Ha - I just bought her . . .

. . . books (I had to clarify that, I DO live in Vegas after all).

Funny you should mention her in your last - I just receieved the 2 Ayn Rand books I ordered from Amazon in the mail - "Atlas Shrugged", and "The Fountain Head." I realize she was an antheist of sorts, and I couldn't agree more with you about the relevance of faith in our society, but from what I gather her books (these 2 being among the most popular) have gained new popularity due to her fictional depiction of an Orwellian, big brother future . . . one that seems a little too familiar for comfort.

And ps . . . . CHEATER!

MAN CAUSED DISASTER

I shit you not - the DIRECTOR of HOMELAND SECURITY, our nations highest intelligence officer, out ranking the CIA Chief, Mrs. Napolitano, has made the executive decision to no longer employ the word TERRORISM because she regards the very word as "fear mongering", and has directed that in all literature, documents, press briefings, and testimony to congress public and private, to refer to acts of TERRORISM as a "MAN CAUSED DISASTER."

What were the NAZIS then madam? Tolerance challenged? Was Stalin "politically overly motivated?" How about Timothy McVey - a manure enthusiast?

This is demonstrative of how Chamberlain's are made. This is the only group that could make Carter look like Winston Churchill.

Enjoy your 1 term Barry.

It's time I confessed...

{sigh}

I've been unfaithful... I have strayed... I have cheated.

I know things have been busy for everyone. Jambo makes his big family trip to the Great White North, Baddboy with two jobs and a family of his own, and Ryan with his sun-tanning and phone texting (hehe... just kidding). Anyway, I know it explains why the Bund has been so slow lately.

But, I have found another venue to vent my political angst... another outlet for my need to debate while the Bund gathers it's strength... Conservative Punk. It's a bit daunting facing off against kids (literally) half my age, still in school and full of the indoctrination our colleges and universities stuff into impressionable young minds... but it does force one to hone the debate skills, I can tell you that!

So, why the confession?

The DAMN discussion board for ConPunk.com is DOWN now for three days... just as I had the final and irrefutable argument against Ayn Rand and her Objectivist "rand-roids" ready to show that faith and the belief in God still have relevance in today's world!

I'm board shitless... so let's pick a fight here.

Somebody start a beef about something we KNOW we don't agree on... and stop posting crap about stuff no rational person could possibly debate, like "Obama is an idiot" or "Congress is WRONG" or "Bin Laden is a bad man"... PLEASE!!!!!

Oh, this is too easy...

{gleefully rubbing hands together}

Where to begin to emasculate this latest load of revisionist tripe?

...

Actually... you are 100% correct. I heard much of the Libby-Congressional testimony today, and I better understand that the bonus question is one that actually WAS addressed by both the Sec Tres (current) AND Congress (yes, Dodd knew and wrote the bail-out bill anyway). Those lying bastards can look surprised and indignant all they want, it is now on the "record" that both the Administration AND Democratic leadership in the Senate not only okay'd the millions in contractual bonus payments, but they did so after being told by both the Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke AND AIG itself that the more than $120 million could only be stopped if it was expressly written into the bail-out bill (which Dodd didn't do).

If this is the kind of "change we can believe in" and expect for the first sixty days of the Obama Administration... then I can't wait to see what the next 670 days bring, and what that will do to the balance of power in Congress. As Ryan pointed out, Clinton's actions in his first term did what? They cost the Dems their more than 20-year-old Congressional majority.

Does anyone here think Obama will fair any better?

I always liked Hoover's starched white collar.

I for one as a free thinker and pseudo-polysci expert am not, I repeat am NOT outraged at the the AIG bonuses. They totaled what was it? Ah, yes - roughly $165 million. Uh huh, I see - $165 mil. Yep, no question about it, that's a lot of money. Now within this forum some knee jerk reactions to my making such a proclamation may be, "there goes Ryan, believing the private sector can do no wrong." That I have embraced as religion the creedo espoused by Micheal Douglas's character in the movie Wall Street: "Greed ... is GOOD." But these onlookers, electronic lurkers, and all around cheek cluckers would be wrong. This is not I trying to defend any private venture as incapable of being anything other then pure as the driven snow. Rather this is an earnest attempt to not take my eye off the ball. And since I proclaim the intellectual prowess of being able to read the stiches on that incoming ball, let us proceed . . .

