The Washington Note: Lawrence Wilkerson comments on South Carolina's worst
The Democratic Daily: Freedomworks' Little Frankenstein Lab: Oregon
Matthew Yglesias: John Hannah, patriot
Lawyers, Guns and Money: The Tories and Europe
Newshoggers: Hooverville
alicublog: Notes from the 'compassionate conservative' front
Lawyers, Guns, & Money: Poor FOX, for them being ignored is the same as being muzzled.
William K. Wolfrum: Wow, come to think of it, Fox Business Network isn't much of a business network.
Oh No They Didn't: Sesame Street Disavows American Apparel. No, really.
Joe My God: Whoops, male McCain voters lost more than an election last November, if ya know what I mean.
Jack & Jill Politics doesn't sugarcoat it about Cheney, and here's some motivational speaker advice for Dubya.
From Charlie Rose on PBS, Andrew Ross Sorkin discusses his new book Too Big to Fail. I highly recommend watching the entire interview if you've got an hour to spare. Wall Street has not learned their lessons even after as Sorkin puts it "they saw the world was about to fall off of its axis".
Watch the full interview here. Transcript here.
ANDREW SORKIN: And part of the thing that’s so interesting about them is they really were thinking ahead. It’s remarkable, at least to me, a board meeting in
Moscow in June -- not in September, in June -- where they are talking...CHARLIE ROSE: Goldman Sachs.
ANDREW SORKIN: A Goldman Sachs board meeting where they were talking about whether they need to become a bank holding company. Do they need deposits?
At one point they talk about whether they should buy -- are you ready for this -- AIG for the deposits, because they’re thinking if the future keeps going this direction where you need deposits and you need to be the equivalent of a bank holding company, maybe we should buy a company like that. Obviously it doesn’t go anywhere.
CHARLIE ROSE: Is there anything wrong with the fact that when AIG got all that TARP money they had to -- they paid out about $12, $13 billion to Goldman Sachs as a counterpart.
ANDREW SORKIN: I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time asking that question and tracing those two days. And I hope when you read it you really get to feel like you’re there and understand and appreciate what was going on.
And just to give it a little perspective, it really had happened now 24 hours after Lehman and Merrill had gone down, or Merrill had been sold to Bank of America.
The decision to give AIG $85 billion happened in the course of -- the first meeting was 8:00 a.m. Tuesday morning and by noon they decided to do it.
CHARLIE ROSE: Why did they do it?
ANDREW SORKIN: I think they saw the world was about to fall off of its axis. And, in fact, probably -- we were really quite close. And that would have been a very difficult decision.
Now, what they didn’t do was sit around the table, the conversation that we’ve had since then and say "Do you really need to pay out the full amounts to these banks? Could we give them a hair cut?"
CHARLIE ROSE: It was what, $40, $50 million?
ANDREW SORKIN: An extraordinary amount of money to banks throughout the world. And what if we’d gone into restructuring and said we’re not going to give you all this money? They didn’t have time to do that. They never really thought through that process. That never came up.
I mean, the funny and sad part about this entire book is many of the conversations -- the time, the amount of time that they are talking and thinking about these issues are much shorter than the amount of time we’ve been sitting and talking around this table now.
CHARLIE ROSE: How do you explain? Because they didn’t have time?
ANDREW SORKIN: There was no time. They were moving from meeting to meeting. They were running. They were racing. It really is -- it’s not a marathon, it’s a sprint. And they’re running out of their minds.
Investigative journalist Gerald Posner told MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan that the Taliban is using heroin as a tactical weapon against US soldiers. "They understand this is an additional weapon and getting their money, as you said, from the heroin and opium crop and looking at the possibility of hooking Americans not only on the cheap heroin but according to the U.S. intelligence report and picking up conversations, they developed the ability now for smokeable heroin," explained Posner.
The Daily Beast has more details here.
(Apple - Only album released in 1969 - dismal failure, but history had other plans)
There have been those bands whose first and only album came and went unnoticed at the time, but years later achieved Holy Grail status.
