Rocky

Does "Favorite Flavor" have anything to do with Drambuie, or is that even flavored?? I haven't a clue.

Too many varying questions at one time. Do I look like an encyclopedia?

Perhaps you may want to start one question at a time, one topic at a time, on one thread at a time.

Perhaps the plethora of questions simply is a statement of how ridiculous your posts on this subject are.

btw, why is this political discussion taking place here?

I do think President Obama is a socialist. That is not hate speech, I think that is a fact, as a man is defined by his actions. Socialists seek to redistribute wealth and control more and more of the means of production; which is exactly what he is doing through his massive legalized theft spending programs, and pursuit to seize private firms..

Nonsense. The ONLY fact is that YOU BELIEVE President Obama is a socialist.

Even IF your statement that "a man is defined by his actions" were true and/or applicable to this, it is not YOUR interpretation of his actions that would define President Obama one way or the other.

when and where is your next klan meeting oldies???.......just wondering..........peace.

OM,

Is that your idea of justice in the free market? Is that your idea of consequences of failure? On a side note, I wonder if all this really lines up with your Christian beliefs and how?

Excellent questions. However, I would counsel you to not hold your breath waiting for OM to answer...

my hunch is he would have an extremely difficult time even allowing himself to become consciously aware of the ramifications of his political and economic beliefs as to how they would (mis)align with Godly wisdom/concepts.

Rocky, I am not answering any more of your questions. I was dumb enough to try, then asked you to reciprocate, and got the back of your hand. No more ... don't keep asking.

While you are obviously free to decide what to do about anything I post, I remain free to ask questions.

Frankly, the asking of the questions (specifically as done last night) in and of itself provides food for thought for any reader wishing to consider.

Your failure to reply responsively goes directly to my (implied) point that it's all in your irrational imagination anyway... that is, unless you explain otherwise what might actually be genuine tyranny of which you refer.

BTW I don't think the AIG bailout was necessary at all. Could have gone to Chapter 11 and reorganized like many private industries do. In the free market system, there MUST be consequences for failure else the government takes over like it has and you get socialism/fascism whatever you want to call it, it is another name for tyranny.

Please describe:

1. the impact this newly imposed "tyranny" has had on you personally.
   
2. your understanding of the ramifications, in as much detail as you can, of allowing AIG to "go Chapter 11," on the American economy and life in general.
   
3. your decision processes that allow you to decide in favor of said ramifications, instead of in favor of the dreaded (by you, apparently) "tyranny" that you believe is the alternative.
   

OM, if nothing else, you are predictable.

Is that what your right wing blogs are calling it, OM, the Glass-Steagall Repeal? The one that Pelosi, Biden, and Clinton signed? Don't you mean the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? That would be Phil Gramm (R-Texas, chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 95'-00' and one time McCain campaign financial advisor), Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa, who chaired the Banking and Financial Services Committee), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia, Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001). It is also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. What your link left out was that the bill's first round of votes went straight down party lines with the one exception of a Dem voting with the Repubs in the Senate. Clinton first said he "would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements." It wasn't until the Repubs "agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns" that the Dems came on board and virtually all of them did, including President Clinton. Oh, and did I mention this was after 200 million in lobbying and 150 million in campaign contributions to targeted banking and finance committee chairs from the finance, insurance, and real estate industries. This was the last of 20 attempts in 25 years which rewarded "financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts."

There is a lot more to the repealing of the Glass-Steagall than I or your blog mentioned. The pro-deregulation Greenspan's hands were far from clean in this repeal. Take a look at this: The Long Demise of Glass-Steagull. In fact, if there was one person that could have stopped this from happening it would have been the man dubbed by many, even in congress, as the Oracle, Alan Greenspan. Leach said Greenspan was highly regarded in congress. He also said, "You've got an area of judgment in which members of Congress have nonexistent expertise." Iowa (D) senator Harkin said Greenspan had "a way of speaking that made you think he knew exactly what he was talking about at all times" "a way that made people not want to question him on anything, like he knew it all. He was the Oracle, and who were you to question him?" This act was on Greenspan and Ruben's recommendation. But it was the push of the private sector (the announcement of the merger of Citicorp and Travelers) that pushed it all to a boiling point.

Read this article too: "Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy".

Definitely read the Long Demise PBS link though, it's good... makes you sick to your stomach.

There is plenty of blame to go around, OM.

