home

Monday Morning Open Thread

Busy again. But read John Judis' review of the Ron Susskind book.

And yes, Geithner should have been fired.

Open Thread.

< Cain "Jokes" About Electrified Border Fence | Occupy Together: The Kids are Alright >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Nice VANITY FAIR piece of Elizabeth Warren (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:14:05 AM EST
    The Betty Crocker Award (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by itscookin on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    When Elizabeth Warren was in high school, all of the girls were put in a room with a box of Number 2 pencils, bubble sheets, and test booklets for the "Betty Crocker Homemaker of the Year Award". The prize was a silver charm for the winner's bracelet, the supposition being that every young woman of the time had a charm bracelet. The young women in my class (1969) wanted to boycott the test, but we were threatened with school suspension if we did. So no one opened the test booklets. We just filled in random answers on the bubble sheets. The teacher proctoring the test did not want us to get into trouble so she slit the seals open on the test booklets as we passed them in. Miraculously, one of us still won a charm.

    Parent
    Just got back from Georgia (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:15:54 AM EST
    My favorite little Baptist church sign of this trip:

    "Try Jesus Free for 30 Days.  If You're Not Satisfied, Satan Will Take You Back."

    When I asked which Jesus they meant, the dark skinned Hebrew one from the Middle East, or the Blonde Hippie with the blue eyes who liked to booze it up, well, they said neither. ;-)

    Awesome church sign :) (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:32:31 AM EST
    I put the photoshopped fake one on my facebook that said "Why would God send all the gays to hell?  It would just make hell FABULOUS."

    Parent
    No Need to PhotoShop (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    Church Sign Generator

    There's like 15 designs to choose from.

    Parent

    Now THAT'S Funny (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:39:03 AM EST
    It's raining aMEN!!!

    Parent
    During PT on Fort Carson many moons ago (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    they would play music over the PA system while the whole place "worked out" in the morning.  It's Raining Men was one of the songs they played routinely, they must have had a recording they played over and over again.  My husband said it was impossible for most of them to not bust out laughing because at this time they were all in the heart of openly declared homophobia and they are all jumping around and sweating to It's Raining Men.  He said you just had to be there to get how hilarious it was.

    Parent
    Don't Have to be there MT (none / 0) (#79)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    Your description was enough to get a laugh out of me.

    But in person it must have been hysterical.

    Parent

    Not just a boozer... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:43:19 AM EST
    them annointing oils?  We call that hash oil:)

    Parent
    That's what my dad says (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    He also says that it took Opium (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    to get the Book of the Revelations written.

    Parent
    And Moses... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:55:27 AM EST
    was on mushrooms or peyote:)

    Parent
    Was there peyote in THAT desert too? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    And Shrooms?  Shrooms came with my avocado tree that was grafted in San Fran.  Some spores sitting on top of the pot soil hit a certain humidity and temp here and kaboom :)  And no I did not do them, but I saw them and knew what they were :)  I am overly creative on Shrooms and forget to sleep, and I Shroomdial too.

    Parent
    I thought we were friends.... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:08:09 AM EST
    you don't call, you don't write? :)

    Reminds me of North Fla days...when I told people what an 1/8 goes for up here everybody wanted to rent a U-Haul and go cow pie pickin' then proceed up I-95.

    Parent

    Dehydration Will Have the Same Effect... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:32:19 PM EST
     ...after all a mirage is just a hallucination.

    Parent
    Reading Hillenbrand's "Unbroken." (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    Louie, after many, many days in a raft somewhere in the Pacific, limited rain water, little food, hallucinates a choir of angels singing to him.  Phil, who is the other person on the raft, see/s hears nothing.  

    Parent
    FYI, the book is "Revelation" ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by cymro on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:21:49 PM EST
    .... not "Revelations."

    Parent
    I always wondered what those were (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    and where i could get some...they sound great!

    Parent
    The Roman Catholics... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:51:06 AM EST
    took the good stuff out, but the Jesus edition is still available in secular circles.

    Parent
    Darn! (none / 0) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    If I'd known you were going to get up to VT on this trip, maybe we could have arranged to meet up for coffee or lunch or something somewhere.

    Glad you like my state!  It is beautiful, though the fall foliage isn't so good this year because it's been such a warm fall.

    Parent

    photo dump (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    I love the fall.

    The air is crisp, the wind blows all your senses awake, and nature is never as beautiful as when everything is dying.  This is what we put up with winter for.

    nice - thank you (none / 0) (#125)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 04:33:34 PM EST
    You've got a good eye for composition (none / 0) (#134)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 06:55:47 PM EST
    Have you ever visited Eli's site, at MultiMedium? He does some really nice photos too. For a long time, he just focused on black & white, then slowly started dabbling in color. I think he's in Philly.

    Parent
    Good and revealing review (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:19:08 PM EST
    Clear that Obama has no real grasp for the effect and importance of policy.

    His agony over 'the story' tells me he was never suitable for anything but campaigning for an office sans record. Just a  story won't work while running for re-election when a record can be examined.

    Smoke and Mirrors don't cut it.

    He also made the mistake of buying the bi-partisan meme: " ... at this juncture, the country will feel better about itself ... if they see Democrats and Republicans agreeing on anything. ... "

    People say they want bi-partisan action but what they're really saying is they want action, period and don't care who or what made it happen.

    Was it Rahm or Axelrod who (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    sd. in a print media interview the Obama's campaign team's job was to tell Obama what the story is, and Obama's job to tell the story well and often.  

    Parent
    Don't know (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:44:36 PM EST
    But it's an apt illustration.  

    Unfortunately carrying on with election mentality after entering office hasn't served the nation very well.

    Parent

    Also...rant about the current IXL war (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 05:28:20 PM EST
    I didn't understand what IXL was at the start of the school year.  Many parents didn't.  But my sixth grader can go online at school and at home as well and master certain math skills.  His teacher assigns lessons, and a child works on the skill lessons and can work until they receive the grade of 100%.  The lesson is over when the child quits, the chance of getting to the 100% only ends when the child quits working on the lesson.  Everytime they answer a given math problem wrong though it will subtract from their grade percentage and they must work to regain it.

    Josh's teacher is using this system as a math grade lynchpin. Most of the kids ignored her IXL assignments too and some of us parents weren't up to date on the IXL assignments and what it was all about....me being one of them.  My child got a less than great IXL grade due completely to neglect.  You can work the assignment until you get a 100%.  Of couse to get to the 100% there is an excellent change you will have mastered the skill being taught.  This whole concept is amazing to me, I wish they'd had it when I was a kid.

    My son is spoiled rotten too when it comes to video games.  When I discovered the IXL neglect and also the fact that every assignment has the unlimited possibility of eventually becoming a 100% grade I told Joshua all of his IXL assignments would be completed and completed to 100% before video games could be approached after school.  If he crosses me on this I will ground him from video games for a week.  The thought of that caused him to go really pale.  As long as my kid loves video games, I have pull.

    Several parents are complaining though.  They say IXL takes too long to get to 100%.  They want their kid to be assigned 20 problems, I guess so they can check them all and literally do the work for their kids.  My son's school is horrible about having that problem.  But IXL takes too long and is cutting into baseball and dance class.

    What part of our children are falling globally behind in Math are the parents not understanding?  And the first person who tells me that Steve Jobs had a sucky IXL grade is going to find out that that is because I wasn't Steve Jobs' mom.

    I 'like' IXL (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by the capstan on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 06:26:57 PM EST
    fersure!  Josh will do well for himself with you for a mom.  I recall my son spending his spring break teaching himself calculus around 8th or 9th grade.  He sat on the floor in his room with papers and books spread everywhere.  Until he moved away from home, I got my exercise hopscotching over piles of books on his floor.

