What Did You Think?

OK, this speech will work for Barack.  I was with him for quite a while, but he lost me at the end (I want a transcript!).

I don't want to promise that this is what he said, but this is what I heard, in outline, after denunciation of Wright and a dubious linkage of Wright and Obama's grandmother with her stray racist comments.  [Hmm, did Obama choose his grandma?  Or, is his point that he didn't confront his grandmother when he was ten, so he couldn't confront Wright when he was forty?]

- Black people have reasons to be angry about slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing discrimination;

- Whites have reason to be unhappy with (pre-reform) welfare, affirmative action, busing, and being called a racist for worrying about black crime rates.

- Wright was wrong in both his racial divisiveness and his belief that American society was static, and progress was not occurring. [But is this a generational thing?  Moss, the new minister, is younger than Barack (and about as charismatic) but seemingly cut from the same divisive cloth as Wright.]
.
- whites needed to do more to raise up black schools and black communities.

Wait!  Did he lose a page here - what, if anything is the black community meant to do differently?  [Thank you Matt Drudge - see below]

Then his conclusion left me at sea - he seemed to be saying that, as in elections past, we could ignore race except as a distraction, but that he was committed to discussing it.  Huh?  His new-found commitment seems to be a direct response to this Wright controversy, not something he wanted to do.

And his discussion of healing race relations seemed to be disappear into a talk about health care, jobs, and everything else.  Baffling.

Still, this will slide him past the Dem primary voters.  For the general, time will tell.

OH, YEAH!  Obama does summon the Dem dream of working class whites and blacks (and browns and yellows) uniting against their oppressive corporate overlords.

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT (emphasis added):

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

Hmm, in the post-speech commentary I see that Pat Buchanan also missed that call to responsibility.  Let's guess that no one will fault Barack for over-emphasizing that point.

WERE MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED?  Developing...

IMAGINE MY DISAPPOINTMENT AND SURPRISE:  More Victims Studies as part of the path to racial reconciliation made a brief appearance over the weekend but seems to have been dropped.  And my suggested spin - Who better to speak to the Muslim youths emerging from their hate-filled mosques than a man coming from a hate-filled church - never arrived. 

 

Comments

[SteveMG]

Overall, I was disappointed by Obama’s speech. I wanted a speech on race relations. What he delivered was a campaign speech on race

Well, I saw it as half-and-half (no pun intended).

After all, he still has to get the nomination.

[Sara]

This is off topic, but deals with one of our host's favorite topics and it is funny too:

What's the Deal With David Gregory's Hair

[anduril]

bgates and Pofarmer, that was Taranto's take as well: Obama and His 'White Grandmother'

Barack Obama took the stage this morning to give what was billed as a "major speech on race." It was, of course, an attempt to rescue his campaign from the revelation that his so-called spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, espouses a virulently anti-American and antiwhite worldview called "black liberation theology."

Here is the part of the speech that bothered us most:

I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother--a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Our first thought was that it was pretty low of Obama to exploit his (still living) grandmother in this way. Is it really necessary for the whole world to know about her private expressions of prejudice? Doesn't simple decency dictate that a public figure treat embarrassing facts about loved ones with discretion?

Obama was trying to accomplish something very specific by dragging his "white grandmother" into this political mess. He was trying to diminish Wright's hateful theology by implying that it too is a private matter. Said Obama:

For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Rev. Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.

Note how Obama elides the difference between a comment at the "kitchen table" and a sermon delivered to a congregation of thousands and recorded on DVD.

Unfortunately, he was speaking the truth when he said:

For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends.

These are the facts of life in America that aren't going away any time soon, and that no public figure can speak openly about without being marginalized.

[Appalled Moderate]

So...the meme is going to be -- Obama. A man who would run over his own grandmother to be President?

[GMax]

If you read nothing else today you need to read Roger Simon. He put his pen to poetry in direct response to Obama as only a 60s activist can do:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/03/barack_i_didnt_do_it_for_this.php>I Didn't Do it for This

[SteveMG]

Maybee:
What white person is allowed to talk about black racism toward whites without being called a racist?

Yes; that why I said his history (race, family makeup, background et cetera) was the great enabler that made it possible for him to give such a speech.

To be sure, there was liberal boilerplate in it. But the intended audience was generally a liberal/leftist one.

After all, he is a Democrat .

[DawnoftheLivingDems]

Val and Joe. Sheriff even beat a cripple in a wheelchair during her visit. Ya, gotta be safe.

KOS wants dinner. Joe, he's not what you thought and, you know, well, it's just the thinking thing to do...........

Hillary is a moron.

Did Obama's mommy get a job at the UN?

[boris]

Disparities in education and income were blamed on failure of America to remedy historical wrongs rather than attitudes and behaviors encouraged by the likes of Wright.

One thing this makes clear is that an honest discussion of race from a politician of any ancestry would alienate the vast maority of the black vote.

[Neo]

Just how is a President Obama going to take on those who's intentions are genuinely evil, when he can't confront the softer prejudice and misunderstanding in the church he has been attending for some 20 years ?

Bottom line .. where is the leadership ?

[John]

Rick Ballard wrote:
"Not everybody here is dumb enough to understand the precise nature of the "bailout", TT. Perhaps you could explain the advantage which accrued to the Bear Stearns officers, employees and stockholders by the Fed's actions?"

Geez, Rick, it was a bailout of JP Morgan Chase. They were given the corpse of Bear Stearns and non-recourse loans of $30B.

Maybe you could explain why you didn't see the reality of this. Don't forget to explain why BSC closed near $6/share today instead of the $2/share JPM "offered" for it.

Take your time.

[GMax]

Byron York makes the point that all these Obama groupies in their post speech comments are reinforcing the point that many moderates and conservative democrats will surely pick up on. That is that Wright remarks are not universally condemned and that in fact a very telling point is that most Obama supporters agree with Reverend Wright.

God damn America.

Good for you Democrat Party, it fits on a bumper sticker.

[Barney Frank]

TexasToast,

What is the point of juxtaposing those two verses? They are utterly diiferent in intent and context.
Jesus intermingled with sinners to lead them from their sin to righteousness by following Him.
Psalm 1, advises us not to be led into sin and unrighteousness by following sinners.
You been studying under the Wright reverand?

