Robbing Us and Paying Out

The results of the Treasury Department's touted "stress tests" are out – and so far the result is a call for massive new capital for banks. It adds up to a needed $100 billion for Wells Fargo, Bank of America and the rest. Sooner or later we'll be looking at TARP Three, I bet.

It's hard not to feel bilked. Even when they were running short of cash, the banks looked after their own. According to a recent academic study they paid out a staggering $400 billion to investors in 2007 and 2008 even as the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression broke. With the value of their portfolios shrinking and common equity drying up, Lehman Brothers dividends went up 13% in January 2008. TARP recipients JPMorgan and Wells Fargo cut dividends only in February and March 2009, and as of late last month, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley had yet to do so, despite urging from the Fed.

Watching their own backs is what these banks do best. Now they're doing it by lobbying to beat back bankruptcy reform.(See a pretty furious discussion on GRITtv this week.) At the banks, public money goes in the front and out the back.

Meanwhile, while the government's doing somersaults to keep owners and top bank managers in place and in the black, many Americans are choosing between food and home and gas.

It's not only unfair, it's not smart.

There is no fair rationale for allocating trillions of US dollars to protect bankers' hedge funds and well-paid execs while tens of millions of working Americans go belly up.

Societies dominated by finance (as ours has been,) have always collapsed. The only way the US gets back on track is with good paying jobs in solid communities that work. In New York, Wall Street's cheering up – but libraries are going broke. Just imagine if you took the trillions and kept teachers on the job, built roads, gave people grants to re-do homes, issue fair mortgages, and provide quality childcare.

Let's not kid ourselves: filtering trillions through banks and investment houses won't do the job -- they built their billions by cutting labor and keeping down pay – and rewarding companies that did the same -- especially their execs. If we do not rebuild the US workforce there's no way this country's going back up. Are we "all in this together?" -- Hardly. You just have to look at Main Street to know that.

Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) on cable (8 pm ET on Channel 67 in Manhattan and other cities) and online daily at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Carl Ginsburg co-wrote this piece.

Comments (67)

1. <Just imagine if you took the trillions and kept teachers on the job, built roads, gave people grants to re-do homes, issue fair mortgages, and provide quality childcare.>

   Or

   Just imagine if we cut taxes and let Americans decide what to do with their money instead of Washington who has proven repeatedly that they cannot be trusted with our money.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 09:53am

2. Ms Flanders, you have some plan for how to handle the 'interregnum' between the total collapse of our financial system and when we get those "good paying jobs in solid communities"?!?!??

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:54am

3. LF: ....Even when they were running short of cash, the banks looked after their own....It's not only unfair, it's not smart.....Watching their own backs is what these banks do best......

   Ms. Flanders, nice whines!!

   Flash news for ya: That's what every sensible, logical, entity do.....even the NON-PROFITS......unless these entities survive, none of them can serve their masters (ie, owners) or customers (private or the downtrodden).

   Remember when your own rag was, or still is, whining about the postage increase?

   Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 10:06am

4. Your bubblicious, credit-money economy is a trick bag...why you still pretending otherwise?

   The article recommends suspending dividends which sounds like a sane plan for a bank that's wearing TARP-colored floaties and swimming in the deep end.

   Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 09:58am

   I did no such thing. I have been totally against the bailouts from the beginning.

   But, how do you justify that what Obama is doing (as Ms Flanders charges) is better than giving the taxpayers more control over that money?

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 10:11am

5. larry,

   your david stockton porn just doesn't excite anymore.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 10:36am

6. where to start?

   ah,

   FIRE SUMMERS!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 10:36am

7. Here is one of the key problems with the Obama administration. When it comes to the two largest issues facing us--the economic crisis and the wars the US is waging--the Obama administration is behaving all too much like the Bush administration. I was opposed to the bailouts last autumn, and I remain opposed to them now. I note too that although relatively few Tea Party attendees on 15 April were protesting the ongoing disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many of them have been adamantly opposed to the bailouts from the beginning--they and I jammed the telephone lines and email inboxes of members of Congress last autumn when Hank Paulson was trying to ram them through in his demagogic and anti-democratic fashion. The Tea Parties across the country on 15 April thus represent a continuation of that opposition, a trans-administration protest against insanely reckless and unjust policies of paying off the criminals who have done so much to destroy our economy.

