Saturday, July 14, 2012

Free stuff, secret stuff

I had hoped to ignore the fallout over Mitt Romney's speech to the NAACP, because acquiring footage of Mitt being booed by blacks was, quite obviously, his purpose in giving the speech. But Matt Taibbi makes a superb point. Romney cracked that people who expect "free stuff" should vote for the other guy. To which Taibbi responds:
As far as free lunches go, we of course just witnessed the biggest government handout in history, one that Romney himself endorsed. Four and a half trillion dollars in bailout money already disbursed, trillions more still at risk in guarantees and loans, sixteen trillion dollars in emergency lending from the Federal Reserve, two trillion in quantitative easing, etc. etc. All of this money went to Romney’s pals in the Wall Street banks that for years helped Romney take over companies with mountains of borrowed cash. Now, after these banks crashed, executives at those same firms used those public funds to pay themselves massive salaries, which is exactly the opposite of “helping those who need help,” if you’re keeping score.
Other politicians have made racist appeals before, but few have done so in such a calculated, passion-free fashion:
He’s like a teenager who stays up all night thinking of a way to impress the prom queen, and what he comes up with is kicking a kid in a wheelchair.
By the way...

Romney refuses to offer more than two years of his tax returns. His attempts to turn the controversy around on Obama seem strident and unconvincing. The guy really is acting like he has something serious to hide.
The attacks are "beneath the dignity of the president and his campaign," Romney told ABC News, adding they reflected "Chicago-style politics at its worst."

Obama had promised a different approach when he ran last time, Romney said.

The former Massachusetts governor said a report had revealed the Obama campaign had "a strategy of trying to 'kill Romney,' and that's what they are trying to do. He's sure as heck got to say sorry for the kinds of attacks that are coming from his team. It's very disappointing on his part."
“It’s demeaning. It’s disgusting,” Romney insisted at one point in the interview.
“Is that what’s really expected from the campaign of the sitting president of the United States,” Romney asked. “There’s no question but that his campaign is putting out information which is false and deceptive and dishonest. And they know it.”
"If you're defending, you're losing." Mitt was dumb enough to repeat those very words in a recent interview, a slip which indicates that his handlers have permanently imprinted that directive in his consciousness. But that maxim, like all political maxims, cannot be applied mindlessly.

You're also losing if you look desperate. And you look desperate if you accuse your opponent of dishonesty while refusing to provide documentation that could prove your point.
I dont get it.

If Romneys IRA really does have about 100mn dollars in it, it is prima facie evidence of tax fraud.

We understand that you cannot put more than 5000 dollars in an IRA every year.

We understand that reasonable people wouldnt claim the ability to make investments which make 100% percent returns consistently over 20 years.

So either Mitt and Bain are the best investors ever, and put Buffett to shame, or when he put those securities into his IRA he lied about the initial value of the securities. This is a form of tax fraud. He sheltered income and capital gains from tax by fraudulent declaration.

It is as clear as day. After all, 5000x30 = 150,000

150,000x1.24^30 = 95mn.

So Mitt appears to have made 24% compounded over 30 years. Approx.

No. Bullshit.


This guy will say and do anything for more money and more power. I've never seen any one so thoroughly lack a moral compass. I hate it when you have to vote the lesser of two evils but this is definitely one of the most obvious cases of it ever. All these articles have him nailed. What a sociopath!
All of this is true...

we of course just witnessed the biggest government handout in history...Four and a half trillion dollars in bailout money already disbursed, trillions more still at risk in guarantees and loans, sixteen trillion dollars in emergency lending from the Federal Reserve, two trillion in quantitative easing, etc. etc.

...and the writer blames Romney...except it was Obama who is/was personally responsible for this corruption. Glad to see the accounting of Obama's war/financial crimes blamed on somebody who was not President...not even in office. Obama supporters are pathetic in their attempts at passing the buck.

Oh yeah, Obama's gonna win, so you guys can stop cheering so hard for his crimes while in's disgusting.
Romney spent a lot of his own money four years ago in his bid to become president.

No matter what he is worth, the fact he spent his own money and lost wealth as a result is not necessarily a bad thing.
S Brennen: You need to get your facts straight if you intend to make a cogent argument and not one based on residual anger.

The Wall Street Bailouts were a Bush response in 2008. In fact, Romney was so happy about them he gave Bush all the credit back then!

"Answering a question during a campaign event in Maryland, Romney both condemned the 2009 bailout of troubled automakers engineered by President Obama while praising the Troubled Asset Relief Program authorized in fall of 2008 to prop up the financial services industry."

So, if you're going to blame Obama for bailouts you better blame him for the Auto Bailouts. The Wall Street Bailouts came from Paulson and Bush.