But as a MotleyFool article put it: blaming this all on the repeal of Glass-Steagull is like blaming the break up of The Beatles on Ringo. The already out of control leverage and derivatives trading was well established by the time the Act was repealed. At the same time the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was being passed, Greenspan recommended that congress permanently strip the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) of regulatory authority. From the "Greenspan Legacy" article:

Fully hedged were they, Mr. Oracle?

I could go on and on...

edit.

What I can only blame elected officials? Put blame where it is due, not just on your tired partisan politics. As I said, there is enough to go around on both sides.

Someone may have already pointed this out. . . sorry if it is superfluous, but in Massachusetts the DMR is the Department of Mental Retardation. A part of Health and Human Services. . I imagine it is like that in other states as well.

The term itself is descriptive and has been used in behavior plans and such to indicate mild, moderate, or severe mental retardation.

Has this changed?

In Arizona the agency is the Division of Developmental Disabilities. It's a division of the state's social services agency, the Arizona Department of Economic Security.

Somehow, "developmentally disabled" seems more respectful of the individual(s) than "mentally retarded."

It's probably a matter of cultural evolution. In other words, how the meanings of the words and expressions have changed over the years in our society.

Kimberly,

the n-word was a made up word used to describe black people. it would be like someone saying "blackie" or "darkie" it was created to demean black people. In english speaking countries blacks were assumed inferior and thus the n-word held all those inferior assumptions when used. It came from a real word, but it was a slang of the real word. Very different than retard or the r-word.

Retard was a real word used to generally describe a mental condition that someone had.

While your point is well taken, I think it is important to also consider that the cultural evolution of the meaning of the word has made it a significant epithet when used in the manner and context similar to how the President used the term "Special Olympics."

I'm not going to say it was acceptable for him to make that particular verbal faux pas, but I appreciate that he has the self-awareness to realize his mistake/error and apologize without having to wait for a media firestorm.

That is... self-awareness AND personal sense of confidence that allows him to own up to his mistakes without having to be shamed into it.

I thought he said "special Olympics" and that was issue. Although my memory might be r-worded.

You are correct. The Ph.D. took some liberties...

Likely because he doesn't like the President.

I said....

Then you said...

I'm not a little drunk today.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/art...facto-laws.html

It would be good if you'd do a little open-minded research instead of just trying to prove me wrong.

You seem to have made some unjustified inferences.

I simply posted a link and some of the text from that link.

Everything else you inferred from that is in the category of error that you alone are responsible for.

No Leafy I didn't misunderstand your intent - you did just fine by posting another vid about the woman - you did NOT word your posts badly - nor do you need forgiveness from the likes of me...

My ribald comments were about the fact that I did not know who this commentator was (I don't watch TV) I just liked the vid and passed it on - and - as is common here - it turned into a political discussion rather than a discussion of the strength of character of this woman

Actually, RR, your "ribald" comments were about the fact that YOU misunderstood the context of the responses to your initial post to be a politicization of your innocent and innocuous post. (the ONLY fact is that you misunderstood the responses)

I have to agree about Moms and sports. Two days ago, when our star basktball player got flipped by an unscrupulous Morgan State player, our guy just shook it off. The Morgan State player was ejected from the game. Our guy's older brother, also on the team, got back by scoring more points. But it was their MOM, in the stands, who really had to be calmed down. She was steamed.

By the way, here's the flip:

No question that flip was intentional. Mom was understandably upset.

It's human nature. Can we really do anything about it?

That was NOT off topic, really.

No, we cannot change human nature. HOWEVER... you have eloquently articulated the essence of and for the need for oversight and regulation of critical industries.

Courts Unlikely to Strike Down AIG Tax Law, Legal Experts said

March 20 (Bloomberg) -- Courts probably will uphold Congress's effort to tax employee bonuses at American International Group Inc. and other companies receiving federal bailout funds, several legal experts said.

The House yesterday voted 328-93 in favor of a 90 percent tax on bonuses, including the $165 million insurer AIG paid last week after receiving $173 billion in bailout funds. The Senate plans to vote next week.

The measure raises a number of legal questions, and New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg yesterday said the legislation was unconstitutional. Still, any legal challenge will meet a significant obstacle: the historic reluctance of the Supreme Court to second-guess Congress on tax issues.

"Given the state of the law, it will be unlikely that the Supreme Court will strike down this legislation," said Edward McCaffery, a University of Southern California tax-law professor who says he questions the wisdom of the proposal.

Gregg said the legislation would violate the constitutional ban on bills of attainder, or laws that single out individuals for punishment. "It's basically targeted on a small group of people," he said.