    He has had an easy time finding ever better jobs (you'd recognize the current employer, tops in the field).  His savings are going to be used to quit and study one of the healing fields soon, tho.  He's one of the 'globally' (but not politically) committed.

    oh-a ps: the University of Chicago (I think it was) had a super interesting math program that was introduced to his middle school.  It got dumped early when parents complained that their kids were having problems (synonym for not wanting to work).

    Parent

    Thank you for your comment (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    Josh had two classmates stay over on Saturday and we went to breakfast on Sunday and everyone talked about IXL at the breakfast table.  Those boys also thought it took a long time to master your IXL lessons sometimes.  And I couldn't help it, I asked them what they wanted to do for a living, how much money did they want to make as adults, how many outstanding choices did they want available for themselves?  That was all it really took, they all knew where I was going with it.  Teaching methods have been improved, great improvements...and now someone can teach themselves calculus if they have a solid background.  They are all struggling with fractions right now, and if my memory serves me well it has always been that way in sixth grade.  But these past two weeks if Josh has questions at the beginning of his IXL lesson I will work the first few problems with him to get him acclimated and then he takes off on his own.  By the time he is at the end of the lesson he is very solid in the concepts required to solve the lesson problems.  I want everything for Josh, everything that he can attain and have for himself I'm signing on for that.

    Parent
    Math was always a difficult subject for me. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:07:50 PM EST
    And, unfortunately, I was in school back in the '50s and '60s when a girl being bad at math warranted no greater response from the adults in charge than a fond and knowing smile and the comment "well, at least you're good at English."

    And as a result I cannot do anything with fractions unless they come to me with a common denominator. When I was running organizations and had budget responsibilities, I had to call my partner on the phone so that she could guide me through the math, which guidance included telling me what buttons on the calculator to push and in what order. I was mortified by my ignorance.

    I now know that had someone taken the time to figure out what was making math so hard for me, and then figured out a way to work around that, rather than just expecting me to fail,I would be able to do math.

    To this day, I am embarrassed and inconvenienced by my math ignorance.

    Tell Josh to stick with it. Math, like reading, is fundamental.


    Parent

    I remember those days when girls (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:55:40 AM EST
    were patted gently on the hand.  I had a difficult time with both algebra courses in H.S. but I can crank out anything dealing with geometry like I'm breathing.  I was the only girl in those classes though, and I KNEW I wasn't the only one capable of it.  My dad was very supportive though of any learning struggles I may have, they were no different than the male struggle I was told time and again.

    I bought my daughter some video lectures for algebra, her brain is wired the exact same way.  She did NO geometry homework, it was like she already knew it all.  But algebra did not come together for her easily, and it didn't come together for me until I learned how years of algebra can be wed to working out the geometry of something.  Those vid lectures were so good though.  I caught myself watching them with her, if I had had those perfected lectures to watch it would have made things a lot easier.  They understand HOW to teach now in ways that they didn't when you and I were growing up.


    Parent

    Working along side Josh (none / 0) (#157)
    by the capstan on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 06:10:49 PM EST
    is a most excellent idea.  I remember my son was an excellent poet, but his prose was stilted, with third person/passive voice. I hate, really hate, correcting other people's work, so I usually put a more direct version of his work on one of the original word processors.  After he read my version once, I deleted it.  He never tried to reproduce what I had done, but his second effort was usually a lot better.  He's a really good writer now--much more direct and succinct (two qualities this ancient reporter appreciates).

    Parent
    I think this is funny: (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 07:04:17 PM EST
    Bill Keller is getting destroyed in the comment section of his latest NYT opinion piece.

    Oh, this is fun reading; thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 08:06:07 PM EST
    Although I started chuckling even before clicking on comments, because I saw this at the end of the column:

    An earlier version of my column incorrectly referred to Brazil as one of the countries where leaders "have been flamboyantly consolidating their own power." I meant Venezuela.

    Chuck is as funny as his commenters!

    Oh, excuse me, an earlier version of my post incorrectly referred to Chuck as one of the fools who "has been flamboyantly outing himself by his own spew in the NYT."  I meant Bill.

    Parent

    The World According to Bill: (none / 0) (#142)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:13:14 PM EST
    We should all try to be more like... Slovakia!

    I can't figure out why Jill Abramson thought it was a good idea to let her former editor take a spot on the Op-Ed page. His columns are uniformly awful. But, yes, it IS fun to watch him floundering so badly. I'm getting a truer picture of the man who allowed Judy Miller to cr*p all over the once-respected Gray Lady on his watch.

    Parent

    An excellent review (4.50 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:09:53 AM EST
    Left out something critical though for me in how systemically sinister Geithner has been.  Everyone was arguing and "relitigating" while Geithner was the only one with a large staff to do his bidding and he set them to work developing his "plans".  As Geithner often boasts plan beats no plan everytime. After observing Obama as a leader I would have to say that is double true about him and how he picks and chooses and just flat out passively allows a course of action.

    So, Geithner wouldn't like the agreed choice of action and he would slow walk it while having his staff work on a different plan more fleshed out.  Nobody else up there had that kind of access to such creative resources.

    Geithner should be gone.  I know it has been proposed that the President worries about getting a new head of Treasury confirmed and that is why Geithner remains.  But he is getting the Republicans over a barrel lately and exposing them for their attempts to destroy what remains of our economy. I would think that refusing to confirm a new Treasury Secretary would also be along the lines of political terrorism.  This President is so fight averse though, if he even wanted Geithner gone would he do it?  He seems to genuinely like and dote on the guy so who knows what the President really wants or thinks where Tim Geithner is concerned.  I only know I'm damned close to hating the guy, he is clearly culpable over and over and over again in creating and empowering our failing economic infrastructure that is dragging the whole country down and sucking the vitality out of our remaining economy. The power and authority granted him causes me to have no faith in my President and my President's leadership.

    I also disagree with Judis that the insane speculating that continues to go on and on with the rich people and their cheap easy money handed to them by the Fed has no effect one way or the other on our economy.

    On balance, not a bad review. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    I read the book - some sections of it more than once.  And I still have no real grasp of who Obama is, or what, if anything, he believes in.  

    This will surprise some people, but I didn't come away from the book believing Obama was evil personified.  But he was all over the place.  He had a stretch where he wanted to break up the banks, but, as Judis rightly points out, that got watered down to just winding down Citi, and because that's not what Geithner wanted to do, it never happened.  But, if this was what Obama wanted to do, why didn't he hold Geithner's feet to the fire to get it done?  

    Obama goes from telling the head honchos of 13 of the major financial firms that he is all that is standing between them and the pitchforks, to essentially telling them they have nothing to fear from him - in the same meeting.

    Obama's big on ideas, and very, very short on follow through - you'd think a guy who's so into sports, who plays basketball and golf, would be able to understand the importance of that.  In too many cases, he didn't just fail to follow through on the shot, he failed to follow through on the game.  What did that do?  Left things too much in the hands of "advisors" to go their own way.  And what was so disturbing to me, at times, was that most of the people working for him knew that if they could just come up with a better sales pitch, they could close him - even if it wasn't at all what he originally said he wanted to do.  Obama comes off, quite a lot of the time, like a marshmallow.  And not just like a marshmallow, but like one  looking for the best cookie to sandwich himself into.

    For all of Larry Summers' alleged brilliance, Obama should never have allowed someone who always has to be the largest ego in the room to be part of his team.  But, Geithner?  He has been to the economy what Dick Cheney was to national security.  And the only way he is leaving is if he decides to go.

    It's tempting to suppose that, if only Obama had better advisors, people committed to a more left-leaning agenda, that things would improve, but there has to be a reason why he has surrounded himself with just the opposite; maybe, in the end, that's the biggest clue to who Obama really is.