Then, there's the little problem with the Monetary Policy accusation. Monetary Policy comes from the FOMC and Bernanke. The federal government--including the President--have nothing to do with it. So you can't blame him for QE or anything like that either. The Fed is an independent organization owned by its member banks. It is not a Federal Agency. It receives no Federal Funds what so ever. The President can't do one damned thing about monetary policy.

You've obviously got so much residual anger problems that you're ignoring basic facts. That doesn't make for good decision making and it makes for looking like a complete idiot in a blog post.

Rant about drone wars and targeted assassinations of US citizens if you really want to find something to be mad at Obama about ...

don't just make shit up
"You need to get your facts straight...The Wall Street Bailouts were a Bush response in 2008...don't just make shit up" - posted by dakinikat : 3:44 PM

TARP was dead, calls were 99:1 in every congressman's office...dead as a Norwegian Blue until...then Senator Obama started whipping for it.
Here, dealing with pathological liars isn't my thing...this guy will give folks who might believe your lies a run down of 2008
Re: Harry IRA Fraud
I imagine that Romney has a Roth IRA.

In that case, the funds that go into the Roth IRA are after tax and only the gains are tax sheltered. One can have a Roth IRA and a regular IRA. The regular IRA is much more restrictive.

2011 was a good year to take out the regular IRA over to a Roth IRA because the government loosened a few rules. The reason the government did that was to receive more taxes in 2011 instead of some future date.
"Monetary Policy comes from...Bernanke. The federal government--including the President--have nothing to do with it." - posted by dakinikat why did Obama reappoint Bernanke? Hmmmm...liar..liar...pants on fire?
Idakinkat is right about the bailouts, though not totally. Bush didn't spend most of the TARP (bailout). Obama disbursed a good portion of that money, including the auto bailouts, which I did not approve. Most of the bailout to the banks was not through TARP, but by the Federal Reserve. Trillions went to save the banks, bloating the Fed balance sheet with MBS (mortgage backed securities) and other assets that the banks held. Another way that the Fed continues to bail out the financial system (banks and stocks) is through excessive money printing. The direct result of the money printing is higher cost of oil and other commodities, hence higher prices of gasoline, staples, heating oil, etc. Inflation has skyrocketed, imho. It's the little people that are paying to support a broken financial system. I do not absolve Obama from the policies of the Fed. The truth is that the Fed is doing what it can to hold the system from falling apart because Obama is ineffective as president.
I need to add to what I said regarding the Fed balance sheet. One must understand that when the Fed bought all those MBS and other assets from the banks, the taxpayer took the risk of securities that rightly belongs to the banks. The Fed still holds a good portion of those MBS the last time I looked at the balance sheet. I don't know if the Fed disposed of the assets at a discounted price because the Fed is not transparent with its transactions and nobody in government can oversee what it does.
SB: Reappointing Bernanke has nothing to do with presidential interference in monetary policy. The FOMC which is made up of Five the District Presidents, the chair, the vice chair and 7 of the BOG appointments--many of which are actually Bush appointments--do monetary policy. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is appalling. The only thing the chair does is set the agenda for the meeting. He's ONE vote. PERIOD. I have worked for FED Atlanta at a time when the president was serving on the FOMC. I'm a financial economist specializing in monetary economics and global finance. I'm published in peer reviewed journals and I present papers at meetings. If you want to quote any one to me, quote an actual economist or some one who knows what they're talking about. Calling me names just basically proves my assertion that your opinions are coming from anger and not any thing remotely resembling knowledge, facts, data, or reality.
Anonymous is right. If anything is influencing the what the FED is doing right now it's the failure of Fiscal Policy which is the responsibility of the Congress and the President. They both deserve blame. The first stimulus was no where big enough and since the Republicans took over Congress there has been nothing but recessionary policy for political reasons. The states are doing everything in their power to create a depression too. Monetary policy has been a reaction to abysmal fiscal policy.
Maybe Kat can back up my big scoop about Bernanke. I'm talking about the story I published on April 1 of this year, in which I revealed that Ben Bernanke is a witch.

I wonder why that one didn't get more play...?
"I'm a financial economist specializing in monetary economics and global finance. I'm published in peer reviewed journals and I present papers at meetings. If you want to quote any one to me, quote an actual economist" - dakinikat

This guy

In all of human history, I can't think of a more discredited group of "professionals" than economist...okay maybe astrologers...maybe not, they have a better batting average.

In any event, if Obama wanted change, he never made an effort.

The whole Obama campaign [and his apologetic supporters] is

1] Blame the power of Bush presidency,

2] Obama is too weak to do any good

3] and isn't Romney scarey.

All of them have a place, but not in the absence of anything else.

Meanwhile Obama continues to institutionalized Bush policies.

