Thoughts

[Pat]

I worry less about the religious guy who ascribes to a set of rules that include "Thou shalt not kill" (there are nine more-there's a popular book about it) than a hot headed real estate tycoon who not only can't control his own mouth but says he knows all about the military because he went to a military prep school.
Or compare the religious guy versus the pernicious crone that thinks she should be president because of her gender when her only real accomplishment is her toleration of her husband's predatory sexual behavior and masterminding the reaction (and retaliation) to the "Bimbo Eruptions" of her husband's paramours. It was Mrs. Clinton, working through her acolytes, who had Monica booted from the White House before the story went public and branded as a stalker after it did. Then there was the private investigator they hired to "have a talk" with one Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas and romantic interest of Mr. Clinton. Ms. Perdue later described the event, “[The PI] said that there were people in high places who were anxious about me, and they wanted me to know that keeping my mouth shut would be worthwhile”. “Worthwhile” was believed to have meant a GS-11 or higher job with the federal government. If she turned down the offer and talked to the media, “He (the investigator) couldn’t guarantee what would happen to my pretty little legs.” A reflection of some interesting qualities for a potential president of the country - or a Mafia Don.
But Ms. Perdue was the least of the Clintons’ problems in 1992. More potentially troublesome were the women Mr. Clinton had allegedly criminally assaulted or humiliated – Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Paula Jones among others.

More recently, remember Mrs Clinton pressed for the bombing and regime change on Libya "to facilitate the Arab Spring". If anything the adventures in Iraq should have taught us, don't go in, if you don't have a plan to get out.
Later congressional testimony reminds us the bombing campaign in Libya had numerous repercussions and unintended consequences, including destabilizing not just Libya but Egypt, Mali, Syria, Tunisia and beyond, bolstering al-Qaeda affiliated groups, and getting the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans killed.
Ironically, the Obama administration has continued to lend support to the brutal Sunni monarchy in Bahrain, which has spent several years now trying to suffocate one of the most promising pro-democracy movements in the entire Arab Spring. So much for consistency.

“We came, we saw, he died,” then-US Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton boasted
to CBS News in October 2011 after Muammar Gaddafi was captured, savagely
tortured, and murdered by Islamist militants acting as a US proxy force in the war for regime change in Libya. While Mrs. Clinton laughed giddily at what she apparently
thought was a terribly clever joke, if she had been candid she would have added, “And now my cronies are going to make a killing.” According to the NY Times, “Much of the Libya intelligence that confidant Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government”. “The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former CIA spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy.” That "new economy" necessitated the destruction of the previous regime.
Mrs. Clinton has a documented history of supporting anything at anytime as long as it's popular at the time. In a society offering easily bought and sold candidates for President, her political loyalties could be auctioned off to the highest bidder, as long as, her ambition for power is realized. I believe her and her foundation to be utterly corrupt. Would she nuke somebody for a few billion, I hope not, a few F-18 strikes maybe - if Libya is an indication.

Dr. Carson is not my first choice but I believe him to be brilliant and a person of integrity but he has not had the executive experience at the macro level. However, I've also been impressed as to how fast he has learned. He gets better every day and he is turning out to be far more formidable than I was expecting. I also believe the media attacks on him have been vicious and thus far proving to be simply wrong. The decision will come down to how well each candidate's ground game get the vote out and to me reflect their abilities to select the right staff, assess the electorate plan and organize the campaign.
So far, it's anybody but Trump and hopefully not Mrs. Clinton.
But take heart there liberals! If a Republican wins the White House, the path is clear for Al Gore to run again in 2020. Support Al Gore - Home

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Veek, That was to the point.
Al Gore, that's frightening! Then we could have a currency based on carbon credits.

 

[Doug S.]

And they pissed away money on stuff like Solindra that went belly up.

Al, the Solyndra issue can't hold a candle to the inept actions of Gee-Dub when he bailed out Wall Street and did nothing to require them to repay the $$$$$$$!

