Dear GOP, regarding Birthers

[Dimmauk]

I'm surprised the GOP isn't also blowing the cover off of Obama's parents' secret.

Obama is adopted, Stanley Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. were actually homosexual male partners who adopted Obama as a newborn in Hawaii, after he was abandoned there by his true African parents. He really was born in Africa about a week prior to being abandoned in Hawaii and subsequently found by Stan and Barack.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/...e6c22e.jpg?v=0

Obama is Tarzan Jesus.

[Mizango]

5 TX Cosponsors...thanks guys, seriously...even one in my backyard. Only consolation I have is that I didn't vote for Marchant...but still, wtf...

Mu....must..r..r..resist.....

[Maxxthepenguin]

well most of the stimulus bill was in tax cuts and funds to help the social safety net. Unlike China's stimulus bill which is almost all infrastructure stimulus yours is not meant solely to create jobs, its more of a sustain the economy bill.


The bailout was an unfortunate necessity. The reality of multiple large bank failures would cause immeasureable damage to the economy. You can only help that the banks will pay it back in full sometime in the near future.

Most of the banks have paid it back and, overall, we're profiting off of much of the deal. I'd say the bank bailout is working fine.

[Olo401]

Most of the banks have paid it back and, overall, we're profiting off of much of the deal.

I heard this last night on NPR - the gov't has made something like $8 billion so far on the loans that have been paid back. That's about a 1% ROI - much higher than the current Fed lending rate, in other words FANTASTIC.

[Kuya]

I really do hope, you guys are simply superficially praising the bailout because the government got the banks to repay the loans, and not just doing so because it constitutes a "Score one for the Democrats!", because while you seem to think that having the banks pay back some of the money that was lent to them (they are not paying back all the money that was lent to them, for example Goldman Sachs has not payed and does not intend to pay the 15 million (or was it billions?) that it got via AIG) is fantastic, in reality, this only consolidated bank power and made the system even more unstable. Furthermore it reprented the most starkest sign that the government is way too influenced by external institutions.

[Ksandra]

I saw this on cnn yesterday, didn't realize how widespread it's become. Shit's completely retarded. Half these people probably can't even read what the law is in the first place, and are just assuming what it means by what others have said.


Also, my parents never fought in world war II, DOES THIS MEAN I'M NOT AMERICAN?!?

I think that lady woud say, "no"

[Stiker]

Mu....must..r..r..resist.....

Miz, I set it on a damn tee. Hit it out of the park.

Seriously disappointed me right there man.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I really do hope, you guys are simply superficially praising the bailout because the government got the banks to repay the loans, and not just doing so because it constitutes a "Score one for the Democrats!", because while you seem to think that having the banks pay back some of the money that was lent to them (they are not paying back all the money that was lent to them, for example Goldman Sachs has not payed and does not intend to pay the 15 million (or was it billions?) that it got via AIG) is fantastic, in reality, this only consolidated bank power and made the system even more unstable. Furthermore it reprented the most starkest sign that the government is way too influenced by external institutions.

Well, it's not "score one for the Democrats" as the bank bailout was done under Bush's watch and was organized by Bush appointees. It did consolidate bank power and that's how they're pulling record profits, but the banks are pulling profits now, and that's a good thing.
Ideologically we can argue differently, but the reality is now we have functioning banks again.

[Kuya]

Well, it's not "score one for the Democrats" as the bank bailout was done under Bush's watch and was organized by Bush appointees. It did consolidate bank power and that's how they're pulling record profits, but the banks are pulling profits now, and that's a good thing.
Ideologically we can argue differently, but the reality is now we have functioning banks again.

You don't seem to understand. With further consolidated banks, you have even higher risks to the system, even more so if there is little to no financial reform (and there hardly has been any). Not only does this mean that there are less banks competing, it also means that the ones in the market are now even closer to the government, and have even more power to use to influence the government. They are major risks and they will simply lead to the same problem, but even bigger in the future. What should have been done in the first place, was complete nationalization of the banks and their subsequent fragmentation. No bank that is too big to fail should ever exist.

