The coming Barack Hussein Obama thugocracy

[Big Boy Laroux]

to get his ass kicked? Then press charges and sue some people? He has the right to wear the shirt, and I have a right to call him an idiot.

[DirkFTW]

Wow, the tags have new meaning after watching that video.

[dude1394]

Classy..

Did President Bush really expect anything less?
This is the same guy who has been trashing him nonstop for 2 straight years after all.
Drudge reported today:

Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president, sources claim.

"Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned.

"BUSH AND OBAMA AT ODDS OVER AID FOR AUTO INDUSTRY," splashed the NEW YORK TIMES in an exclusive Monday evening, quoting "people familiar with the discussion."

The two met at the White House in private, without staff.

"Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Obama and congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia," claimed the TIMES.

The ASSOCIATED PRESS quickly followed with details of the conversation, citing "aides who described the discussion on grounds of anonymity, citing the private nature of the meeting."

Bush advisers view the leaks as an effort to undermine the president's remaining days in office.

"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

Sad, sad video. Not on the parts of the cops, or freedom of speech, or whatnot that the person on camera claims it's about. It's a sad video because of all the obama "supporters" yelling at the guy.

I would not doubt it at all if we see a statement from the police saying that they asked the man to leave because nothing good would have come out of his presence there. The shirt (whether intentional or not) was interpreted to be antagonistic by the police, that it would incite the crowd (which it did). To me, it looked like they were trying to get him out of there before anything started, not simply because he was wearing a McCain/Palin shirt.

All that being said, I weep for the people in the video, yelling "Obama".

I don't really think you can defend the police too much here (not that you necessarily are, I can't tell either way from your post). Considering the guy didn't seem to pose any sort of physical threat, at the very least they could have escorted him away without using physical force.

The guy may be an idiot, but to just escort him away for being an idiot is an interesting choice considering that he didn't seem to be the only idiot in attendance that night.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Classy..

so let's get this straight.

obama and bush met, and bush reportedly told obama that if he got the dems in congress to agree to support the trade pact with columbia, bush would agree to support the aid to the carmakers the dems are seeking.

but then when word of the reported proposal came to light bush is upset with obama?

seems that it would be quite difficult (if not impossible) for the proposal to be kept "private" if the congressional delegation would be involved. I mean, they need to be told about it, don't they?

too funny.

btw obama has been very, very pointed in his comments that there is only one president of the us, and that is still george bush.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

obama and bush met, and bush reportedly told obama that if he got the dems in congress to agree to support the trade pact with columbia, bush would agree to support the aid to the carmakers the dems are seeking..

this is all interpreted, and a matter of public interpretation now, rather than between the two people who would be leaders in the political negotiations.

[dude1394]

Wonder how much howling will go on...crickets I expect.

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapun...es2/027096.php

CHRIS DODD INTERVIEW, CENSORED:

Scott hosted a weekday 5 to 7 p.m. drive-time talk show until Oct. 29. That was the day he taped a combative interview with U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut (pictured with Mutual Housing chief Seila Mosquera during a recent tour of New Haven’s Fair Haven neighborhood).

The interview focused on two controversies that have dogged Dodd recently: He received personal “VIP” loans from Countrywide Financial, a predatory lender he was supposed to be regulating as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. And he helped craft a $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill designed to spur new small-business and homeowner lending — but which turns out to be designed instead to enable banks to buy other banks. . . .

The result was riveting radio. But WELI’s listeners never got to hear it. Asked why the interview never ran, Todd Thomas, Clear Channel’s regional operations manager, said, “That’s something that happened behind closed doors.” He declined to comment further.

I wonder if fairness-doctrine fears are already having a chilling effect. As Clay Whitehead said about Nixon's use of the FCC to intimidate critics, the value of the sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it falls. . . .

There's audio at the link. (Bumped).

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so let's get this straight.

obama and bush met, and bush reportedly told obama that if he got the dems in congress to agree to support the trade pact with columbia, bush would agree to support the aid to the carmakers the dems are seeking.

but then when word of the reported proposal came to light bush is upset with obama?

seems that it would be quite difficult (if not impossible) for the proposal to be kept "private" if the congressional delegation would be involved. I mean, they need to be told about it, don't they?

too funny.

btw obama has been very, very pointed in his comments that there is only one president of the us, and that is still george bush.

Please tell me what kind of bargaining chips do a Lame Duck President have to get Dems to support the trade agreement with Columbia?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Please tell me what kind of bargaining chips do a Lame Duck President have to get Dems to support the trade agreement with Columbia?

