.S. taxpayers now own 80% of the company.

The company said it shelled out nearly $100 billion in the final few months of the year to satisfy some of the contracts it had outstanding under credit default swaps and other insurance and investment agreements.

The beneficiaries included major foreign banks such as Germany's Deutsche Bank and France's Societe Generale, as well as U.S. titans Goldman Sachs Group and Merrill Lynch & Co.

U.S. municipalities, including some in California, also benefited as AIG settled up payments due under guaranteed investment agreements, under which states, cities and other municipalities temporarily park funds raised from bond sales. California entities received a total of about $1 billion.

Now go read Jane.

Dave N: Obama chimed in this morning:

President Barack Obama said Monday the government will try to block millions of dollars in bonuses for American International Group Inc. executives, calling the payments "an outrage to the taxpayers" who bailed out the giant insurer.

"In the last six months, AIG has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury. I've asked Secretary Geithner to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole," Obama said.

... In his remarks, he said AIG _ which has benefited from more than $170 billion in federal rescue funding and is 80 percent owned by taxpayers _ is a company in distress due to "recklessness and greed."

"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" the president said.

Josh Marshall has it exactly right:

We're collectively taking our country's future in our hands, spending vast sums of money to keep these companies from suffering the consequences of their own folly and (in many cases) criminality. And in return we're receiving cavalier dictates about pay-outs and bonuses from executives who by any reasonable measure work for us -- dictates we promptly accede to. There's a beggars can't be choosers problem there. And the disconnect is so mighty that it fuels the impression that the whole enterprise is not what it seems, not what we've been told, that in addition to picking up the tab we're being played for fools.

At this point, it's time to start demanding that heads roll.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

No Mention Of Iraq In Bush’s Presidential
Library Bio

Last week, Politico reported that President Bush’s advisers have decided to downplay the Iraq war in presentations for his presidential library:

The president?s advisers are still chewing over what topics to emphasize. Iraq is unlikely to be one of them. Advisers say they have made a specific decision to leave that verdict to history and not try to defend it at a time when Iraq could still wind up as either a democracy or a disaster.

Not only will the Iraq war be de-emphasized, it may not show up much at all. TP reader Grumpy Demo points out that Bush’s official 483-word bio on the presidential library website doesn’t have a single mention of the Iraq war. In fact, the man who once declared “I’m a war president,” has just one short paragraph devoted to national security issues — with no mention of Iraq or Afghanistan. He instead devotes a long section to his domestic accomplishments:

He signed into law tax relief that helps workers keep more of their hard-earned money, as well as the most comprehensive education reforms in a generation, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This legislation ushered in a new era of accountability, flexibility, local control, and more choices for parents, affirming our Nation?s fundamental belief in the promise of every child. President Bush also worked to improve healthcare and modernize Medicare, providing the first-ever prescription drug benefit for seniors; increase homeownership, especially among minorities; conserve our environment; and increase military strength, pay, and benefits. […]

On the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our Nation. President Bush took unprecedented steps to protect our homeland and create a world free from terror. He is grateful for the service and sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform and their families. The President remains confident that by helping build free and prosperous societies, our Nation and our friends and allies will succeed in making America more secure and the world more peaceful.

Also noticeably absent from Bush’s list of accomplishments is Social Security reform. In January, he cited his failed push for Social Security privatization as what he was most proud of during his time in office. (A few days later, however, he backtracked and said he regretted it.)

(ThinkProgress has been keeping a close eye on developments with the Bush library, and we will continue to do so. Read our related posts here.)

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Changiness on 'Enemy Combatant'

In response to the Obama administration's decision last week to remove the term "enemy combatant" from its description of the stands used to hold prisoners at the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility, emptywheel states:

But from this purported "refinement" of its stance toward detainees, it proceeds to reassert the role of the executive in judging which detainees to hold.

The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces. [my emphasis]

The President has the authority ... the President determines ... the President has the authority.

You see, it's still the same unitary power, stripped of the baggage of Bush's vocabulary. And even as they abandon Bush's vocabulary, they progressively expand the reach of that authority to include just about all those whom Bush already determined were enemy combatants, no matter how nebulous that person's ties to al Qaeda.

And, speaking about the same subject, but broadening its reach to various interrelated decisions by the administration over the past six weeks, Glenn Greenwald writes:

After many years of anger and complaint and outrage directed at the Bush administration for its civil liberties assaults and executive power abuses, the last thing most people want to do is conclude that the Obama administration is continuing the core of that extremism.  That was why the flurry of executive orders in the first week produced such praise:  those who are devoted to civil liberties were, from the start, eager to believe that things would be different, and most want to do everything but conclude that the only improvements that will be made by Obama will be cosmetic ones.

