Presidential election may be up for grabs

[Kirkhill]

A couple of weeks ago, former US House of Representatives majority leader Dick Armey told USA Today that the Bubba Vote will hurt Obama in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Others say it will work both ways: blacks will vote in unprecedented numbers for Obama, maybe even by enough to offset the Bubba Vote.

Traditionally blacks are weak voters – that is to say few of them bother to vote at all, ever. But vote they did in the 2008 primaries, in those very same unprecedented numbers – offsetting Hillary’s share of the Bubba Vote that came out strong for her thanks to Bill, the Bubba in Chief.

But my sense is that the Bubbas have the edge on two counts. 

They are more numerous (Whilte Males - Bubbas or Not, outnumber All Blacks (Male and Female) by 119,000,000 to 38,000,000) US Census  Assuming that only half of the White Males are Bubbas, they still outnumber All Blacks by 60:38  or roughly 3:2.

Also the Bubba vote is likely more efficient.  The Black vote is concentrated in a urban centres - many of which already vote Democrat. (This is the same problem the Tories have with Alberta and the Libs have with Toronto). Bubbas are spread across the country in rural districts. Bubbas, and their wives,  could potentially have a greater impact on selecting the Electoral College.

 

[a_majoor]

As expected, Palin, up in Alaska, and fairly new to it all didn't rank very high.....but the surprise is where the guy who wants to be the next Democrate President ranks.....9....really?

Senator Obama is in 38 spot, James Monroe was #9.

 

[GAP]

Senator Obama is in 38 spot, James Monroe was #9.

I was pointing to his score, but you are right...wrong use of the word rank..

 

[a_majoor]

Well this is a real "change" we can believe in:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=0

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

By AMIR TAHERI

Last updated: 4:10 am
September 15, 2008
Posted: 4:02 am
September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

 

[observor 69]

I didnt call Obama a communist. But some of his tactics seem to be the same as practiced by communist/totalitarian regime's.Its certainly not normal actions for US politics. Try not to read more into my comments than I actually post. I dont have a personal bias toward Obama I just dont agree with his VERY liberal views.For many Americans his close association with former domestic terrorists and extremist religious figures isnt acceptable for a Presidential candidate,but hey we just have a couple of months before the voters make their will known.

Here is his letter.Simmons by the way is doing exactly what Soros does for the left through groups like moveon.org.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_aip_letter_082608.html

Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121918996082755013.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Obama fights back .....Truthfightsback.com

Smears We're Fighting  http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/smear_archive/

 

[tomahawk6]

Obama wouldnt know the truth. His positions on his own web site is enough of an indication that he is a socialist. Socialists believe in income redistribution - taxes, higher taxes. He believes that government can solve everyone's problems. Conservatives believe in the individual and smaller government.Fortunately the state polls are moving toward McCain.

 

[GAP]

I was reading an article today where Obama is advocating shouting down/getting into dissenter's faces as a tactic....apparently this same tactic was used against Hillary supporters.....

bit of a bully tactic.... ???

 

[a_majoor]

The economy card turns out to have razor sharp edges for the Democrats (part 1):

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/21/baracks-wall-street-problem-is-now-americas/

Current Article
Barack’s Wall Street Problem is Now America’s

By Larry JohnsongravatarcloseAuthor: Larry Johnson Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net

About: Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria. From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward. From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA’s Operation’s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards. Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American University’s School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.See Authors Posts (796) on September 21, 2008 at 8:56 AM in Current Affairs

(bumped up by SusanUnPC)

Barack Obama has a major Wall Street and Washington problem that the media so far is refusing to acknowledge or explore. He is in the pocket of the Wall Street firms and mortgage security companies that are at the center of the collapse of the real estate bubble. He is closely tied to at least two of the Fannie Mae principals. As Ricky Ricardo would say, “Barack, you got some splaining to do.”

Let’s start with the numbers. Why is a first term Senator pulling down almost $300,000 a year from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Countrywide Financial, and Washington Mutual? He has not even completed his fourth year in the Senate and received a total of $1,093,329.00 from these eight companies and their employees. (all data from OpenSecrets.org). John McCain’s numbers, according to OpenSecrets.org for the period 1990-2008 (i.e., 18 years worth of data) only collected $549,584.00. In other words, Barack is receiving $273,582.25 (and 2008 is not over) per year while McCain raised a paltry $30,532.44.

Want another shocker? Barack Obama has received more from one source–Goldman Sachs $542,252.00–than McCain has from all of the companies combined. Who the hell is more beholden to lobbyists? And why does a junior Senator from Illinois rate this kind of dough?

Why are these firms and their employees showering Barack with their cash? Although the conventional wisdom wants to pin the Wall Street debacle on Republican greed, the reality is that the real estate market and the big players on Wall Street have been a Democratic game. McCain’s hands are clean when it comes to this mess. That is not spin, that is a fact. He proposed legislation back in 2006 to start addressing the abuses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the Democrats would have none of it.

Why? Here’s the explanation.

To understand you must first appreciate that the largest debt market in the United States is the mortgage market. One of the major players in the market, at least until this month, is Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae was initially established in 1938 in order to provide a secondary mortgage market. What does this mean? It would buy mortgages from one lender and sell mortgages to another. It played the role of a broker who helped make the market work.

Fannie Mae because a private company in 1968 and continued to fund mortgages by issuing mortgage backed securities (i.e., MBS). When Fannie Mae issues the MBS she is guaranteeing the investors a return on their investment and, at the same time, providing a source of funds to supply additional mortgages.

Fannie Mae was not standing on a corner selling mortgages out of a hot dog stand on the corner. She needed help on Wall Street. So, who helped her market the securities and raise the case? The “good” folks at Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and AIG, just to name the more prominent ones.