   It would be helpful if the Left would finally find its voice and dare to protest Obama's continuation of these horrible economic policies and his horrible war policies too.

   Posted by feinfein at 05/12/2009 @ 10:47am

8. Posted by feinfein at 05/12/2009 @ 10:47am

   Those would be the same Tea Parties that Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, and other Republicans LEAPT onto....despite the fact they were supposedly "non-partisan".

   Right?

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:01am

9. larry,

   your david stockton porn just doesn't excite anymore.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 10:36am

   Frosty, you're on idiot pills again. I don't support the Federal Reserve. I believe it should be severed from the US economy and we return to constitutional control of our money.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:03am

10. Gotta run and get in the truck....time for Rush!

    But, here's something quick for ya, snow! I'm sure hoping y'all pass the damn thing on the 19th.......kill the rebellion! Otherwise, you Calis may actually wake up and become actually competitive......LOL!

    ==========

    Here comes California's May 19 Rebellion

    By: Hugh Hewit

    Examiner Columnist | 5/11/09 6:11 AM

    California voters head to the polls next week with predictions of doom echoing in their ears if they decline to endorse the massive tax hikes prescribed for them by big Democratic majorities in the statehouse, Arnold and a handful of now ruined-politically Republican legislators.

    "Shrill" doesn't begin to describe the campaign designed to stampede the Golden State electorate. The latest ad has a weary, soot-covered fire-fighter urging a yes vote on the tax hike. The message is clear: Vote no and your homes will burn down.

    Not even this sort of fear-mongering is moving the needle towards "yes" on the massive tax surge on next week's ballot as poll after poll shows all the key measures put forward by the tax-and-spend-and tax-again crowd failing badly.

    Arnold is doing his best to summon up the old magic but his appeal long ago hit Gray Davis-levels. Arnold was elected to slash taxes and spending, and somehow he confused that mandate with orders to throw in with the public employee unions. Too bad. He could have been a contender.........

    Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 11:06am

11. Those would be the same Tea Parties that Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, and other Republicans LEAPT onto....despite the fact they were supposedly "non-partisan".

    Right?

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:01am

    of course Mask, you will articulate how "non partisan" the left is about issues facing American?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:08am

12. Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 11:06am

    Happy,

    Arnold and his leftwing Democrat friends are headed to an overwhelming defeat on their proposed tax increases.

    What is ironic is that the far left is also against these tax increases because they feel they don't go far enough. Radical leftist radio station KPFK has been featuring segments daily against these measures for not doing enough to tax Californians enough to pay for all of their agenda.

    And what is truly idiotic about these tax measures is that even if passed, they only reduce the deficit from 21 billion to 15 billion. The layoffs of public employees will take place whether the measures pass or not.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:12am

13. We're not physically in Washington its not robbery but theft

    Posted by DA7888 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:20am

14. Like I said so many times before, the bailouts are nothing more that partison political PAYOFFs of the supporters of the Obamanation that makes desolation and his Demoncrat cronies in congress! Question is just how stupid does one have to be to not recognize it for what it is?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 05/12/2009 @ 11:23am

15. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:08am

    Nope, not claiming that. The organizers of the Tea Parties did though...and "oddly" despite their "non-partisanship", guys like Gingrich and Hannity didn't feel in the least uncomforatable with how much blame the TP'ers were laying on the Repubs...did they?

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:27am

16. Posted by comancheamerican at 05/12/2009 @ 11:23am

    RIO, given the bailouts started last Fall....

    why were Hank Paulson and GEORGE W. BUSH helping Obama with his "political PAYOFFS"?

    ???

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:29am

17. Posted by feinfein at 05/12/2009 @ 10:47am

    Obama has ties to neocon central....the University of Chicago.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:29am

18. PAYOFFs of the supporters of the Obamanation that makes desolation and his Demoncrat cronies in congress! Question is just how stupid does one have to be to not recognize it for what it is?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 05/12/2009 @ 11:23a

    Question how stupid are you to not recognize that this all started under Bush/Cheney/Paulson? Or does your ideology prevent you from accepting reality? You look for any excuse to rant against Obama and the "demoncrats", even if the basis for your rants is make believe.