[MayBee]

Yes; that why I said his history (race, family makeup, background et cetera) was the great enabler that made it possible for him to give such a speech.

Who he is is partially why the professional gotcha artists and race baiters won't jump on him for giving such a speech. What he is about to be is another reason.

I reject the idea that it was Obama's history that allowed it. It is the keepers of the outrage that allowed it.

[Neo]

Jesus intermingled with sinners to lead them from their sin to righteousness by following Him.

But he did just nod his head, he showed enough leadership to show them a new way.

Hope is not a plan.

[GMax]

John

I will be your Huckleberry.

How did JPM, maybe the strongest financial institution in the country get a "bailout" for purchasing an institution? Talk slow cuz I must be exceedingly dense.

The loans from the Fed are most definitely not "nonrecourse". Please at least get the rudimentary terms of the deal correct.

And why are some clinging to their BSC stock in hopes of not getting the full lumber put to them for the excesses of their institution? Well some are just stubborn. Psycologically, investors dont like to take losses especially large ones, and at least some are holding out hope that someone will emerge to pay more for BS than what JPM has offered. I would think that is pretty unlikely, but not beyond the realm of possibility and thus tell me in a week what the price is and whether a competing suitor has emerged by then. You can put your house on the market for $1mm, knowing full well its likely to bring $600K tops when you have a fall back offer to buy it from your employer if it does not sell in three months. You lost nothing trying but probably does not mean a thing about what the house is worth ( or the stock in this case either ).

You probably are not aware, but the chairman of JPM has basically said, we were the high offer.

But I am sure you can amuse us with your understanding of business, and finance and maybe even the bankruptcy process. Care to take us on a spin? After Barack today, maybe this is a good day to believe some folks will swallow anything. Give it a shot.

[bgates]

GMax, NPR actually played that quote from Wright - along with exegesis on the word 'damn', how it has a subtle meaning not apparent to the 'untrained ear', and is really meant as a ritual call to repentance for those who have gone astray.

In that spirit, let me offer this:
God damn Barack Obama,
God damn Jeremiah Wright,
and God damn black America for cheering their message.

Any 'untrained ears' find that a little jarring?

[Rick Ballard]

"it was a bailout of JP Morgan Chase"

Sure it was. Look how badly they were bleeding.

"Don't forget to explain why BSC closed near $6/share today instead of the $2/share JPM "offered" for it."

The lawsuit might pay off or it might not. We'll all know in a few years.

[GMax]

NPR = National Prog Radio nuff said.

[TexasToast]

Well Barney

ISTM that the Pharasees in the Luke passage were interpreting the Psalm to be more than " ...advis[e] .... not to be led into sin and unrighteousness by following sinners." Instead, Jesus was to be criticized for even associating with sinners. In short, he should "reject and denounce" them.

Barack Obama is certainly no Jesus, but his refusal to denounce his pastor (as opposed to certain of his views) is, IMHO, consistent with Jesus' message in Luke. No minds are ever changed without engagement.

[GMax]

bgates you are ridin dirty dude.

[boris]

refusal to denounce his pastor (as opposed to certain of his views)

Again, what denunciation? Don't consider comparison to grandma a denunciation of either one.

[GMax]

I wonder why we did not get a stream of apocalyptic articles on the economy and the stock market today? Could it have anything to do with a 420 point surge in the Dow, a 3.5% gain? Prolly not, the cyber xerox broke or sumpin.

[John]

GMax wrote:
"How did JPM, maybe the strongest financial institution in the country get a "bailout" for purchasing an institution? Talk slow cuz I must be exceedingly dense."

I don't know why you would claim that the most-leveraged financial institution in the country is the strongest:

http://tinyurl.com/2p5qyk

"The loans from the Fed are most definitely not "nonrecourse". Please at least get the rudimentary terms of the deal correct."

"To help facilitate the deal, the Federal Reserve is taking the extraordinary step of providing as much as $30 billion in financing for Bear Stearns's less-liquid assets...if those assets decline in value, the Fed would bear any loss, not J.P. Morgan."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120569598608739825.html

Do you have some other definition for "non-recourse" loans? Did the WSJ get it wrong?

"You probably are not aware, but the chairman of JPM has basically said, we were the high offer."

I am aware. I place the credibility of modern chairmen of investment banks at the same level as that of politicians. Do you, Huck?

[bgates]

Barack Obama is certainly no Jesus, but his refusal to denounce his pastor (as opposed to certain of his views) is, IMHO, consistent with Jesus' message in Luke. No minds are ever changed without engagement.
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."
Square the circle for me, TT.

[fdcol63]

bgates,

Get enlightened, man! It's okay to say whatever you want about "whitey", but dontcha dare call basketball-playing sistas a buncha "nappie-headed ho's"!!

[srp]

Politicallly, the big problem in this speech is that Barack is now positioned 100% as a hard left candidate. The anti-corporate populist note in his message got amplified because he needed the common-enemy to restore harmony to his black-white coalition. On the foreign policy side, he did nothing to contradict the anti-American, pro-enemy leanings of his pastor, his wife, his Weathermen buddies, etc.

Even if McCain tries to take the high road in the fall, lots of independent-expenditure groups and talk-show hosts are going to have a field day with this stuff, and it's going to seep into the media eventually. Nobody wants a chief diplomat and C-in-C who thinks the US should approach its enemies from a posture of guilty cringing.

[Orion]

That Obama can give a pretty speech is not in doubt. This is how he's gotten as far as he has with so thin a resume', after all.

The question is does he *mean* it or is he parroting the words put in his mouth by some skilled speechwriter? The evidence leans toward the latter I'm afraid. He attended this church for 20 years, his pastor's opinions were well known and frequently broadcast, and it was only after he belatedly realized that his skin color didn't immunize him from criticism that he made this speech. Obama may not personally "hate Whitey" but many of those who do expect to follow him into the White House. Until now he's done little to discourage them. This speech does little to discourage them, either. Just the opposite, in fact.