I mention this to illustrate that BO is not the only POTUS to have made questionable financial decisions...if we wanted to nitpick I'm sure we could find good reason to accuse every POTUS of financial malfeasance.

Not that I suggest that makes it OK for BO to have done it...just that it is not ok for you to grouse about it if you do not hold the inept actions of Republican presidents against them, too.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Pat]

Al, the Solyndra issue can't hold a candle to the inept actions of Gee-Dub when he bailed out Wall Street and did nothing to require them to repay the $$$$$$$!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

Cheers!

Doug

On October 3rd 2008, Mr. Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 authorizing the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. Contrary to your post the funds were required to be paid back, with interest.
The May 2015 report of the TARP to Congress stated that $427.1 billion had been disbursed, total proceeds by 30 April 2015 were $441.8 billion, exceeding disbursements by $14.1 billion, though this included $17.7 billion in non-TARP AIG shares.
In other words, the government not only got it's money back, it made a profit.

Read and enjoy... http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives...nts/April 2015 Monthly Report to Congress.pdf

 

[Doug S.]

That's certainly not the way I remember it. BO held GM's feet to the fire and made them repay, otherwise they could have walked away scott free like Wall Street did.

Wall Street fat cats paid themselves obscene bonuses with the TARP monies and were never pressured to repay the $$$$$...very clear on that memory :veryangry:

Cheers!!

Doug

 

[Nick]

So in your assessment of things going "fairly well" did it include that the Labor force participation 2008 was 66.2 million workers but in 2015 down to 62.4 million? When you add the additions to the labor pool from net populations growth and immigration, there are now 94,228 million people NOT in the labor force up from 92,041 this time last year. Today, only 47% of working age Americans have full time jobs.

The government reports several "unemployment rates". The sycophants of Mr. Obama prefer (for obvious reason) the widely reported unemployment rate (U-3), there government only counts those who have looked for a job in the past four weeks as unemployed. Note that some part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. For comparison, in October 2015, the real unemployment rate (U-6) which includes everyone who wants a full-time job but doesn't have one was 9.8%, nearly double the widely-reported unemployment rate (U-3) of 5.0%. This is a stark depiction of underlying stagnation: paid work is not being created as population expands.

Yet Al thinks it is to easy for the unemployed to claim welfare.

We've made it easier to be on welfare, 32 million people in 2009 48 million today 50% rise.

I may be wrong but I seemed to remember previous posts that he claimed welfare himself. I don't know when that was or how easy it was for him to do so.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Yet Al thinks it is to easy for the unemployed to claim welfare.




I may be wrong but I seemed to remember previous posts that he claimed welfare himself. I don't know when that was or how easy it was for him to do so.

I didn't say it was easy, I said that with this President there are 50% more people on welfare.
You remember incorrectly, I collected unemployment Insurance paid for by the employer, not welfare, not an entitlement. Jeff should be beating this horse again any second.

 

[Nick]

I didn't say it was easy, I said that with this President there are 50% more people on welfare.
You remember incorrectly, I collected unemployment Insurance paid for by the employer, not welfare, not an entitlement. Jeff should be beating this horse again any second.

Really someone beating the same old horse over and over again that's terrible.

 

[Nick]

Al I know you like to change the meaning of what I say to what you think I say but you appear to be doing it to yourself now

I didn't say it was easy, I said that with this President there are 50% more people on welfare.
.

. We've made it easier to be on welfare,

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

It's not easy for people to get on welfare, but given the fact that there are 50% more on welfare, it must be easier.

 

[Doug S.]

You know, Al...if America's wealthy, which I believe are mostly business owners, would just pay decent wages to their employees, we might not need to support so many on welfare.

Ya gotta pay one way or the other...so I say to those who oppose having so many on welfare "Pick your poison...would you rather pay a decent living wage and get a productive contributor to our society, or would you rather pay a greater tax load to support a non-productive individual through social services like welfare and food stamps?"