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/12/2009 @ 11:39am

19. Gotta run and get in the truck....time for Rush! ---Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 11:06am

    Hey, HAPP, you think Rush is going to try his theory again that "Obama wants MORE unemployment so that he can hand out slavery reparations"???

    (Yes, it's true...LOL...yesterday's show!)

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:46am

20. Hey, HAPP, you think Rush is going to try his theory again that "Obama wants MORE unemployment so that he can hand out slavery reparations"???

    (Yes, it's true...LOL...yesterday's show!)

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:46am

    Sounds funny, but it's not far fetched to consider an element of truth to it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:10pm

21. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @

    Nope, Rush was serious....look-

    "As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps.

    But in the Oval Office of the White House none of this is a problem. This is the objective. The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state.

    And the objective is to take the nation's wealth and return to it to the nation's quote, "rightful owners." Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on."

    Limbaugh, 5/11/09

    You see, Larry, unbeknownst to you...

    Rush has gone bat-s**t crazy.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 12:19pm

22. But in the Oval Office of the White House none of this is a problem. This is the objective. The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state.

    And the objective is to take the nation's wealth and return to it to the nation's quote, "rightful owners." Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on."

    Limbaugh, 5/11/09

    You see, Larry, unbeknownst to you...

    Rush has gone bat-s**t crazy.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 12:19pm

    Well, I 've always found that with Rush's comments, you need to here them in complete context. He is taken out of context more than anyone else in this country. Especially when you hear a controversial segment and find out it was done in complete humor.

    But as to this one, just based upon what you posted, I still say there is an element of truth to it.

    The whole LBJ "great society, war on poverty" was a liberal agenda to make the poor, and especially the black poor, slave dependent upon the Federal govt and thus also make them lock step voters for the Democratic party. It is in my view, nearly as bad as the original slave masters in this country, because it still treats them as political objects rather than as human beings.

    So, it would not shock me to eventually find out that Obama and the Dems are trying to recapture that political power through similar means.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:30pm

23. Sounds funny, but it's not far fetched to consider an element of truth to it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:10pm

    No, it is WAY far fetched, it absolutely nuts, something only a right wing conspiracy theorist would think of.

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/12/2009 @ 12:43pm

24. "Shrill" doesn't begin to describe the campaign designed to stampede the Golden State electorate. The latest ad has a weary, soot-covered fire-fighter urging a yes vote on the tax hike. The message is clear: Vote no and your homes will burn down.

    Not even this sort of fear-mongering is moving the needle towards "yes" on the massive tax surge on next week's ballot as poll after poll shows all the key measures put forward by the tax-and-spend-and tax-again crowd failing badly.

    Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 11:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Interesting battle as it relates to real estate. Government services needed to maintain property value versus real property as target for tax increases.

    In the equation of home affordability, monthly payment should include prorated taxes. Higher taxes for maintenance of government services counterbalanced by declining property value occassioned by higher taxes against real property.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 12:52pm

25. No, it is WAY far fetched, it absolutely nuts, something only a right wing conspiracy theorist would think of.

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/12/2009 @ 12:43pm

    No, as history shows, this is consistent with the liberal Democrats view on how to control elections and stay in power.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:52pm

26. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:52pm <-------- Right wing conspiracy theorist.

    Anti you are the yin to the yang of those saying Bush and Cheney planned the 911 attacks.

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/12/2009 @ 1:02pm

27. Explain the mechanism. To start, what two policies from this time (68-78) would you claim had the biggest negative effect on poor people and thus "enslaved" them? How were they deprived of their will to succeed?

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 1:02pm

    The Welfare society with no limitations and the project housing. these seem like well intentioned projects; yet they are now deemed by many as having the affect on creating a new slave class in the US. A number of African Americans have also written on this.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 1:34pm

28. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:30pm

    Larry, how does creating MORE unemployment....help a President win re-election?

    And why didn't McCain use that plan last November????

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 1:54pm

29. So, it would not shock me to eventually find out that Obama and the Dems are trying to recapture that political power through similar means.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You kidding? All Obama and Dems have to do is watch Repubs self destruct. Easy as pie. Ever thought that they (the Dems) are trying to plugs leaks in the dam with government spending?