BTW, I'm an Aeronautical Engineer with some significant achievements...and i would never think to advance an argument using credentials for substance and in such an unprofessional manner as you have.

Well, Joesph it's an election year and you / your board is an Obama billboard [yawn].
Fine. SB. Next time we get into a discussion about aerodynamics I'll be sure to quote some one who belongs to the Flat Earth Society living in Outer Mongolia. That a good enough source for you? Surely, as long as he's completely against Obama and it fits your narrative that source will be just the ultimate authority on things. You should actually READ Cannon rather than just coming over and dumping angry, deranged, misstatements. No one here thinks Obama should be up there on Mt. Rushmore. We're just rational enough and fact based enough to see through Romney and be VERY afraid of the modern Republican party. I'm most likely going to vote GREEN if I vote at all. Louisiana's going red no matter what I do. I just refuse to watch some hysterical, angry person spread lies. We have enough of that.

Joe, I'm gonna have to go back and check that witch theory out. It certainly sounds more credible than what SB's been reading these days. Fed conspiracy theories are as old as the hills, you know and still based in right wing la la land.
"You should actually READ Cannon rather than just coming over and dumping angry, deranged, misstatements." - dakinikat

Ho hum...let's set the way back Thursday, December 24, 2009

No, but I did "vocally" [on blogs] oppose Obama throughout the primaries CORRECTLY pointing out that Obama was more right wing than anyone in modern history, save "Bush The Second".

And I do like the piece, however, I feel the use of the term Bro/Bros does offend the Afro-American community.

Why? Well, as I am/was constantly pointing out, Obama's implicit/explicit use of words to conflate his background with blacks & working class, are lies and half truths. Black culture only enters his life after he has achieved 21 years of age, full manhood in every sense. Black folks, black culture should not be tainted/conflated with this man, he grew up white, he lived immersed in white culture and privilege. What ever Obama is, he is not a "Bro", he is not a member of the Afro American community. From Corrente:

"I find the idea of man who went to the most expensive/exclusive high school in Hawaii [Denier Alert, I know somebody who went there]...a man who could go "back" to school at Harvard on a whim being from;

"a working class family...remember[ing]...the struggle and empathiz[ing] with the working classes" somewhat nauseating. - Tina

Pres. Obama might have more pigment in his skin than many caucasians, but he was raised by a white family and for the most part in upper class white neighborhoods. His ONLY contact with the Afro-American community was the servants that worked in his household and he did not think enough of them to merit mention, so it could not have been that close of a relationship.

Now clearly his mother lacked "empathy" and was in the vernacular of day, a "cold" mother, indifferent to the needs of a young Barry and that was...truly a hardship. However, such hardship is not that of poverty and does not usually create empathy, rather it has a tendency to produce sociopaths who lack the quality of empathy.

The fact that Obama has continually obscured his wealthy background and the despicable treatment by his mother should be seen as further evidence that he does not wish to come to terms with [his privileged white /emotionally barren background]*, instead he seeks the approval of powerful [white] people to validate himself and anneal childhood wounds...which wasn't poverty, but an uncaring mother.

*this block of text added to replace the word "it"

Hopefully this makes it through...whether you agree with me or not, this critical to understanding what went wrong. As you said Joseph, the man should have been judged by his lack of character, not the color of his skin.

posted by S Brennan : 2:32 PM
"Re: Harry IRA Fraud
I imagine that Romney has a Roth IRA.

In that case, the funds that go into the Roth IRA are after tax and only the gains are tax sheltered. One can have a Roth IRA and a regular IRA. The regular IRA is much more restrictive."

But if you misvalue the securities going into either you will mistake your tax liabilities and illegally shelter assets. The key is the initial valuation.

Even if it was a Roth, if you put $100mn dollars in and claim it is worth 5 cents you will be cheating on your taxes.

Secondly, how would Romney qualify for a Roth

"Here are a few of the rules to be eligible to fully contribute to a Roth IRA:
If you are a single tax filer your modified adjusted gross income needs to be less than $105,000. Married tax filers need their income to be less than $167,000.
The maximum annual contribution is $5,000 per person. Married couples can contribute $10,000. If you are 50 or older you can contribute $6,000 per person annually due to a catch-up provision.
Your contributions can be withdrawn at any time and are not tax deductible because they are made in after tax dollars."

S -- now, stop it. Kat -- nobody's reading this thread anymore, so a reply is not worth your while.

Really, though, I thought that "Bernanke is a witch" thing would be huge. But it didn't catch on. Y'see, Yale has Skull and Bones, and everyone knows about that. I figured that Harvard needed something similar. So I really thought the article would start a cult of fear around Harvard's Winthrop House.

Well, I'll publicize that story again, some other year.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?