This was the case with Apple, a UK band that started in 1968 and promptly disbanded in 1969 and whose sole album "An Apple A Day" became one of the most sought after by collectors for years. Since they achieved no airplay and minimal sales, their reputation grew strictly by word of mouth and from the people who held on to their original vinyl copies like glue.
It's easy to see why. For anyone with a penchant for Psychedelia, Apple is right up your street without being too on-the-money. Probably because they were light on gimmicks it made them enduring over the years, and always good for conversation that starts with "I'll bet you never heard this before."
This track, Buffalo Billycan was actually issued as a single (one of several). Luckily for everyone, the album has been reissued on CD in Europe. So you don't have to go into hock to find a copy.
Is there really nothing more the White House can do about this? Seems like pretty weak tea to tell them to "think about it." Here's hoping there's some arm-twisting going on behind the scenes:
In the wake of reports that Goldman Sachs is set to pay a record 23 billion in bonuses this year, the President’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod told me this morning that he thinks big banks dishing out bonuses to their employees is “offensive” and advises banks to “think through what they are doing.”
“The bonuses are offensive and to the firms that still have federal TARP money there’s some jurisdiction, the pay master of Treasury is working on trying to limit that,” Axelrod said. “You’ve seen a lot of firms go to stock rather than cash, so at least people have a stake in the success of their company and they’re not just walking away with cash-making short-term decisions.”
“They ought to think through what they are doing and they ought to understand that a year ago a lot of these institutions were teetering on the brink and the United States government and taxpayers came to their defense. They have responsibilities and they ought to meet those responsibilities.”
Does anything illustrate the bubble some people live in better than this New York Times column?
BEATING up on the wealthy seems to be the order of day. I suspected that. But a recent Wealth Matters column touched a particularly raw nerve. It looked at how even people with sizable fortunes were concerned about money in this recession and the impact that could have on the rest of us.
Readers rejected the attempt to understand the concerns of the rich.
“That’s so stupid that you ought to be slapped for it,” one woman wrote. My favorite began: “Bowties and Reaganomics are for losers. You can cry for the rich all you want, the rest of us will be happy to see them get taxed.”
The vehemence in these e-mail messages made me wonder why so many people were furious at those who had more than they did.
Uh, because we're paying for it when we're out of work and don't have affordable health care?
And why are the rich shouldering the blame for a collective run of bad decision-making? After all, many of the rich got there through hard work. And plenty of not-so-rich people bought homes, cars and electronics they could not afford and then defaulted on the debt, contributing to the crash last year.
"Collective run of bad decision-making"? Let's back up there a minute, pal. As anyone with half a brain knows (yes, even people who write for the New York Times), the financial services industry pushed our country over the economic brink through an assortment of unethical and illegal practices. Someone maxing out their Visa is not exactly in the same category; they merely bought the crack. Wall Street marketed and sold the crack. See the difference?
But in this recession, anger flows one way. Eric Dammann, a Manhattan psychoanalyst, theorizes that a lot of people are angry that the rules of the game seem to have changed.
“There’s always been envy and hatred toward the rich, but there was also a strong undercurrent of admiration that was holding these people up as a goal,” Mr. Dammann said. “This time it’s different because it feels like it’s a closed club and the rich have an unfair advantage.”
Gee, ya think? When corporate gains are privatized and losses are socialized, you think maybe the working people have finally had enough of picking up the slack? Can you say "market manipulation"? Can you say "front running"?
What is troubling is that the anger has hardened for some into a suspicion that all wealthy people are motivated purely by self-interest, said Brad Klontz, a financial psychologist in Hawaii and a co-author of the forthcoming book, “Mind Over Money: Overcoming the Money Disorders That Threaten Our Financial Health” (Random House).
“The script goes like this: Money is bad, rich people are shallow and greedy, and people become rich by taking advantage of others,” Mr. Klontz said. “But the same people who say money is bad say money is connected to their self-worth — they wished they had it and you didn’t.”
Would you like me to explain the difference, Brad? People who have earned their money through providing a service or product, people who hire others and treat them fairly - we still admire those wealthy people. We'd like to be like them.
Wall St. traders - bloodsucking scum who, as Elizabeth Warren puts it, made their money through selling "tricks and traps" - tricks and traps that destroyed our economy and sent them running to Washington with their hands out - those wealthy people can kiss our collective grits.