    Your Terminator Gov is a splendid example of how we got into this mess to begin with. He wasn't exactly pay as you go was he? Sure he didn't benefit just a tad by maintaining deficit spending without addressing the need for taxes? I think conservatives take the prize for government irresponsibility - no contest. Frickin pathetic pandering award. Taxman cometh Mr. Liv - better now than later. Like the financial advisors advise - pay off those credit cards.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 2:50pm

30. Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 11:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Interesting battle as it relates to real estate....

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 12:52pm

    Well, speaking of "interesting battle" in real estate....

    The Offer made last Friday, the first and only so far, to get my son to get in line for the First-Time home buyer `gift' of $8k, went 2 rounds (of "battle")......both sides withdrew, $3,500 apart!

    Time is running short.....the pressure is on to find something to buy....before he quits his job in July. Help, I'm stressed out!

    Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 4:09pm

31. Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Has the property been sold?

    If not, split the difference. It is not worth your trouble, or theirs. I am assuming that you are collecting buyer's agent portion of commission? Will the listing broker up your split to make the deal work? How about closing costs. Ask seller to pay all closing costs, including points and appraisal fee paid through escrow. What did the property appraise for? Is it higher than your final offer?

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 4:21pm

32. Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    If a prior appraisal doesn't exist, ask broker for CMA to take a look at his/her comps. Write your purchase agreement with an appraisal clause that states that purchase price will be renegotiated or you may cancel contract w/o cost at your option.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 4:31pm

33. split the difference....

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 4:21pm

    No, not at this time!

    Houston's prices are eroding......our RE market is doing great compared w/the nat'l averge....but w/oil prices' decline since last summer, our delayed reactions have kicked in.....we went into negative year-to-year comparisons on jobs beginning in Feb.

    I can't risk having the small down payment I'll foot (and of course, part of that is the buyer broker's commission), be wiped out by a small 5~10% price decline. Have to buy at the right price, MY right price!

    Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 4:33pm

34. ...ask broker for CMA to take a look at his/her comps.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 4:31pm

    I have full access to the MLS as a licensed broker who leases, manages, buy & sells his own rentals. Appreciate your suggestions, still!

    Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 4:35pm

35. Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Sounds like all avenues have been explored to make the deal work. You've got a bottom line and that is good. And you are right, further price declines expected. Let them stew and come to you if they are motivated. The optimism of the spring selling season is going to hit the doldrums of summer - your property will come.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 5:06pm

36. Just imagine if we cut taxes and let Americans decide what to do with their money instead of Washington who has proven repeatedly that they cannot be trusted with our money.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 09:53am

    When income or other taxes are lowered the workforce doesn't see the money. It goes straight into billionaires' bank accounts. Thom Hartmann said it best. Paraphrasing; "If people making $50,000/year and paying $10000 in taxes suddenly don't have to pay taxes, then businesses will immediately fire and rehire those people for $40,000/year keeping the $10,000/year tax savings for themselves." Anyone who doesn't understand that is a child or an idiot.

    Posted by Milhaus at 05/12/2009 @ 5:47pm

37. Your Terminator Gov is a splendid example of how we got into this mess to begin with. He wasn't exactly pay as you go was he? Sure he didn't benefit just a tad by maintaining deficit spending without addressing the need for taxes? I think conservatives take the prize for government irresponsibility - no contest. Frickin pathetic pandering award. Taxman cometh Mr. Liv - better now than later. Like the financial advisors advise - pay off those credit cards.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 2:50pm

    Arnold is ignored and despised by Republicans. The party won't even talk to him.

    Spending by the Democratic controlled legislature increasd by 40% over the past 5 years in California. Arnold claimed he was conservative and then governed like a typical Democratic liberal.

    We look forward to his departure from govt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:52pm

38. I just want to thank you guys for coming here to make the Democratic point for us. A number of you can't argue your way out of a paper bag, the rest is backed up by hilarious copy and paste from entertainment websites making a living off of getting you all wound up over fake news planted by mouthpiece outlets. I'm almost embarrassed for you.