[GMax]

Effective immediately, JPMorgan Chase is guaranteeing the trading obligations of Bear Stearns and its subsidiaries and is providing management oversight for its operations. Other than shareholder approval, the closing is not subject to any material conditions.

This is a substantial commitment and not one that the other regulators ( not Fed ) like the OCC would have approved if they felt there was a major risk to JPM, but it is a substantial part of the deal and alters the Friday loan of 28 days in many ways. Exactly what is the illiquid assets of BS, how much face value is it and what is is stated term, the duration of the underlying collateral etc. I dont know but I dont think you do either.

I am looking for some ranking of tier 1 capital right now. The list you provided shows JPM as an Ohio institution, which is not right and lists a bunch of interest rate swaps which are not CDO and mortgage derivatives.

[Orion]

ABC radio just described him giving an important speech in the shadow of the Liberty Bell.

He cracked up, huh?

[Rick Ballard]

GMax,

Did you know that the Buschco Treasury turned better than 20 per cent on its last foray into loan guarantees? I wonder what Treaury's cut on this deal will be after the dust settles.

The lawsuit aspect doesn't look all that promising for BSC shareholders.

[Barney Frank]

TT,
I thought you were complaining that Jesus was contradicting Psalm 1. My mistake.
I see what you're saying, but it still doesn't fit the Psalm or Luke.
How has Obama done anything other than sit for twenty years with a racist crackpot and be guided by him as his mentor? Only now, when he gets YouTubed, does he make an attempt to change minds by engaging with them.

Barack Obama is certainly no Jesus, but his refusal to denounce his pastor (as opposed to certain of his views) is, IMHO, consistent with Jesus' message in Luke.

And how is reverend Wright different from the Pharisees whom Jesus most thoroughly and repeatedly denounced? He's a man entrusted with a flock of believers and God's word who turns both to his own personal ends and leads people astray. IMO Jesus would be sitting with the sheep in Mr. Wright's church and denouncing Mr, Wright and his leadership as a brood of vipers if the bible is any indication.

[Barney Frank]

The only question I have about Bear Stearns is why it was left dangling until it croaked and a couple of hours later the discount window is opened up to all the remaining investment banks.
Lehman's CFO said today Lehmen faced no such liquidity problems as Bear had because they could and would now access the discount window. I can imagine that stuck uncommonly painfully in the craw of the Bear stockholders.

[PeterUK]

"Barack Obama is certainly no Jesus, but his refusal to denounce his pastor (as opposed to certain of his views) is, IMHO, consistent with Jesus' message in Luke. No minds are ever changed without engagement."

Hate the sin and love the sinner - but did Barrack H. Obama hate the sin enough to confront his pastor or try to save him from sin?

[GMax]

Well I thought I had found a a recent Tier 1 listing, but the "free" registration turned out to be a way to try to get a paid subscription so I had to cancel out.

JPM is one of the largest and based on capital and Tier 1 capital, one of the strongest banks in the country. I am certain of that.

Plus if you think with the way securites laws are today that the Chairman Dimon would just flat out lie in a press release, I am sure you are the kind of guy who loved Obama's speech today about those evil corporations.

Rick, the Fed does not take risk. I have to believe that the overcollateralization is more than what a prudent investor would demand.

I would not want to be a BS shareholders, given that 4 or 5 others big name group are listed as having come and taken a look and either passed or had lower bids. Hard to see a judge finding the value to be other than what high bidder offers. The gun to BS head was the counterparties who were demanding to be unwound due to credit downgrades. It could have gotten to a point where the shareholders got zip and secured lenders started seeing losses, and BS knew it.

[Roy Mustang]

So basically Obama repeated white America's criticism of blacks and black America's criticism of whites.

He then stated what white America had to do to unify with black America (better health care, and better schools, and better jobs). Nothing was mentioned on what blacks could do to rectify the criticism from whites.

And, you are "divider" if you continue to talk about Rev. Wright.

The End.

PS:
I can't believe he actually equated his grandmother's fear of blacks with his minister's damnation of America.

[PeterUK]

GMax,
The problem is hysteria and paper assets do not sit well together.Party like it was 1929.
It might be interesting to see if any of Bear Stearns officers offloaded and stock in the last twelve months.

[PeterUK]

Might be beneficial if Barrack H. Obama read this on the causes of poverty. Just hang around and do nothing,it will find you.

[Elliott]

Given the following from Obama's speech, some on the left must be somewhat disheartened tonight as they continue their long march:

...a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

Nothing about "a dumb war...a rash war"?

By the way, did he really have to treat us all to an extended excerpt from Toni Morrisonhis first book?

[ody]

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

Did anyone find this statement as offensive as I did? I can’t remember how many dreams I have had to squash to get to where I am today, neither can I remember how many of them were black or brown! Being white and racist I try to avoid squashing the dreams of white people.

Thanks Obama... love you too.

[John]

GMax wrote:
"This is a substantial commitment and not one that the other regulators ( not Fed ) like the OCC would have approved..."

I can't believe that the OCC had sufficient time to make an informed approval. Are you?

"... if they felt there was a major risk to JPM, but it is a substantial part of the deal and alters the Friday loan of 28 days in many ways."

But it IS a non-recourse loan. We taxpayers provided it.

"Exactly what is the illiquid assets of BS, how much face value is it and what is is stated term, the duration of the underlying collateral etc. I dont know but I dont think you do either."

I agree. The point you are glossing over is that JPM doesn't know either. That's why they got the juicy $30B non-recourse credit line. They are simultaneously being rescued and paid by us taxpayers for liquidating Bear Stearns.

It's pure socialism, but you want to call it something else when it benefits the wealthy (the fact that some other wealthy people are getting screwed doesn't change that fact).

[centralcal]

Deep down, the Super Delegates should be worried. Really, really worried. They have a problem on all fronts: if Obama loses and if Obama wins the primary.

Obama's speech wasn't that daring, wasn't that redeeming, wasn't that edifying. But it WAS clarifying. It tells us not to trust him. His grandmother should no longer trust him either!