[Olo401]

I really do hope, you guys are simply superficially praising the bailout because the government got the banks to repay the loans, and not just doing so because it constitutes a "Score one for the Democrats!", because while you seem to think that having the banks pay back some of the money that was lent to them (they are not paying back all the money that was lent to them, for example Goldman Sachs has not payed and does not intend to pay the 15 million (or was it billions?) that it got via AIG) is fantastic, in reality, this only consolidated bank power and made the system even more unstable. Furthermore it reprented the most starkest sign that the government is way too influenced by external institutions.

No it's only a positive in that the government is indeed bringing in revenue along with the return of bailout funds.

The fact that absolutely NO changes have been made to strengthen regulation of the banking or financial services industries is a larger negative though - I completely agree with you.

[njitjk68]

Old news, but having banks pay back TARP money with interest and banks making profit recently sounds good to me.

JPMorgan and 9 Other Banks Repay TARP Money - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com

[Maxxthepenguin]

You don't seem to understand. With further consolidated banks, you have even higher risks to the system, even more so if there is little to no financial reform (and there hardly has been any). Not only does this mean that there are less banks competing, it also means that the ones in the market are now even closer to the government, and have even more power to use to influence the government. They are major risks and they will simply lead to the same problem, but even bigger in the future. What should have been done in the first place, was complete nationalization of the banks and their subsequent fragmentation. No bank that is too big to fail should ever exist.

The problem is we can't achieve the network of smaller banks you seem to want to happen without some serious change in the legislative policy of the US. We'd have to reerect some walls that, while they may be good walls in some respects, are politically impossible to get back. I'm for re-erecting the Glass-Steagall act but since it hasn't happened by now, I hold little hope of it actually happening. Banks being too big to fail simply means that they are an integral part of America functioning. We are on a credit based economy which makes Americans fully reliant on the banks. That is probably not a good thing, but it still is the truth. We can't say it is bad and wish it away.

I'm also unsure that I want banking to be nationalized. While I'd love to see the record profits from the banks able to be reinvested into my country in beneficial ways instead of being given to employees who were in the right place at the right time as gigantic bonuses, I think that competition, with much more necessary regulation (especially watching out for consumers with credit cards, mortgages, etc), is good for keeping rates down.

I do wonder when the regulation will come, but that's a different story altogether simply because of the politics of the situation.

No it's only a positive in that the government is indeed bringing in revenue along with the return of bailout funds.

The fact that absolutely NO changes have been made to strengthen regulation of the banking or financial services industries is a larger negative though - I completely agree with you.

So it's a positive that the bailout worked in the scope of what the bailout was supposed to do. That's not an "only" because the bailout wasn't mean to solve all our problems. It was meant to bail us the fuck out, and it did that.

There have been some regulatory changes too, notably with credit cards and generally increased funding. Not nearly enough, but you can't say none.

[Alderaan]

Perpetual debt.

The central banking system and the monetary system is the problem.

[Kuya]

Yes, but again, this is not only an issue of a lack of reform (which with bigger banks will become even more unlikely). Some banks, more specifically GS, have not payed the money that they owe and if they had payed it back they would not have made a profit:

No, the real objection of Taibbi and others (myself included) is that Goldman managed to steal $13 billion dollars of American Taxpayer money, without which they would not exist today. Having stolen that money through claims of imminent financial collapse made by their former head, Henry Paulson, at their urging, they now have speculated with that taxpayer money and kept the proceeds.

Nobody would object were Goldman to return not only their "TARP" money but also the entirety of the "passthrough" benefits they have received, specifically but not exclusively the $13 billion dollars that was funneled through AIG to them.

But if Goldman had done that, they would have posted a huge loss, and in addition would not have had the money to repay TARP.

Nobody I am aware of cares if a firm is able to turn a legitimate profit through their actions in the market. We object not to profit, but to blatant chiseling of the taxpayer after a company or individual makes a bad bet due to their own incompetence or willful blindness, then demands that the taxpayer cover it, yet when their bets turn out well, they keep the money and hand it to their "associates."

That's robbery, and I and others will continue to point it out until the shills who advocate for same and try to excuse it, along with Goldman themselves, are held to account.