But it's becoming increasingly difficult for honest commentators to do anything else but conclude that.  After all, these are the exact policies which, when embraced by Bush, produced such intense protest over the last eight years.  Nobody is complaining because the Obama administration is acting too slowly in renouncing these policies.  The opposite is true:   they are rushing to actively embrace them.

Some people are calling such news disappointing. Others are calling it something worse.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Michael Steele's White Wife In a 'Witness
Protection Program'

video details and more

Tariq Nelson says that Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele's "elusive white wife" appears momentarily, hugging Steele after his acceptance speech upon winning his tenuous new position. (Go right to the end of the speech if you want to see the Nancy Reaganesque woman whom Tariq Nelson believes is Steele's wife.)

I have nothing against white wives. (I probably should have married at least two who loved me, had I had my head on straight when the opportunities presented themselves. Had I done so, I might have a child named Caramelo(a) today. The last white woman with whom live lived and loved was in love with caramel.)

I do wonder why I have never before heard of or seen Steele's white wife. Is he hiding her? Is she a the witness protection program? I don't think we should marry white women (or any woman) whom we can't be seen with in public.

People like Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas bite the bullet, marry the white wife and join the Republican Party. Frankly, I doubt Steele and Thomas have very much else in common. Steele doesn't believe much of what he says and says it only to get where he's going, while Thomas has angrily adopted white anti-Black antagonists' talking points hook, line and sinker. When he dies, I'm sure they'll bury Thomas in an all-white cemetery, which is precisely where he belongs. When he dies, that is.

And yet, having a white wife really seems to be an asset in the Republican Party, where Clarence Thomas also has one. A white wife can vouch for a Black man among white Republicans while a Black wife would probably be looked upon by them as a "welfare queen" before she even opened her mouth. I'm sure Republicans see marrying a white woman as a sign of willingness to assimilate, as a statement of the Black spouse's 'preferential option for the oppressor' and his values. In fact, Steele's white wife may be the very reason the Republicans have been willing to overlook his apostacy on issues like abortion, gay rights and Rap Music.

Anyway, I wish Steele well in his new job. White mens' willingness to be led by Black men (Obama, Steele) is proof white men have recognized their own bankruptcy on so many issues. Look at the US economy and the effects it has had dragging the world economy into the toilet.

Read The Full Article:
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2009/03/steeles-white-wife-in-witness.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Michael Steele's White Wife In a 'Whiteness
Protection Program'

video details and more

Tariq Nelson says that Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele's "elusive white wife" appears momentarily, hugging Steele after his acceptance speech upon winning his tenuous new position. (Go right to the end of the speech if you want to see the Nancy Reaganesque woman whom Tariq Nelson believes is Steele's wife.)

I have nothing against white wives. (I probably should have married at least two who loved me, had I had my head on straight when the opportunities presented themselves. Had I done so, I might have a child named Caramelo(a) today. The last white woman with whom live lived and loved was in love with caramel.)

I do wonder why I have never before heard of or seen Steele's white wife. Is he hiding her? Is she a the witness protection program? I don't think we should marry white women (or any woman) whom we can't be seen with in public.

People like Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas bite the bullet, marry the white wife and join the Republican Party. Frankly, I doubt Steele and Thomas have very much else in common. Steele doesn't believe much of what he says and says it only to get where he's going, while Thomas has angrily adopted white anti-Black antagonists' talking points hook, line and sinker. When he dies, I'm sure they'll bury Thomas in an all-white cemetery, which is precisely where he belongs. When he dies, that is.

And yet, having a white wife really seems to be an asset in the Republican Party, where Clarence Thomas also has one. A white wife can vouch for a Black man among white Republicans while a Black wife would probably be looked upon by them as a "welfare queen" before she even opened her mouth. I'm sure Republicans see marrying a white woman as a sign of willingness to assimilate, as a statement of the Black spouse's 'preferential option for the oppressor' and his values. In fact, Steele's white wife may be the very reason the Republicans have been willing to overlook his apostacy on issues like abortion, gay rights and Rap Music.

Anyway, I wish Steele well in his new job. White mens' willingness to be led by Black men (Obama, Steele) is proof white men have recognized their own bankruptcy on so many issues. Look at the US economy and the effects it has had dragging the world economy into the toilet.