[anduril]

Take this for what it's worth, but my inside source says that one reason Bear got whacked as hard as it did was that Paulson has still not forgotten, nor forgiven, Bear's refusal to participate in a rescue operation in the 1990's--that's what Krugman was talking about yesterday when he said Bear was not a "good citizen":

Bear was a major promoter of the most questionable subprime lenders. It lured customers into two of its own hedge funds that were among the first to go bust in the current crisis. And it’s a bad financial citizen: the last time the Fed tried to contain a financial crisis, after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, Bear refused to participate in the rescue operation.

Now feed this in, from The mark to market fiasco

So there goes Bear Stearns, sold for $2 a share. Marked to market, you might say. Which these days means there was no real market value for the company's shares, and JPMorgan got to pick up the legendary Wall Street investment bank for a nominal price, much the same way the nice lady at the garage sale lets you walk off with that ugly lamp for $2. Just get it out of my garage.

But then JPMorgan walks down the street with the Bear Stearns lamp, holds a conference call with media and analysts, and announces that it expects the lamp deal -- Fox Business reports -- to add US$1.2-billion to JP's annual earnings. And as a result, by the end of trading yesterday, JPMorgan shares are up 11% to US$40, for a total market-cap gain of US$13-billion. It's a story from Antiques Roadshow. "That ugly lamp, Mr. Morgan, is worth US$13-billion to your market cap. How about that?"

So much for the concept of market value, and welcome to the wild world created by another crowd of regulators and accountants caught up in one of their periodic zeal hunts for some kind of financial perfection.

So, someone was pretty stupid or else they didn't mind doing JPM a favor. It's like Kudlow said yesterday, the BSC building alone is worth $1.4 billion.

BTW, my cyber fax is not broken. I varied the feed with some articles that I hoped would be educational--they were for me (see above). I followed what was happening with gold and saw that people are still bearish on the dollar and believe that there is substantial inflation in our future. The fact that 3-18-08 was a good day for the market will not matter in November if home values continue to fall and inflation continues to increase.

[anduril]

BTW, if ya'll keep hijacking this thread with financial nonsense Charlie might say your behaving like dicks. I just mention that because I don't want anyone crying over that.

[Elliott]

PeterUK and ody,

I thought that stuff was goofy too:

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

[snip]

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

It's a zero sum game, unless a socially conscious Democratic administration is investing in America's prosperity!

[TexasIsHeaven]

"TexasIsHeaven

Wow! You showed me - you biblical scholar you!

Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

Luke 15:1-2 KJV

In the tradition of

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

Psalms 1:1 KJV

Note the startling difference!"

"Well Barney

ISTM that the Pharasees in the Luke passage were interpreting the Psalm to be more than " ...advis[e] .... not to be led into sin and unrighteousness by following sinners." Instead, Jesus was to be criticized for even associating with sinners. In short, he should "reject and denounce" them.

Barack Obama is certainly no Jesus, but his refusal to denounce his pastor (as opposed to certain of his views) is, IMHO, consistent with Jesus' message in Luke. No minds are ever changed without engagement."

Then say what you mean in the first place TT. Again, this is the main problem I have when trying to engage a liberal or leftist in any kind of a conversation. Stop putting words into someone elses mouth and then using them to make your point. It's the constant "photo shopping" you people do that drives me crazy - whether it's the printed word, the spoken word, or whatever medium is being manipulated at the time. I find it hard to understand a thought process that is so convuluted.

[Elliott]

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children.

Why does Obama keep omitting his own baptism by Wright? Those not familiar with the story might get the impression that he met Wright through his wife. Is that the goal?

[windansea]

Obama then:

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”

Obama now:

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

[Sue]

I keep hearing that Obama was speaking to a targeted audience today. If he is seeking to be president of the United States of America, not the blue, not the red, but the United States of America, why wasn't he addressing the concerns of red America?

Heaven forbid his words are just rhetoric. To win an election. I have been assured he is above that.

[Elliott]

May I nominate "Baptism by Firebrand" as a term by which we may in future refer to this often unmentioned episode?

[anduril]

From the WSJ MarketBeat Blog:

Oddly, the dollar rallied today, as investors in the currency markets upturned the ongoing trend of dollar weakening and bought the greenback against the euro and other major currencies. This might have been a way to reverse trades built on expectations of weakness ahead of the Federal Reserve, or it reflects a bit of a complicated analysis that goes something like this: The Fed resisted a full percentage point cut, and the extra attention paid in the FOMC statement to inflation suggests the Fed is now ready to defend the dollar in subsequent meetings. But the Fed has sounded warnings about inflation concerns before, and hasn’t actually done anything constructive about it. “We’re focused on what we think the longer-term trend will be, and we think that continues to be down for the dollar,” says Matt King, chief investment officer at Bell Investment Advisors.

[Elliott]

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches.

Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

In 2004, we had John Edward's imagining a little girl going to bed hungry. In 2008, Obama tells us of a girl who ate mustard and relish sandwiches for a year. What do we have to look forward to in 2012?

[PaulL]

These formulaic speeches written by Axelrod are getting damned annoying.

On the other hand, at least Obama gave a real nuts and bolts policy prescription to take care of racism: Spend seven hundred and thirty googol dollars on better schools. That's the ticket! Thanks for the novel idea; it's amazing no one has ever thought of it before.

[Jane]

It seems to me that the end result is Obama is more toast than he was yesterday, if that is possible. He's completely lost the independents and thus any chance at the election. Does he step aside for the good of the country?

[Neo]

Does Obama know that being smart is "too white".

[Neo]

The one thing that I will give credit to Obama is that he finally started that "conversation on race" that Bill Clinton tried to have, but just couldn't get past the results of the focus groups to actually have.

[Rick Ballard]

"What do we have to look forward to in 2012?"

OCT 14, 2012

DATELINE: New Harare

Pharaoh Obama I decreed today that elections were a superfluous luxury in a land beset by pestilence and famine. The Diktat referred to a meeting held with Chief Justice Commissar William Akers and several other Politburo members during an ice fishing trip on the Chesapeake in late September as providing "full authority" as to its compliance with the New People's Constitution...

[Ann]

I find no surprise at the recent hatred coming from the black community churches or the left, especially after, Hurricane Katrina and "it was President's Bush's fault". How soon we forget.

