Free speech for TARP recipients? Jane Hamsher thinks not.
Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake surely considers herself a champion of civil liberties (and an ally of Big Labor). However, her view of legitimate dissent and free speech seems oddly cramped - apparently, equity analysts in the employ of Citigroup should not be allowed to express opinions contrary to the views held by Ms. Hamsher. Her attitude is mostly amusing, but depending on how influential these lefty blogs become or how widely shared her views are on the left this could become be scary - sort of a McCain-Feingold for TARP recipients and their clients, i.e., everyone [Hmm, the future is now and its scary]. Here we go:
Today Citigroup lowered its rating on Wal-Mart from a buy to a hold because of the Employee Free Choice Act, "citing concern that legislation intended to make it easier for employees to unionize would raise the retail giant's labor costs and hurt its competitiveness."
This is startling for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that they're downgrading the stock based on an assumption that a piece of legislation will pass that hasn't even been introduced yet.
The Citigroup analyst, Debora Weinswig, said Employee Free Choice (EFCA) "could be a significant drag to earnings."
It's hard to view this as anything other than a reckless and overt political act on the part of a company, Citigroup, that has made stupendously bad business decisions with dire economic consequences necessitating billions in taxpayer bailouts, at a time when the market can ill-afford it.
As to timing - the bill was introduced on Tuesday, so Ms. Weinswig was hardly out on a limb as to topicality. Whether the bill will pass remains up in the air.
With regard to "It's hard to view this as anything other than a reckless and overt political act on the part of a company, Citigroup", really? I have an easy time viewing this as one equity analyst, deep in the bowels of Citigroup, doing her job by offering an opinion on how legislation currently in the news might impact companies she covers. What is the political motivation of "Citigroup" (Who at Citi - the board? The CEO? Ms. Weinswig's boss?) in linking this bill to a decline in WalMart's fortunes? Ms. Hamsher does not attempt an explanation, nor does she explain why previous dubious lending decisions of Citigroup ought to influence the views of their equity analysts.
Ms. Hamsher attempts to argue from authority with unconvincing results:
I asked Pulitzer-Prize winning former New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston, author of author of Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense [and Stick You with the Bill], what he made of this announcement:
Citigroup's comment fit with the same pattern we see in utility regulation. Just as state regulators are about to vote on raising electricity and gas rates, the bond ratings agencies come out with warnings that they're thinking about downgrading the bonds. None dare call it "interference in the market."
None dare call it "interference in the market"? Do any dare call it "free speech"? Here in America, people (even bond raters!) are allowed to comment on the likely impact of proposed legislation and regulation. Well, that is my opinion, but perhaps I am behind the times - here is Ms. Hamsher:
We? Who is "we" - Henry Waxman? This is stifling of dissent, once considered the highest form of patriotism. And without bothering to research the point I will guess that Ms. Hamsher is firmly behind Paul Krugman in supporting the nationalization of our banks, presumably to be accompanied by further stifling of their viewpoints. Civil liberties for some!
I GUESS THE WALMART GUYS MISSED THIS IN B-SCHOOL: Former Hollywood producer Jane Hamsher takes time from her schedule to explain to WalMart management how they can boost their bottom line:
I am afraid that any response would spoil the moment; I want to savor this "Walmart could earn more if they just increased their cost base" theorem a bit longer.
OK. Since Ms. Hamsher is an orthodox progressive we can easily imagine her reaction if presented with the notion that the government could increase its revenue by cutting tax rates (another firedog favors "crazier notions of supply side economics" as a description of the Laffer Curve). Yet now we live in a world where WalMart can increase its profits by increasing its costs - can we call this "the Laugher Curve"? Why haven't WalMart's managers and owners figured this out for themselves? I blame false consciousness!
For the reality-based, Walmart's annual revenues as of Jan 2008 were roughly $380 billion; their cost of goods sold was about 80% of that, and "Selling, General and Administrative", i.e., payroll, was about 18% of revenue, or $70 billion. Even if none of that $70 billion went to taxes and housing (rent or mortgage payments), and even if WalMart employees spent 100% of their paychecks at WalMart, they would still provide less than 20% of WalMart's revenue. Dare we wonder whether the rest of WalMart's customer base, which is to say the vast majority, will pay higher prices just because WalMart employees are a bit more flush? And if their customer base is prepared to pay more, why the strange forebearance by the WalMart managers, who ought to be raising prices (and profits!) today. Inexplicable. Well, almost inexplicable - maybe this theory of "higher costs = higher profits" is bunk.