In 1993 Bill Clinton signed off on an official memorandum that was to become HUD's new defacto policy: The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream, which was to deliver on the Clinton administration's promise to extend home ownership into lower income neighborhoods. His goal was to increase home ownership by noticeable numbers within his first term as president, a seemingly noble goal; however, the details of this would be felt in spades years later, employed and produced under the law of unintended consequences as is always the child birthed from the mother of social engineering. This memo, which HUD via congressional help effectively set as Fannie and Freddie policy was available right on the HUD website until the housing collapse hit the front pages. There is little wonder why it has since vanished in my estimation. Joseph R. Mason, a finance professor at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and a consultant at Criterion Economics noted the following excerpt from the policy's language source:

"For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."

Notice the stressing of "creativity" in overcoming these traditional "impediments." You know, such as actually being able to afford the home you're buying, impediments such as those. This begat a series of creative methods available to homebuyers. Among them were the 100% to loan financing - zero down; the sub prime rates, quite literally setting interest rates below the prime rate in order to squeeze payments just within reach. And everybody's favorite "interest only" loans allowing buyers to purchase three to four times the amount of house they could afford on their income in a "standard" loan. Now, these practices did indeed allow many lower income buyers into the market. But it didn't stop there. HUD estimated that nearly 600,000 new homeowners would be created in the first year (multiply that out over 13 years), but not all of them were the intended target. You see, you can't lower the standards (or at least they didn't) for "only" minorities or certain groups. These new standards were available to everyone: dentists, day traders, executives, et al - all people who saw the housing markets surging and jumped in utilizing these new "creative" programs in order to flip a house they never intended to live in for a profit. Add to that those whom bought homes they did intend to live in, but bought 3 to 4x's out of their range because they could pour the mortgage into one of these new programs and qualify. And all of that is in addition to the lower income families who were qualified for home ownership outside of traditional routes. And it was a self sustaining cycle - as more and more utilized these "progressive" new programs and standards the housing bubble grew, housing prices went through the roof and more people wanted to jump in, inflating the bubble even further. Each added fuel to the housing fire that seemed to have no end in sight. And since Fannie and Freddie were buying up the majority of these new loans, the lenders figured "why not", the government is the de facto backer of F&F, so the loans are "guaranteed."

Then it burst.

Housing prices fell through the floor as the markets corrected the artificially inflated prices. Between low income owners that could no longer afford the monthly note, or investors that were caught holding 3 to 10 houses they never intended to live in and notes they could not maintain, or owners paying interest only with an untouched principle now larger then the home value - no one could now sell the homes they owned for the amount owed, and they default. There goes Freddie and Fannie as the largest holders of these notes, and there is the beginning of the September 2006 economic spiral down. But it gets worse. In the meanwhile, during the housing boom times, AIG had purchased 50% of Fannie's now toxic debt. They begin to wobble. They are, among other things, the largest insurer in the world. Their tentacles stretch into Citi Bank, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns . . . sound familiar?