We can discuss this like it is new, but it is not. We need to point out Hillary and Bill's pandering in black churches while we are at it. Do you remember Mrs. King's funeral. How soon we forget.

[GMax]

If I hear one more rediculous comment about what one asset of BSC is worth, I think I might scream. JPM did not buy one asset or even just all of the assets. It bought assets and assumed liabilities, both those liabilities on the books and the contingent but real liabilities that it also assumed. Read the direct quote I gave above about JPM standing behind all of BSC commitments. Some of these commitments are to repurchase assets subject to guarantees or various puts. Other liabilities arise from pending or threatened litigation. The list goes on and on on contigent liavilities.

Nobody did JPM a favor. And regulators do not take large risks, especially with Congressional investigators lurking to try to make a headline for their committee chairman. They may well have averted a panic, like what seemed to be happening in Asia the evening before. BSC simply was not going to be able to perform under all of its committments ( thus contingencies ) to third parties. Sometimes the write ups call these counterparties. But if BSC failed to live up to a commitment which in turn causes a counterparty to be out of compliance with a debt covenant which in turn triggers a margin call, hopefully you will see the mess that could have happened and why the Fed cared enough to work on a weekend.

I am of the opinion that JPM is smart, and markets tend to overeact in both directions ( up and down ) such that I do think JPM will more likely than not get rewarded for the risks they assumed. They will provide good and competent management and the return should be but is no means a foregone conclusion, a substantial return on investment.

No one made BSC officers and directors approve this deal. Bankruptcy was always an option. My own substantial experience as a consultant in a major financial bankruptcy ( Lomas & Nettleton ) is that between the debtors attorneys and fees, the trustee and his costs and fees, the various unsecured creditors committees' attorneys and consultants and their fees, and the plodding nature of the bankruptcy process, that it rarely is a vehicle for doing much other than enriching attorneys and consultants. Asset value tend to diminish not improve. Good employees quickly find alternate positions. Mediocre employees and young overworked staff are left to deal with complex problems. Its not something that I would recommend to a guy thinking he was going to maximize asset value.

[Ann]

PUK,

You are right, again. We should be keeping a bigger eye on the demise of "Oil for Food" turning into "Global Warming for Puppies". Same scam, different name, different crooks.

[clarice]

Definitely,Ann,but this time PUK and I plan to get in on the ground floor.

[Michael]

Obama made a good psychological point that people who experience shame may relieve it by demonizing others, and 'Anglos' have gotten used to accepting this. Oddly enough, my family has a history of experiencing the anger of black people in Chicago; Hubert, my Irish American grandfather, was mugged for his WWI bonus money as he was passing through Chicago. This anger may be institutionalized as a kind of narcissistic manipulation. As an example of narcissistic manipulation, Jack Kerouac wrote of riding on a bus across America that a 'young virgin started talking to me, and I didn't talk to her for 2 hours until I had her and then I began to tell her about herself,' and she was eager to yield herself to him. In his method he made himself unapproachable until her neediness and his grandness was accepted. This is how the 'racist' is to deal with the anger that Jeremiah Wright celebrates.

[Tom Maguire]

I have a new thread up for Obama chat. Maybe I should put up a Bye, Bye, Bear" post as well.

[fdcol63]

At some point, we're all just going to have to say "F**K it! We all got screwed, sometime, somewhere, by somebody, over something. Instead of competing to see who's the biggest victim, we need to accept that we're all in the same boat NOW, so let's just put all this crap behind us and move forward, and promise to treat each other as full-fledged AMERICANS, with the respect and dignity that we all expect and deserve from each other."

As long as we continue to look in the rearview mirror, we're gonna keep hitting the potholes of the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdaM8mxEBtY

The Eagles Get Over It

I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"

They point their crooked little fingers at everbody else
spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if they gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers - kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work; you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, get over it

It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it sick, but I call it weak

You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass

Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

Get over it
Get over it
It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
Get over it, get over it

Get over it

[Ann]

How do I apply to join your team? I am tired of this carp!!

[GMax]

For anyone who cares "mark to market accounting" which will get lots of play soon enough, and there will be a move to try to get rid of it by trying to get Democrat committee chairmen to lean on regulators and the SEC and ultimately FASB.

Part of the S & L mess grew out of a tendency for many assets to go on the books at purchase price and stay there. Of course there were some provisions for "substantial impairment" but they were difficult to meet and even more difficult to apply.

And markets were invading ever more areas where market prices were clearly available and were not required to be taken into consideration.

And therefore broke institutions hung around with the appearance of positive capital, solely because of accounting rules.

The rules got changed and now "Mark to market" applies on all assets not held to maturity and classified as such.

The rules in my opinion are not the bogeyman. It was Wall Street designing ever more complex instruments which defy understanding. Mix in the liquidity crunch and it has been difficult recently to price for mark to market on some of these more exotic instruments as no market exists for them currently. Do you write the asset down to zero then?

Do consider who is doing the call for repeal of these regulations and accounting rules when you consider whether or not it has merit.

[anduril]

If I hear one more rediculous comment about what one asset of BSC is worth...

Fed deal for Bear Stearns unclear

The deal to sell Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the Federal Reserve bearing much of the risk, has been widely reported as a "taxpayer bailout."

But it's not clear yet whether this really is a bailout, or whether taxpayers will be on the hook.

In a shotgun marriage arranged by the Fed over the weekend, JPMorgan agreed to buy Bear Stearns for about $236 million worth of its own stock.

Although the details haven't been spelled out, it appears the Fed is providing up to $30 billion in non-recourse financing to JPMorgan, backed by Bear's illiquid mortgage and other securities.

Non-recourse means that if the collateral goes bad, the Fed can't come after JPMorgan for other assets.

The Fed is hoping to prevent a fire sale of Bear's assets, which could depress the value of other debt instruments and aggravate the credit crisis.

Over the long term, these assets could pay off with no loss to the Fed. It's also possible they could produce steep losses.

The Fed has not disclosed if or how it is being compensated for this risk.

Although taxpayers would not be affected directly by losses at the Fed, like they would if the deal was coming from the U.S. Treasury Department, they could be hurt indirectly.