    Posted by Milhaus at 05/12/2009 @ 6:07pm

39. When income or other taxes are lowered the workforce doesn't see the money. It goes straight into billionaires' bank accounts. Thom Hartmann said it best. Paraphrasing; "If people making $50,000/year and paying $10000 in taxes suddenly don't have to pay taxes, then businesses will immediately fire and rehire those people for $40,000/year keeping the $10,000/year tax savings for themselves." Anyone who doesn't understand that is a child or an idiot.

    Posted by Milhaus at 05/12/2009 @ 5:47pm

    Talk about liberal nonsense. When Bush lowered the minimum tax rate from 15% to 10%, millions of Americans no longer paid income taxes.

    If all Americans are given a tax cut, then more middle class Americans will see more in the cash flow.

    And misguided and misinformed people like Milhaus are ignorant of the facts. Since Reagan began dropping the marginal tax rates, the top 1% went from paying 18% of the individual income taxes to 39%. All they can think of is that someone with a successful income might actually get to enjoy some of it rather than the govt stealing all of it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 6:16pm

40. Arnold claimed he was conservative and then governed like a typical Democratic liberal.

    We look forward to his departure from govt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:52pm

    I'm not quite sure how hard your, what did OV call him, "Terminator Gov" harped on his being a "conservative".....but he sure as hell governed like a Dem.

    It is Repubs like Arnold, running essentially a mid-size country for more than one term, AND Bush on domestic fiscal policies (also for more than one term) crowning w/TARP I, that weakened one of the critical pillars of what being a Repub is at the core! Cutting taxes to promote econ growth is just one half of the pillar.....spending cuts on built-up wasteful programs, are/were the missing X-factor! Cost us in `06 & `08!

    Posted by Happy at 05/12/2009 @ 6:18pm

41. Lol my point made again and immediately. This is great material guys. Keep up the good work.

    Posted by Milhaus at 05/12/2009 @ 6:22pm

42. Talk about liberal nonsense. When Bush lowered the minimum tax rate from 15% to 10%, millions of Americans no longer paid income taxes.

    If all Americans are given a tax cut, then more middle class Americans will see more in the cash flow.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 6:16pm

    How do you cut taxes for "all Americans"...if "millions of Americans are no longer paying taxes"?!??!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 7:14pm

43. When Bush lowered the minimum tax rate from 15% to 10%, millions of Americans no longer paid income taxes.

    If all Americans are given a tax cut, then more middle class Americans will see more in the cash flow.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 6:16pm

    How do you cut taxes for "all Americans"...if "millions of Americans are no longer paying taxes"?!??!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 7:14pm

    Perhaps a more careful reading by you would have noticed the conjunctive WHEN

    Or I could have phrased it so you would be slightly less likely to ask dumb questions--- AFTER Bush lowered

    In other words mr word master, there was a definite cause and effect. The additional tax cuts INCREASED the number of taxpayers who no longer pay income taxes.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:20pm

44. CA is all about the disconnect between the Governor and the teachers/firefighters, the initiative process / bond-happy hippies, and the purse strings snapped tight by the Pug state legislature.

    Indebtedness this way lies. I know which part of that equation I'd tweak, though it would cost me personally.

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 6:38pm

    Wrong. your lib gov wants the increased taxes. But we conservatives along with millions of Californians understand that you cannot keep increasing taxes in the highest tax burdened state in the nation.

    "Purse strings snapped shut"? How is increasing spending by over 40% in the past 5 years, shutting off spending? And we have had a Democrat controlled legislature for decades.

    CA teachers are the highest paid in the Nation. And school enrollment is down because our net population has decreased over the past couple of years.

    with some few exceptions, Police and Fighters and are paid out of City and County funds, not the State.

    The initiative process is the best control we citizens have over our marxist legislature.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:26pm

45. Arnold is ignored and despised by Republicans. The party won't even talk to him.

    Spending by the Democratic controlled legislature increasd by 40% over the past 5 years in California. Arnold claimed he was conservative and then governed like a typical Democratic liberal.

    We look forward to his departure from govt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Think he will run for Senate? Looks like CA is negative on the idea of expansion of term limits (Prop 93 2008) especially on initiative of the Legislature...lol.............