The House took several steps to shield the measure from that argument, said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School.(continued)

Ex Post Facto only applies to criminal law, not civil. I could cite a reference if I weren't slightly drunk....

Don't know about Bill of Attainder...

Legal Definition of Ex Post Facto Clause

EX POST FACTO CLAUSE - A misnomer in that actually two Constitutional clauses are involved. The U.S. Constitution's Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,' and Section 10 says: 'No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .'

The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).

An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

FBI Ramps Up Probes of Financial, Mortgage Fraud

WASHINGTON -- The number of probes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into corporate fraud and mortgage fraud is growing by the month.

FBI Deputy Director John Pistole told a House panel Friday that the bureau has more than 2,000 open investigations into mortgage fraud as well as 566 corporate-fraud investigations.

Mr. Pistole said 43 of those corporate-fraud investigations involve "matters directly related to the current financial crisis."

Those numbers are all larger than those Mr. Pistole offered to a Senate committee last month.

Comparing Mr. Pistole's testimony Friday with the data he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, it appears the FBI has opened 36 new corporate-fraud investigations and 200 new mortgage-fraud investigations in recent weeks.

Mr. Pistole said the FBI continues to experience "an exponential rise" in the number of fraud investigations it is conducting, "a trend we expect to continue."

He said the FBI's investigations on corporate fraud and financial-institution failures are focused on accounting fraud, insider trading and financial-statement manipulation.

Mr. Pistole told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that the FBI's investigations into the current financial crisis involve companies "that everybody knows about."

Mr. Pistole said Friday that the growing number of fraud probes was straining the FBI's resources for investigating white-collar crime.

(from the Wall Street Jounal)

I'm not entirely sure of those two points Rocky - HOWEVER I am NOT claiming to be authoritative.

My previous company was publicly traded and went through the whole Sarbanes-Oxley compliance and audits. That was enacted after the infamous ENRON case. (You might actually enjoy the documentary movie BTW.) There are specific infractions where individuals can now be prosecuted whereas in the past the company was considered a "person" hence "protecting" the employees.

Like I started with - I'm not entirely sure - but I sure am NOT going to go back through all of the SOX compliance stuff just to be sure of a conjecture on GSC - It took us two years to get compliant and we were a fairly small company...however I remember enough of it to consider that since it focused on "controls" that there is a pretty good chance AIG and some of the others were not following strict nor even reasonable internal controls...and that smacks of SOX audit and we ain't talkin' Red Sox here.

The (initial) question (subject of this thread) had to do with whether a bill making its way through Congress right now (passed the House yesterday) to tax said bonuses at the rate of 90 percent was the best answer.

Case in point...AIG - while I hate the stupidity of the company - MSNBC reported yesterday morning that these "bailout stimulus packages" had in provisions in them that all contracts were to be honored....it appears they didn't read this package bill either...

this isn't transparent.

It also reeks of laziness on our legislatures' part. I am not so sure 90% tax is the best answer.

THAT bill would essentially be symbolic only for the reasons I cited.

President Obama indicated during his interview on Leno's show that his administration was going to pursue any and all avenues to recapture those bonuses.

While nobody here at GSC has been able to cite anything specific about the conduct of AIG or about specific provisions in existing law that the federal government could invoke to legally effect said recapture, it's entirely possible that the laws you (RR) were thinking of might apply to the AIG situation.... BUT would be something exclusive of the question posed by washn'wear to start this thread.

transparency is probably a whole other thread....but was mentioned on the Leno-Obama thread...so I am attempting to not derail it.

Case in point...AIG - while I hate the stupidity of the company - MSNBC reported yesterday morning that these "bailout stimulus packages" had in provisions in them that all contracts were to be honored....it appears they didn't read this package bill either...

this isn't transparent.

It also reeks of laziness on our legislatures' part. I am not so sure 90% tax is the best answer.

Paw _ I know this will go to the political forum, but wanted to get comments from a broader base than just those who frequent the political - soap forum.

Transparency is something the Obama administration is aiming for. That's why the Prez is generally not afraid to take responsibility for what his administration does.

However, as you noted, this is a complicated situation. CONGRESS messed up. Apparently, Sen Dodd (D-CT) was responsible for removing the amendment that would have voided those bonus contracts.

There are several news reports this morning that Dodd's "political capital" is taking a big hit for that dumb move.