The Federal Reserve System holds about $900 billion in Treasury securities and other assets, on which it earns interest. The Fed deducts its operating expenses from this income and returns the rest to the federal government.

If the Bear collateral went bad, the Fed would suffer losses, which would reduce the income it turns over to the government. In that sense, these losses could be borne by taxpayers.

There is nothing ridiculous in pointing out the value of one particular BSC asset in these circumstances. It appears that if, in the worst of all cases, all other Bear assets turn out to be worthless, JPM may still get to keep the building. $1.5 billion is not chicken feed, even for Morgan. Even if Morgan had to turn the building over to the Fed, the $30 billion non-recourse financing still makes this look like a pretty sweet deal to me: heads I win, tails I don't lose. At 50/50 odds and a potentially significant upside, who wouldn't take that kind of a deal on such terms?

[GMax]

Anduril

You really are pretty dense. If you get assets worth a dollar and have to pay off on liabilities exceeding $1, it really makes no difference if the Taj Mahal was one of the assets and its really shining and nice.

By your own admission in the past you dont really understand this stuff, but instead of reading more and posting less, you do the opposite.

And then you get perturbed when someone points out your intellectual hang out.

BTW at one point on Sunday, JPM was ready to pull out of the deal. Sound like a slam dunk laydown no lose deal still?

[anduril]

My understanding of the deal is that Morgan gets to borrow up to $30 billion from the Fed using Bear's assets as collateral. If the collateral goes bad, the Fed has agreed not to come after Morgan for the money. The point of the exercise being either an orderly liquidation of the assets to avoid panic in the markets or what would amount to a reorganization of Bear on a sound financial footing. This is what Morgan is getting compensated for. If there is a risk in this for Morgan I'd be interested to know what it is. Everything I've read suggests that the likelihood that Morgan would incur more than $30 billion in losses from the Bear assets is slim to none. I believe I also heard that the $30 billion may not be a firm limit.

[SukieTawdry]

It was an okay speech competently delivered, but it wasn't all that. In fact, more often than not, it sounded to me like the kind of boilerplate that could have been delivered almost anywhere on the stump.

And I found much about it that condescended, not in tone or manner, but in content. Do whites really need the sources of black anger explained to us? I do believe we get it, but, short of climbing aboard the time machine for a re-do, what are we supposed to do about it that hasn't already been done? How long have we been begging the black community to recognize how ill it's been served by a robotic allegiance to the Democratic party with its identity politics, failed liberal policies, kowtow to unions (in particular, the teachers' unions) and race-baiting hustlers? The rotted, crumbling inner cities and their dysfunctional schools can be traced directly to decades of Democratic mis-management and an insistence on perpetuating failure.

Mr. Obama's rhetoric fell far short of being an honest discussion about race (and I agree with Tom, what about that missing page--I mean, if you're not willing to confront issues like a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate, what's the point). In one area, though, he didn't disappoint: racial harmony can only be achieved by spending lots (and lots) more money on existing programs, successful or non, and instituting lots (and lots) of new social spending, especially down there in the hood. What a surprise.

From what I've heard, the response hasn't been all they'd hoped for. Not even nearly. Of course, the increasingly annoying Obamabots are positively orgasmic.

[anduril]

More of the devil in the details:

Bear Stearns (BSC): Devil in the JP Morgan Details

Folks, do you think JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon is a moron? Don't you think he knew the $2 takeout price would outrage Bear Stearns shareholders?

According to the WSJ, JP Morgan tucked two key provisions into the mountainous contract that was thrown together over the weekend--provisions that should probably make Bear shareholders rethink their ability to kill this deal. To wit:

1. JP Morgan has an option to buy 20% of Bear Stearns for $2 a share right now, with no shareholder approval. If Bear shareholders start to stomp their feet, one imagines that this will be the first thing JPM Morgan does. Whatever price concession's Bear Stearns shareholders manage to extract, moreover, they won't all be coming out of JP Morgan's hide: JP Morgan already has a risk-free option to buy 20% of the company at $2 a share.

2. JP Morgan has an option to buy Bear Stearns's mid-town Manhattan headquarters for $1.1 billion if the deal falls through. This gleaming new building has an estimated net worth of $1.4 billion--or approximately 5-times the total amount that JP Morgan has agreed to pay for Bear Stearns. This option means that JP Morgan can abscond with what is arguably Bear's most valuable asset with no shareholder approval.

Add these two provisions to the reality that the Fed has backstopped JP Morgan, not Bear Stearns (at least not explicitly), and Bear Stearns shareholders should probably be careful what they wish for. JP Morgan has clearly constructed this deal in the expectation that Bear shareholders will put up a fuss, and they've guaranteed that, whatever happens, they'll walk away a winner.

Someone's dense, alright, but it isn't Jamie Dimon and it isn't me.

[anduril]

From the Beeb:

BBC business editor Robert Peston said that the move by JP Morgan and the Fed of New York was essentially a central bank bailout.

"In just the last 24 hours Bear Stearns came close to running out of the cash or liquidity it needs to meet its daily requirements," he said.

"So enter the US Federal Reserve. It is promising to supply whatever liquidity is required by JP Morgan Chase, the leading bank, to help Morgan provide whatever funds are required by Bear Stearns.

"Since JP Morgan is saying there is no risk to its shareholders, this represents a central bank bailout of Bear Stearns.

"This is America's Northern Rock."

But as others have argued, this is no bailout of Bear--the Bear has been buried (Kudlow).

[GMax]

You sure backed off the building being worth more than than stuff pretty quick, of course without much acknowledgement of the folly of the comment, but that is what I have come to expect.

Your understanding is pretty shallow. To be fair, the Fed has not really been very forthcoming on the two deals they cut and how the 2nd deal modified the first deal.

The first deal was a indirect lending deal with JPM as the conduit. We dont know what assest and how they were assessed and valued. all reports are pretty slim on those points. The FED has no history of taking much risk, the overcollateralization must be stupifying here. It was a 28 day loan. This happened Friday

The did make a big ( JPM that is ) at the time of playing up the fact that JPM was not getting the BSC bug in this transaction. Thus all of the "nonrecourse" stuff as in JPM is not going to take a loss here, dont punish our stock Monday morning.