    Parent

    Agree with you ALL THE WAY AROUND (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:13:09 AM EST
    I also didn't come away thinking that Obama was evil, not all that smart though either and a very very poor leader.  Another reason why I believe he is a total sucker for anyone showing up with "a plan" that he can follow along with other than Geithner's boasting?  What has he denied the Pentagon?  And those mothers are the kings and queens of plan making, and power point presentation, bulleted lists with caveats.

    They pass that right down the leadership chain too.  You wouldn't believe the courses and classes that my husband has had to take that teach the skills of planning and implementation and teach a common soldier vernacular meant to make implementations more swift.  It is literally pounded into them by the time any of them become anything senior.  If Obama just needs a good plan to convince him of something, they own him.

    Parent

    I am listening to CDs of Shakespeare's (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    "Richard III."  Now that guy was a planner.  

    Parent
    Which actor is reading Richard? (none / 0) (#143)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:18:58 PM EST
    Booklet is missing from libs CDs and (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:35:08 AM EST
    actors/director/composer etc. weren't identified on label or box.  Maybe at the end of final disc.

    Parent
    with Geithner leaving after his successor is confirmed.

    Parent
    As always (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:30:59 PM EST
    You have a plan too :)  Usually with bulleted lists and goals, timelines, and caveats :)

    Parent
    It is a good review. (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:14:27 PM EST
    I have about 18% left to read, according to Kindle (I am gratified to know that the book is 500+ pages, it makes me feel better for taking forever to read it).  Judis does a good job of distinguishing the controversy of the book from the content of the book.  And it's true, reading the book doesn't feel like reading a hit piece on Obama - if anything it makes Obama seem more innocent than I thought.  Which is not a good quality in a President, obviously, but I was surprised at some of the positions he took in the book.

    And yeah, the technocratic bent to this Administration is kind of crazy.  Certainly anyone who thought that Obama "really wanted" a public option in the healthcare bill should read this book, as it's quite clear that they have very different views on healthcare than many liberals thought.  It explains why Obama never really made the moral argument for healthcare reform as strongly as I thought he would.  The operative rule for healthcare was "lower cost, then expand coverage."

    Parent

    The Judis review made me a bit (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    simpatico to Geithner.  He's the guy who had experience shutting down Lehman Bros. and subsequent effect on loan availability.  No wonder he wasn't in favor of fed. govt. takeover of banking institutions.

    Parent
    Having read the book, I can pretty much (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    guarantee that you would not be feeling simpatico to Geithner if you were to also read it; if anything, you would have some appreciation for just how much power he has, and, at the same time, how easily manipulated Obama is.

    Not a great combination, but it's working well for Geithner, and by extension, the financial industry.

    Parent

    Paranoia and fear are really bad goal (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:39:12 PM EST
    setters and decision makers.  I think the aftermath of 9/11 is a testament to that.  What did FDR say again about we have to fear?  We have to know what we want.  Just getting up every morning protecting and feeding the fear of what we don't want is vitality and life draining.  Our economy is capable of being vital and life giving to many, not just a few.  It won't survive in the fashion it currently exists in anyhow.  It isn't sustainable.

    Parent
    + 10,000 (none / 0) (#126)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 04:35:18 PM EST
    We have to know what we want. Just getting up every morning protecting and feeding the fear of what we don't want is vitality and life draining.


    Parent
    Government (none / 0) (#87)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:12:43 PM EST
    takeover of a bank or banks is not in any way related to letting Lehman fail.

    Parent
    So I need to re-read Judis' review? (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:16:50 PM EST
    From Judis: (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:18:50 PM EST
    Geithner, who as head of the New York Federal Reserve allowed Lehman Brothers to go under in September 2008, provoking a global credit freeze, feared that nationalizing the banks would set off another crisis of confidence in the financial sector.


    Parent
    I don't care what (none / 0) (#96)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:35:36 PM EST
    Geithner thought.  Remember Paulson thought letting Lehman go would 'stabilize' the markets.  You know what happened next.

    If the stumbling banks were taken firmly in hand do you think instability would result?

    As illustration - what happened when Roosevelt closed and reorganized the banks?  I'll tell you what happened.  STABILITY.  No more runs on banks.

    Geithner, like any banker, didn't want to risk loss of private control.

    Parent

    My little bit of sympathy was engendered (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    by his past is prologue dealings w/Lehman Bros.  Not his positions on size of stimulus, need not to crack down on banks or regulate financial institutions, etc.  

    Parent
    It's 1968 all over again (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:27:30 AM EST
    Italy - in all its trademark aesthetically pleasant complexity is so absorbing it's easy to make you forget about the rest of the world. Well, the New York Times didn't have this excuse when it ignored Occupy Wall Street - happening in its hometown for days. But now the whole world is watching, as Occupy Wall Street is fast becoming a US-wide national movement.

    And as much as those representing 99% of the American population - peaceful, harmless rejects of liquid modernity are mad as hell and don't feel inclined to take it anymore, predictably the solid elites still don't have a clue about what's goin' on.

    But make no mistake; fear is starting to eat their souls. It's visible in the way politicians and their corporate media shills deride the protesters as a "stagnant movement", a bunch of "nuts" or worse, "criminals".

    Do these faces strike you as "criminal"?

    Against all odds, in all its gloriously decentralized way, Occupy Wall Street at the very least seems to be offering a global road map to Fight the Power. I'm sure the Buddha of Peshawar would approve it - because that also implies fighting the Power's wars. As Zizek put it, "we know we will often desire something but do not really want it. Don't really be afraid to really want what you desire." Self-appointed Masters of the Universe, be afraid. Be very afraid.

    Read it all -> Liquid Modernity, Solid Elites, by Pepe Escobar


    Cultural insights into the NYT, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    on display in the op-ed  (Oct 17) of former executive editor, Bill Keller:  Do you have the blues, such as being "bored by the soggy sleep-ins and warmed-over anarchism of OWS?" Keller gives good news that is happening--in other countries.

    Slovakia--prodded by opposition that "caters to the Facebook generation" challenged the idea that they should bail out profligate neighbors and bankers. But, after the rejection, the government fell, and the agreement was ratified, after all.  And, the signaling of impatience struck more fear into the hearts of bankers than OWS protests have done.

    Liberia held elections," both candidates were Harvard-educated, and not in the least ashamed of it!"  Keller, however, goes with the Nobel winner and a former World Bank economist.  

    The new president of Peru, unlike his neighbors, does not pick fights with the US nor does he nationalize industries. He has appointed an investment friendly cabinet.   And, he fired 30 of 45 national police generals (the corruption campaign, in fairness he notes, does give a new and loyal police).

    "A rare beam of hope" can be observed in Myanmar. After decades of  protests greeted only by repression by an "awful junta", there are signs of a thaw. All those fruitless protests, have, apparently, given way to spontaneous conversion of the military for a parliament and talks of democracy.  

    And, finally, Somalia. A soccer stadium was packed to rally against armed evil. "To demand handouts? To call for tax cuts? No,not at all. It was to denounce "the Al-Qaeda supporting guerilla group that has terrorized Somalia for years."   So see, popular protests can make a difference--in other countries.

    Parent

    I wish that everyone, (none / 0) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    from conservatives to liberals, would stop blaming my home state for every one of their problems. Wells Fargo (a west coast bank) forcloses on your house and it's Wall Street's fault. Your kid is gay and it's Christopher Street's fault. You built a crappy house in the dessert that's worth less now and it's New York's fault.

    Without the financial industry this city would be dying like most of the other major east coast and rust belt cities in this country. I can think of a thousand problems with "Wall Street" and a dozen things I'd like to see done to remedy some problems but I'm tired of my home being scape goated once again.