To be fair, I suppose that if enough of the American work force became unionized and if the resulting combination of inefficient work rules and higher pay resulted in a net transfer of wealth from owners (who no doubt shop at Saks) to workers (WalMart and Target customers all), then maybe maybe maybe WalMart would see a net benefit from the passage of card check - it is at least conceivable, although not what Ms. Hamsher argued. Of course, WalMart owners would see an even greater benefit if their competitors were saddled with inefficient unions while they remained free, even if they are no longer allowed to say so.
Or maybe the State Department can issue WalMart a button. That was easy!
Natural Born Stalinist.
=======================
Posted by: kim | March 11, 2009 at 07:14 AM
Good post Tom, you have been doing yeoman level work on Economics and free markets!
Posted by: WestWright | March 11, 2009 at 07:41 AM
Nothing better than a good Hamsher take-down early in the morning!
Posted by: Jane | March 11, 2009 at 08:01 AM
Well, this is certainly intersting
By PAMELA HESS p {margin:12px 0px 0px 0px;}
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Taliban's new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration's efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.
Bet he was one of them moderate Taalleeebon.
Can our "leadership" really be this stupid?
LUN
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 11, 2009 at 08:11 AM
PO, Bush did it.
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 08:31 AM
One reason why the bill doesn't have to pass to put downward pressure on the Wal-Marts of the world, http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/03/11/card-check-victory-for-the-juice-lobby.aspx>from Kaus:
For Wal Mart, even less than the chances are for a quick card check victory -- there is no chance of a quick card check defeat. It's an issue that will linger. How much pressure does having the issue linger put on its stock? I'm not the equity analyst, but the uncertainty that Wal Mart's business could be radically altered, and those changes being held back at the mercy of Obama and the Dems in Congress can't make equity analysts entirely comfortable recommending the stock.
Then again...
"Barack's gonna demand ... that you move out of your comfort zone."
--Michelle Obama
Get with the program, Debora Weinswig.
Posted by: hit and run | March 11, 2009 at 08:34 AM
TM,
Alas and alack.
The statists want to control everything: thought, word, and deed.
This is not a joke.
Read the comments to Ms. Hamsher's post. Some dare call it treason, criminal for Citibank or other analysts to make such pronouncements.
The only thing I didn't see there was someone blaming it on the Jews. It's a good thing the Waltons aren't Jewish.
In any case, you can be sure of two things:
1) The cries for increased control of everything; with the option for punishing those who dissent, to increase very quickly and very intensely.
2) Anti-Semitism, the real kind, not the fake Anti-Zionist kind, is going to increase very quickly and very intensely.
The 2-minute Hate is Back!
Watch your back Goldstein!
That, and Jonah Goldberg deserves a special award for Liberal Fascism
Just sayin'.
Posted by: MeTooThen | March 11, 2009 at 08:38 AM
MTT, The anti-semitism is shocking. Comments at other sites regarding Freeman are mind boggling.
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 08:52 AM
She deserved that.
Boy, to be able to feel the soothing breeze between the ears of liberals.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 11, 2009 at 08:53 AM
Agree on the Jonah award, MTT. His book was a real eye-opener.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 11, 2009 at 08:54 AM
I'm going to try to defend her comments.
* There are some businesses where paying higher salaries to employees can result in higher sales... but only if paying higher salaries results in a higher trained, more qualified, more motivated workforce, which won't take place under EFCA, as that will only result in higher wages being paid to the same workforce as before.
* 'trickle up economics' is the cornerstone of Obama's economic philosophy where taking money from those better off to shower it on those at the bottom is actually a benefit to those at the top as they will enjoy higher sales and the satisfaction that they are finally fulfilling their obligation to help take care of those not so fortunate. And since Obama WON, objecting to anything he wants to do is both ignoring the will of the people and unpatriotic to boot.
* There are some businesses where increasing costs does result in higher profits.. namely cost-plus government contracting jobs... which neither Wal-Mart nor any of the other businesses likely to be affected by EFCA are.
* There's nothing wrong with taxpayers looking for a little return on their TARP investment. We're giving money to Citigroup (in order to save their a***s) and it's just fine to expect that they pay attention to what 'we' want them to do... and since we know conservatives ain't the ones doling out this money, Citigroup owes its survival to the liberals and they better show liberals some love. And if that means squashing lowly analysts, so be it. And we know that analyst reports have in the past been tailored to meet the objectives of upper management (Jack Grubman changing his outlook on ATT in order to get his kids into private school), so don't act like this is anything new.
