Category: Class War

Silliness

~ susie

Of course, he’s too polite to point out who’s spreading the silliness. Robert Reich:

The reason we have continued sky-high unemployment has nothing to do with excessive regulation. There was no sudden outpouring of federal regulation in 2007 before the economy tanked and millions lost their jobs.

If anything, the economy unraveled because of too little regulation. Wall Street went on a binge, remember? The Street could get almost free money from the Fed (which had reduced interest rates to near zero) and do just about whatever it wanted with it. Thirty years of deregulation, culminating with the dismantling of Glass-Steagall and the abject failure of regulators at the Fed and the SEC to use the authority they still had, enabled the Street to make bundles of money and expose the rest of the economy to unprecedented levels of risk.

The Fed had slashed interest rates in the early 2000s, by the way, because the corporate looting scandals at Enron, Worldcom, Sunbeam, and other major corporations had sapped investor confidence. Those scandals themselves wouldn’t have happened had securities regulations been stronger and better enforced.
Continue reading “Silliness” →

Energy cuts

~ susie ~ 1 Comment

For the poor? Am I misreading this?

Or is this some tactic to wear us down to get us to accept other, “less” drastic budget cuts? (You know, like Social Security and Medicare.)

John Kerry is asking Obama to reconsider. During a Depression and a brutal winter, we have to beg a Democratic president not to cut heating subsidies for the poor?

I mean, WTF?

Economist Mark Thoma:

Don’t you feel sorry for the energy companies since they can’t cut power on deliquent bill payers during weather emergencies? Private business should have a right to freeze people to death if they fall behind on their payments. Especially when there is a recession making it hard for people to get by and a lack of social support to fill the gaps in household budgets.

As for the “subsidy to energy companies” argument, pretty much any spending on the poor can be recast as a “subsidy” to someone. For example, giving people food to prevent starvation is nothing more than backdoor support for those greedy farmers who already get enough help from the government.

Update: I should have also knocked the administration for this move. There are ways for the administration to show it is “serious” about deficit reduction besides going after the poor with cuts that are a drop in the bucket relative to the size of the deficit problem. I’d be much more impressed for example if the administration demonstrated its seriousness by going after powerful vested interests rather than those least able to defend themselves within the political arena.

Attack on WikiLeaks

~ susie ~ 8 Comments

And supporters, proposed by a data intelligence firm that was recommended to the banksters by the Department of Justice!

The proposal starts with an overview of WikiLeaks, including some history and employee statistics. From there it moves into a profile of Julian Assange and an organizational chart. The chart lists several people, including volunteers and actual staff.

One of those listed as a volunteer, Salon.com columnist, Glenn Greenwald, was singled out by the proposal. Greenwald, previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York, has been a vocal supporter of Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have given diplomatic cables and other government information to WikiLeaks. He has yet to be charged in the matter.

Greenwald became a household name in December when he reported on the “inhumane conditions” of Bradley Manning’s confinement at the Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia. Since that report, Greenwald has reported on WikiLeaks and Manning several times.

“Glenn was critical in the Amazon to OVH transition,” the proposal says, referencing the hosting switch WikiLeaks was forced to make after political pressure caused Amazon to drop their domain.

I’ve said before that the average American, much to his disadvantage, is oblivious to the amount of coercive misinformation that’s put out there to mislead us. And even people like us, who pay a lot of attention, are naive when it comes to the sophistication and range of those methods.

We’re a wholly-owned subsidiary of the banksters and their friends. That’s why I can’t wait to see WikiLeaks unleash the banking documents they have.

Goody

~ susie

Bailouts a thing of the past, huh? More presents for AIG! Via Naked Capitalism:

First from Bloomberg, “AIG Has $4.1 Billion Charge on Insufficient Reserves“:

American International Group Inc. said higher-than-forecast claims costs cut fourth-quarter profit by $4.1 billion, and $2 billion previously designated to repay its bailout will be used to bolster the property-casualty unit.

The insurer reached an agreement with the U.S. Treasury Department permitting the company to keep $2 billion of proceeds from the sale of Star Life Insurance Co. and Edison Life Insurance Co., New York-based AIG said today in a statement. Funds will be used by Chartis for losses tied to coverage including workers’ compensation and asbestos liability.

The troubling part is “keep”. Unless the Treasury got some form of consideration back from AIG, this sure looks like a gift.

We see similar ambiguous language at the Journal:

American International Group Inc. said it will book a $4.1 billion charge when it reports results for the fourth quarter, as it adds to reserves at its Chartis property and casualty insurance unit….

AIG also said Wednesday that it signed a letter of agreement with the U.S. Treasury to retain $2 billion of the proceeds from the sale of AIG Star Life Insurance Co. and AIG Edison Life Insurance Co. to support Chartis’ capital.

Now with AIG, a mere two billion must look like mere rounding error, but again, pray tell exactly how this reversal of the TARP payback is being accounted for? We’ve had so much sleight of hand with AIG that nothing would surprise me. And with the Congressional Oversight Panel about to go out of business, any pushback is almost certain to be limited.