    Parent

    It's my home state too... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    Wall St. is a cancer man.  Yeah, we see some benefits, like if you sell crystal meth or run a high priced call girl ring or work at Tiffany's...Wall St. is your bread and butter.  But as a whole, Wall St. has sold the nation down the river to binge on greed, with the help of those on their payroll in D.C.

    We should be camped out and rabble-rousing outside the White House & Congress & the Supreme Court too...no doubt.  But Wall St. deserves all the scorn they're getting, and then some.

    Parent

    This whole country sold itself down the river. (none / 0) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    The people buying and selling shares of freaking Alcoa or 3M didn't do it alone. Everyone who bought a house with a no money down ARM mortgage and then walked away because they were no longer making a profit sold this country down the river. Any person who bought a Chinese made piece of crap from Target or Wall Mart or one of a million other stores sold this country down the river. Anyone who buys an iphone sold this country down the river. Any company that hires in illegal alien (almost every small business) or outsourses jobs (almost every big business) sold this country down the river.

    That's the way it goes in a recession. And yet it's all my homes fault. Whether it's a Tea Partier who doesn't want to pay his taxes or a college student who doesn't want to pay for college, they all seem to blame New York.

    Parent

    No argument... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    the working and middle class has played a role too...accepting a 401k in lieu of a pension, buying cheap goods made in sweatshops overseas, looking to hit lotto by gambling on stocks, letting grifters hold their money and give them plastic cards to leech on every transaction.

    I'm hoping this movement is our awakening as well as a wake up call to Wall St. and Washington that the status quo is no longer feasible.

    I couldn't help myself when I was down at Liberty Plaza, I saw a girl holding one of them "I owe x in student loans" signs...I said part of that problem is on her, she shoulda went to a community college, or better yet educated herself for free at the public library.  We the people need to do better at sniffing out the scams and refusing to be the mark.

    But the lion's share of blame must be placed on those that designed our systems and exploited the broked*cks of the nation.

    Parent

    I still believe that the lions share of the blame (none / 0) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    belongs to mortgage companies (and banks) that gave out ridiculous loans to people who shouldn't have had them.

    The mistake of Wall Street, bundling and selling those loans, was one of stupidity and short sightedness.

    The actions of the mortgage companies was obviously bad from the begining, and criminial in many cases. Some of those mortgage companies were run with less integrity then Gus Fring's operation on Breaking Bad.

    Parent

    It wasn't the lenders who realized (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    the money to be made in securitization - it was the Wall Street geniuses who realized that you could take all of these loans and slice and dice them into securities that could be sold on the market.  And as soon as the money started rolling in, Wall Street couldn't get enough of them - hence the pressure on the loan originators to produce more and more product.  

    How do you get more and more product to sell?  You lower your standards for creating it.  You inflate appraisals so the loans can be bigger.  You put people on commission, so that the more loans they close, the more money they make.  You tolerate sloppiness.  You look the other way when borrowers are deceived about the terms of the loans they're getting.  But everyone's making so much money, few are having trouble sleeping at night.

    On the Wall Street side, you misrepresent the quality of the MBS's you're selling.   And you bet against the very products you're selling, so you make money no matter how it all turns out.  See Goldman Sachs.  You get sloppy about recording the deeds of trust that are supposed to hold title.  And when those titles are questioned as part of foreclosure proceedings, you lie - you robo-sign documents, sometimes with the signatures of people who no longer work for the companies they purport to represent.

    You see how much money is being made, so you come up with new products you can sell to make even more; no one really understands them, but as long as investors are happy, it's a win-win for everyone.

    Yes, we all know people who work for banks and brokerage firms - I deal with quite a few on a regular basis in my work; they are good, honest and ethical people - but the problem with Wall Street isn't with your average retail broker, or assistant, or back-office paper-pusher: it's with what's happening at the top of the food chain - with the people who are deciding on and designing business models with one goal in mind - to drive their own compensation to higher and higher levels, no matter what.  

    And paying back the TARP funds wasn't about the recipients wanting to prove themselves to be healthy and changed and on the right track; it was about not wanting to be held to compensation limits that were imposed on those who still owed the government money.

    If you're not dating, engaged or married to NY, or having its baby, it might serve you better not to be so defensive about the financial industry's role in where this economy is today.

    Parent

    What about Wall St.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    pressuring mortgage lenders to make more loans so they can bundle 'em to fulfill the gambler's demand for more "financial products"?  And then betting against their customers for said "financial products"?

    And who owns Countrywide now?

    Parent

    I'm not sure how much pressure Wall Street (none / 0) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    put on the companies. I think that's more the companies realzied they could make more money with more mortgages. However, the Banks and several large firms (one of which is gone now) do deserve hell for pushing Moody's and S&P to rate the debt higher in 06 and 07. And Moody's and S&P deserve even worse for allowing it.

    Parent
    Wall St. is the local symbol... (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    of the epidemic corruption and grift, private sector edition.

    Worth noting the occupy movement is in effect in many many cities and countries, and growing everyday.  Fear not, we'll have all the bases covered...I mean occupied.  And I for one hope 'we the broked*cks' start taking more responsibility for our role and right our own ships...the account closing incident at the Citibank in NYC is a great start.  Hopefully those Citi marks, I mean customers, do close their accounts once they make bail or are ROR'd.

    Parent

    What ? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    No one is blaming New York and I am pretty sure we are all smart enough to realize that 'Wall Street' falls far beyond Manhattan.

    You might have a legitimate grip if you lived in DC, but even that would be a stretch.

    If you aren't a republican, you should think about converting, because you got that victimization routine working well.

    Parent

    And I am a Texan (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    So I know a thing for two about state hate.

    Parent
    I had to read this several times before (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:15:06 AM EST
    I was able to convince myself it was serious, not snark.  

    This isn't about geography, for heaven's sake; if the financial center of the American universe was located at the corner of Elm and Oak in  Bumf**k, in the Great State of Flyover, the criticism would be no less damning.  Or deserving.

    If you feel bad telling people you're from New York, try telling them you're from Texas...

    Parent

    I hope That Was Written After My Post (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:34:28 PM EST
    The time stamp says it was, but in (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    truth, I didn't see your comment until mine posted.

    But, I do know someone in Texas, and he has always marveled (and not in a good way) at what comes out of "his" state...which is what prompted me to say what I did.

    Parent

    I Would Use the Word Horrified (none / 0) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:23:00 PM EST
    But I am in Houston, and like most big cities we are pretty blue.  Plus I am city dweller, not like I am going to cruse up to Huntsville for an execution, or head over to Vidor, the home of the KKK.

    And of course Austin, which is often described as a chunk of California that fell off and rolled into he heart of Texas.

    It would offend me more if the stuff said wasn't almost always true.

    And last, but not least, I used to live in Delay's district, #22 in Sugar Land(home of Spielberg's first movie, the Sugar Land Express).  

    Not that it was a big deal, but driving by 3 district signs each way to work would get me so fired up.  Wish I would have stolen one for posterity or whatever the opposite of that word means.

    Now I live in Sheila Jackson Lee's district.  Good congressional representation has never been my moving forte'.

    Parent

    Let's see if I have this right (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    Wall St. has both political parties firmly in its pocket. Corporate profits are booming with 2010 having steepest annual surge since officials began tracking such matters 60 years ago in a time of booming poverty and unemployment and depressed wages.

    "Corporations are taking huge advantage of the slack in the labor market -- they are in a very strong position and workers are in a very weak position," he said. "They are using that bargaining power to cut benefits and wages, and to shorten hours." That strategy, Mr. Lachman said, serves corporate and shareholder imperatives, but "very much jeopardizes our chances of experiencing a real recovery."

    They got bailed out with taxpayer funds and as a reward for tanking the economy

    US bankers set for record pay and bonuses for second year ...

    OTOH needed domestic programs are being cut and we are being told that the safety net programs must also be put on the chopping block.