But before the weekend was out, BSC was purchased in a STOCK purchase ( not an asset purchase ) and JPM has announced that they stand behind all of the BSC commitments. They have not said it explicitly, but I think it is likely that while JPM did not have liability on Friday, BSC surely was liable on Friday to the FED, and therefore when JPM stepped into the shoes of BSC by buying their stock they became liable to repay the FED.

I will grant that no documents have been made public that I have seen and JPM did not go out of their way to make it known that the Press Release on Friday was overridden by the one on Monday on the purchase.

It is possible that the FED made some carve out to get the deal done. Its very unlike the FED who never takes any credit risk, but given the sparcity of information I have nothing other than my gut to back up my thoughts here on the carveout.

[anduril]

You sure backed off the building being worth more than than stuff pretty quick...

Could you write this in standard English please? I haven't a clue what you're saying. I didn't back off the building bit:

"2. JP Morgan has an option to buy Bear Stearns's mid-town Manhattan headquarters for $1.1 billion if the deal falls through. This gleaming new building has an estimated net worth of $1.4 billion--or approximately 5-times the total amount that JP Morgan has agreed to pay for Bear Stearns. This option means that JP Morgan can abscond with what is arguably Bear's most valuable asset with no shareholder approval."

[anduril]

What was Morgan after?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.kwMtvHsOL0&refer=home

Bear Stearns's prime brokerage unit, which provides loans and processes trades for hedge funds, generated $1.2 billion in revenue last year. That business is probably the only piece left of the company with value after the mortgage market collapsed last year, analysts said.

`A Lot of Value'

The prime brokerage was the third-largest behind Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley as of April 2007, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. About a sixth of the firm's income came from packaging and trading mortgage bonds, a market that has been almost completely frozen since July.

``As bad as things are at Bear Stearns, this is still a franchise with a lot of value, particularly the prime brokerage business, which is what JPMorgan is after,'' said William Fitzpatrick, who helps manage $1.6 billion at Optique Capital Management, including JPMorgan shares. ``That's the crown jewel, and that would fit into JPMorgan's business extremely well.''

[GMax]

it isn't me.

Well yes it is, but when someone is so astromically dense they cant see it.

Deals have tremedous front end costs. The duel diligence the management of BSC, etc etc all have tremedous costs.

Yet Dimon knew that he would not have BSC shareholder approval for months. He might have to eat all of these costs if he props BSC up long enough for another suitor to figure out a way to pay a little more. He wanted to be compensated for the out of pocket costs, risks and time and effort and distraction from the otherwise focus of JPM.

In bankruptcy court they put in break up fees or stalking horse fees quite similar to this. Its in your best interest to have a stalking horse according to most BK consultants and its in your best interest not having folks bad mouth the process of spending all the time and effort and upfront costs only to get aced by a bid months down the road. So the stalking horse gets paid, and often the bid has to be materially better than the original in order to even be considered.

So JPM was smart enough to figure out a way to try to cover themselves if they lose out. Not sure how much 20% of a company you dont control is worth but the building arguable worth several hundred million dollars more than the purchase price. It may be more than the upfront costs and it may yield an immediate return to JPM, but it is not an indication of anything other than how troubled companies are bought and sold.

[anduril]

For goodness sake, get a grip, take your time and type up something people can read:

astromically

tremedous

duel diligence

tremedous

All you're doing is hurling vituperation at me--you're not contesting anything I've written or quoted. In fact you're not even addressing it. I get the point: you dislike me so much you can't even type straight. That's childish. I'm citing credible sources to show that this deal was as sweet as it could get for JPM.

[GMax]

Once more I will type slower for you.

Asset purchase = add up all assets and that is purchase price

Stock purchase = purchaser becomes the stockholder and therefore assumes all liabilities. Purchase price is priced paid for stock plus all liabilities assumed that are not reflected on the balance sheet.

In the case of BSC, we know that margin calls and asset puts and guarantees were the root of the troubles at BSC. Most of these liabilites are what is known as contingent liabilities, they did not show up on the balance sheet because a triggering event had not yet made them probable or estimable. So there was some footnote disclosure. But the numbers are substantial.

S even if BSC had two assets and one of them all by itself is worth more than the stock purchase price, it means nothing. These contingent liabilities could mean that the two assets are insufficient to pay off all known and booked liabilities and the lurking contingent liabilities. In other words the purchase price if all of this were known would be zero or even negative. Its a function of the risk JPM is taking when they agreed to do this.

If that does not explain it, then I am afraid I dont know enough English to explain it to you.

[GMax]

Resort to criticizing typing ability when you cant argue on the facts. You dont know what you are talking about. The fact that you found some financial reporter to make some statement is not very significant. And given that you were all a twitter yesterday morning about a market meltdown, it seems odd to me that today you think JPM stole something. How about the nerve to do a deal when twits like you are running around in Asia screaming the sky is falling.

[anduril]

Do you really think you're the only person in the world who understands this? That JPM doesn't have a clue as to what they're getting into? Show me one person who thinks JPM was lying to its shareholders when it told them their value was not at risk! In fact, contrary to what usually happens after an acquisition, JPM stock went UP after the deal was announced--the combined wisdom of the world v. GMax.

Meanwhile, here's another assessment of the deal.

Caroline Baum at Bloomberg:

Bear Stearns was too big to fail, too weak to continue operations, and too intertwined with counterparties to go down without causing serious collateral damage. It was the judgment of Fed policy makers that the risk to the national economy from a margin spiral was greater than the appearance of bailing out a bank.

In retrospect, it seems that the too-big-to-fail bank served as a sacrificial lamb, held out (hung-out?) as an example.

``The Fed let JPMorgan steal Bear Stearns because it needed cover for the putative moral hazard in keeping the system afloat,'' said Paul DeRosa, a partner at Mt. Lucas Management Co. ``For macro reasons, the Fed had no alternative.''

[anduril]

it seems odd to me that today you think JPM stole something. How about the nerve to do a deal when twits like you are running around in Asia screaming the sky is falling.