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 7:32pm

46. your david stockton porn just doesn't excite anymore.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 10:36am

    Frosty, you're on idiot pills again. I don't support the Federal Reserve. I believe it should be severed from the US economy and we return to constitutional control of our money.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:03am

    my mistake.

    i meant:

    larry,

    your david stockman porn just doesn't excite anymore.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 7:33pm

47. my mistake.

    i meant:

    larry,

    your david stockman porn just doesn't excite anymore.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 7:33pm

    Allowing people vs the govt to control their own lives always excites freedom loving people. It is the lazy, the irresponsible, and the manipulated that prefer govt to control their lives.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:38pm

48. Kind of a "cute" story about Arnold and Republicanism.

    'At the 2004 Republican National Convention, Schwarzenegger gave a speech and explained why he was a Republican:[39]

    " I finally arrived here in 1968.[US] What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting the government off your back, lowering the taxes and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air. I said to my friend, I said, "What party is he?" My friend said, "He's a Republican." I said, "Then I am a Republican." And I have been a Republican ever since.

    Source: Wikipedia

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 7:42pm

49. Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 7:42pm

    Like Nixon, it's just a shame he didn't practice it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:44pm

50. Like Nixon, it's just a shame he didn't practice it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Indeed. Even a liberal commentator on the networks last night was decrying the shambles of the Republican Party, and the importance of having the "true" counterweight to Dem excess. I hope the true Repubs will come out of the woods and expel the nitwits who are struggling to retain their stranglehold on The GOP.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 7:49pm

51. Allowing people vs the govt to control their own lives always excites freedom loving people. It is the lazy, the irresponsible, and the manipulated that prefer govt to control their lives.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:38pm

    wtf?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 8:23pm

52. run, benny, run:

    Bernanke Says U.S. Banks Must Test More to Identify Other Risks

    By Scott Lanman and Steve Matthews

    May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said efforts by U.S. banks to raise capital are "encouraging" and called on firms to identify other risks through internal stress tests.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 8:46pm

53. It WAS...until it became a tool of business, who uses it more than the man on the street anymore.

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 8:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Spot on SB. 'Initiative Industrial Complex' would be more accurate terminology than Liv's 'poor man's legislature."

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 8:48pm

54. THE LIFE (AND PRICE) OF AN INITIATIVE

    PHASE ONE: Preparation (3-4 months)

    1. Idea

    An idea is born in the head of an individual or special interest group.

    (Start raising money)

    2. Sounding out

    The sponsor hires a consultant, who acts as general contractor on the project. Test ideas, sound out interest groups. Total of $45,000 to more than $100,000 for this period.

    (Consultant fees: $15,000 to $25,000 a month)

    3. Focus groups

    Consultant conducts focus groups to hone idea, get qualitative feedback. Could take 6 to 8 focus groups around the state for $30,000 to $40,000.

    4. Polls

    Pollsters called in to get quantitative feedback. Sponsors who don't get 70 percent positive responses should rethink plan. At least three statewide polls needed during the campaign. Total research could easily hit $500,000.

    (Focus groups, $5,000 a session and polls, $25,000 to $40,000 each)

    5. Lawyers

    Sponsors need lawyers to craft all-important initiative language to make sure measure doesn't violate law and will accomplish what is intended. $200 to $400 an hour.

    (100 hours minimum retainer)

    6. Petition filing

    California Attorney General assigns a title to the proposal. The Legislative Analyst's office writes the official petition summary. Proposal is filed with the Secretary of State's office.

    ($200 filing fee)

    PHASE TWO: signature gathering (7-8 months)

    7. Signatures

    Signature gathering firm starts getting the 433,239 valid signatures needed to put the issue on the ballot, at a cost of between $600,000

    and more than $2 million

    (Each signature: 80 cents to $2.70)

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 8:51pm

55. 8. Fund raising

    Professionals crank into high gear. Fund raisers charge an initial flat fee plus a percentage of money raised. Figure at least $100,000 to $150,000.

    9. Legislature

    Word of the initiative gets around. Legislature may decide to take over the issue, passing its own law. Sponsor may decide to withdraw initiative.

    PHASE THREE: Campaign (7-8 months)

    10. Consultants

    Advisers and lawyers swing into high gear, racking up bills totaling anywhere from $425,000 to more than $1 million.