So Bush is looking at a complete financial sector meltdown, which in turn could freeze cold small business, the back bone of the American economy, which depends on loans from this sector to survive and expand. What to do? He is at this point left with 2 options, 1.) he could explain everything I just wrote to the American people in a joint session of congress. This has many prickly sides to it. After all, he continued the Clinton-era policy because it dovetailed with his "ownership society" message and policies, so he was also culpable. In addition this would require the government to go in and cut out the cancer of toxic debt - a surgical strike at the cause, quite literally buying up AIG's Freddie and Fannie investment's, and all other's who now held the bad mortgages. But then the government would be the new lien holder so either they would have to evict millions of people, and seize millions of investment properties - at a time when we are closing in on a presidential election year, poor people being tossed out? I don't think so. Or simply mail these home owners the deeds free and clean. Again no good in an election cycle -those maintaining their mortgages would be rioting in the streets, free houses?! Why would anyone bother paying another month's mortgage? Simply default and wait until the government sends you the deed. Neither of those options are politically viable. Plus, under option number 1 the wholesale reform of Freddie and Fannie would need to be undertaken. Bush attempted that reform in 2005, with the aide of Senate heavyweights like John McCain (whose floor speech warning of a F&F collapse I pasted here last year). But Chris Dodd (D) CT, and Rep Barney Frank (D) Massachusetts, warned the White House and GOP leaders that was a non starter. That the solvency of F&F was assured and that no one was going to touch the ownership legacy of Clinton and his Party in congress, and on the heels of Katrina Bush hadn't the political will to fight them. So option #1 was solidly off the table. But Bush can't pull a Hoover - be seen as doing nothing (although that's a distorted view of Hoover, it's the historical perception). So what to do? Introduce option #2. Have your Treasury Secretary declare the 6 words that may come to haunt him more then "mission accomplished" ever did: "AIG is too big to fail" (and may I add here - if any one company is "too big to fail", then perhaps it is "too big" to exist, and just maybe channeling the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt is warranted). Paulson is careful not to discuss the particulars of what is causing them to fail, just declare the funds needed and get the money. And guess what? A Democrat controlled congress is only happy to oblige - remember, in option #1 they are culpable too. And the urgency is stressed in the "mark to market" pricing of AIG. That being the company total value. Once upon a time "total value" was determined by what they call a "5 year average." And as the name implies a company could list their total value based on a 5 year average, going backward or forward. So, you have a bad year C, you average A, B, and the out year forecasts for D & E and use that formula to tell the street (Wall Street) your total value. It was a stabilizing system to reduce volatility in the markets. Total value affects the individual stock price similarly to how oil prices effect how much you pay for a gallon of gas. But, the highly successful practice of employing the "5 Year Average" was ended by congress with one word: ENRON. In its traditional reaction of killing a housefly with a cannon ball, congress changed the rules of listing a company's total value based on what it is worth that very day. That very day or "mark to market" pricing. Meaning that if AIG isn't bailed out on the double, it could collapse any given day, crushing the financial sectors not just in the US, but other Western nations as well. There was the possibility of a world wide depression.

So, you have this perfect storm brewed up, two administrations, and multiple congresses involving the 2 major parties all culpable. They get together and decide that option #1, although less costly financially to the tax payer, is much too costly politically. So instead of the surgical removal of the toxic debt, they treat the entire patient - they simply throw money at AIG. This doesn't remove the debt mind you, it just hopefully balances their books and limps them along until the debt can be reconciled in the private sector.

But it gets worse. Has anyone ever read the bailout legislation? TARP, or the "Troubled Asset Relief Program" basically makes the Treasury Secretary the most powerful man in the country. And power is most easily allotted by making the language of the law as vague as possible. And I quote from T.A.R.P:

[definition of Troubled Assets] ... any other financial instrument that the Secretary [of the Treasury], after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.

The SoT decides, then informs congress of how he has decided to spend the money. Of course streamlining this to one man, one authority is necessary because we are in a "crisis." I wonder how you say that in German? Now, Bush's Secretary is Paulson, the former Charmain of a little outfit named Goldman Sachs. So Paulson sends the multi billion bailout to AIG . . . but guess what (yes, it actually does get worse)? Paulson knows the tentacles of AIG are far and world wide, so he authorizes them to send 60%, nearly $101 billion dollars to outside entities: Goldman Sach gets 12 billion; Meryl Lynch $7 billion; Citi Bank $11 billion; UK banks $13 billion; German banks $17 billion, and that's not the full list. And at that time each and every one of these organizations was giving out executive bonuses along with Lynch looking to dump Bank of America to balance its books. Now if some of these names sound familiar, as in they received their own bailouts, they did! Many of the recipients in the TARP legislation have been double dipped by the Treasury department because Paulson allowed AIG to be a clearing house of these smaller "off the books" (as in AIG handed them out) bailouts when he had control of the first 50% of TARP. Then Geitner (in control of the second 50%, per congress) came along and "bailed out" these companies individually! It's the biggest shill game in the history of man kind. And still, to this very day, the toxic debt that originated with Fannie and Freddie, crept into and nearly paralyzed AIG, Bare Sterns, and all the lower companies such as Citi Bank IS STILL OUT THERE! All the tax payer money has done is to attempt, and I stress attempt, to balance these books so as to make their mark to market rating stable. And in the hope that if this is accomplished the toxic debt will reconcile itself either with a comeback in housing & the economy in general, or that the "debt risk" is spread out over enough quarters that it doesn't drop the companies rating (such as the too big to fail AIG), using bailout monies in the meantime to balance each quarter's books - in which case our trillions are merely buying them time.