I've tried to conduct this discussion in a rational manner but I'm going to have to drop it because you're clearly coming unhinged. Please stay away from any sharp objects. And for the record: I'm not running around in Asia, and I don't think the sky is falling.

[GMax]

No but I am swiftly coming to the conclusion that you not only dont want to understand it, you just want to hurl invective and nonsense around.

If you had been reading what I wrote yesterday, I specifically said I thought that JPM probably cut a good deal for themselves. Go look if you really care at all for fairness, where I spoke of the different platforms that JPM was getting and how valuable those might ultimately be to JPM.

What I think is stupid, and therefore your making it since you say you dont repudiate it, is picking on one asset and saying that is worth more than the whole deal.

Last example maybe this will sink in.

I agree to sell you all my assets but you must assume my debts too. The assets are $1mm house, a $100,000 piece of land and a coin collection worth another $100,000.

I will sell this to you for $500,000.

STEAL!

Well dont you need to know what the debts are first? What if the mortgage on the house is $750,000 and it matures in 30 days? Still a steal?

Better yet what if I say My neighbor is a little pissed about the fence I put up and says the stain on the fence ran off in the first rain, into his pool and permanently turned the pool a reddish color and his dog drank the pool water and died. But he only said he was hiring a lawyer and no demand has yet been received.

And the IRS has sent an audit notice for the last three years but no results of that are available.

Still want to run around like a ninnie and scream about the $1mm house being more than what you paid? Its stupid by definition as it does not mean anything without knowing all liabilites, including the contingencies for which there is no booked amount ( like the IRs example ).

Simple enough? Did I mistype? Now you may return to your cut and paste and trashing of JPM, I think I am through.

[Rick Ballard]

JPM got a $30 billion put from the Fed to hedge against a meltdown prior to their disposal of BSC assets. In effect, they are acting as a bankruptcy referee and buyer combined.

I'm more interested in the Joe Lewis and CITIC aspects than I am about what JPM takes out of the deal.

Rich's suspicions about the mercantilist aspects of what's going on in the futures markets may yet prove to be well founded. It really looks like a "too big to fail" bluff was called re BSC. Now, if the Fed would just just nuzzle the muzzle up behind CITI's ear...

[GMax]

Rick

Calling it a put is very good, that is the substance.

Have any sense on the put still being effective post stock sale? Dont you believe the $30 billion had two repayments sources (1)BSC as maker and (2)a pledge of a whole bunch of previously very valuable but currently illiquid assets.

If BSC is absorbed by JPM dont they also end up having the recourse that they originally did not have in the conduit loan arrangement?

Do you see the FED actually having banker type risk here? The FHLBs never have credit losses due to overcollateralization. I have to assume the same here if enough time passes to allow a more normal market for financial assets.

The CITIC I will scratch you and you scratch me deal looked like a scheme to create equity on BSC books when nothing else changed. Maybe CITIC needs the capital too?

[M. Simon]

Bread Sandwiches
Air Sandwiches
Vacuum Sandwiches

"Now honey don't you be talking about President Obama that way."

[flex]

I think Obama was purely honest today. Its understandable for anyone to draw their own conclusions. If it cost him the nomimation or the presidency then be it... atleast he spoke the truth from his heart. And that is a great thing for our country.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Both SCAM Renewables and SCAM Carbon Traders divisions are going well.
Though Wind farms have high initial capital set up costs all we do is build a wind farm on somebodies wind swept beauty spot and collect the subsidies.
Carbon trading we are actually selling nothing but permits to emit.See a smoking factory chimney,"Sorry Squire you need a permit","Got some nice unused Micronesian carbon credits I can let you have "Ka-ching!

These are the things a prospective presidential candidate should be talking about.
There is a credit squeeze at the same time all the grandiose Algorian pyramid building schemes to counter what is ,probably, the wrong solution to the wrong problem.Implementation will devastate western economies.
Barrack H.Obama - The wrong solution to the wrong problem.

[Ralph Phelan]

The one thing that I will give credit to Obama is that he finally started that "conversation on race"

Hogwash. White people have been listening to black people saying this stuff for a long time. It's not gonna be a conversation until black people start listening whites.

[kim]

Did you note that a very recent poll found that a majority of the British consider the new green taxes to be more about raising money than helping the environment? This after the UK has been even more propagandized than we have about AGW.

By the way, the tensions bubbling to the surface at the conference in Japan between developed and developing nations will be the latest lesson. Why shouldn't diplomats be among the first to understand that falsely accusing Carbon Dioxide of all its purported evil is unnecessarily raising international tensions?

Check out icecap.us, or Cryosphere Today for graphs of sea ice extent, at both poles. There has been a huge recovery from last year.
============================

[kim]

It might be very interesting to have a poll of Americans about AGW. Why don't we see one?
===============================

[kim]

Heh, Ralph, it seems Bill and Hillary started this conversation about race.
=============================

[kim]

Those crackers.
===========

[PeterUK]

Kim,
We know that all the environmental taxes are simply that,taxes.We know that insane carbon emission levels are being set which cannot be met without totalitarian control.
We also know that the 7000 gigantic windmills due to be built are way beyond the financial and technical reach of government.Generating companies are having a problem raising the capital to finance for the proposed nuclear power stations.Costs are soaring and investment is shrinking.
We know the government isn't serious about global "warming" because they are on the horns of a dilemma.They need economic growth,they have vast capital outlay,runaway inflation,credit squeeze,unemployment,bankruptcies and house repossessions.
There is also the growing realisation that the government has the wrong solution to the wrong problem.Just liks Barrack H.Obama.

[Rick Ballard]

"Do you see the FED actually having banker type risk here? The FHLBs never have credit losses due to overcollateralization. I have to assume the same here if enough time passes to allow a more normal market for financial assets."

No bankers risk. The collateral has already been marked to rental value less conversion costs. That's one of the things I find so puzzling about this "crisis". I've been through a number of the pass through deals and the average loan size just won't support the idea that hordes of borrowers will give up their credit ratings for 10 years by walking away - and becoming renters. Not with the unemployment rate at 4.8%.

[sophy]

I do not know how to use the Hellgate gold ; my friend tells me how to use.