Please Don’t Compare Conservatives to Scrooge, They’re Not That Smart or Generous

Holiday sacrifices.

 

Rather than asking if a falling tree in the forest makes a sound if  no one is there to hear it, we ask if two blockheads screw-up big time does it really matter – Gingrich, Perry disqualified from Va. primary ballot

The rejection is a significant setback for the Gingrich campaign since he is leading the polls in Virginia among likely Republican voters and is seen as a strong contender for the nomination.

On the other hand ubder conservatives presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum did not bother submit signatures. Neither did the relatively, among this field anyway, moderate Republican Jon Huntsman. I was going to get into some possible reasons why Huntsman has not caught on with conservatives. He has far less baggage than Romney, Newt, Paul and Perry. For any conservative candidate to win the nomination they’ll need Wall Street. Romney is leading among candidates for Wall Street contributions. Still Romney has supported his own version of ObamaCare and taken so many unprincipled positions based on prevailing political wins, what it is about Romney, or about Huntsman that Wall Street doesn’t like?  Break Up the Banks – It makes no sense to keep bailing out bankers while demanding austerity for everyone else.

Santa Claus came early this year for four former executives of Washington Mutual, which failed in 2008. The executives reached a settlement with the FDIC, which sued them for taking huge financial risks while “knowing that the real estate market was in a ‘bubble.’ ” The FDIC had sought to recover $900 million, but the executives have just settled for $64 million, almost all of which will be paid by their insurers; their out-of-pockets costs are estimated at just $400,000.

To be sure, the executives lost their jobs and now must drop claims for additional compensation. But, according to the FDIC, the four still earned more than $95 million from January 2005 through September 2008. This is what happens when financial executives are compensated for “return on equity” unadjusted for risk. The executives get the upside when things go well; when the downside risks materialize, they lose nothing (or close to it).

At the same time, their actions and similar actions by other bankers are directly responsible for both the run-up in housing prices and the damaging collapse that followed. That collapse has impacted nonbankers negatively in many ways, including the loss of more than 8 million jobs.

That doesn’t sound just like what the OWS movement is saying or econmists like Paul Krugman has been saying for years, it sounds like what you could hear at millions of kitchen table discussions across the country. In other words way too genuinely populist for most of this cycles crop of conservatives, excpet Huntsman,

But capitalism without the prospect of failure is not any kind of market economy. We are running a large-scale, nontransparent, and dangerous government subsidy scheme for the benefit primarily of a very few extremely wealthy people.

Jon Huntsman, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is addressing this directly—insisting that we should force the largest banks to break up and to become safer.No other candidate is seriously confronting this issue head-on: Just saying “we’ll let them fail” is no kind of answer when the failure of megabanks would cause so much damage.

We should learn from both Washington Mutual and the Occupy movement. In both cases, the lesson is the same: Concentrated financial power is a gift that keeps on giving—but not to you.

 

Why is Huntsman hanging in. he seems to be seriously running, though not for president. Vice-president? Secretary of State? In whoever’s administration.

Booman has Perry and Gingrich pegged – Amateur Hour for GOP Candidates

May I submit that you can’t seriously hope to be the leader of the free world if you can’t even get your crap together to get your name on the ballot? No one should take you seriously in Iowa if we know you’re not even going to be on the ballot in Virginia.

Virginia is not considered the kind of make or break state that states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania are, but it is an important upper mid-tier state. So it doesn’t matter whether it is incompetence or laziness(I’m looking at you Newt) they’ve made the rest of the campaign a very uphill battle.

When is that so-called liberal media going to start holding Mitt Romney accountable for his lies. They not coming fast and furious at this point, lying is all he does. Media continues letting Romney claims skate by unchecked. The beltway media always seems to crumble at the feet of conservatives.Have to keep those cushy six figure jobs with the corporate media or there goes the McMansion in the burbs.