Read The Full Article:
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2009/03/steeles-white-wife-in-witness.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Jim Cramer: Idiot or pimp How about both

 Jim Cramer has been a subject of discussion on the little (labor) forums that I frequent most often, largely because of his obvious assistance to Chairman Eddie Lampert in his manipulation of the stock prices of his company, Sears Holding Corporation (SHC* but also simply because he's nothing but a typical slime encased snake oil salesman who has managed to somehow not only extend his allotted fifteen by being Wall Street's version of Dr. Phil, but made a freaking fortune doing it.  

In a just world, all that would be over now and Cramer would simply fade back into the dark corners that all cockroaches scurry to when the light comes on but alas, we don't live in a just world, do we?

Jon Stewart has now done our homework for us and slapped the crap out of the buffoon until his eyes are crossed and done so in a very public way.  There is no longer any excuse for ever again listening to anything this bullet headed clown has to say so now can we just ignore the stupid SOB?  Uh... nope.  

I want to know why it took so long for someone to actually expose this cretin for what he is and why it once again fell to Comedy Central to put the bullshit into perspective for the rest of the media?  Not that I'm all that disappointed really... Stewart and Colbert and Lewis Black do this kind of thing better than anyone else possibly could... but again, why did it take so long?

How much money would taking Jim Cramer's advice have cost you?

By now I am sure you have seen Jon Stewart eviscerate Jim Cramer on last night's Daily Show. If not, all 23 excruciating minutes are available at www.thedailyshow.com. In one of the highlights (lowlights) Stewart shows clips of Cramer in 2006 explaining how he would manipulate the price of Apple stock by "fomenting." Fomenting, according to Cramer, is when a trader puts out false information or rumors about a company in order to change its price one way or another. If you have a "short position" on a stock, you will make money if the price goes down. Thus you would want to foment bad news (in the clip Cramer says he would tell people that there were problems with the upcoming iPhone).

Hmmm... an explanation for those instances when Cramer has actually downrated a stock that he admitted having a vested interest in only to go right back to slobbering over it the next week, once the price had spiked a little?

Manipulating the market is technically illegal, and the SEC's regulations specifically include "spreading false or misleading information about a company" as an example of manipulation. But as Cramer said on camera:

     Now, you can't "foment." That's a violation. You can't create yourself an impression that a stock's down. But you do it anyway, because the SEC doesn't understand it.

Is it my imagination or did that person... on national TV... admit to committing a crime, and actually advocate doing so?  Do we begin to get an inkling in regard to the mentality and mindset of the people who line Wall Street who... in very concrete ways... have been adversely manipulating the lives of every man, woman and child in this country for the past three decades... whether they play stupid stock market games or not?

No matter what the pundits or politicians try to tell you, it is largely people like Cramer who have brought this country to its knees and now continue to do their utmost to profit from the fact that it IS on its knees.

Cramer is not a buffoon. Wait, let me rephrase... at least he's not JUST a buffoon. What old Jimmie is is a slimy little pimp for anybody he can make a buck off of.  He's an admitted criminal, an admitted liar, and probably most important of all in regard to the question of how he maintains any kind of following... he's wrong more often than right.

What happens when you follow a TV show's stock tips?

     * Imagine you owned 1,000 shares of Apple (AAPL) on December 22nd, 2006, the day Cramer talked about fomenting his short of the company. Based on his advice, you decided to sell your Apple shares, which on that day were worth $82,200. Your Apple stocks had risen from a low of about $50,000 earlier that summer, so you would have felt pretty good about the sale. However, if you ignored Cramer and held on to your Apple stock, you'd have about $95,000 today. Ouch.
     * On March 11th, 2008, Jim Cramer recommend buying Bear Stearns. If you took your Apple stock (worth $127k at that point) and put it in Bear Stearns, you would have had a very rough week watching your investment drop 96%, to $7,499. If you want to lose $120,000 in a week, you don't need anyone's help. I recommend Las Vegas, but I hear Macau is nice too.

Those are just two examples.  Actually, Cramer's accuracy rate has been estimated by various pundits as hovering somewhere around 47-48%, a result that could have been achieved simply by flipping a coin every time you had a decision to make.

That should cement it for even the most diehard "Cramerican" but no... America is obviously full of people who are even bigger idiots than Cramer is... otherwise we wouldn't even HAVE any Cramers and there wouldn't be any need for CNBC in the first place.

Cramer, with his yelling and screaming and leaping around the set like a baboon in heat is simply the one who manages to attract the most attention to himself... and honestly folks, that's the only "talent" this troglodyte has.

*A detailed study of Mr. Lampert's acquisition of Kmart and Sears and Mr. Cramer's relationship with Mr. Lampert... both personal and "professional" provides a great deal of insight on how shysters like Cramer Make their bucks as Wall Street shills.  


Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/TBqUOOPkzKI/showD
iary.do

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!