    But the financial industry is being repressed, discriminated against and deserves our deepest sympathy. BTW, I guess we should also cheer GE for off shoring thousands of jobs.

    Parent

    Boy that Obama was such a meanie (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:47:40 PM EST
    From the John B. Judis link:

    Obama initially sided with Summers and Geithner. At a meeting with bankers, he sounded a sympathetic note. One banker who was present told Suskind that "The president had us at a moment of real vulnerability. At that point, he could have ordered us to do just about anything, and we would have rolled over. But he didn't. He mostly wanted to help us out, to quell the mob."

    OTOH, look how partial he was to homeowners:

    WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama defended his administration's beleaguered foreclosure-prevention initiatives on Wednesday by arguing that more aggressive steps to assist homeowners might help people who don't deserve to be helped. link

    No wonder the banks feel that they are oppressed,

    Parent

    They got bailed out with tax payer money (none / 0) (#16)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    becuase they economy would have collapsed if they didn't. And they paid that money back.

    But if you want to tax rich people more, that's fine. That's good. You want to raise taxes on long term capital gains back up to 20%, that's fine. That's good. You want to force out some criminal ceo's and rage against pay raises in some of those failing institutions, that's good as well. I was calling for all of those things 3 years ago.

    But now everyone is conviently forgetting history. Ignoring the mortgage companies (most of them from out West) ignoring the mistakes of many consumers, ignoring the past huge blunders in public policy, and heaping all of our troubles on Wall Street.

    Parent

    I don't think anyone has forgotten (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by CST on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    the other blunders.

    The difference is that the homeowner who took out a bad loan is now out of a house, and possibly a job too.  While the banks who made those loans are still raking in the dough.

    It's not like everyone else got off scott free here.  It's kind of hard to forget if you're homeless or unemployed.

    Parent

    You are conveniently ignoring (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    what is actually going on. Protests have been going on in over 100 cities nationwide. The protests are going on worldwide. Let's talk a little more about government welfare to banks:

    But don't expect big banks to stop feeding from the government trough. Remember, the TARP funds are only part of the federal aid they've been receiving. In fact, it's a small portion of the help they've been getting from the U.S.--and the only one that comes with such onerous restrictions.

    For one, banks are aggressively issuing debt guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the banking regulator. Since late last year, banks have issued more than $200 billion in such bonds, according to research firm Dealogic. The rates on the government-backed bonds are much cheaper than could get by selling bonds on their own.

    The big banks returning the TARP money show no signs of giving up this perk. Goldman has $21 billion of such debt; JPMorgan Chase $40 billion; Morgan Stanley $23 billion. (JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley did say they wouldn't issue any additional bonds backed by the FDIC. And JPMorgan recently sold corporate bonds without the U.S. backing.)

    Banks also are benefitting from ultralow interest rates, engineered by the Federal Reserve. The Fed has cut the banks' borrowing cost to the bone. That means the banks can borrow money for essentially nothing and lend it out on much higher rates. The difference--or the spread--is one big reason why banks reported such strong profits in the first quarter. link



    Parent
    Low interest rates over the past 2 decades (none / 0) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    were indeed disasterous. They are the prime reason for less saving (why put your money in a bank earning 1%) and unwise home purchases.

    Though, of course, if rates were higher now even fewer people would be buying homes, worsening the recession.

    Parent

    Poor, poor Wall St. banks (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:59:50 AM EST
    Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won

    I weep for how the government has oppressed them.

    Parent

    Poor, poor B of A execs (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    Similarly, executives keep getting generous payouts when they leave. Just last week, Bank of America disclosed it was paying a total of $11 million in severance to two executives forced out in a management reshuffle, Sallie Krawcheck and Joe Price, even as the company said it would begin laying off roughly 30,000 employees over the next few years. link

    I weep at how oppressed B of A and Sallie Krawcheck and Joe Price are and how unAmerican the 30,000 who will lose their jobs are by not being grateful that they are allowed to make this sacrifice.

    Parent

    The prime reason for less saving... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    is stagnant, err declining, wages coupled with an ever-rising cost of living.

    Most common folk I know aren't choosing between buying a house of setting up a savings account. They have the cashish for neither.

    Parent

    That's Silly (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    There weren't massive savings accounts before this disaster, I even remember a Prez saying spend, spend, spend.  There was more money is savings, but remove the people who are cash strapped and/or jobless and that number is fairly constant over time.

    Savers save, regardless of the rate.  And last time I checked, these 4% mortgage rates have less people in homes then back in the early 80's when the rates were double digits.

    Parent

    For anyone who thinks that Wall Street (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:18:43 AM EST
    is an "innocent victim", I'd suggest that they watch the documentary Meltdown - The Men Who Crashed The World - a four-part investigation into a world of greed and recklessness that brought down the financial world - the story of the people who destroyed the US and global economy.

       The whole game is increasing your bonus. You don't go into the city to do the world some good. You go there to make money as quickly as possible, and if that means lying, cheating and stealing that's what you do.

        The way people were behaving was a rational way of behaving in the context of the bonus system and the lack of regulation.



    Parent
    I would never call Wall Street innocent and I (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:48:20 AM EST
    want them to pay more and I feel like they should have been hounded by investigations from begining. But everyone is kidding themselves if they think the causes weren't far more widespread then those evil, evil New York traders.

    Parent
    Well sure... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:09:00 PM EST
    On top of the tens of millions of people who had no clue what next to nothing down no credit check adjustable rate mortgages could do to them but believed that the government and the banking industry were acting in the interests of their customers who were taken to the cleaners over the past few years by lenders and wall street subprime mortgage Collaterized Bullsh*t Obligation "securitizing", there is an entire country of hundreds of millions of people who have been suckered for more than a century by the ponzi schemes of wall street investment bankers with the help and blessing of both sold out major political parties..

    Caveat Emptor. It must be their fault for being so stupid.

    JP Morgan, publicly considered a financial luminary of the time, exploited his mass influence by publishing rumors that a prominent bank in New York was insolvent or bankrupt. Morgan knew this would cause mass hysteria, which would affect other banks as well. And it did.

    The public, in fear of losing their deposit, immediately began mass withdrawals. Consequently the banks were forced to call in the loans, causing recipients to sell their property, and thus a spiral of repossessions, bankruptcies and turmoil emerged.

    Putting the pieces together a few years later, Frederik Allen of Life Magazine wrote, "The Morgan interests took advantage to precipitate the panic... guiding it shrewdly as it progressed".

    Unaware of the fraud, the panic of 1907 led to a congressional investigation headed by Senator Nelson Aldrich, who had intimate ties to the banking cartels and later became part of the Rockefeller family through marriage.

    The commission, led by Aldrich, recommended a central bank should be implemented, so panics like 1907 could never happen again.

    This was the spark the international bankers needed to initiate their plan.

    In 1910 a secret meeting was held at a JP Morgan estate on Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia. It was there that a central banking bill called the Federal Reserve Act was written. This legislation was written by bankers, not lawmakers. This meeting was so secretive, so concealed from government and public knowledge, that the ten or so figures who attended were told they could only use their first names in addressing each other. After this bill was constructed, it was then handed over to their political front man Senator Nelson Aldrich who personally planned this, and in 1913 with heavy political sponsorship by the bankers Woodrow Wilson became President having already agreed to sign the Federal Reserve Act in exchange for campaign support.

    And two days before Christmas when most of Congress was at home with their families, the Federal Reserve Act was voted in and Wilson in turn made it law.