Obama says he’s not bound by Guantanamo, gun-control provisions. The use of presidential signing statements continues to be used in a way that is Constitutionally tenuous.If any president feels they are about to sign legislation into law that is unconstitutional they should not sign it.There is a popular expression that people use after making a clear definitive statement – just say’n. That is what Bush did and Obama is doing. That Obama is only doing it a fraction of the number of times is some, but small consolation. *As usual the right-wing trolls in the comment section totally dismiss Bush’s record breaking use of signing statements. The few that Obama has used make him the usual socialist anti-christ marxist dictator. Which if true, than judging by proportion Bush 43 was Satan incarnate.

 

Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory

In its first decision on the laws, Justice’s Civil Rights Division said South Carolina’s statute is discriminatory because its registered minority voters are nearly 20 percent more likely than whites to lack a state-issued photo ID. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, South Carolina is one of a number of states that are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” on voting changes to ensure that they don’t hurt minorities’ political power.

“The absolute number of minority citizens whose exercise of the franchise could be adversely affected by the proposed requirements runs into the tens of thousands,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said in a letter to South Carolina officials.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) called the decision “outrageous” and said she plans to seek “every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights.”

Dear Governor Haley, per your 10th Amendment nonsense see some decent history books on Abe Lincoln, the Civil War and Jim Crow. Like all conservatives Nikki works part-time as a shrill dispenser of false outrage.

Steve Bennen brings up a fair point about the DOJ’s decision – Justice Dept. targets SC voter-ID law

This is also, by the way, another one of those “parties matter” moments, of which there have been many lately. Remember, in 2005, career staffers in the Justice Department’s Voting Section found that Georgia’s voter-ID law was discriminatory and should be rejected — only to see Bush/Cheney officials override their own experts’ judgment and approve the proposal.

If a McCain or Romney administration were in power right now, we’d very likely see something similar.

Voter fraud is in The Big Book of Republican Conspiracy Theories for Dummies.

If lies about Fannie May and Freddie Mac causing the financial collapse were worth cash I would have collected a small fortune by now – The Big Lie

Thus has Peter Wallison, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, almost single-handedly created the myth that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis. His partner in crime is another A.E.I. scholar, Edward Pinto, who a very long time ago was Fannie’s chief credit officer. Pinto claims that as of June 2008, 27 million “risky” mortgages had been issued — “and a lion’s share was on Fannie and Freddie’s books,” as Wallison wrote recently. Never mind that his definition of “risky” is so all-encompassing that it includes mortgages with extremely low default rates as well as those with default rates nearing 30 percent. These latter mortgages were the ones created by the unholy alliance between subprime lenders and Wall Street. Pinto’s numbers are the Big Lie’s primary data point.

[  ]…Central to Wallison’s argument is that the government’s effort to encourage homeownership among low- and moderate-income Americans is what led to the crisis. Fannie and Freddie, which were required by law to meet certain “affordable housing mandates,” were the primary instruments of that government policy; their need to meet those mandates, says Wallison, is what caused them to dive so heavily into those “risky” mortgages. And because they were powerful forces in the housing market, their entry into subprime dragged along the rest of the mortgage industry.

But the S.E.C. complaint makes almost no mention of affordable housing mandates. Instead, it charges that the executives were motivated to begin buying subprime mortgages — belatedly, contrary to the Big Lie — because they were trying to reclaim lost market share, and thus maximize their bonuses.

As Karen Petrou, a well-regarded bank analyst, puts it: “The S.E.C.’s facts paint a picture in which it wasn’t high-minded government mandates that did [Fannie and Freddie] wrong, but rather the monomaniacal focus of top management on market share.” As I wrote on Tuesday, Fannie and Freddie, rather than leading the housing industry astray, got into riskier mortgages only after the horse was out of the barn. They were becoming irrelevant in the most profitable segment of the market — subprime. And that they couldn’t abide.

Mortgages originated for private securitization defaulted at much higher rates than those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization

The Federal Reserve has also agreed with Joe Nocera about Freddie and Fannie; private banks held the vast majority of sub-prime loans. That would be because such loans did not pass Fannie and Freddie requirements.

Advertisements