And I am supposed to display "outrage" over the $165 mil to AIG execs? Or focus on how many homes Mrs. Madoff still owns? Are they serious? I suppose the "are they serious" question will be answered by our Commander-In-Chief Thursday night . . .when he appears on Leno (the first ever sitting president to do so).

Focusing on AIG execs and their bonuses is merely a game of distraction. You see, the question quickly becomes - what if they (all recipients of the multiple bailouts) go through the nearly trillion in bail out funds allotted, and the markets have not rebounded to the point that the toxic debt has been reconciled? What then? Then we are back at square one, a trillion dollars lighter. The entire scheme is a book balancing act hoping to limp these companies along until they can become profitable to the point of self absolving their bad debt. And the "what if" problems soon begin to multiply when you realize that none of this, none of it, has constrained our new president's ideology. He still went through with a $787 billion stimulus package that stimulates nothing more then left wing pet projects. He is still going to pass his $3.4 trillion dollar budget, which is more tax dollars spent then every president from George Washington to George W. Bush, combined. Meaning a hyper perfect storm is in the making - the spending devalues our dollar while the market tanking/energy costs runs us into inflation. You end up in the Wiemar Republic of Germany, rolling your pay checks home in a wheel barrel, burning them for heat once you get there because they are more valuable as a flame accelerate then they are as a payment to your gas company.

Enter the strong man . . . exclaiming democracy is a messy business.

AIG bonuses

Ben Bernanke is on the record saying that AIG is primarily responsible for the rapid decline our national economy has suffered over the last 12 months, because it (as a corporation) led the charge in poor performance being rewarded with huge, top-heavy bonuses paid to the very executives that wrote and implemented the policies that led the company to NEED the $171 billion in bail out funds they've already accepted.

Today, the $121 million in additional (meaning extra-budgetary) bonuses they paid to the top 50 executives were considered "ok" because they were contractually obligated to pay them... in addition to the $195 million already in the budget of the company for the year 2008.

Can someone explain to me WHY they are obligated to pay an additional $121,000,000 to the very 50 people who were unquestionably responsible for the collapse that led the company to NEED the bail out in the first place? Why are MY tax dollars lining the pockets of the men who drove the company into the ground? How is rewarding the poor performance and bad decision making of these 50 men and women going to make sure that the company IMPROVES its financial footing so the problem doesn't repeat in the future?

This goes beyond blaming the problem on government interference. 1970s legislation that called for easier requirements for low-incoming housing loans or questionable lending practices certainly contributed to the problem... but that does NOT equal rewarding poor or unethical business practices with huge bonuses coming at a time when the company must be saved by tax-payer dollars or go under completely.

If memory serves, Ryan was the only advocate of "let the business run the business" in a post-bailout world... so can you clear this up for me, please?

Concerning Ryan's DC concerns...

It seems the concerns about the Pelosi plan to expand the scope of the House by adding a seat for the residents of the District of Columbia are more serious than I at first gave them credit for... and perhaps I was too hasty in dismissing Ryan's worries.

However, I fail to see how Pelosi (or anyone else for that matter) can circumvent the rather clear and concise definition of the scope and role and MAKE-UP of the House and its Members.

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States..."

Unless she thinks she can convince the rest of Congress and the country that the District needs to become a State (which, by its very definition it cannot), there is no Congressional means by which she (or anyone else) can get that additional seat. DC isn't a State... so it gets no representation in the House, just like Puerto Rico, Guam, Somoa, US Virgin Islands or any other federal district or protectorate has no seat in the House.

As much as the Left isn't going to like this... what they are proposing is "un-Constitutional" in every sense of the word.