    Years later Wilson wrote in regret: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by it's system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the  vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

    The Federal Reserve, Pt 1 of 5 (video)



    Parent
    I believe Fargo is a (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Rojas on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    South Dakota bank and Citi is incorporated in Delaware.
    Among other things, this allows them to get around state statutes against usury  as they are "so called" "foreign corporations".
    And it seems damn odd to me that the federal government orders the citizens of the various states to pay a tax to bail these "foreign" SOBs out but the deck is stacked when it comes to state laws to protect consumers against predators.

    Parent
    Your response (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:49:29 AM EST
    is what the article is about.

    Parent
    If You Like to Drink in a Bad Economy (none / 0) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    Here's a link to find the cheapest beer in your zip code.  HERE

    If you are an NFL fan, here is a graph of prices at each stadium.  Cleveland the low dog at $5, St Louis at the top for $9.

    Click around, they have a graph for all major league sports.   LINK
    -------------

    Hope this doesn't violate the site rules; I have nothing to to with these links, except that I am a heavy consumer.


    Gah. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Addison on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:07:27 AM EST
    Given his professional social circle (Harvard & NYC upper-crust technocrat) it should've been no surprise that he wanted to stand between the "mob" and the banks, but I would not have guessed that he'd go with the in-house Wall Street guys over even Chicago-based allies like Rahm Emanuel (whom the review notes was pressing for bank reform) on the policy/political course. Staggeringly disappointing. It's hard to even know what to do with the information since I'm already going to vote for Obama in 2012 against Romney, Cain, etc. and whatever 3rd party candidate pops up. I'd love an SEC investigation and DOJ prosecution of a bankster or two in the next year, though. That might help salve the sore spots.

    I was busy last night which means..... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    This morning I will watch all alone with only coffee and me...Dexter and Homeland.  I love technology when I can finally figure it out some.

    Dexter is getting good (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:05:53 AM EST
    after a slow start. I love the parts with Deb and the office politics. And Masuka's new intern - wonder what is going on there with he interest in old cases....

    Parent
    Both shows are really good right now (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:54:35 PM EST
    The next Dexter looks really freaky.

    Parent
    Cash from Wall Street (none / 0) (#47)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    Wall Street is abandoning Obama based on the fundraising numbers to date.

    Does this factor at all into the common theme here that both parties are equally beneficial to Wall Street?

    In my mind, cash from large companies are a requirement to be President, for better or worse.  But there is a distinction between the two parties that Wall Street itself sees clearly. That should matter.

    Should.

    sure... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    Obama & A Bundle of Shared Sacrifice
    July 23, 2011

    President Barack Obama has relied more on well-connected Wall Street figures to fund his re-election than he did four years ago when he campaigned as an outsider and an underdog.

    One-third of the money Obama's elite fund-raising corps has raised on behalf of his re-election has come from the financial sector, according to a new Center for Responsive Politics analysis.

    Individuals who work in the finance, insurance and real estate sector are responsible for raising at least $11.8 million for Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, according to the Center's research. All of Obama's bundlers have raised a minimum of $34.95 million, as OpenSecrets Blog previously reported.

    During his entire 2008 presidential bid, bundlers who worked in the finance, insurance and real estate sector were responsible for a minimum of $16.1 million, according to the Center's research. That's about 21 percent of the $76.5 million estimated minimum amount that these top fund-raisers brought in for Obama's presidential campaign.

    An exact dollar amounts for how much cash these individuals raised ahead of the 2008 election or during the past few months is not known because the Obama campaign provided only broad ranges of how much money each bundler collected.

    A precise figure, however, is known for how much the Obama campaign and the DNC raised during the second quarter of the year: $86 million. Thus, at least $1 out of every $8 that the DNC and Obama campaign raised came thanks to a bundler connected to the finance, insurance and real estate industry.



    Parent
    The bundling practice, indeed, has gotten (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    nastily sophisticated.  The practice, used so well by Bush II, has "matured" into an ongoing financing operation for both parties. The $$$ raised, tho, come from all kinds of individuals/backers...this is way beyond Wall Street. As noted in recent reports, funding from Wall Street itself appears to be going to Romney in this early stage. Given the growing success of Occupy, that may not be the type of bragging rights that Romney might want. (Think of the opposition campaign adds!)

    Parent
    Trying to position Obama (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:24:22 PM EST
    as the fundraising "underdog" is laughable, really... no wonder he grins from ear to ear so much

    Financial Times

    Obama reported in filings with the Federal Election Commission on Friday that he had raised $86m in the three months to the end of June, $46m for his own campaign and just under $40m for the Democratic National Committee.

    Mr Obama's haul dwarfed the $34m collectively pulled in by the Republican candidates, but he lagged in one sector - finance.

    Mr Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, who raised $18.3m for the June quarter, beat Mr Obama in New York state, where many bankers remain angry at presidential criticism of the sector after the financial crisis.



    Parent
    No such positioning intended,, edger (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    'Only saying above that Wall Street--as a direct source of money & as distinguished from broader sources--may be turning, at this date, to Romney.

    As for amounts of $$$ raised: I can't stand the money race & the level it has driven to... but, realism compels anyone paying attention (and particularly after the United Citizen decision by the CJ Roberts SCt) to partake in the fundraising level that both parties now practice. As for the Obama campaign's $$$ advantages now, well...under the circumstances, more power to him. More power to him, of course, unless one would prefer the opposition party to enjoy the advantage :)

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    That was a cute little smile you put at the end of your comment, but you forget to add the "wink" to it.

    I don't the "lesser of two evils" sham either. It and the fiction that the two party system is any more than a coke/pepsi false choice is as much of a lie as any other snake oil both parties and their followers try to sell to a public they believe is as dumb as they both believe they are. Actually it's more of a lie - it's the big lie.

    When a salesman tells you you should buy his product and the best reason he can give you is that the other guys product is crap, he may be right about the other guys product, but it also means that salesman hasn't got anything to sell you that's worth you buying from him.

    One would hope that emulating republicans is not the best that Democrats and Obama supporters have to offer now.

    But if you really want to win Obama a second term and actually do something useful for your country at the same time, here's how to do it.

    Parent

    I'll try again (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:49:48 PM EST
    My earlier comments were in response to what I read to be your hint that Wall Street favors Obama today in terms of money.  If that is so, my response remains: No, the $$$ today are moving from Wall Street itself to Romney (but, as kdog indicates, it is still early.) What & where "bundlers bundle" is another matter & from much broader sources beyond Wall Street.

    Also: As to whether Dems are "emulate<ing>" Republicans is beside the point about the network of $$$ & the realistic need in today's reality. Chicken or egg.... What those who would participate in the national level of politics accepts--for now--is that this disgustingly constant moneyraising process is part of the package.  Noone is emulating anyone. Only choosing to run a partisan campaign in this cycle.  You don't like; I don't like it.  But, it is.  If a saint were running & we were all budding angels, the philosophical discussion & the reality would be different.  (I'll skip the :))

    Parent

    How the mighty has fallen in just one day (none / 0) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    Yesterday it was Jesus of Nazareth and Prince Siddhartha Gautama and today we are down to unnamed saints.

    Parent
    Huh? Actually any saint would do (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    #PretzelTime (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Isn't it too early to tell? (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    First Wall St. must annoint their preferred Brand R guy, once Brand R has a nominee, then they will hedge like they always do and pour some blood money into Obama's coffers.

    Parent
    KDog (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:16:50 PM EST
    I think that is correct. They will hedge as they always do and always will. That's just smart business.

    But they don't like Obama at all. Everyone from Buffett to O's big name fundraisers sing the same tune.

    They believe he is out to take their money and give it to the poor.

    It's an interesting contrast to his liberal critics saying the exact opposite.

    Parent

    "take their money and give it (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    to the poor?"

    That is the most patently ridiculous thing I have heard in a couple of days; there is nothing, nada, zilch, to indicate that Obama has any intention of playing Robin Hood if he is re-elected in 2012.