Go read the rest. It's all about how "good" wealthy people are suffering by association, how they do their fair share, they fund scholarships, live "modest" lives...
Let's be blunt, shall we, Mr. and Mrs. Wealthy Person? You get hefty tax write-offs for those donations. Yes, you like the feeling of helping, but you really like the tax write-offs - and your pictures in the society pages. Wealthy people haven't been paying their fair share of taxes for a really long time, but like to think they're "giving back" quite enough through supporting charities. (Oh, and it's voluntary. Unlike the banking bailout the rest of us are paying for.)
You're not giving back anywhere near what you're taking. Seen the pictures on the news of Americans lining up like cattle for free health care? That's our reality. So if you really want to help, start lobbying to change the tax laws. Support real healthcare reform.
Because for some odd reason, they don't pay much attention to us.
I interviewed Michael Moore for a few minutes in between his media stops about his new movie called Capitalism, A Love Story which I reviewed here. As we discussed his film, the topic of conservatism, hate speech and FOX News came up and I asked him if he would consider going back on FOX News again. His responses were interesting and I think FOX News will go scrambling to book him after they hear what Michael had to say. I also think Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck will not be happy campers.
Amato: Would you ever go back on FOX again?
Moore: Yes,I would go back on FOX again. I would not go on Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck because they use far too much hate speech and calls for violence and I cannot participate with anyone that goes down that road.
I stayed off because somebody at the studio told me that whenever I go on their ratings go up and I'm not interested in helping them sell products and make money for themselves and having said that I'm ready to tee up (garbled audio, but I think he said Hannity) Hannity I think pretty soon.Amato: That would get huge ratings and it's also really enjoyable to see you kick them around because you know the type of Democrat that go on most of the time that are just so weak and that's the way they like them so that they can serve them up and kick them around.
Moore: Then I will make a point during this tour to try and go on one of their shows and give them something-something...
Amato: Do it for the blogosphere! (laughs)
Moore: Do it for the blogosphere. This one's for you!
The attacks on President Obama by FOX News programs have been profoundly upsetting and as much as I object at times to lefties that go on FOX, I have to say that it would be very enjoyable to see Michael smack down Roger Ailes crew. Do you think Michael will go on Hannity since he won't do they Beck or O'Reilly? Sheppard Smith might be a good choice. And you can be sure that O'Reilly will whine about this. The reason I asked the question is because I've seen Moore duke it out with Bill O'Reilly before and they were very good segments to watch.
John Amato: This is John Amato from Crooks and Liars and I am joined by the great movie maker Michael Moore and he has a new movie out "Capitalism: A Love Story." Hey Michael, thanks for joining me.
Michael Moore: Thanks for having me here.
John Amato: I just want to say one thing here before we get going. How about those Lions?
Michael Moore: [laughing] It's been two years, and if they had to beat somebody it might as well have been the Washington Redskins. But I feel sorry for the Redskins as it’s going to be a trivia answer for the next few decades.
I went through this a few years ago. I deposited a check right before a holiday weekend at an ATM and they didn't clear the check for ten days - even though my online account already showed it as cleared. This is what debit cards do now: They let you take money out that isn't there.
They charged me $35 for every single one of my debit card transactions (it came to more than $400). When I called my bank's customer service hotline, they told me it was in my service agreement that it could take 10 days to clear something deposited at a "foreign" ATM - even though they all belonged to the same STAR network. I argued with them, but they wouldn't budge.
So I called their corporate communications officer, told them I was writing a story about my experience (noting I'd found a class-action suit filed against them for this very thing) and asked for an official statement to include in my piece. Magically, my charges disappeared and I got an apology. "You've been a customer for such a long time, we'll make an exception this time," I was told.
Isn't America great?
Controversial bank account fees, which have fattened banks' bottom lines at the expense of vulnerable consumers, are rapidly becoming a black eye for the industry.
Under siege are the fees charged to consumers who spend more than they have in their accounts, whether by check, debit card or at the ATM.