Having been in education for 33 years I firmly believe education is the key to getting off welfare. I believe that a few dollars invested in building employable skills is the best plan and also believe that welfare should carry a mandatory requirement that the recipients attend some sort of vocational training program, which should be provided at little or no cost to the recipient. If they do not complete their training program, then I would support cutting their welfare benefits. Free child care should be provided during that educational component so that we can get those "welfare queens" off the public dole and into the tax paying group.

I once went through a costly separation and tried to get food stamps...no luck, my income was too high despite the fact that I had little left to buy groceries after all the bills accumulated by the ex were paid...it was a very hungry period!

I agree...we should not let people starve...but we should provide them with the means to feed themselves so that they do not eat off our nickel.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Pat]

That's certainly not the way I remember it. BO held GM's feet to the fire and made them repay, otherwise they could have walked away scott free like Wall Street did.

Wall Street fat cats paid themselves obscene bonuses with the TARP monies and were never pressured to repay the $$$$$...very clear on that memory :veryangry:

Cheers!!

Doug

Your memory is apparently faulty. Perhaps you are confused with the Obama Administration's handling of the GM bankruptcy.

Read the the statute Mr. Bush signed into law. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr1424enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr1424enr.pdf

It stipulated payback of TARP funds and each CEO accepting it (some unwillingly) personally had to sign an agreement to that effect.

As to Mr. Obama's holding GMs feet to fire, GM got the OK from Mr. Obama's Treasury Department to "repay" more than $6.7 billion "using a portion of the escrow account that had been funded with TARP funds". The regulatory filings also confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multibillion-dollar TARP-funded escrow account at Treasury; that means it was taxpayer money — not earnings. So GM was merely paying the government back with government money, not money GM is earning selling cars, as the administration had claimed.

Mr. Obama took office in January 2009. That same month, the Federal government created the Automotive Industry Finance Program. This is what Mr. Obama later touted in his 2010 reelection campaign with "GM is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead." Its first loans provided operating cash for GM and Chrysler, and made auto loans available for car buyers. That included $13.4 billion for General Motors. But the initial $13.4 billion bailout was not enough. In April, GM borrowed another $2 billion, and in May another $4 billion to stay afloat.
On June 1, 2009, GM entered bankruptcy, with $82 billion in assets and $172.8 billion in liabilities. The government then lent GM an additional $30 billion to fund operations while it went through bankruptcy reorganization. It also guaranteed GM's extended warranties. In return, it bought 60% of the company in warrants for common stock and preferred stock, and Canada bought 12%.
A union health trust received 17.5% stock ownership in lieu of the $20 billion needed to cover benefits for 650,000 retirees. Bondholders received 10% stock ownership in lieu of $27 billion in bonds. Stockholders lost all their investment. In addition, the government took $51B (as in $billion) in GM stock. In December 2013 it sold for $39.7B, a $10.3B loss.

Shortly thereafter the bankruptcy was concluded, Dan Akerson, General Motors’ Chairman and CEO, rejected calls for the automaker to pay the extra $10 billion intended to to cover the difference between taxpayers’ investment and what the U.S. Treasury recovered from selling its GM stock. Akerson argued that the government accepted the risk when it opted to accept shares in the company, as any investor might when backing an embattled firm.
Apparently the fire that Mr. Obama placed under the feet of GM wasn't very hot.

As for the fat cat compensation deals, I would direct your attention to Sections 111 and 302 of the Act. All TARP recipients were subject to the executive compensation restrictions until they have fully satisfied their obligations to the Treasury and exited the program. The Office of the Special Master was established to ensure that executive compensation at financial institutions receiving exceptional assistance from the Treasury is structured and paid in a manner consistent with shareholder and taxpayer interests.
The Special Master reviews and approves any payment of compensation to the five senior executive officers and 20 next most highly paid employees at the companies receiving “exceptional assistance” from Treasury, and reviews and approves the structure of compensation for all employees who are executive officers or one of the 100 most highly compensated employees. Later however, as Democrat Senator Chris Dodd explained in his interview on CNN, at Treasury Secretary Geithner and the Obama Administration's insistence he removed the language he had himself inserted concerning executive bonuses and replaced it with what could be described as the "Geithner and Summers' loophole", which thus allowed the bonuses which formed the basis for the later AIG scandal. In it, AIG agreed to honor the pre-existing retention (bonus) contracts with scheduled payments to be made in March 2009. So any bonus amounts paid were with the Obama administration's approval.