    At pretty much every opportunity he's had to close the wealth gap, Obama has sided with the 1%-ers time and again; at this stage, it's a pattern.

    Honestly, sometimes you just crack me up, even if you don't intentionally aspire to stand-up comedy.

    Parent

    It is ridiculous to believe it (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    but that does not mean the GOP faithful don't. they will run against the fiction they have created of a Kenyan socialist.

    Parent
    Anne (none / 0) (#78)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:45:22 PM EST
    I would respectfully disagree. I believe that is generally what he is proposing although he can, of course, never say that.

    Make no mistake, what he proposes is a redistribution of wealth, which I am just fine with.

    Parent

    Let us know when that (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 04:05:46 PM EST
    actually happens, will ya?  I could use the cash.

    Parent
    For once I sorta agree with ABG (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 04:24:17 PM EST
    What Obama proposes is a redistribution of wealth. Where we disagree is the direction the funds are currently going and will continue to go under his proposals.

    Not difficult to determine who benefits or who loses from tax cuts to corporations and the mega rich, from cuts to domestic programs like WIC and LIHEAP, cuts to the safety net programs proposed in Obama's Grand Bargain, providing free labor to companies, off shoring jobs to N. Korea or increases in defense budgets resulting from expanding military actions.

    Parent

    Let's you and me incorporate (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    as I'm guessing that's how to get anything under ABG's idea of a redistribution-of-wealth plan.

    Parent
    Heavy weighs the crown... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:29:18 PM EST
    on the chameleon, or something like that.

    No doubt they prefer Romney, no disputing that, what grifter wouldn't?  But I'd wager the contributions will be in the same ballpark when Nov. '12 rolls around, which kinda makes their preference irrelevant, they'll get what they pay for either way.

    Parent

    It may be a bit early, as you say, kdog (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    Yet, the interesting piece of info that Wall Street has gone from the million-plus donation to Obama during '08 to about $45,000 now is very suggestive of something close to abandonment...particulary considering their contributions to date of @$350,000 to Romney.  

    Parent
    The difference between 45k... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    and 350k to Wall St. is like the difference between 45 cents and 3 dollars 50 cents to you and me.

    Plenty of time to even it out in a proper hedge once they annoint Romney...though there could be a message in there to Obama that he hasn't bent us over far enough.

    Parent

    Cain Surges Past Obama in poll 43%-41% (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    Link

    "Rising Republican star Herman Cain is now more popular the President Obama, a new poll of likely voters found.

    The plain-talking pitchman behind the "9-9-9" tax reform plan beats Obama 43% to 41% in the latest head-to-head matchup in Rasmussen Reports' latest national telephone survey."

    It doesn't take much (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    to be more popular than Obama these days.

    Parent
    What cracks me up about 9/9/9... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:47:47 PM EST
    is Cain assumes all the "hidden tax" in everything will disappear, and make goods & services cheaper.

    I assume the corporations will keep the sticker price the same, pocket the tax savings, and the consumer gets hit with 9% inflation overnight.

    Parent

    Yes, kdog (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    And what is even funnier from the "plain talking" Cain's perspective is the current joke that 9-9-9 would cause the sales tax (y'know, the last "9") to raise to a total 15 to 20 per cent--since state taxes would remain & be added to the new fed tax under the plan.  Ah yes, think of the reaction when the new flavor-of-the-week, Cain, is not just exposed for the money he receives from the Koch industry but also for the new tax he would impose on the middle-class.

    That is for starters (huh, Dan the Man?) BTW what flavor-of-the-week would Cain be then? In ice cream, maybe banana-nut.

    Parent

    I like Rocky Road... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    Until Ben & Jerry come up with a "let them eat cake" flavor anyway:)

    Parent
    Christine, what's even funnier (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 06:28:36 PM EST
    about Cain and his 999 plan is something I read yesterday that I so wish that I had saved . . . but basically, the author was bemused that the fundy Christian righties are backing a guy with that name of Cain -- think Biblically, as they do; Cain was not the nice brudda -- who promotes a plan with Satanic numerology!

    Let's go crash some conservative blogs and start the whispering campaign about Cain, Not the Son of Adam But the Son of Satan.  I'm feeling mischievous.

    Parent

    So am I, Towanda. So am I. Similar thoughts.... (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:18:54 PM EST
    State sales tax (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:16:00 PM EST
    would not change. So the comparison has to be against Federal Taxes

    Current FIT, FICA and Medicare would disappear.

    Let's say you now net about $70K. Married filing jointly your FIT is $9869. FICA is approx $5300, Medicare is approx $1500. Total is approx $16669.

    Let's say your gross on the $70K net was $90K. Let's say you spend every penny.  Your tax would be $8100 (9%x$90K) + $8100K (9% Fed x $90K) or $16200.

    Just about a wash. Now let's say that you put $10K in savings... You now spend $80K that's $7200 in Fed sales taxes + $8100 (FIT) or 15300. That's a savings of about $1300...

    Single taxpayers would make even better as their current FIT would is approx $13500 or about $20K total. vs $16200.

    IRS Tables

    FICA rate

    Parent

    Well, Jim, I was only focusing for now (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    on the "9" that represents sales tax.  And, what people will hear/see/feel when they discover that the fed "9" will be added to whatever level the state sales tax is and then...the bottom line will the the clearest of all. 15% or 17% etc on a sales tax receipt for the items consumers purchase??? We will all just love that.

    Without getting into all the other purported consequences, the sales tax will catch the eye & the gut very, very quickly. And that will be all.

    Parent

    I hear you (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:27:21 PM EST
    But we will also just love seeing the withholding on our pay checks drop.

    TANSTAAFL

    There aint no such thing as a free lunch.

    But a lot of people are getting a free ride on the Fed side.

    Parent

    And why do you think that? (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    Prices have fallen because costs have gone down. This is particularly true in the tech world.

    Companies make pricing decisions based on, among other things, costs. And taxes are a cost item.

    So if taxes go from 30% to 9% why wouldn't you drop the price say 8% or so to increase the volume which would further drop costs and increase profits??

    Parent

    Look at oil for example... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:03:48 PM EST
    why doesn't Exxon/Mobil settle for 5 billion per quarter in profit and drop their prices?

    Companies will charge what they can get away with charging.  Maybe frivolous goods would see a sticker price drop, but the staples people depend on?  I have my doubts...me thinks executives would salivate at increasing their margins, making 9/9/9 extremely regressive.

    Parent

    The question is (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:23:06 PM EST
    What is the Return on Investment?

    If they have $100 billion invested then 5% is not all that much.

    In another comment I picked a mythical tax payer and family making $70K net on $90K gross and if they spend every penny then Can's plan, with no decrease in prices, is about a wash.

    As you get down to the $50K range, the point at which there would be no FIT then the savings disappear.

    But the question is. Why should someone making $70K net pay and someone making $50K net not pay?

    Maybe we could continue EIC???

    Parent

    I make approx... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:41:28 PM EST
    50k per gross, after my return the feds still get 4 large or so from me.  Plus state income taxes, though thats another issue, albeit related.

    Am I wrong or does 9/9/9 f*ck people like me?  Not that I am ideologically opposed to a higher vig...if some quality services come with it.  Subject to arrest, foreign occupation, and an electrified border fence is not quality:)

    I'd be more open to it if staples were exempt from the 9% fed sales tax, and only people making say 500k per paid 9% FIT, with a sliding scale downward.  Make it more of a luxury tax...food, gas, utilities, generic clothes exempt.  Less revenue for the feds, but if we disband the DEA and several other agencies of tyranny?

    I am definitely down to simplify the code, thats a no-brainer.

    Parent

    Wondering if anyone who takes mortgage (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    interest deduction re FIT favors FIT reform?

    Parent
    Guess it depends on income level... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:51:23 PM EST
    and amount of mortgage interest.

