Daily Archives: January 28, 2010

What I said

Obama’s lie about wanting to reward the hard working and responsible is best exposed by this poor bastard’s complaint from Oregon, which just pushed up taxes on its own hard working citizens:

Public Sector v. Private Sector   [Stephen Spruiell]

An Oregonian responds to my piece on the recent tax increases there:

“As a lifetime resident of Oregon, small business owner and one of the earners this new tax increase will affect I read your article and thought something is missing.What is missing is that Oregon is one of the states that is at the forefront of turning the Public sector against the Private sector.

As the private sector has continued to shrink here, the public sector has continued to grow. What we are left with is a continual monopoly of liberal democrats in power at the state and local level and a populace that is dependent on the income of the few to pay for the expenses of the many.

Every year or two a new tax is proposed, sometimes they pass, sometimes they don’t, but mostly they pass. It is so frustrating as a person that works 60-70 hours per week to see this. I see this latest vote as the final proof that the public sector now has control of this state.”

That’s the trend, and not just in Oregon. As our editorial on the SOTU noted, “The proposal to forgive student-loan debt on special terms for people who go into ‘public service’ typifies this administration’s attitude toward the economy: Producing wealth is less noble than rearranging it.”



2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Racial Progress

J.P. Morgan names Black vice – chairman.

Chris Matthews feels the tingle up his leg: “Listening to him, I forgot he was Black!”

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Feingold unhappy with Alito

“He was supposed to sit there and take it”, the Senator  wails. On a brighter note, Wisconsin is unhappy with Feingold: latest poll shows Tommy Thompson leading him 47-43%. Bye bye, Russ.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Ann Coulter on Wall Street bailouts

A reader sent me this link. I’ll admit to never having read the woman’s work before but I see that I was missing out on some smart writing. Read the whole thing, but here’s an excerpt:

Can’t we at least get a toaster?

In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle last week (“The other Boston Massacre”), President Obama adopted a populist mantle, claiming he was going to “fight” Wall Street. It was either that or win another Nobel Peace Prize.

Now the only question is which Goldman Sachs crony he’ll put in charge of this task.

If Obama plans to hold Wall Street accountable for its own bad decisions, it will be a first for the Democrats.

For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years.

Bankers get all the profits, glory and bonuses when their flimflam bets pay off, but the taxpayers foot the bill when Wall Street firms’ bets go bad on — to name just three examples — Mexican bonds (1995), Thai, Indonesian and South Korean bonds (1997), and Russian bonds (1998).

As Peter Schweizer writes in his magnificent book Architects of Ruin"": “Wall Street is a very far cry from the arena of freewheeling capitalism most people recall from their history books.” With their reverse-Midas touch, the execrable baby boom generation turned Wall Street into what Schweizer dubs “risk-free Clintonian state capitalism.”

Apropos of the Clintonian No-Responsibility Era, Goldman Sachs and Citibank became heavily invested in Mexican bonds after a two-day bender in Tijuana in the early ’90s. Any half-wit could see that “investing” in the dog track would be safer than investing in a corrupt Third World government controlled by drug lords.

But precisely because the bonds were so risky, bankers made money hand-over-fist on the scheme — at least until Mexico defaulted.

With Mexico unable to pay the $25 billion it owed the big financial houses, Clinton’s White House decided the banks shouldn’t be on the hook for their own bad bets.

Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman, demanded that the U.S. bail out Mexico to save his friends at Goldman. He said a failure to bail out Mexico would affect “everyone,” by which I take it he meant “everyone in my building.”

Larry Summers, currently Obama’s National Economic Council director, warned that a failure to rescue Mexico would lead to another Great Depression. (Ironically, Summers’ current position in the Obama administration is “Great Depression czar.”)

Republicans in Congress said “no” to Clinton’s Welfare-for-Wall-Street plan.

It’s not as if this hadn’t happened before: In 1981, Reagan allowed Mexico to default on tens of billions of dollars in debt — Mexico claimed the money was “in my other pair of pants” — leaving Wall Street to deal with its own bad bets.

As Larry Summers expected, this led like night into day to the Great Depression we experienced during the Reagan years … Wait, that never happened.

At congressional hearings on Clinton’s proposed Mexico bailout a decade later, Republicans Larry Kudlow, Bill Seidman and Steve Forbes all denounced the plan to save Goldman Sachs via a Mexican bailout.

So the Clinton administration did an end run around the Republicans in Congress and rescued improvident Wall Street bankers by giving Mexico a $20 billion line of credit directly from the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund.

Relieved of any responsibility for their losing bets, Wall Street firms leapt into buying other shaky foreign bonds. Soon the U.S. taxpayer, through the International Monetary Fund, was propping up bonds out of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, then Russia — all to save Goldman Sachs.

The IMF could have saved itself a lot of paperwork by just sending taxpayer money directly to Goldman, but I think they’re saving that for Obama’s second term.

Throughout every bailout, congressional Republicans were screaming from the rooftops that this wasn’t capitalism. It was “Government Sachs.” As Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) put it, the same rules that apply to welfare mothers “ought to apply to rich Greenwich, Conn., investors who are multimillionaires.”

But Wall Street raised a lot of money for the Democrats, so Clinton bailed them out, over and over again.

Before you knew it, once-respectable Wall Street institutions were buying investment products even more ludicrous than Mexican bonds: They were buying the mortgages of Mexican strawberry-pickers.

Why shouldn’t Wall Street trust in suicidal loans no sane person would ever imagine could be paid back? Time after time, when their bets paid off, they pocketed huge fees; when their bets failed, they sent the bill to the taxpayers.

With nothing to fear, the big financial houses bought, repackaged and resold investment products that included loans like the one issued by Washington Mutual to non-English-speaking strawberry pickers earning a combined $14,000 a year to purchase a $720,000 house.

But the financial wizards on Wall Street were trading these preposterous loans as if they were bars of gold. They may as well have bet the entire U.S. economy on a dice game in an alley off 44th Street.

Every mortgage-backed security bundle was infected with suicidal, politically correct loans that had been demanded by community organizers such as Barack Obama — as is thoroughly documented in Schweizer’s book.

On the off chance that mammoth mortgages to people who could barely afford food somehow went bad, Wall Street firms could be confident that their Democrat friends would bail them out.

Even the Republicans would have to bail them out this time: They had strapped the dynamite of toxic loans onto the entire economy and were threatening to pull the clip. Wall Street had infected every financial institution in the country, including completely innocent banks.

But now Obama says he’s going to “fight” Wall Street, which is as plausible as claiming he’ll “fight” the trial lawyers.

As Schweizer demonstrates, whenever the Democrats “regulate” Wall Street, the innocent pay through the nose, while Wall Street swine lower than drug dealers and pornographers end up with multimillion-dollar bonuses so they can run for governor of New Jersey and fund lavish Democratic fundraisers in the Hamptons.

18 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Who believes this s**t?

Obama, down in Florida, giving away my money: “We’re not going to quit until hard work and responsibility are rewarded”. To the contrary, it’s laziness and irresponsibility that is rewarded under the current governmental scheme and I’m pretty sure everyone knows that, so why does he say the opposite?

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

232 Riverside Avenue sells

A not-bad re-do, several years old, listed at $2.7, is now under contract.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ole’s Creek

17 Hendrie Drive was first listed for $7.1 million, a silly price, even though, as creek neighbor, I cheered it on. It sold yesterday for $4.250, a huge premium over its assessed value of $2.7 million, and an inspiration for all of us with creek-front property. Brian Tunney of Cleveland, Duble & Arnold had the listing.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized