Tag: ek Politics

The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh

Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

October 12, 10:45 AM ET

Biden did absolutely roll his eyes, snort, laugh derisively and throw his hands up in the air whenever Ryan trotted out his little beady-eyed BS-isms.

But he should have! He was absolutely right to be doing it. We all should be doing it. That includes all of us in the media, and not just paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants like me, but so-called “objective” news reporters as well. We should all be rolling our eyes, and scoffing and saying, “Come back when you’re serious.”

The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn’t even a real platform, it’s a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda – cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill.

…

Sometimes in journalism I think we take the objectivity thing too far. We think being fair means giving equal weight to both sides of every argument. But sometimes in the zeal to be objective, reporters get confused. You can’t report the Obama tax plan and the Romney tax plan in the same way, because only one of them is really a plan, while the other is actually not a plan at all, but an electoral gambit.

The Romney/Ryan ticket decided, with incredible cynicism, that that they were going to promise this massive tax break, not explain how to pay for it, and then just hang on until election day, knowing that most of the political press would let it skate, or at least not take a dump all over it when explaining it to the public. Unchallenged, and treated in print and on the air as though it were the same thing as a real plan, a 20 percent tax cut sounds pretty good to most Americans. Hell, it sounds good to me.

The proper way to report such a tactic is to bring to your coverage exactly the feeling that Biden brought to the debate last night: contempt and amazement. We in the press should be offended by what Romney and Ryan are doing – we should take professional offense that any politician would try to whisk such a gigantic lie past us to our audiences, and we should take patriotic offense that anyone is trying to seize the White House using such transparently childish and dishonest tactics.

I’ve never been a Joe Biden fan. After four years, I’m not the biggest Barack Obama fan, either (and I’ll get into why on that score later). But they’re at least credible as big-league politicians. So much of the Romney/Ryan plan is so absurdly junior league, it’s so far off-Broadway, it’s practically in New Jersey.

Paul Ryan, a leader in the most aggressively and mindlessly partisan Congress in history, preaching bipartisanship? A private-equity parasite, Mitt Romney, who wants to enact a massive tax cut and pay for it without touching his own personal fortune-guaranteeing deduction, the carried-interest tax break – which keeps his own taxes below 15 percent despite incomes above $20 million?

The Romney/Ryan platform makes sense, and is not laughable, in only one context: if you’re a multi-millionaire and you recognize that this is the only way to sell your agenda to mass audiences. But if you’re not one of those rooting gazillionaires, you should laugh, you should roll your eyes, and it doesn’t matter if you’re the Vice President or an ABC reporter or a toll operator. You should laugh, because this stuff is a joke, and we shouldn’t take it seriously.

Biden Leaves Door Open for Cutting Social Security and Medicare

By: Jon Walker, Firedog Lake

Friday October 12, 2012 8:28 am

One of the remarkable things about the first presidential debate and the VP debate last night is how much rhetorical effort the Obama team has put into leaving open the possibility of cutting Social Security and Medicare.

…

The language continues to be weaselly but the implication is clear. The Obama team is open to cuts, like reduced benefits and raising the retirement age. Their only red line is privatization.

Democrats had the option to make this election a clear choice between them pledging to fully protecting these very popular programs and the Republican plan to voucherize them. Democrats have not done that.

Instead, they have made it a choice between a Democratic candidate who is very open to “modestly” cutting these programs and a Republican candidate who wants to privatize them. The Obama team seems to be banking on the fact that merely being less terrible on Social Security will be good enough.

In the middle of a very tight election the Obama team is refusing to do something that would be very popular and could easily move voters, making an unequivocal promise not to cut benefits. Obama has chosen not to use this proven political weapon.

Effectively, Obama has decided he would rather lose the election with his vague message on entitlements than win the election, if it means using tactics that would significantly restrict his ability to cut Social Security in his second term. This should make any actual liberal very nervous.

The unseen reader asks- “Is this it?  Is this all you’re going to do?  Don’t you realize this is a Manichean Ragnarok struggle between All That Is Good, Holy, and Pure against the Powers of Darkness and Evil!”

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER!!!

And I’m sure listening to all the play by play blather of the Villagers and their toadies and bootlickers will make you an ever so much more informed voter.

Normally I’d indulge you and force my bleeding eyes to gaze upon the ritual spectacle but you know…

it will all be there tomorrow.

Tonight there is a chill in the air and an impossibly green diamond in the middle of a sea of faces.  There is the crack of the bat and the thump of the glove, pristine white uniforms soon to be stained with effort.  High drama, low comedy, apple pie and Chevrolet.

Take me out to the Ball Game.

But if you can’t contain your outrage I’ve thoughtfully provided a space below.

Live Stream

Obama Ad About Big Bird Cannot Find One Prominent Wall Street Criminal Prosecuted By Administration

By: David Dayen, Firedog Lake

Tuesday October 9, 2012 7:00 am

There’s only one thing that sticks out to me about this ad, though the casual viewer probably won’t notice it. Let’s look at that litany of Wall Street “criminals” and “gluttons of greed,” which later get juxtaposed with Big Bird. You have Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay and Dennis Kozlowski. So two CEOs prosecuted and convicted by George W. Bush’s Justice Department, and Madoff, whose son turned him in before Obama took office, in December 2008, and who pleaded guilty.

So the Obama campaign could not fill a list of three Wall Street criminals that the Obama Justice Department actually sent to jail. Heck, they couldn’t fill a list of one!

This is despite Eric Holder telling students at Columbia University in February of this year that his Justice Department’s record of success on fighting financial fraud crimes “has been nothing less than historic.” But not historic enough that his boss could point to, well, one Wall Street criminal behind bars as a result of DoJ’s actions.

That’s painfully telling. Nobody from Bank of America or Wells Fargo or Citigroup or JPMorgan Chase or Goldman Sachs or Bear Stearns or Morgan Stanley or Merrill Lynch or even Countrywide or Ameriquest was available to stand in as a “glutton of greed” in this advertisement. Literally no major figure responsible for the financial crisis has gone to jail. So the campaign has to use two CEOs from a decade-old accounting scandal, and a garden-variety Ponzi schemer. The financial crisis plays no role in this advertisement trying to juxtapose cuts to PBS with the financial crisis!

Romney captures the God vote at first debate

By Sally Quinn, Washington Post

Published: October 4

This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian.. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coins. We’ve got “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God.

An atheist could never get elected dog catcher, much less president.

…

Up until now, the idea of being American and believing in God were synonymous.

…

The Republicans have claimed God as their own this entire campaign, each candidate trying to out-Christian the other. Even Obama, though 17 percent of registered voters think he is a Muslim, has talked about being a Christian as often as he can.

…

If Obama wants to win the next debate, he needs to wear God, as much as it offends him to do so, the same way he captured the flag for this one.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday

Jim Garlow

My God is better than yours!

Buddhism

Scientology

Catholicism

Judaism

Islam

The Great Debate

Overture

Part 1- Firing Big Bird

Part 2- You’ve done a great job

Part 3- Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman

He’s not pitching at Coors Field Al.

Crossposted from DocuDharma

Questions

Jay Ackroyd, Eschaton

Saturday, September 29, 2012

What would it take to get you to bail on the pres. line on your ballot?  What could Team Dem line up on that would lead you to say “Fuck, no!”? I’d say something like reproductive rights, but the Senate Majority Leader is anti-choice.

I can’t say anything related to “national security” because “Yay! Dead bin Laden” and the only people  the drones kill are terrorists, and no, we’re not gonna tell you who we killed because the fact we killed them is doubledownsecret, so STFU and get in line.

All we got is the New Deal social insurance systems, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (which is the backstop when they cash out your house to pay for the nursing home) and Unemployment Insurance. So maybe a good question to ask your elected officials running for office is whether reduction in these programs is off the table–despite Bowles-Simpson, and Dancin’ Dave slavering after “pain.”

The Village Fix in in on Cutting Medicare

thereisnospoon, Hullabaloo

9/29/2012 07:30:00 AM

Do most voters really “understand” that we’re going to be cutting Medicare? Or has the Village decided that we’re going to cut Medicare, and that it’s going to happen no matter what the American people actually want?

…

To continue funding corporate welfare, wasteful wars and tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy while telling voters that Grandma should eat cat food is insane and immoral.

But second, Fineman is disastrously wrong on the politics. For a Democrat to cut Medicare would be politically disastrous.

If the Congress and the President take up Simpson-Bowles during the lame duck session or the new year and enact minor tip money tax increases for the wealthy in exchange for cuts to the most vulnerable, a majority of Republicans will oppose the deal. Democrats will be left holding the bag, insisting on being the “bipartisan adults in the room.”

Voters will hate the deal. Republicans will run successfully against Democrats for the next twenty years, accusing us of cutting Medicare and raising taxes. And when Republicans easily win that argument and gain Executive and Legislative power, President Christie and Speaker Ryan will voucherize Medicare, restore the funding for current seniors, and act as the cavalry riding to America’s and Medicare’s rescue.

The Village Consensus is awful, immoral policy. It’s also suicidal politics. And Howard Fineman and friends appear to be walking into it with open eyes and open arms.

But I’m still voting for the lesser evil!  What choice do I have?

As long as you think that way, none at all.

Electoral victory my ass.

That’s what I’m talking about.

Crossposted from DocuDharma

Tar Sands Blockade: Why are they so frightened of us? (#NoKXL)

By: Benjamin Franklin, Firedog Lake

Monday October 1, 2012 8:49 am

When I remember what happened, I remember the beauty first. The blue sky, the soaring hawk, the oak sapling mangled by the backhoe we’d stopped. That oak was very inspirational to us as we awaited our fate. By surviving TransCanada’s clear-cutting, it symbolized our own plans to weather the forces marshalled against us.

It was Tuesday, September the 25th. I was anchored to the back of heavy machinery with someone I’d just met. We’d both travelled to East Texas to help derail TransCanada’s massive tar sands pipeline. Climate change is a global problem, but this terribly destructive project was coming right to our backyard; how could I sit idly by?

…

It started with the arrival of TransCanada’s senior supervisor. The regular employees became scarce as the supervisor called for a huddle with the police. The huddle broke and a phalanx of officers marched on us to announce that we were under arrest. Failing to unlock immediately was resisting, which would result in additional charges and justify the officers’ use of “pain compliance.” I suppose TransCanada had grown tired of waiting.

They started like schoolyard bullies – taunting us while twisting my arm behind me, and jumping on my back to put me in a choke hold. The lieutenant asked, “Is your goal just to go to jail? You can go to jail without the pain; it’s your stubbornness that’s making us do this.” I had to stop myself from replying, “I wish this cup would pass me by.” I didn’t say it because I was sure they would misinterpret it as blasphemously casting myself as Jesus, but I meant it; I wished there was another way to accomplish our goals. I wasn’t looking forward to what my time with the ACLU led me to expect they would do to us. But I don’t believe in giving in to terrorism; to follow one’s moral compass in spite of extreme challenges is the way we move forward.

…

A taser is sold as a weapon-tool for halting controlled motion: to make someone stop. While the torture device was on, I was able to remain standing and silent, but the pain was intense. I could not have gathered the concentration required to detach the carabiner even if the pipe hadn’t twisted it out of my grasp.

I had a few seconds to clear my head, then he switched to my upper left arm – the arm where they had handcuffed me. It’s hard to describe. The world was pain, and I repeated Valerie’s quote from V for Vendetta to myself as I heard the lieutenant speculate to the TransCanada supervisor that my fat was insulating me, making it harder for the taser to “bite into the meat,” which is why it wasn’t hurting me as much as they were hoping. The pain was fluid, and by the fifth second, my left pectoral muscle was tingling. But like all things, it passed. The pain, like the fear, washed through. The taunting, however, continued.

The officers informed us that I was too “mule-headed” to be chivalrous and spare Rain pain I had just experienced. When they moved on to torture Rain, the young Wood County deputy who had been selected to taser her was reluctant. He asked if he really had to; he interrupted his count to ask if she was sure she wouldn’t let go.

…

As soon as we were fully in custody, the TransCanada supervisor thanked the Wood County lieutenant for “a job well done.” The lieutenant’s reply? “If this happens again, we’ll just skip to using pepper spray and tasing in the first 10 minutes.”

TransCanada Urges Texas Police to Use "Aggressive Pain Compliance Tactics&quot on Keystone XL Blockaders

By: Jane Hamsher, Firedog Lake

Wednesday September 26, 2012 1:23 pm

I spoke with Sprague today about the use of physical force against two protesters, Shannon Bebe and Benjamin Franklin, who handcuffed themselves to equipment being used to cut down trees so that the southern leg of the Keystone XL Pipeline could be built.

According to Sprague, Bebe and Franklin began their peaceful protest yesterday at 10:30 am, along with several observers.  Sprague indicated that the group’s interactions with the police had been amicable and peaceful until TransCandada representatives showed up and encouraged the police to “run off” the observers.

Once there were no cameras in sight, Sprague says that TransCanada officials huddled with police.  Shortly thereafter, the police commenced putting Bebe and Franklin in stress positions by bending their free arms backwards as far as possible and twisting their handcuffed hands backwards, and holding them there for 10 minutes.

…

Police then tasered both Bebe and Franklin.  Franklin was tased a second time, and the two relented when police threatened to keep tasering them until they did so.  Sprague said that because of a heart condition, one of the protesters feared for their life.  Franklin described the pain as “immense and almost physically unbearable.”

…

There is no way to classify the use of such tactics against people who cannot defend themselves other than torture.  Which the protesters indicate was carried out, by the police, and the specific request of TransCanada.

I do not have the words to fully express my admiration for what Franklin and Bebe were willing to do in order to stop this pipeline from being (literally) railroaded through the country, against the will of its citizens – especially those whose lands are being seized.  They are true heroes and their courage and conviction are inspirational.

Keystone XL Body Blockaders Need Help

By: Jane Hamsher, Firedog Lake

Wednesday September 26, 2012 7:49 am

Activists climbed 80 feet to set up “Tree Village” and locked themselves to critical machinery directly in the path of the planned oil pipeline. They have pledged to stay there until construction has stopped once and for all, but living in a tree or chained to machinery, exposed to the elements, is no easy task.