Last week, four of the nation's largest banks said they would scale back some of their overdraft policies. Their efforts, while meaningful, have failed to appease lawmakers, including powerful Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who is preparing legislation to crack down on what he calls a pattern of "abusive" practices.
At first glance, banks' practices seem reasonable enough: Overdraw your account, and the bank will cover the transaction — for a fee. The problem is, most banks don't ask consumers if they want their transactions automatically paid. In recent years, as banks realized how lucrative these fees can be, they've made it easier for consumers to overdraw their accounts, to the tune of $36.7 billion in revenue last year, USA TODAY research has found.
Banks have done this by covering debit card transactions as small as $1 and charging a fee as high as $35. Some also charge fees before consumers overdraw by deducting a purchase when it's made, instead of when it clears. And they've processed transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount — which empties consumers' accounts quicker and triggers more overdrafts.
Ironically, the changes banks have made to their overdraft policies are only fueling calls to reform the entire industry. Overdraft coverage can be less regulated and cost more than other high-cost (and equally criticized) options, including payday loans, in an estimated $70 billion short-term credit market. On average, consumers will pay a fee of $26.68 every time they overdraw their account, according to data from Moebs Services, an economic research firm. That means that if consumers overdraw by $100, they'd pay an annual percentage rate (APR) of 696%, if the credit is paid back in two weeks, according to a USA TODAY analysis. This compares with an APR of 450% on a $100 payday loan with an average fee of $17.25.
"When consumers (overdraw) recurrently, it is a credit product, and they're paying eye-popping rates," says Sheila Bair, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chair, who is pushing for banks to get consumers' permission before covering overdrafts, for a fee, and to disclose APRs.
Remember during the stimulus debate, when the Republicans told us birth control funds didn't have a damned thing to do with the economy - and the Democrats, as usual, knuckled under to them?
The Guttmacher Institute has just released a report on the impact of the recession on family planning, and the results are predictable - at least, if you're a normal (i.e. non-wingnut) person. Via Salon:
This summer, researchers surveyed 947 women between the ages of 18 and 34 with household incomes of less than $75,000. They found that women are preoccupied by worry about money, medical costs and childcare. Most of the women hope to get pregnant later on or have decided against having kids because of these tough times -- and that's even more common among women who are less well-off than they were a year ago. A total of 64 percent agreed with the statement, "With the economy the way it is, I can’t afford to have a baby right now."
These findings are all rather intuitive, but what this actually means for pregnancy prevention is less straightforward. A total of 29 percent say they are "more careful" than before about using contraception every time they have sex. There is a flip-side to that, though: Eight percent of women are using birth control less regularly as a means of saving money and, among women in financial decline, that number rises to 12 percent. Things are even sketchier among women on the pill: 18% are popping hormones irregularly to save some cash -- either by missing pills, filling their prescription late, taking at least one month off or picking up fewer packs at a time. That number balloons to 25 percent when it comes to the category of worse-off women.
Overall, 23 percent are having a tougher time than a year ago covering the cost of birth control and -- again, say it with me now -- that number is higher among women whose finances have dwindled. The upshot: Those who are least capable of affording the cost of a child are putting themselves at the greatest risk for an unplanned pregnancy. Women also report avoiding appointments with their gynecologists in the last year -- especially those who have recently lost their health insurance.
I don't know that it matters how cleverly the president sidestepped George Stephanopoulos on this question: People are still going to view it as a tax increase, and they're angry about it:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate...
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here -- here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...
OBAMA: No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. Any...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the...
OBAMA: What -- what -- if I -- if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that's not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I -- I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but...
OBAMA: ...what you're saying is...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
One constant theme which needs dealing with is the idea that the country is more conservative than liberal and that centrists are needed to hold off horrible conservative things from happening.
More than that, this is an argument for oligarchy. What I see is that the majority of people, in poll after poll, want single payer. A huge majority want the public option, yet odds are decent you won't even get that.
When people talk of left-center coalitions the center part include a large number of Senators (like Diane Feinstein) who won't do what the majority of their constituents want them to do. At this point centrist = captured by monied interests.
Odds are if Obama wanted single payer, the House could pass it. It'd be close, but they could get it done. The House is the more representative body of the two bodies, the Senate is deliberately retrograde.
When I look at the US what I see is a banana republic, because it doesn't act like a democracy. I see people who think that the Senate, or even the House, actually does what the American people want. Again and again, Congress does things that the majority disagree with. In 2006 the Dems were elected to end the war in Iraq, for example, and refused to do so (though again, the House at least went through the motion, the Senate didn't even make an effort). Oh, Congress will sometimes do what the majority want—when that's what it was going to do anyway.
The plan to fix this is simple enough and always has been.
[H/t Heather]
Nutbag wingnuts never ever go away even when they lose their tiny radio shows. They just come back again and again and again. Big money republicans always keep their wingnuts around in one form or another.
Anyway, Conservatives are crying a little more than usual lately because their racism has been so prominently displayed in their teabagger meetings and protests. And what do you know, my old pal Mark Williams is leading a teabagger party and his racism gets exposed by Anderson Cooper last night quite easily. He lies with the best of them and got caught by Anderson. Check it out.
COOPER: But I mean, Mark, what you're saying makes sense to me here when I'm hearing what you're saying. But then I read on your blog, you say -- you call the president an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COOPER: Is that the kind of...
WILLIAMS: That's the way he's behaving.
COOPER: But I mean...
WILLIAMS: I mean, if he cares to be...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Do you believe he's Indonesian? Do you believe he's a Muslim? Do you really believe he's a welfare thug?
WILLIAMS: He's certainly acting like it.
GERGEN: You think he's a racist in chief? Racist in chief? Is that what you called him? That's unbelievable. It's unbelievable,
WILLIAMS: Until he embraces the whole country -- what else can I conclude? He and guys like James are totally, totally isolating the rest of this country; if you're a working-class American, then you know, that's it.
CARVILLE: I tell you, if you're an American, and you like what you're hearing from this guy, if you like celebrating a man's death, go over there with these people.
Mark Williams found his new calling by joining up with the teabaggers which seems like a good fit to me since there was no where for him to go after he lost his radio show in Sacramento. In the segment he tries to downplay the psychos that make up a large part of the teabaggers and says there is no racism and then is exposed as a racist. You can't make this up.
Here's some context on this guy. His behavior was so outlandish that I've posted several clips of him over the years and he doesn't like me so much. I remember when I called Williams "Puke" in a post for his obnoxious comments he made on Hardball about Cindy Sheehan's son during Cindy's stand at Crawford ranch back in August of 2005.
O'Donnell: "Mark, if you don't mind, you're making the case that Cindy Sheehan is hurting the morale of our troops?"
Williams: "She is aiding and abetting the enemies of this country and the people who killed her son. And right now Casey Sheehan is spinning in his grave!"
And the best response he could make to me was that I was trying to have his dog assassinated.
After Katrina hit, he acted like the lowest of the low when he attacked Katrina victims by saying they were too dumb and lazy to get out of NOLA.
Williams: ..they didn't have the necessary brains and common sense to get out of the way of a Cat 5 Hurricane and then when it hit them- stood on the side of the convention Center expiring while reporters were coming and going..
Morris:...that's just sickening---that is atrocious what you are saying...
He calls Kanye West a racist while he spews racism.
Williams: The only role race plays in this is that the American black population has been the prototype for an entire race of people being, being turned into a group of dependents of the government--trapped there, I'm using that word very loosely are screaming we want help, we want help..
This is a man who is leading the teabagger brigade and is lapping up the attention. I hope the media sees these clips so they know who they are dealing with.
Bill Moyers visited the set of Real Time, and had an honest discussion about why we're going to be lucky to see any real reform on health care with all of the money being thrown at both the Republican and Democratic parties from the insurance industries, big pharma, and Wall Street. Bill is exactly right here, and this needs to be looked at as a moral issue, and not what's in the interest of corporate profits or a good business model.
Crooks and Liars turned five years old this past month. Wow, 5 years without a week off...LOL....I remember my best friend asking me when I first started C&L, why was I wasting my time "blogging?" I told him because I had to.
For those of you who want to send a little something to help pay the server costs, every buck counts. We do NOT get money from Soros or any other liberal grant. Thanks.