Originally Posted by Mavdog

bush would agree to support the aid to the carmakers the dems are seeking.

That's a good chip.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

That's a good chip.

I dont think so..Only chips Bush have left is dung chips, and nobody is buying it
Bush does not even have the support of the Republican Party, so there is nothing in return for Obama, and Obama knows this.

[fluid.forty.one]

not sure if this was posted or not so here it is..:

50 things you might not know about President-Elect Barack Obama

• He collects Spider-Man and Conan the Barbarian comics
• He was known as "O'Bomber" at high school for his skill at basketball
• His name means "one who is blessed" in Swahili
• His favourite meal is wife Michelle's shrimp linguini
• He won a Grammy in 2006 for the audio version of his memoir, Dreams From My Father
• He is left-handed – the sixth post-war president to be left-handed
• He has read every Harry Potter book
• He owns a set of red boxing gloves autographed by Muhammad Ali
• He worked in a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop as a teenager and now can't stand ice cream
• His favourite snacks are chocolate-peanut protein bars
• He ate dog meat, snake meat, and roasted grasshopper while living in Indonesia
• He can speak Spanish
• While on the campaign trail he refused to watch CNN and had sports channels on instead
• His favourite drink is black forest berry iced tea
• He promised Michelle he would quit smoking before running for president – he didn't
• He kept a pet ape called Tata while in Indonesia
• He can bench press an impressive 200lbs
• He was known as Barry until university when he asked to be addressed by his full name
• His favourite book is Moby-Dick by Herman Melville
• He visited Wokingham, Berks, in 1996 for the stag party of his half-sister's fiancé, but left when a stripper arrived
• His desk in his Senate office once belonged to Robert Kennedy
• He and Michelle made $4.2 million (£2.7 million) last year, with much coming from sales of his books
• His favourite films are Casablanca and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
• He carries a tiny Madonna and child statue and a bracelet belonging to a soldier in Iraq for good luck
• He applied to appear in a black pin-up calendar while at Harvard but was rejected by the all-female committee.
• His favourite music includes Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, Bach and The Fugees
• He took Michelle to see the Spike Lee film Do The Right Thing on their first date
• He enjoys playing Scrabble and poker
• He doesn't drink coffee and rarely drinks alcohol
• He would have liked to have been an architect if he were not a politician
• As a teenager he took drugs including marijuana and cocaine
• His daughters' ambitions are to go to Yale before becoming an actress (Malia, 10) and to sing and dance (Sasha, 7)
• He hates the youth trend for trousers which sag beneath the backside
• He repaid his student loan only four years ago after signing his book deal
• His house in Chicago has four fire places
• Daughter Malia's godmother is Jesse Jackson's daughter Santita
• He says his worst habit is constantly checking his BlackBerry
• He uses an Apple Mac laptop
• He drives a Ford Escape Hybrid, having ditched his gas-guzzling Chrysler 300 SUV
• He wears $1,500 (£952) Hart Schaffner Marx suits
• He owns four identical pairs of black size 11 shoes
• He has his hair cut once a week by his Chicago barber, Zariff, who charges $21 (£13)
• His favourite fictional television programmes are M*A*S*H* and The Wire
• He was given the code name "Renegade" by his Secret Service handlers
• He was nicknamed "Bear" by his late grandmother
• He plans to install a basketball court in the White House grounds
• His favourite artist is Pablo Picasso
• His speciality as a cook is chilli
• He has said many of his friends in Indonesia were "street urchins"
• He keeps on his desk a carving of a wooden hand holding an egg, a Kenyan symbol of the fragility of life
• His late father was a senior economist for the Kenyan government

[FINtastic]

He wears $1,500 (£952) Hart Schaffner Marx suits

Aha, I knew it!! I knew he had ties to Marx!!!

[sike]

I'm not sure what I think about this hating ice cream policy....

[Arne]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

• His late father was a senior economist for the Kenyan government

This might be interesting in regard to that little fact:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/008007.asp

[Big Boy Laroux]

He likes Harry Potter? Flaco and U2, you must not have known that!

[DirkFTW]

He hates the youth trend for trousers which sag beneath the backside

But... my shorts can become winter clothes too! It's so economical!

[dude1394]

It appears that the thugocracy is alive and well. Who will be next?
http://www.760wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1301727&spid=6525

Lauria: Let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That’s a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

Beckman: Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.

[Mavdog]

yawn.

nothing new here, this has been done by the president/white house since the first days of the republic.

according to your logic, wahington, adams and thomas jefferson were all practicers of "thugocracy". put jackson, lincoln and t. rooselvelt in there too.

[dude1394]

Yea...I can't quite recall previous presidents threatening citizens to get the business deal they wanted. Maybe they did, but I kinda doubt it.

[Mavdog]

"threatening citizens"? nobody was threatened beyond the use of the presidential "bully pulpit".

the very existence and use of the term "bully pulpit" reinforces as well as proves my point.

jackson battled aand won in his battle with renewing the charter of the bank of the united states with the bully pulpit, washington had jays treaty, adams the treaty with france, teddy roosevelt used it to break up the trusts.

these were for the most part all intertwined with economic issues, just ike the current situation with the automakers.

I'd probably just let chrysler fail and go away like studebaker and others before it. obama wants to do what he can to keep them around in some fashion.

but to accuse obama of practicing what you call "thugocracy" when he is acting just like these past presidents have done, of using his position to strong arm people to do what he wants, is just wrong.

[dude1394]

Geez...ya think? I wonder if all of the liberals will be buying their cars from the UAW Worker's Nirvana? Somehow I doubt it.

Just 18% of Americans think the United Auto Workers union and the federal government will do a good job running Chrysler and General Motors, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Forty-seven percent (47%) believe the union and the government will do a bad job, while 35% are not sure.
Forty-six percent (46%) of adults now say it is at least somewhat likely that Chrysler and General Motors will become profitable again with the UAW and the government in charge. A week ago, before the new ownership arrangements were known, 54% of Americans said it was at least somewhat likely that Chrysler could again achieve profitability.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yea...I can't quite recall previous presidents threatening citizens to get the business deal they wanted. Maybe they did, but I kinda doubt it.

I kinda gotta agree with mavdog on this -- threatening to kick the shit out of people if they don't "cooperate" is what government's do (especially in the arena of market interventions)...complaining that government's force people to do things they wouldn't do of their own free will and volition is a bit like complaining that prostitutes have sex for money.

Herbert Hoover is actually a fine example of the kind of veneer normally put over the inherent coercive behavior of government -- he constantly stressed the importance of volunteerism, so much so that the demise of the US economy under his watch has long been held as a failure of voluntary society. But what Hoover really (and invariably) meant by "voluntary" was "you can either volunteer or I'll beat you until you decide it's in your interests to volunteer."

anyhoo....coercion is what governments do. It's inherent, intrinsic, essential. The question isn't whether they should do this but whether this is good and/or necessary for the maintenance of civil society.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

anyhoo....coercion is what governments do. It's inherent, intrinsic, essential. The question isn't whether they should do this but whether this is good and/or necessary for the maintenance of civil society.

But can you really have "civil society," from your point of view, when government is inheritly inable to to tax and such?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

But can you really have "civil society," from your point of view, when government is inheritly inable to to tax and such?

The essence of civil society being defined by the absence of coercion in social arrangements....from my point of view I would ask, 'can you have civil society when government is routinely able to tax and such?'

I think the answer is 'yes', but mostly in areas untouched or touched least by government intervention.

The larger point being that it is not government which makes society civil, it is civil society which makes government bearable.

[dude1394]

First it was the "bully pulpit" which Mavie was okay with. Now it's black-mailing state actions that are NOT related to "stimulus" funds. Let's see...a state decides to try and balance their budget...but the guvment (i.e. Barry) won't let them. Workers UNITE!!!

http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showth...958#post996958

U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

The Obama administration threatens to rescind billions in stimulus money if Gov. Schwarzenegger and lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers.

Reporting from Sacramento -- The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

[Mavdog]

since when is the government "blackmailing" anyone if it enforces the law as passed by congress?

[dude1394]

Thuggery comes home to roost.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...jv4&refer=home

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Hedge fund manager George Schultze says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy.
Obama put Chrysler under court protection on April 30 after lenders balked at a proposal giving them about 29 cents on the dollar for their $6.9 billion in debt. The investors said the president’s plan favored a union retiree medical fund whose claims ranked behind them for repayment. It was offered a 55 percent equity stake in the automaker.



Pacific Investment Management Co., Barclays Capital and Fridson Investment Advisors have joined Schultze Asset Management LLC in saying lenders may be unwilling to back unionized companies with underfunded pension and medical obligations, such as airlines and auto-industry suppliers, because Chrysler’s creditors failed to block Obama’s move. The reluctance may put additional pressure on borrowers seeking capital in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.



“Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk,” Schultze, 39, said in a telephone interview from his office in Purchase, New York. “The obvious one is: Don’t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.”

[mcsluggo]

that is crap.

The lesson is, as a creditor you can't expect government bailout funds to a failing company you have loaned to, to pass through directly to you.

I think that is a slightly different message, no?

[dude1394]

You might expect the guvment to adhere to long existing bankruptcy laws however. But in this case....Barry doesn't need to.

[mcsluggo]

So, your position is that you don't think the fact that the government is entering in as THE source for potential payout to ALL different claimants changes the calculus at all?

Basically treasury should've cut out the middle man, and just cut the checks directly to the vulture funds that snapped up Chrysler debt on the assumption that the USG was not going to let it fail.

[dude1394]

Should have let them go through bankruptcy instead of paying back their UAW constituents.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You might expect the guvment to adhere to long existing bankruptcy laws however. But in this case....Barry doesn't need to.

you are in error on "long standing bankruptcy laws".

retiree benefits (iow the unfunded pension liabilities of the bankrupt chrysler) get preference over the claim of bondholders. that is stated in the current bankruptcy code....

it's very ironic of course that the bondholders, who are in essence just financial speculators who purchased the debt at pennies on the $ hoping to trade their claim for equity or if they are fortunate actually get paid the entire owed amounts if the debtor survives, are typically the ones who go into the process and cram down their desired terms on the debtor. in this case they were the ones who had a deal crammed down their throat and lo and behold they didn't like it.

karma can be the shitz...

but no, this is no example of any "thugocracy", it's merely the way the arbitrage game is played. the bondholders are just upset they made a bad bet and they didn't realize the large gain they thought they would get.

[mcsluggo]

they are not upset that they made a bad bet... they are rationally trying to push their own interests, no problem there.... however, It is a sucker that buys their sob-story at face value

[dude1394]

Another evil hedge fund pissed about getting screwed by barry.

PENSION “SPECULATORS:”

Remember how President Obama blamed Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing last month on “a small group of speculators” who turned down Treasury’s $2 billion final offer for their $6.9 billion in debt? Well, it turns out that hedge funds and other short sellers weren’t the only secured creditors who got a raw deal from Uncle Sam.
Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock revealed this week that his state’s police and teacher pension funds have lost millions of dollars in the Chrysler “restructuring.” Indiana’s State Police Fund and Major Moves Construction Fund, which finances roads and bridges, together lost more than $1 million. And the Teacher’s Retirement Fund “suffered, at a minimum, a loss of $4.6 million due to the action of the Federal government,” reports Mr. Mourdock.
Far from being speculators, these funds represent retired public employees, including cops and teachers. The funds paid a premium to buy “secured” status, only to discover that they were politically outranked by the United Auto Workers in the White House hierarchy.

Obviously, they paid their premium to the wrong folks. . . .

[92bDad]

Please help me understand what I am hearing on the radio out here in California today.

In regards to Chrysler or GM, I can't remember which...

Stockholders will retain 1% of the company, Bond holders will retain 10% of the company after investing $29,000,000,000...Union will retain 30% based on $10,000,000,000 need for Medical of retiree's, and the Government will retain 50% based on $26,000,000,000 in bailout? How is that the Bondholders and the original Stockholders get screwed?

Please tell me that I missheard the details and that actually the Union and the Government invested more money that what is being reported, and that it was an investment and not a loan?

[mcsluggo]

you both really have absolutely zero understanding of finance, don't you.

Dude: oooo so the indiana pension fund is a limited partner investor in the venture fund... does that somehow change the equation? The fund purposely scooped up distressed chrysler debt BECAUSE they gambled that the government would bail out chrysler... now the they are posturing (whining) to increase their portion of the pie. THere is nothing wrong with what they (venture fund) are doing, or what they did... just don't be such a sap sucker for their canned sob story.

Dad: the current division of the company has very little to do with what money people originally put in over the years (in the case of equity most of this investment took place many MANY years ago, unless you are talking about secondary market purchases, which don't insert ANY capital into the company)... the company failed. therefore equity participants are largely wiped out, sorry, that is the nature of the game, and it is why equity earns (and demands) higher returns over the long run. they played the game and lost.