Work on the Keystone XL pipeline can’t continue until the Blockaders have been removed, so Firedoglake is sending supplies to help demonstrators stay in the way for as long as possible.

TransCanada Tarsands Blockade Call Reports

By: Jane Hamsher, Firedog Lake

Thursday September 27, 2012 12:16 pm

Today we launched calls into TransCanada’s offices protesting the treatment of Tarsands Blockade activists, who report they were tortured by police after a huddle with TransCanda representatives.

You can sign the petition demanding TransCanada CEO Russell Girling denounce the torture of the Keystone XL Blockaders.

…

Then call TransCanada’s corporate offices to demand immediate action.

Bank of America Settles Suit Over Merrill for $2.43 Billion

By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and SUSANNE CRAIG, The New York Times

September 28, 2012, 8:49 am

The settlement, however, may undermine a battle between the New York attorney general and the bank. In 2010, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York’s attorney general at the time, sued Kenneth D. Lewis, the bank’s former chief executive, and Bank of America, contending that the bank and its executives hid from shareholders billions of dollars in losses at Merrill, later causing Bank of America to need a bailout from Washington.

The case, which now falls to Eric T. Schneiderman, could lose much of its steam. Under a decision by New York’s highest court, the attorney general can recover losses on behalf of shareholders. Once the shareholders settle, though, Mr. Schneiderman’s office can expect to obtain little more than a penalty, according to people briefed on the matter. The attorney general’s office declined to comment.

…

It is unclear how much relief the shareholders – those who owned Bank of America shares or call options from September 2008 to January 2009 – will receive. A chunk of the settlement amount will go to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who are expected to ask the court for $150 million in fees. Bank of America will use its litigation reserves and litigation expenses to cover the settlement, saying that it and other legal expenses cost it $1.6 billion.

The bank also said on Friday that it had agreed to adopt a “say on pay” shareholder vote, an independent compensation committee of the board and policies for committees focused on acquisitions, among other corporate governance changes.

Despite the legal woes, the Merrill Lynch business has helped bolster Bank of America, contributing roughly half the bank’s revenue since 2009, according to bank analysts.

The Countrywide acquisition has proved to be a bigger albatross for Bank of America. The purchase effectively saddled Bank of America with hundreds of thousands of homeowners struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments.

The bank has spent billions of dollars to defend lawsuits related to Countrywide’s mortgage business. In the second quarter of 2011, for example, the bank reported an $8.8 billion loss, mainly related to a settlement with mortgage investors.

Earlier this year, Bank of America and four other banks agreed to a $26 billion settlement related to their foreclosure practices. That deal evolved from an investigation of the mortgage servicing practices by state attorneys general that was begun in 2010 amid mounting fury over revelations that banks evicted homeowners from their residences with false or incomplete documentation.

Bank of America’s Cascade of Settlement Payoffs Continue

By: David Dayen, Firedog Lake

Saturday September 29, 2012 11:30 am

This was outright securities fraud, and I’m more than surprised that the investors plaintiffs, led by public pension funds in Ohio and Texas, accepted this. BofA clearly withheld information from their shareholders that caused a material loss; the stock is down 2/3 since the Merrill deal, even while the bank returned to profitability (though not this quarter, as we’ll see). But the investors had little leverage. The SEC should have been all over this, but they settled over the acquisition in 2009, in a settlement so bad that the judge made them rework it. In the end, the SEC got just $150 million for their settlement, and the fact that the investors got 16 times as much should truly embarrass them.

Incidentally, Ken Lewis was specifically sued in this case and would have been personally liable for withholding information, but BofA will cover his costs in the settlement, so he won’t have to pay a dime.

This is just the latest in a long line of settlements BofA has managed to negotiate over a string of fraudulent and abusive activity since 2009. In all, BofA has paid out over $29 billion, including the $11.8 billion in cash penalties and “credits” from the foreclosure fraud settlement. The other big number included in that, the $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage backed securities holders for repurchases, hasn’t been finalized yet. But it’s clear that Bank of America has become a waystation for abused parties to take out settlement money, rather than a lender allocating capital efficiently. And of course, given the inadequacy of these settlements, the real cost of Bank of America’s practices in the economy are much, much higher.

In fact, between this settlement, some tax charges and litigation expenses (none of that $29 billion includes legal fees), BofA expects to book a loss for the third quarter, years after the end of the financial crisis. While Merrill Lynch at least provided investment banking revenue, that acquisition and the Countrywide acquisition have been extremely problematic for the bank. Countrywide in particular has been the main cause for a loss in BofA’s mortgage business of $35 billion.

If it weren’t for a massive sell-off of assets and a government lifeline, there would not be a Bank of America today. And policymakers should ask themselves why they propped up a zombie bank so it could pay off its legal exposure and not much else.

noun

1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.