    Full disclosure, I suppose I could get my vig down if I long-formed and searched out every deduction available to me, two years in a row the IRS coughed up a 'Making Work Pay' dohickey that increased my return without my asking...which I must admit I appreciated, thats my Mexico money! :)

    Parent

    Well, let's see (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 05:57:53 PM EST
    In addition to the $4 large you pay approx $4500 FICA and Medicare for a total of $8500.

    Under 9-9-9 you would pay $4500 (9% FIT on the $50K gross) and then 9% sales tax on what you spend. If that is 100% of the $50K then you have an additional $4500 Fed Sales Tax (FST) for $9K total.

    However... under the current plan if you are paying around $4K then the net is near $35K with $15K that you never see. Under Cain's plan you see $45,500 and then you do with it what you want.

    In other words, you now have $35K left to spend.

    In Cain's plan you would have and additional $11500 under your control.

    Now, since you've been living on the $35K I would think you could save, oh 50% and still play a little poker!

    Parent

    How's he gonna fund Medicare? (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:57:15 AM EST
    I assumed we'd still pay that seperate.  Cuz If I'm paying the same or a little less, and the wealthy & corporations are paying a ton less...???

    If Cain proposed abolishing the DEA, ending the occupations, taking the axe to the DOD and CIA, pardoning federal prisoners, my usual spiel...maybe I could support this:)

    I certainly like the removing the fog of loopholes and lobbied favors for the connected crony capitalism aspects of it...and the simplicity.  

    Also wondering how hard the sales tax would be to collect...everybody knows ya can avoid local sales taxes sometimes by paying cash.

    Parent

    Medicare, Social Security (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:39:39 AM EST
    are funded in the 9%-9%-9%...

    Plus the might legalize/regulate Internet gambling and pick up a few billion there.

    And rationalize the drug laws and pick up a few billion more.

    ;-)

    Remember. The man is a pure businessman. He has never been elected to anything. (Neither had Washington and Eisenhower.)He is apt to try some new approaches to old problems.

    Sales tax collections? Well, since the IRS will be needing to do something, I would say they can keep the cheaters straight.

    Parent

    Just out of curiousity (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    Since the wealthy will pay less (sometimes far less) under Cain's plan, and you seem to think the working/middle class (i.e. Kdog) will pay less, and the plan is (according to Cain) revenue neutral, ...

    ... who pays more?

    Parent

    Pure businessman... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:55:13 AM EST
    thats what scares me:)

    Can't seem to find where he is proposing repealing drug prohibition, or even proposing the cuts required to spending that I agree with.

    Ron Paul is much more my speed on that side of the aisle...at least he is willing to propose the right kinda cuts, along with those I disagree with.

    Parent

    As a pure businessman (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    Cain should make more rational decisions.

    That shouldn't scare you.

    Making irrational decisions to spend $1.7 trillion on two cronies to not produce solar power should scare you.

    Parent

    Aren't Obama's (none / 0) (#155)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05:25 PM EST
    cronies "businessmen"?  

    As well as the characters who crashed and burned the economy to fatten their already obese bonus?

    Parent

    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    I haven't read the LA Times in many years (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    but saw Sunday's paper at a friend's last night.

    The front page might as well have been written by TL.

    6 stories or so, all of which but one were TL headline stories.

    One story on Lee Baca, one on gay rights, one in support of OWS, and two or three other similar stories that I don't remember...and can't find yesterday's front page on-line anywhere.

    Hippies are gettin'... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    our groove back kid!

    BTW...check out the line-up this week, Joe Walsh on Thursday, then John Hiatt on Friday.  How's that for a double feature!

    Parent

    NYPD officer charged with (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    misdemeanor civil rights violation re stop and frisk:  NYT

    Parent
    Hits keep on comin'... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    for the NYSE Security Force, formerly knows as the NYPD.  

    But they're another too big to fail:(

    Parent

    Class act, from another article: (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    Daragjati was also charged with insurance fraud in connection with his off-duty snow removal business and the beatdown of a victim he suspected of stealing a piece of snowplow equipment.


    Parent
    Guess that explains why his phone calls (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:03:44 PM EST
    were being monitored...

    Parent
    Damn This Town on the radio lately...

    Parent
    me jealous! (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    well, maybe not of the Joe Walsh part.

    Parent
    My first Joe Walsh... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:24:44 PM EST
    live experience, and you were the one who told me of the wonders of Hiatt before my first time seeing him last year...and you were right!

    I highly recommend Tedeschi Trucks Band, they did not let us down Friday night...hitting Clearwater 12/29.  Trucks is so sick he is ill.

    Parent

    I have only seen him live as (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:04:57 PM EST
    a big junk of Eagles concerts. For me a little goes a long way, but YMMV

    Parent
    I really like Susan Tedeschi (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:06:24 PM EST
    Will see if they are coming this way. Have not been to a concert for a while - I'm overdue!

    Parent
    What a voice... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:09:13 PM EST
    and when she took the lead guitar from D-Trucks, she showed her guitar chops are nuthin' to sneeze at.  

    The first couple of rock.

    Parent

    Fighting on Facebook is wrongheaded :) (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    And when your Conservative, Christian, retired from the military acquaintance puts up a map to Hollywood stars homes, and demands that "his" people go protest outside of all the homes of those who have gone on the record supporting OWS just like people are doing to the Wall Street titans....just walk away.  Walk away and walk it off and go read at the sinister cheetoh or something.  And find yourself a diary from Kos himself declaring that Rush Limbaugh endorses child armies, rapes, murders....in the name of the Lord.  Put that link on your facebook and write a heading about Rush Limbaugh that says that he is the same as he ever was and is just an oxycontin fueled nutjob, and I promise you will feel immediately better.  And no discernible fighting ever took place.

    Those nutty fundies won't have much luck (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 06:47:11 PM EST
    with protesting outside Hollywood stars homes. Many of them reside in the hills of Beverly, Hollywoodland, SaMo and Malibu -- behind HUGE security gates. Plus, the irritated neighbors would likely have no trouble getting the cops to come and disperse the fundie circus. In which case, the poor, pitiful righties would realize they really are part of the 99% after all.

    Reality bites.

    Parent

    Should have NEVER been hired. (none / 0) (#140)
    by pluege2 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:26:14 PM EST
    And yes, Geithner should have been fired.


    Yes, when the prez expends (none / 0) (#141)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:03:00 PM EST
    political capital to the max, so soon in his administration, to strongarm for votes to get your appointment to run Treasury approved, despite the fact that you broke the most basic rules about, duh, doing taxes . . . well, why think that other ordinary rules of life apply, like doing what the prez sez?  After all, the prez was no stickler about the rules in getting you appointed.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, spammer attack in process (none / 0) (#144)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:59:34 PM EST
    a site violator called Joshua Cribbs Jersey  is hitting a number of old posts.

    Best way to let Jeralyn know (none / 0) (#146)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:13:33 AM EST
    about spammers is to email her.

    Parent
    Mexican drug cartels (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:59:51 AM EST
    Now using Texas kids to help smuggle drugs.

    The kids are called "the expendables".

    McCraw said his investigators have evidence six Mexican drug gangs -- including the violent Zetas -- have "command and control centers" in Texas actively recruiting children for their operations, attracting them with what appears to be "easy money" for doing simple tasks.

    "Cartels would pay kids $50 just for them to move a vehicle from one position to another position, which allows the cartel to keep it under surveillance to see if law enforcement has it under surveillance," he said.

    "Of course, once you're hooked up with them, there's consequences."



    Prohibition... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 08:30:53 AM EST
    think of the children...NOT!

    And in this economy, people are even more susceptible to the allure of drug money...and all the trouble with police & thieves that entails.

    Parent