* And while it isn't 'interference in the market, it is interference, but in the legislative process. And as we all know, liberals, being on the side of God, sorry, they don't believe in God, being right, it is wrong for ANYONE to interfere with what they're trying to do.
How did I do? I know there isn't much to work with but I tried....
Posted by: steve sturm | March 11, 2009 at 08:55 AM
Ban Steve Sturm! Destroy him and his career!
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 11, 2009 at 08:57 AM
Yet now we live in a world where WalMart can increase its profits by increasing its costs - can we call this "the Laugher Curve"?
TM rocks!!
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 08:57 AM
Now, Bad, you know he was under continuous pressure from those 'nice people at state' who advised Powell and then Rice, but mostly
because the Saudi and Emirati bar which funded the public relations campaign; were putting pressure, and ultimately forced Cully Stimson for telling the truth, and under Englund, the replacement for Wolfowitz let a fullfledged Islamist sympathizer run the show. But Feith and Wolfowitz are the devil. They have their
victory with Gates and now with Pannetta, which brings us closer to the day of another
atrocity, organized by the likes of Gitmo alumni, this makes #63. Honestly, why does
one even keep up the pretense of protecting
this country, for people too stupid, the 52%
to appreciate, and are half willing to put
those who do it jail,
As for Jane Hamsher, the less said about her the better; than again David Johnson
also fits the perfect profile of credentialed idiot, so it's a tag team match as to who is stupider. Although the fact that this administration, is cutting
oil and gas producers off at the knees, never enters into David's calculations.
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2009 at 08:58 AM
Pelosi is getting ripped a new one for treating military aircraft as her own private planes.
How dare she act like a greedy bank executive or CEO...
I'm expecting the president to scold her publically.....
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 09:07 AM
No bad, it's Bush's fault, just like the 410B budget Obama is going to sign today.
Posted by: Tina | March 11, 2009 at 09:18 AM
Leave it to an American President and Congress to have a crisis and go off on a preemptive unilateral course of action ...
Posted by: Neo | March 11, 2009 at 09:22 AM
Politico's top story is about --- wait for it-- BUSH!!! and how there is a continuing campaign to defend him.
Just a thought, but...wouldn't it be more relevant to do a story on how often the current president blames everything on the previous president?
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 09:26 AM
Heh, Neo...
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 09:31 AM
TM:
...and even if WalMart employees spent 100% of their paychecks at WalMart...
Wal Mart should just pay workers in merchandise*.
The worker who has been making $8/hr can be paid in merchandise at the rate of $10/hr that only costs Wal Mart $6/hr.
The worker gets a 25% raise, and Wal Mart cuts payroll expenses by 25% and books a profit on the merchandise it pays its employees with.
It's win, win, win!
----------------
*I'm imagining a re-creation of the old Wheel of Fortune practice of having the winners spend their winnings by picking from a selection of wonderful gifts, like the ceramic dalmation, or in Wal Mart's case, workers would get to spend their weekly earnings on wonderful selections of merchandise like...well...uh...a ceramic dalmation.
Posted by: hit and run | March 11, 2009 at 09:32 AM
God, this woman is stupid. You don't offset higher hourly wages by increasing sales. Increasing sales is how, in part, you increase profits. This leads to higher dividends, more cash flow, more store openings and more.....drumroll.......hiring of workers!
Yes, this would hurt Wal-Mart more than the Ma and Pa that doesn't have to deal with it. But ultimately, it will hurt the poor bastard who shops at Wal-Mart and is now paying an extra $1.47 for his potted palm, $7.42 for his Zebco spinning reel set and $9.51 for his power ice auger. All that extra dough will be going to pay the salaries of people who don't deserve them so that the customers will no longer have an inexpensive place to shop so that this idiot and her ilk in Congress can curry favor with the unions. As Posner said, there is no future for unions. This asinine bill will not change that.
The comments about the Citigroup analyst are so far devoid of reality I would have to pass through a prism to be able to comment on them.
Posted by: Fresh Air | March 11, 2009 at 09:33 AM
I for one am thrilled to see the whole lot of 'em outed as shills for the SEIU.
I've always been amused that none of the blogging union-wallahs are actually in unions. The American Prospect is not unionized, Kos and Hamsher don't pay their employees to be in a union.
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 09:37 AM
Just to show how far we fallen down the slippery slope of accepting all this crap, I'd like to know why there isn't outrage over the naming of this 'Employee Coerced Choice Act'.
======================================
Posted by: kim | March 11, 2009 at 09:40 AM
bad, I blame Bush.
Neo, I think Insty had an article flagged up about the problems the British Civil Service was having in getting in touch with their US counterparts to plan the upcoming G20 Conference, though it looks like the complaints are being walked back. The conference is April 2 so it could turn out to be a fiasco.
In re: the EU, the problem they have is that national governments have spending constraints (and plenty of diktats from Brussels) but don't have control of the monetary policy. The Germans are catching on that the EU is a forum in which they are paying reparations to the French who are using the EU in trying to rebuild their empire.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 11, 2009 at 09:44 AM
Nice idea, hit, before we know it we all get paid in script anyways. Mike Allen was
a 'credentialed moron, at Time, before Rick verbalized the phrase, for me. So why would one expect him to get any better at what I call the Obamico. In the female division, guess who won the "Walter Cronkite prize for Journalism", and for what interview (well gave it away didn't I) three guesses, the first two don't count.
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2009 at 09:45 AM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/03/stimulus-goal-d.html>Obama lied, I cried:
He told me his stimulus plan would save my job. Well, not me necessarily, but anyway, the solution is, of course, not to admit that stimulus does far less than Obama and Dems have promised. No, of course it's that we need...drum roll...more stimulus!
Of course, I have a new motto: "Only suckers are still working."
Well, I'm still paying my mortgage (and all obligations for that matter) so I'm still a sucker, I guess. But at least I'm sitting here in my pj's instead of being bossed around by the man.
Up With (Lazy) People!
Posted by: hit and run | March 11, 2009 at 09:53 AM
They keep pushing 'Bush Economy' and it's going to become an ironic phrase. There were good times under Bush and all the Stalinist rewriting of history isn't going to change that.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | March 11, 2009 at 09:57 AM
So they leak this "economist's" position, but downplay the CBO report that said doing nothing would be preferable. This is why the MSM must die, like yesterday. We have too many dupes in this country who actually think this is information and actionable advice.
Posted by: Fresh Air | March 11, 2009 at 09:58 AM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Staples-4Q-profit-drops-on-apf-14603569.html>Earnings news this morning: "Staples 4Q profit drops on charges, but sales rise"
So. They're selling more, but making less?
They've been using the http://www.staples.com/office/supplies/StaplesProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogIdentifier=2&partNumber=606396>wrong button, obviously. They need a State Department issued "Overcharge" button.
Posted by: hit and run | March 11, 2009 at 10:02 AM
So,tell me, why should one read Jane Hamsher?
I mean, we live in a society that doesn't recognize when to turn the page or turn the channel.
Where does one learn to identify logical fallacies, invalid premises, and conclusions that do not follow? Where does one learn what propositions are contrary to civil discourse? Where does one learn when one's time is being wasted and one is being played for a fool?
Much as I appreciate the chuckle of "laugher curve" when people consistently place to high on the laugher curve, the laughs are not worth our time.
Posted by: sbw | March 11, 2009 at 10:03 AM
to s/b too
Sorry. Preview is your friend. I have no friends.
Posted by: sbw | March 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Yet now we live in a world where WalMart can increase its profits by increasing its costs - can we call this "the Laugher Curve"?
TM rocks!!
I loled at this; it even overcame my irritation at TM's penchant for linking to the Klein/Hampsher axis of douchery.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Fresh Air-
The Fair Model take:
He ran his model before the Stimulus bill passed and used a stripped down version of it. He was also about 120 points higher on the SP 500. His baseline case was no stimulus, and an interesting note here is that his baseline case (without stimulus) produces numbers close to those the Obama Administration forecast in their budget.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Oh, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672866386988981.html>this is good.
Shut up, they explained.
And by good, I mean bad. But not bad like our bad. I mean good like bad like our bad is, like good.
Posted by: hit and run | March 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM
"Can our "leadership" really be this stupid?"
That's a joke, right Po?
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I just heard Christina Romer on TODAY. Boy, does she ever get that high squeaky voice thing going. Why do women do that?
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
H&R--
It's worse than that, they are advocating judges abrogate legal agreements that are the cornerstone of credit markets. No lien means no assets to back up the loan. An unsecured loan is the same as credit card debt. I thought 18 percent mortgages were over when Carter left office.
Posted by: Fresh Air | March 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
So, TARP is now a gag? At least according to the latest sick leftist meme. Invented yesterday and cribbed already by Jane Hamsher. This stuff is evil, folks, just how evil kim's got a pretty good idea.
====================================
Posted by: kim | March 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM
H&R-
Wasn't Change to Win the place that Blagovich wanted to hang his hat as payment for the Senate seat?
Posted by: RichatUF | March 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM
I think TM's post is particularly brilliant, though it's possible that Jane Hamsher is simply a fabulous straight woman for the deluded left.
I suppose this meme that recipients of TARP funds lose their civil liberties is today's morning Soros financed call to arms.
What's next, charging leaders of companies who do not make production quotas with sabotage?This all sounds so vaguely familiar.
Posted by: clarice | March 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Aggressive stupidity is the cornerstone of this age, ignorance of contracts, general economic principles is to be prized
apparently. One assumes that she is familiar
with the nature of a contract, she had to sign one, to get that book on "Natural Born
Killer" published, then again maybe not.
Ironically, Katie Couric gets her fifteen?? million a year, even though Redstone might as well burn the paper, and cut out the middle man. What Christina Moran, is doing
at the CEA with her reputation in economics,
can't be effectively described in a family
blog like so,without the use asterisks, ampersands, and other symbols.
and other symbols.
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Jane Hamsher: Living proof that "progressivism" relieves one of all responsibility and need to deal with the real world.
Posted by: MarkJ | March 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM
The revelation that no one's supposed to talk about bills that haven't been introduced yet would have been timelier back in the days of the SS privatization trial balloon.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | March 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM
these firms continue to oppose legislation that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage loan terms
A mortgage is an agreement between a borrower and a lender. The borrower has received a sum of money from the lender, and the lender demands an income stream in return; if the borrower cannot make good on the promised income stream, the lender can demand restitution for the original loan amount. Now the left says borrowers are in trouble, so a third party should be able to alter the agreement.
Why not make this same argument on behalf of the banks? I have a savings account, which means a bank has borrowed a sum of money from me, and I demand interest payments in return. If the bank gets in trouble, why shouldn't it be able to petition a judge to say that I must keep the account open, but the bank can reduce its interest payments to a level it can afford?
Posted by: bgates | March 11, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Orwell alert: President Obama will make an announcement on Earmark Reform today, now that the $8,000,000,000+ worth of earmarks in the budget bill have passed for him to sign.
Hopefully, he will be able to explain how this bit of "last year's business" is going to be paid in the future.
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Oh good, the President is about to say he will not allow earmarks while he signs the Omnibus bill full of 9000 earmarks. Perhaps he should just do what he did in the stimulus bill and say the earmarks are not earmarks.
My gawd how stupid does he think people are?
(Hmm stupid enough to elect him)
Posted by: Jane | March 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM
"I just heard Christina Romer on TODAY. Boy, does she ever get that high squeaky voice thing going. Why do women do that?"
MayBee I know nothing of her professionally, but was dumbstruck a couple of weeks ago when she came over as a jumpy bubbly squeeky grinning kid...when she explained how the budget assumed a robust rebound starting this summer.
Her presentation was so unprofessional, it fit right in with the high squeeky fast talking voice of Turbo Timmy who is equally unsettling.
Are there ANY grownups over there?
Do they not understand that in the confidence game, packaging & presentation is kinda important???
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
The last I checked taxpayers just gave Obama over a trillion dollars, yet he keeps opening his mouth and causing the market to tank.
Could we reign him in with some free speech limitations?
Posted by: cameo | March 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
...packaging & presentation ARE...
Sorry Mom.
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Sure, they'll lose a little on each sale, but they'll make it up on volume!
Posted by: Tully | March 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Here we go:
We need to restore accountability.
We've made important progress.
ERRA has already put people back to work (25 of 'em), without "customary" earmarks.
Directive that dramatically reforms broken system of contracting.
Laid out plans for honest budget.
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Yesterday Congress gave me *last year's budget*
99% is good, but you haven't heard about this.
Let me be clear.
Done right, earmarks give legislators right to direct money to worthy earmarks. Those most loudly against earmarks have inserted their own (ha! look in the mirror)
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Tully:THWACK!!!!!!!
Posted by: clarice | March 11, 2009 at 11:30 AM
These practices hit their peak in the middle of this decade. In 2007, the new democratic congress began reforms that I helped write.
We banned gifts and meals (so now people must stand up)
I am signing an imperfect bill, because we have a lot more money to spend and we can't be bogged down with doing things right.
We must not inspire cynicism. Earmarks must have a legitimate purpose.
Each earmark must be on the member's website.