My memory is pretty clear on this. I was an HR executive for one of the banks required to take TARP funds. I also headed up the HR portion of several of the bank liquidations the FDIC asked us to perform on their behalf. In one case, the former CEO was escorted out of the building with the assistance of two Florida State Troopers. Ah, good times...

Perhaps what you were referring to as Wall Street executives "walking away scott free" refers to Jon Corzine, former Democrat senator, later governor of New Jersey and major Obama campaign fund bundler. He came under scrutiny by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in connection with financial firm MF Global's bankruptcy in 2011 (he was the CEO) yet avoided prosecution. Mr. Corzine was subpoenaed to appear before a House committee on December 8, 2011, to answer questions regarding 1.2 billion dollars of missing money from MF Global client accounts. He testified before the committee, "I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date". He further claimed that given the number of money transfers in the final days of trading at MF Global, he didn't know specifics of the movement of the funds. He also denied authorizing any misuse of customer funds. Yet in March 2012, Bloomberg reported that a memo produced by congressional investigators quotes an internal company e-mail as saying Corzine gave "direct instructions" to use customer money to cover the company's own shortfalls prior to bankruptcy. On April 24, 2012, Jill Sommers, a CFTC commissioner, outlined possible enforcement actions against MF Global employees and executives. Potential violations involve rules that require segregation of customer funds from a brokerage's own operating accounts, rules that ban theft of customer funds, false statements, and statutes that disallow "deceptive schemes."
However, by August 2012, criminal investigators had concluded that charges against Corzine, or any other of MF Global's former executives or employees would be unlikely.

If that's what you're referring to, I share your outrage...

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Very few understand that GM paid us back with our own money, and so much fanfare was made by the Obama administration and the GM CEO. Classic smoke and mirrors.

 

[Keith]

Your memory is apparently faulty. Perhaps you are confused with the Obama Administration's handling of the GM bankruptcy.

Read the the statute Mr. Bush signed into law. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr1424enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr1424enr.pdf

It stipulated payback of TARP funds and each CEO accepting it (some unwillingly) personally had to sign an agreement to that effect.

As to Mr. Obama's holding GMs feet to fire, GM got the OK from Mr. Obama's Treasury Department to "repay" more than $6.7 billion "using a portion of the escrow account that had been funded with TARP funds". The regulatory filings also confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multibillion-dollar TARP-funded escrow account at Treasury; that means it was taxpayer money — not earnings. So GM was merely paying the government back with government money, not money GM is earning selling cars, as the administration had claimed.

Mr. Obama took office in January 2009. That same month, the Federal government created the Automotive Industry Finance Program. This is what Mr. Obama later touted in his 2010 reelection campaign with "GM is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead." Its first loans provided operating cash for GM and Chrysler, and made auto loans available for car buyers. That included $13.4 billion for General Motors. But the initial $13.4 billion bailout was not enough. In April, GM borrowed another $2 billion, and in May another $4 billion to stay afloat.
On June 1, 2009, GM entered bankruptcy, with $82 billion in assets and $172.8 billion in liabilities. The government then lent GM an additional $30 billion to fund operations while it went through bankruptcy reorganization. It also guaranteed GM's extended warranties. In return, it bought 60% of the company in warrants for common stock and preferred stock, and Canada bought 12%.
A union health trust received 17.5% stock ownership in lieu of the $20 billion needed to cover benefits for 650,000 retirees. Bondholders received 10% stock ownership in lieu of $27 billion in bonds. Stockholders lost all their investment. In addition, the government took $51B (as in $billion) in GM stock. In December 2013 it sold for $39.7B, a $10.3B loss.