    (Consultant fees: $40,000 to $100,000 a month)

    11. Media

    Ad agency hired to create commercials and buy airtime. TV ad budgets can vary enormously from $1 million to more than $25 million. Consultants get 15 percent.

    12. Mailings

    Add in slate mailers at $50,000 to $500,000, plus direct mail at $250,000, phone banks at $10,000 to $100,000.

    Polls cost $20,000 a week for $80,000

    (A 30-second TV spot in Los Angeles can cost between $40,000 and $70,000)

    13. Polls

    During last month of campaign, nightly tracking polls tell sponsors where they stand with electorate.

    ELECTION DAY Total cost of initiative: $2.7 to $29.7 million

    Steve Kearsley / The Chronicle

    Big Money Swamps the Ballot Initiative industry's bankroll now dwarfs that of candidates Kenneth Howe, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, May 19, 1998 - SFGate.com

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 8:53pm

56. We wouldn't need the initiative process if we didn't have marxist legislature and socialist/activist justices in the CA Supreme Court who overrule the people.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 9:13pm

57. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 9:13pm

    Why can the people of California vote for initiatives...

    but they can't vote out the "marxist legislature"?!?!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 9:25pm

58. Why can the people of California vote for initiatives...

    but they can't vote out the "marxist legislature"?!?!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 9:25pm

    It is convoluted. Californians seem to elect the same people over and over again and then gripe when the legislators keep going against their wishes.

    You'd think they would learn, but it only keeps getting worse.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 9:29pm

59. You'd think they would learn, but it only keeps getting worse.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 9:29pm

    well,

    a prophet would show them the way.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 9:35pm

60. this little chart explains a lot:

    http://blog.prospect.org/blog/ezraklein/fig-posen-20090507-1.gif

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 9:45pm

61. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 9:29pm

    There may be an Occam's Razor answer, Larry.

    (But it would involve you being wrong and that's impossible as we all know.)

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 9:51pm

62. There may be an Occam's Razor answer, Larry.

    (But it would involve you being wrong and that's impossible as we all know.)

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 9:51pm

    Hmm,

    California spends like crazy, taxes at the highest in the nation; they are 23 billion in the red;

    And I'm wrong?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 10:20pm

63. I still say we get Eliot Spitzer on the job. He's called out the neocons Obama has appointed for what they are, and he went after AIG, Goldman Sachs, ML and the rest of the Wallstreet thugs holding our economy under duress.

    Here's the thing, nobody is perfect. Spitzer got caught with his pants down, fessed up and stepped down. But, on the other side of things, the guy did more for the common working person than any of the political hacks in D.C. aside from a very small few.

    The likes of W and Cheney are whores for big business, and anybody who isn't aware of that at this point is completely brain-dead. (That would be 99.9% of the rethugs posting here). If this country ever wishes to turn the corner and get back on it's feet again, we need people with some sort of fair play for the average bloke and not patsies for rich jackasses to do their bidding for them.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:40pm

64. Hmm,

    California spends like crazy, taxes at the highest in the nation; they are 23 billion in the red;

    And I'm wrong?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 10:20pm

    Considering that California has a bigger economy than most countries, if they are only $23 billion in debt that is very modest. Considering that your boyfriend took us from balanced books to being $11 trillion in debt over 8 years. Who spends like crazy? You're wrong most of the time.

    Posted by Milhaus at 05/13/2009 @ 06:57am

65. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 10:20pm

    No, referring to the reason Californians somehow are "conservative" on initiative matters, but keep voting in "marxists".

    Posted by Mask at 05/13/2009 @ 07:59am

66. Considering that your boyfriend took us from balanced books to being $11 trillion in debt over 8 years. Who spends like crazy? You're wrong most of the time.

    Posted by Milhaus at 05/13/2009 @ 06:57am |

    clinton left office with almost $5 trillion in debt.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2009 @ 09:03am

67. 0 - 64k: 0% - 8% as unemployment allows

    64k-128k: 8% ... 512k - $1M: 11% ... $2M-$4M: 13% ... $2B - $4B: 23% ... $256B - $512B: 31%

    Eliminate all deductions. Make as much money as you want. We don't care!

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/13/2009 @ 12:11pm

    Marx would be so proud of you!

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 12:39pm