Any earmark for a *private* company should be open to bids (I don't know why public institutions shouldn't be the same)
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 11:30 AM
We must save billions of dollars that we *so desperately need to save our economy*
Leadership requires setting priorities. (That's why it is my priority to let these billions go)
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Good article by Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker who really goes to town on Obama...its starts out
"Voters' Obama Folly Coming Home to Roost
It's only been 7 weeks since the man whose resume fits nicely on the back of a postage stamp became the most powerful human being in the universe. As Presidents go, Barack Obama has proven at least one thing true: change is like the flip of a coin. Change can bring the best of times; change can bring the worst of times. And anyone over the age of twelve ought to have known that. Instead, 52% of the American electorate has run around like a bunch of howling ninnies for the past year chanting like a horde of Jim Jones' followers, who can't get enough of the poison kool-aid.
So much for progressive enlightenment.
With an economy in shambles, slinking toward all-out depression a little further each day, the President doesn't know the difference between a popularity-based political tracking poll and the confidence meter of the stock market, which represents the actual savings and pension funds of millions and millions of ordinary Americans. Heck, the golden boy of campaign one-liners doesn't even know that P/E ratio stands for price/earnings, not profit/earnings.
If only he had once had a paper route instead of all those pick-up games with the hoops."...
read it all at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/voters_obama_folly_coming_home.html
Posted by: ben | March 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM
He wants Congress to do all kinds of things, but the truth is as President, the only power he has is to veto or not to veto.
He'd rather not. He's lost all control.
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Tully's line is a more polite version of the last line of the old joke:
Man tells wife he bought a pickup truck to support his family by buying oranges in Florida so he could sell them on the streets of DC at a profit. Made the drive, paid a dime each but could only sell them for a nickel. Wife was not happy with that result and asked what he planned to do next. Answer "buy a bigger truck"
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I just got off the phone with my broker who is a good friend and was telling me all the excuses his democrat clients are trying to come up with for the WON. Bottom line, they are nervous.
He also thinks that our president is purposefully making the banks look and sound worse than they are - which is why they won't reveal the results of the stress test - so the government can continue to control them.
Some banks are planning on giving back the TARP money they were forced to take to get out of O's clutches.
Things are shifting...
Posted by: Jane | March 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Governors are refusing to take the stimulus funds, too. Sanford's the first.
Posted by: clarice | March 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Just watched Hamsher on BloggingHeads TV, with Conn Carroll.
Girl tries to be nice, and civil ... and I give her points for trying ...
but in the testy moments she reveals herself as a partisan hater, one who will never admit the possibility she might be wrong, and insufferably patronizing in the bargain.
Posted by: OSweet | March 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I watched Ms. Romer this morning as well. Between her, Timmy "Making it Rain" Geithner, and Lawrence "that stuff about women in the science never happened" Summers, they need body language courses ASAP. They're words aren't much better, but their body language is practically screaming "I'm a novice".
Ever watch your kids', nephew's, or grandson's baseball games? You can see the batters that are going to strike out when they're warming up.
As to Hamsher, I look forward to our new union overlords that inflate the value of my wages through labor supply controls. Can't wait for the first pregnant mother that's told, "You can't give birth. The union is already full."
That's the dynamic voice of uncertainty. A confident demeanor will show itself immediately through steady words, proper annunciation, pitch, and little head movement.Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | March 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM
It's interesting that a company which has an operating loss and receives taxpayer money is expected to restrain its speech and, somewhat more reasonably, its salaries and its trasnsportation.
Whose money is it that Pelosi, Obama etal receive for their salaries, junkets, budgets etc?
Anyone seeing any restraint by our government while operating at a trillion+ dollar yearly loss?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | March 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM
She is definitely intellectually challenged but frankly, I don't read into what Hamsher said the premise that she would like to muzzle someone's speech.
Certainly she is bashing what others have to say but how do you get that she is saying that those folks should shut up?
Posted by: Paul A'Barge | March 11, 2009 at 12:01 PM
WalMart might help itself by posting dual pricing - with card check and without card check. That or just print a "with card check" line on the receipt in big red print.
Same with utilities on Air Taxes - "YOUR PORTION OF CO2 MONSTER BATTLE".
Progressives are lying, immiserating, thieving bastards. Every moment of every day of their contemptible scummy lives.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM
equity analysts in the employ of Citigroup should not be allowed to express opinions contrary to the views held by Ms. Hamsher.
She muzzles commenters on her blog who don't lick her boots, so she pretty much against free speech for anyone who disagrees with her. She can dish it out, but can NOT take it.
Interesting, I didn't see Jane Hamsher outraged when big mouth Schumer started spouting off about IndyMac in public that caused a bank run and destruction of that bank.
Also, she's the idiot that ordered ala Townhouse Email group for people to wage jihad on WAPO for all things as censoring the Eff word on their blog by her crazy nutroot readers.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | March 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM
RichUF
Change to Win the place that Blagovich wanted to hang his hat as payment for the Senate seat?
Yep. SEUI Pres Andy Stern - knee deep in the Blago affair suggested he work there so as to keep Obama's hands clean.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | March 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Is FDL financially independent? In other words, do its operating costs get covered alone by the page and ad loads?
I'm guessing yes.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | March 11, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Ban Steve Sturm! Destroy him and his career!
Also, make paper maiche float to follow him around in the meantime...
---
Maybee
You're right. Turns out FDL and KOS have been stooges for SEUI the whole time - so much for independence.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | March 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM
See LUN for another free speech kerfuffle in which one of my own has injected himself.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
*I'm imagining a re-creation of the old Wheel of Fortune practice of having the winners spend their winnings by picking from a selection of wonderful gifts
Hey, I always liked that part.
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 11, 2009 at 12:29 PM
But at least I'm sitting here in my pj's instead of being bossed around by the man.
Up With (Lazy) People!
Lazy is more fun nekkid. Forgat those jammies.
Less attractive for some, and hell on the hygene of couches and chairs, etc., but fun.
'Cause we can....
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Jane, O changed the definition of earmark to "those projects which are inserted into a bill without review." So as long as the earmarks are reviewed they're no longer an earmarks.
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Thomas Collins, bravo to your son! Keep us posted on how the talk goes tonight.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Who reviews them? Lemme guess - the person who inserts them?
I work with Fox on in the background - and I have to turn off the volume whenever O shows up - which is far too often.
Posted by: Jane | March 11, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Jane said:
If Zero had been the pilot of that plane that Sully landed in the Hudson, Zero, instead of doing the necessary to land the plane, would have been explaining on the intercom to the passengers that better regulation of birds was needed.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | March 11, 2009 at 12:45 PM
LOL TC
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM
TC,
Well done Dad! You must be very proud.
Posted by: Ann | March 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM
"those projects which are inserted into a bill without review."
bad- he further refined it his definition of "bad" earmark today. Those that go to private companies are the truly corrupting earmarks.
I'm not sure where that leaves planetariums and private university hospitals, but there you have it.
I suppose bridges to nowhere would now be a good stimulus project.
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 12:49 PM
We must have the only 2 non- Obamabots in Mass posting here.
Posted by: clarice | March 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Tom Balanoff talked to Blago about Valerie Jarrett.
Stern also met with Blago (with Balanoff) earlier in Nov, but Balanoff seems to be the one that met directly with Blago when they addressed specifics.
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM
It wouldn't be so confusing if you stopped calling people like Hamster "liberals".Call them what they are Leftists,socialists,communists,fascists.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Certainly she is bashing what others have to say but how do you get that she is saying that those folks should shut up?
She's not. Yet. But she is saying, "Taxpayers now own a huge chunk of Citigroup. We should be looking a lot more closely about how, and when, these ratings get made."
Hard to see that as anything but the suggestion that government ownership should mean government taking a hand in determining what the analysts recommendations should be.
Throw that in with the person from Spare Change for whatever; they're also clearly setting up to pressure government-invested banks.
Which, by the way, is why someone ought to listen to Jane Hamsher — because she's either on the 8:45 concall, or she's directly in touch with people who are. She's often the first promulgator of the talking point of the day.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Jane,
I have to turn him off too. I scare the carp out of the dog, cussing and yelling all the way to the remote.
Posted by: Ann | March 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM
why doesn't obama just make krugman the sec of treasury?
in searching for the person who is most in sync with the new admin, krugman is far more a leader of the party and it's ideas, than limbaugh ever was.
the timing of krugman editorials, followed by dems offering up a painted version of his 'ideas' has gone beyond the realm of coincidence.
the advantage for obama and the dems would be that they could pass the ideas off as their own and give p krugman a chance to show us his macro talent.
Posted by: mark l. | March 11, 2009 at 12:59 PM
So as long as the earmarks are reviewed they're no longer an earmarks.
Anything to keep unimportant, shiny toys in front of McCain. Maybe McCain and Feingold can team up for an "Earmark Reform" bill which makes the budget process more opaque, special interests more beholden to government action, and fills up Dem coffers more quickly. The whole bill is an Obamanation.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 11, 2009 at 01:00 PM
"Taxpayers now own a huge chunk of Citigroup. We should be looking a lot more closely about how, and when, these ratings get made." - Jane Hamsher
Well, I would love for the government to hand out shares equivalent to the amount handed out to each company or bank and then divided by the number of American Citizens so we can each get one vote in the company. To get those back they would have to be paid off to the individual holder... plus the stuff could be *traded*. I mean if we are paying more than the place is worth, then do, please, give us each our one share stake in the organization involved.