Shortly thereafter the bankruptcy was concluded, Dan Akerson, General Motors’ Chairman and CEO, rejected calls for the automaker to pay the extra $10 billion intended to to cover the difference between taxpayers’ investment and what the U.S. Treasury recovered from selling its GM stock. Akerson argued that the government accepted the risk when it opted to accept shares in the company, as any investor might when backing an embattled firm.
Apparently the fire that Mr. Obama placed under the feet of GM wasn't very hot.

As for the fat cat compensation deals, I would direct your attention to Sections 111 and 302 of the Act. All TARP recipients were subject to the executive compensation restrictions until they have fully satisfied their obligations to the Treasury and exited the program. The Office of the Special Master was established to ensure that executive compensation at financial institutions receiving exceptional assistance from the Treasury is structured and paid in a manner consistent with shareholder and taxpayer interests.
The Special Master reviews and approves any payment of compensation to the five senior executive officers and 20 next most highly paid employees at the companies receiving “exceptional assistance” from Treasury, and reviews and approves the structure of compensation for all employees who are executive officers or one of the 100 most highly compensated employees. Later however, as Democrat Senator Chris Dodd explained in his interview on CNN, at Treasury Secretary Geithner and the Obama Administration's insistence he removed the language he had himself inserted concerning executive bonuses and replaced it with what could be described as the "Geithner and Summers' loophole", which thus allowed the bonuses which formed the basis for the later AIG scandal. In it, AIG agreed to honor the pre-existing retention (bonus) contracts with scheduled payments to be made in March 2009. So any bonus amounts paid were with the Obama administration's approval.

My memory is pretty clear on this. I was an HR executive for one of the banks required to take TARP funds. I also headed up the HR portion of several of the bank liquidations the FDIC asked us to perform on their behalf. In one case, the former CEO was escorted out of the building with the assistance of two Florida State Troopers. Ah, good times...

Perhaps what you were referring to as Wall Street executives "walking away scott free" refers to Jon Corzine, former Democrat senator, later governor of New Jersey and major Obama campaign fund bundler. He came under scrutiny by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in connection with financial firm MF Global's bankruptcy in 2011 (he was the CEO) yet avoided prosecution. Mr. Corzine was subpoenaed to appear before a House committee on December 8, 2011, to answer questions regarding 1.2 billion dollars of missing money from MF Global client accounts. He testified before the committee, "I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date". He further claimed that given the number of money transfers in the final days of trading at MF Global, he didn't know specifics of the movement of the funds. He also denied authorizing any misuse of customer funds. Yet in March 2012, Bloomberg reported that a memo produced by congressional investigators quotes an internal company e-mail as saying Corzine gave "direct instructions" to use customer money to cover the company's own shortfalls prior to bankruptcy. On April 24, 2012, Jill Sommers, a CFTC commissioner, outlined possible enforcement actions against MF Global employees and executives. Potential violations involve rules that require segregation of customer funds from a brokerage's own operating accounts, rules that ban theft of customer funds, false statements, and statutes that disallow "deceptive schemes."
However, by August 2012, criminal investigators had concluded that charges against Corzine, or any other of MF Global's former executives or employees would be unlikely.

If that's what you're referring to, I share your outrage...

That IS an outrageous story for sure and I'll bet there's many more like it on both sides of the Atlantic...

 

[Nick]

It's not easy for people to get on welfare, but given the fact that there are 50% more on welfare, it must be easier.

Al I have to accept you would not be using smoke and mirrors here as you are so against that.

It is also great to know you disagree with many of your fellow republicans who appear to be claiming for example.

“the Labor sic force participation 2008 was 66.2 million workers but in 2015 down to 62.4 million?”

“some part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. For comparison, in October 2015, the real unemployment rate (U-6) which includes everyone who wants a full-time job but doesn't have one was 9.8%, nearly double the widely-reported unemployment rate (U-3) of 5.0%.”