Bond holders are higher in the waterfall (speaking simplistically, and ignoring any differences in different types of debt and quasi equity, etc...) and "deserve" an earlier share of any value that remains in the company.... HOWEVER, their claim is automatically secondary to the USG's because the bondholders invested in the old Chrysler --- which failed--- and their legitimate claims on Chrysler are based on the value of the now failed and basically defunct entity. Since the USG is "investing" in the already failed entity, their claims will ALWAYS be senior to the residual claims of those that bet on the entity before it failed... and lost.

the "...based on $10,000,000,000 need for Medical of retiree's..." is an entirely meaningless and irrelevant number to this discussion, calling it apples and oranges would be generous.... (OTHER than the fact that it provides a little revelation of WHY the USG is willing to throw good money after bad into a currently failed company) The government is the reason that there is enough remaining value to BEGIN discussing an equity swap (new equity, the old equity is lucky to get the 1%, frankly), and therefore get the biggest share, AND they decided to pass some of their (our) share to the workers, through the union, MOSTLY to remove the huge anvil of the future liabilities for medical expenses off the "new" chrysler's books, so that the firm will have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the next crisis.

when you invest in a company, and then that company fails... well, you gambled and lost. Sorry, better luck next time, and i hope you diversified your portfolio. That is why you get better returns than T-bills during the good times.

[dude1394]

Yeah...Jack Welch is an idiot also I guess.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...WhM&refer=home

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Jack Welch, former chief executive officer of General Electric Co., criticized the government- backed bankruptcy of Chrysler LLC for favoring unions at the expense of creditors and said President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus programs will cause budget deficits.
....
Creditors’ Rights ‘Trashed’
“I didn’t like the terms,” Welch said. “The creditors’ rights were trashed and the unions got 55 percent of the company.”

[Mavdog]

wow, jack welch valuing the rights of the business investor over that of the worker.

shocking, absolutely shocking....

in another breaking story, gordon gekko has also criticized the chrysler deal as unfair to the investors.

[mcsluggo]

dude, arguments that the govt restructuring of Chrysler fails to strike th e correct balance between previous equity owners, previous debt holders, current debt/equity holders, and workers certainly exist, and have compelling aspects to them.

People in this thread just haven't made any of them.

(in the end the restructuring is going to be a balancing act, and everyone is gonna feel like they are screwed... that is what happens when you divide up an diminishing pie, rather than an expanding one. Everyone is going to lose out to some extent or another--- and whenever ANYONE manages to lose out less than they could, it is at the expense of everyone else.)

[dude1394]

I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in the buyer's remorse thread. But as we are about to see Barry give away another automaker to his UAW pals, here seems correct.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052502135.html

Government Motors

GM's new owner (the Obama administration) should stop bullying the company's bondholders.

IN THEORY, a government bailout should provide a short-term infusion of cash to give a struggling company the chance to right itself. But in its aggressive dealings with U.S. automakers, most recently General Motors, the Obama administration is coming dangerously close to engaging in financial engineering that ignores basic principles of fairness and economic realities to further political goals.

It is now clear that there is no real difference between the government and the entity that identifies itself as GM. For all intents and purposes, the government, which is set to assume a 50 percent equity stake in the company, is GM, and it has been calling the shots in negotiations with creditors. While the Obama administration has been playing hardball with bondholders, it has been more than happy to play nice with the United Auto Workers. How else to explain why a retiree health-care fund controlled by the UAW is slated to get a 39 percent equity stake in GM for its remaining $10 billion in claims while bondholders are being pressured to take a 10 percent stake for their $27 billion? It's highly unlikely that the auto industry professionals at GM would have cut such a deal had the government not been standing over them -- or providing the steady stream of taxpayer dollars needed to keep the factory doors open.

GM is widely expected to file for bankruptcy before the end of this month. If this were a typical bankruptcy, the company would be allowed by law to tear up its UAW collective bargaining agreement and negotiate for drastically reduced wages and benefits. That's not going happen. Phrased another way: The government won't let that happen. Still, the threat of a contract abrogation probably played a role in the union's agreement to cost-cutting measures last week. (The details of the deal have not been made public; union members are scheduled to vote on the proposal early this week.) It's never easy for unions to make concessions, but the sting of handing back money is being softened by the government's desire to give the union a huge ownership stake in GM. Might bondholders be more willing to agree to the kind of quick restructuring the government hopes for if they had been treated more fairly from the outset?



The administration argues that it could not risk alienating the union for fear of triggering a walkout that could permanently cripple GM. It also posits that it had to agree to protect suppliers and fund warranties in order to preserve jobs and reassure prospective buyers that their cars would be serviced. These are legitimate concerns. But it's too bad that the Obama administration has not thought more deeply about how its bullying of bondholders could convince future investors that the last thing they want to do is put money into any company that the government has -- or could -- become involved in.