Further, it appears that Obama Treasury Secretary Geitner was aware of the bonus issue and neither properly briefed the Prez nor took issue with the removal of that amendment.

Hence, Obama taking responsibility for the situation and looking for ways to now void the bonuses.

Obviously, a bill to tax the bonuses at 90 percent, even if it passes and the Prez signs it, will likely only be symbolic. Because there are at least two reasons such a bill will not pass constitutional muster and would easily be struck down in court (if challenged).

It's an Ex Post Facto bill. Not constitutional. Congress cannot enact laws to address a prior situation.

It's also a Bill of Attainder. Also not constitutional. Congress cannot enact laws aimed at specific individuals.

I don't like it that other people I do not know who know some of the same people I do make comments on those individuals and it shows up on mine. I don't know how to stop it.

WG

There are multiple potential issues and perhaps multiple solutions to this.

First, if you have your profile set so that only your friends can read it, then those people don't know that what they post shows up on your page. I don't know if that matters to you.

Second, in the upper right corner of the page (when you are in facebook), there is a link for SETTINGS.

Click that and you can next choose PRIVACY settings. Then, you can choose (click) what appears on your NEWS FEED AND WALL.

I think it's great, personally. It's a good tool for keeping in contact with people that I haven't talked to in a while or don't come into contact with regularly. Specifically, old friends from schools or other jobs that I wouldn't keep in touch with normally. I'm living in Texas, my best friend from high school is living in Ohio now, so we haven't kept in touch. However, now with facebook we can see what is going on with each other even if we aren't emailing constantly. It's a good tool if everyone uses it.

Also, I second the concerns people have brought up about security settings, rejecting applications, and keeping it clean for future employers. As far as worrying about paedophiles and such, MySpace is more for kids and Facebook is for adults. There are other sites that are more cutting edge such as Twitter that I don't like, but Facebook is the most mainstream one for the moment.

As far as keeping in touch with ex-TWI people, I have quite a few on my Facebook friends list, but they aren't on GSC.

I have a lunch date with two friends from HS for next week. We graduated 37 years ago. I saw one of them at the 20 year reunion. I haven't seen the senior year yearbook for decades because I used to be in a cult and left stuff with my mother when I was moving all over tarnation. One of them is going to bring the yearbook.

I spoke with both of them on the phone today... one characterized facebook as "cathartic." I agree.

Of course, for many, GSC has been cathartic... but these people were never in this particular cult. :)

It was orchestrated, and manipulative. He said all the *right* things, while his current actions tell a different story entirely.

Kinda reminiscent of ole docvic, eh?? Say one thing/ do another/ promote *abundance*/ and lead to poverty.

If it was truly *informative*, perhaps he shoulda been asked why he signed the bill authorizing those bonus'.

Naww - - - that would have been a *hard* question, and Barry isn't fond of them. His tele-prompter isn't programmed for *truth*.

^_^ :unsure: ^_^

That's an intriguing reflection of YOU... what lives inside YOU... reminds YOU of "ole docvic, eh??"

Nothing more, nothing less.

It is it for ratings? Spicing up his time in office? Just cause he can?

One can only surmise.

However, President Obama is in California for a couple of Town Hall meetings today. This seems a likely extension thereof, or at least extension of one aspect of a town hall type meeting.

I generally don't watch Leno. But Letterman is in reruns tonight and tomorrow because the opening round NCAA tournament is on CBS today and tomorrow. So, I will be able to record Leno (hence, skip the commercials).

Back to the topic at hand: I can't imagine the courage it took this woman to do what she did. Love really is stronger than the forces of evil. That's the message I came away with after viewing the video.

AMEN!

Rocky, you are a man sensitive enough to be in touch with your neurosis side!! Funny...funny...laughing!!!

I agree. What's more important --- the message, or the messenger?

While you're at it -- cut off your nose to spite your face, eh? :o

Some stories need to be heard --- regardless who tells them (just my imo).

Geez... PEOPLE... I wasn't criticizing Mr. Beck for telling this person's story.

And I certainly wasn't criticizing RR for posting the link to Beck's clip.

My statement was simply that I can't listen to the guy.

I think I adequately explained WHY I can't listen to the guy.

By all means, I reflected MY neurosis in saying that I can't listen to the guy.

I will still feel free to criticize Beck... but certainly NOT for telling this lady's story.

IOW, neither I, nor LindaZ was suggesting anyone needed to be politically correct in their beliefs or opinions or statements or actions...

And I appreciate the kind act by the person who found the other clip.