I thought that these factors among others would have contributed or reduced the 50% rise in welfare claimants.

I look forward to you robustly defending any future claims that President Obama’s employment policies are contributing to the 50% rise in welfare claimants and that any rise is purely down to it being (as you now say) "easier"

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Al I have to accept you would not be using smoke and mirrors here as you are so against that.

It is also great to know you disagree with many of your fellow republicans who appear to be claiming for example.

“the Labor sic force participation 2008 was 66.2 million workers but in 2015 down to 62.4 million?”

“some part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. For comparison, in October 2015, the real unemployment rate (U-6) which includes everyone who wants a full-time job but doesn't have one was 9.8%, nearly double the widely-reported unemployment rate (U-3) of 5.0%.”

I thought that these factors among others would have contributed or reduced the 50% rise in welfare claimants.

I look forward to you robustly defending any future claims that President Obama’s employment policies are contributing to the 50% rise in welfare claimants and that any rise is purely down to it being (as you now say) "easier"

Nick, is there some kind of penitence you would like me to do? Do you have a charity I could give to? I think Veek could answer the other better than I. I don't believe that Obama has "employment policies", only thing I can think of is "shovel ready".

 

[Nick]

Nick, is there some kind of penitence you would like me to do? Do you have a charity I could give to? I think Veek could answer the other better than I. I don't believe that Obama has "employment policies", only thing I can think of is "shovel ready".

Al I have absolutely no idea what you mean :shrug:

 

[Pat]

I'm not sure I understand Nick's point unless it's simply a jab at Al. If that's the case, I'm sure with his wit and wisdom he is more than capable of responding on his own.

If there is serious question as to the calculation of unemployment rates, you can look here:
What Is U-6 Unemployment?

As to why the workforce participation is so low and the U-6 so high? I would say this is an interesting view.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-wolfe/why-many-unemployment_b_5273611.html

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

You know, Al...if America's wealthy, which I believe are mostly business owners, would just pay decent wages to their employees, we might not need to support so many on welfare.

Ya gotta pay one way or the other...so I say to those who oppose having so many on welfare "Pick your poison...would you rather pay a decent living wage and get a productive contributor to our society, or would you rather pay a greater tax load to support a non-productive individual through social services like welfare and food stamps?"

Having been in education for 33 years I firmly believe education is the key to getting off welfare. I believe that a few dollars invested in building employable skills is the best plan and also believe that welfare should carry a mandatory requirement that the recipients attend some sort of vocational training program, which should be provided at little or no cost to the recipient. If they do not complete their training program, then I would support cutting their welfare benefits. Free child care should be provided during that educational component so that we can get those "welfare queens" off the public dole and into the tax paying group.

I once went through a costly separation and tried to get food stamps...no luck, my income was too high despite the fact that I had little left to buy groceries after all the bills accumulated by the ex were paid...it was a very hungry period!

I agree...we should not let people starve...but we should provide them with the means to feed themselves so that they do not eat off our nickel.

Cheers!

Doug

Doug, I built homes in CT before I came to AZ. Running a business, paying taxes, licenses, equipment, vehicles, etc while trying to pay a fair wage and workman's compensation (it was 25% of the hourly rate for home building in CT) and scratch out a profit, isn't easy. When I started working for CT Light and Power in 1965 I was making $1.11 an hour, married, with 2 kids. We barely got by, no credit cards (thank God) we saved money to buy things. I don't think people should be penalized for working, if they still need assistance, they should get some from the government to make having a job more attractive than straight welfare, and when the wage gets high enough stop the assistance. But a business owner shouldn't have to raise his prices with the possibility of losing business to pay a higher wage for new help. The wage should be commensurate with ability.

 

[Charlie Farley]

We are looking for a 1/4 Black, 1/4 Hispanic, 1/4 Arab, 1/4 Eskimo, gay, short, fat, Muslim, transsexual that eats pork.

WTF....FINALLY....FINALLY " it's my lucky day " !!!!