Do that with the Federal Reserve, Fannie and Freddie while you are at it and let the American People vote in a board of directors and not the damned politicians. These last, of course, would have to ask their holders if they would ever seek out government capital again... ditto the other companies, come to that.
Yes, I like that: have the American People decide this!
I will sign up for that.
And get the politicians out of the loop.
Posted by: ajacksonian | March 11, 2009 at 01:01 PM
Hamsher's objection - and the way she apparently expects these things to work - is a pretty clear-cut textbook example of fascism.
Sure, you're not nationalized... but if you want to stay in business, do what what we say... or else.
Posted by: Tim in TX | March 11, 2009 at 01:03 PM
The non-Obamabots in MA are growing Clarice. Frankly at this point I only know non-Obamabots -
TC I hope you are going tonite. Nothing like having a proud Dad in the audience. Wish I could make it.
If Zero had been the pilot of that plane that Sully landed in the Hudson, Zero, instead of doing the necessary to land the plane, would have been explaining on the intercom to the passengers that better regulation of birds was needed.
Sadly true. And then he would have jumped out in an attempt to save himself.
Posted by: Jane | March 11, 2009 at 01:03 PM
The crazy thing about that conf call is that is every day. Even my neighbor's dog takes a day off from barking back at the barking dog across the street.
She says she's not on the call. She says she really doesn't like that conf call. She is one degree away from the parties that do participate.Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | March 11, 2009 at 01:05 PM
chaco, Kaus cites to the article about the 8:45 calls in which Hamsher says they are unnecessary and suggests she doesn't pay attention to them.
Bull.
Now I'd be interested in her source of funds.Clearly here life as a producer is insufficient to fund her activities. But wherever she gets her money from, I bet some is in equities and she would want to have the most objective info about their value when she or her money manager makes investment decisions. No?
Posted by: clarice | March 11, 2009 at 01:13 PM
I just got an email from my Aussie friend who is in the UK now. She said:
"wow we are getting mad in oz"
And then she attached a screed that begins as follows:
I am sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Arabic - enough is enough.
The whole world is in revolt.
Posted by: Jane | March 11, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Yes, Porchlight and Jane, I'm going tonight and will post on the speech. Ann, I am pleased with how he has handled this so far. Some of his liberal Millenial Generation friends, who blast him for some of his conservative views, acknowledge he has a point that libs play the ethno and racial harassment card to control speech.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 11, 2009 at 01:20 PM
equivalent to the amount handed out to each company or bank and then divided by the number of American Citizens so we can each get one vote in the company
Shouldn't it be divvied out to citizens in proportion to taxes paid by the citizen?
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 01:22 PM
OT for Iowahawk fans:
Dan Collins from Protein Wisdom has declared this Friday, March 13 National Iowahawk Day.
For you Facebookers, you can signal your "attendance" here:
Facebook: Iowahawk Day
Last but not least, via Iowahawk, here is Barry O's advice for gift-givers:
Give the Gift of Stuff
Posted by: Porchlight | March 11, 2009 at 01:23 PM
HA, Maybee
Posted by: bad | March 11, 2009 at 01:23 PM
Hamsher:“When something works for us we'll pick up on it anyway, like the Rush Limbaugh story -- we don't need to be told,” said Jane Hamsher, the creator of the liberal blog Firedoglake. “I think we serve everyone better if we maintain our independence and preserve our ability to pick up on popular sentiment like that, rather than just bang on the same drum everyone else is.”
I'm not sure she denies being in on the call there. I read her to be saying the call doesn't direct her screeds (which just happen to correlate directly to what the call entails every day)
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 01:25 PM
Hamsher is on the call. She is one the email list with mainstream journalists too. She has stupid "independent" Schuster on speed dial.
Jane Hamsher is the ultimate hypocrite projectionist. She's getting funded by the unions while she writes about wingbat welfare. She's deleting comments on her blog post about her jihad on WAPO for deleting her followers comments pissed WAPO correctly printed Democrats took a lot of Abramoff money.
Basically, you can be sure that Jane Hamsher is deeply engaged in the terrible things she accuses her opposition of. If she is accusing she is doing it in a bigger way.
She's despicable.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | March 11, 2009 at 01:26 PM
Thomas Collins- I heart your son.
Posted by: MayBee | March 11, 2009 at 01:27 PM