And as i've already mentioned, there are losses all over the place, and the issue has always been that the government should not be gambleling tax payer money to make banks richer (this is because they are not lending first, they are paying CEOs and the owners first, which some would argue is correct, but would not have been an issue if the government had nationalized the banks and therefore put them to work inmediately):

A reader of this blog drew my attention to the informative Fed publication, the Federal Reserve System Monthly Report on Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet. ... I will focus here on the three Maiden Lane vehicles created by the Fed to park some of the wonky assets it acquired from Bear Stearns (Maiden Lane (which I shall refer to as Maiden Lane I)) and from AIG (Maiden Lane II and III).....

By any measure, the Fed is in the hole with all three SPVs. Its own estimates are that the amount by which the fair value of the net portfolio assets of each vehicle falls short of the outstanding balance of the loans extended to each of these vehicles (including accrued interest) is US$ 3.77 billion for Maiden Lane I, US$ 1.97 billion for Maiden Lane II and US$ 2.82 billion for Maiden Lane III. This is likely to be an underestimate of the true loss, because the reported fair value of the assets in the Maiden Lane vehicles is likely to overstate the present value of their held-to-maturity net cash flows. Much of the assets is illiquid, especially those in the AIG-related SPVs, Maiden Lane II and III.

This whole thing is monstrous.

[zoobernut]

Common guys can't we unite and go back to laughing at the birthers? That is the real issue right now.

[Leif]

Ceph lets make a deal, Ill let you guys ban me for 6mos if you guys ban Lief forever. I'd post it to Aurik but I probably would finish my sentence to be honest. Wait no, he'll play himself off as some kind of GOP martyr or some shit.

I guess I can't really be surprised. Ban/jail/prosecute the people you simply disagree with.

But I guess in this situation you're the one who is offering to strap a bomb to your chest.

Can't we all grow up a bit?

(OK Senator Tom) Coburn backing Birther bill - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

From H.R. 1503: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of... (GovTrack.us) :

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/attac...1&d=1248361907

And finally from the Voice of the GOP himself - Limbaugh: 'Obama has yet to prove he's a citizen'

Really? Is that the best you've got? A bill that requires someone to submit a copy of their birth certificate? Sounds to me like a good plan. Do you see anything wrong with it?

Oh wait, but you have Rush! 'Obama has yet to prove he's a citizen'! GUESS WHAT?! That's still true! It may be a cheap joke, but he's covered on his bases.

This is exactly what fear mongering is. It is playing off of peoples fears in order to get them to agree with your own agenda. 9/11 may not be scary to you but there are a lot of people out there whether you agree with it or not who are genuinely still afraid. They are fearful of the world outside of the USA. Making statements like that is using their fear to his advantage.

Well, how do you tell the difference between borderline-terrorist behavior and simply sharing your fears? I have no question talk radio, conservative politicians, etc fear things like terrorist attacks and the nightmares of government bureaucracy. So how do you propose to tell the difference between politicians who actually are afraid of these things and those who simply want to "scare" people for their own amusement.

Your "fear tactics" is just a loaded word that really describes honorable politicians who believe that these events and policies have the potential to do real damage and are willing to share their fears with their constituents.

Unless of course you are actually going to try and prove that politicians really are not scared but are simply trying to terrorize people into joining their side. I suspect there isn't much to that argument.

Seems to be exactly what the birthers are trying to do.

You say this like there are 2 political parties in the US: The Democrats and the Birthers.

[Headspace]

Can't we all grow up a bit?

http://www.seektress.com/potblk.jpg

[Stiker]

I guess I can't really be surprised. Ban/jail/prosecute the people you simply disagree with.

Seems to be exactly what the birthers are trying to do.

Just sayin'

[Mizango]

I guess I can't really be surprised. Ban/jail/prosecute the people you simply disagree with.

But I guess in this situation you're the one who is offering to strap a bomb to your chest.

[Ksandra]

I guess I can't really be surprised. Ban/jail/prosecute the people you simply disagree with.

Seems to be exactly what the birthers are trying to do.

Just sayin'

quoting because there is so much truth in stiker's post.

Leif reminds me too much of one of my ex bfs. Refuses to believe anything outside of Fox News might actually be true., and brings himself to total hypocrisy.

Sad, very sad.