So who was in charge of Fannie Mae for 16 of the last 18 years? Let’s start with James A. Johnson (no relation). Remember him? Barack initially tabbed him to head up the Vice Presidential search team. He was Walter Mondale’s campaign manager in the 1984 fiasco and chaired the search committee for John Kerry. But he started as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae in 1990, quickly moved up to be the CEO, and left Fannie in 1999 as Chairman of the Executive Committee.

And guess where he went? Fishing? Nope. He became one of the outside directors of the board of Goldman Sachs in 1999 and also served as the Managing Director of Corporate Finance for Lehman Brothers.

The roles of Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers are important to understand if you are to make sense of Fannie Mae’s collapse. When Johnson moved to Goldman Sachs, the main man at Fannie was Franklin D. Raines. Late in 2005 Raines resigned from Fannie Mae, accused of being in charge when the books were cooked. The scheme is fairly simple. Raines and other top executives made bonuses if they hit specific earnings targets for the securities sold by Fannie Mae. They regularly hit those targets until it was discovered by the (SEC) Securities & Exchange Commission’s top accountant Fannie misstated earnings for 3 1/2 years, leading to an estimated $9 billion restatement that will wipe out 40% of profits from 2001 to mid-2004.

 

[a_majoor]

The economy card turns out to have razor sharp edges for the Democrats (part 2):

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/21/baracks-wall-street-problem-is-now-americas/

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) concluded:

   During the period covered by this report—1998 to mid-2004—Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter. Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the Enterprise’s senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management.

   By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets, senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received, at the expense of shareholders. Earnings management made a significant contribution to the compensation of Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines, which totaled over $90 million from 1998 through 2003. Of that total, over $52 million was directly tied to achieving earnings per share targets.

   Fannie Mae’s Board of Directors contributed to those problems by failing to be sufficiently informed and to act independently of its chairman, Franklin Raines, and other senior executives, failing to exercise the requisite oversight over the Enterprise’s operations, and failing to discover or ensure the correction of a wide variety of unsafe and unsound practices, even after the Freddie Mac problems became apparent.

   Senior management did not make investments in accounting systems, computer systems, other infrastructure, and staffing needed to support a sound internal control system, proper accounting, and GAAP-consistent financial reporting. Those failures came at a time when Fannie Mae faced many operational challenges related to its rapid growth and changing accounting and legal requirements.

   Fannie Mae senior management sought to interfere with OFHEO’s special examination by directing the Enterprise’s lobbyists to use their ties to Congressional staff to improperly generate a Congressional request for the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to investigate OFHEO’s conduct of that examination and to insert into an appropriations bill language that would punish the agency by reducing its appropriations until the Director of OFHEO was replaced.

Franklin Raines, along with Fannie’s former chief financial officer and Fannie’s former controller, settled out of court and agreed to pay fines totaling about $3 million. Raines also agreed to donate the proceeds from the sale of the $1.8 million of his Fannie stock and to give up stock options. Fannie Mae paid a fine of $400 million.

Goldman Sachs played a pivotal role in all of this. According to OFHEO, one of the major vehicles Fannie used to hide its loses (e.g., “shift earnings into future years”) was a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit aka REMIC:

   In fact, Goldman Sachs described the proposed transaction (i.e. use of REMIC) in a November 19, 2001 presentation to Fannie Mae. David Rosenblum, a Goldman Sachs managing director, attached PowerPoint slides for the presentation to a December 3, 2001, e-mail to Mr. Niculescu. Mr. Rosenblum referred to the project as “Project Libra.”

So we are asked to believe that the former CEO of Fannie Mae who is now sitting on the board of Goldman Sachs is completely unaware of using REMIC to hide Fannie Mae losses? Wouldn’t you expect someone with so much knowledge about Fannie Mae to have the least bit of concern about the possibility of accounting mischief? These are questions that have not yet been fully explored or vetted.

Oh yes, if you are going to sell Fannie Mae market securities what bond index do you use? How about the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Index. Sure helps to have a tie with Lehman Brothers through James Johnson as well.

One more note about Franklin Raines. The Obama campaign can insist he is not an “official” advisor, but before the market blew up Raines was described in the Washington Post on 16 July 2008 as “taking calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

But Fannie Mae was not just “selling” mortgage securities. It was also using its financial power to advance the agenda of the Democratic Party. We have the video evidence here:

And you can read the details of how Fannie Mae also steered money to ACORN, one of the vehicles Barack has used to boost his career. Carl Horowitz did an excellent piece for the American Spectator (I know, but truth is truth).

Finally, I leave you with this. If you think West Virginia should be ridiculed as a place where incest thrives, think again. You obviously know nothing about Washington and New York. This piece from 2007 in investor village helps you understand the inbreeding that is the festering stew of Washington. This is not friendly territory for John McCain. It is a place that loves Barack Obama. And after you read the following you will understand better why the boy from Chicago is getting a heap of cash.

 

[a_majoor]

The economy card turns out to have razor sharp edges for the Democrats (part 3):

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/21/baracks-wall-street-problem-is-now-americas/

The analysis of Joe Stocks:

    Goldman gave us Robert Rubin, former Chairman of Goldman. He is the gentleman President Clinton called on to be Secretary Treasurer of the United States in 1995. During his tenure he orchestrated the bailout of Mexico, Asia, Long Term Capital Management, and Y2K. He is no stranger to moral hazard. His actions show that he actually embraced it. I think he was also responsible for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan to change his ways. After Greenspan uttered those famous words - “irrational exuberance” and knocked the equity markets for a loop in 1996, Greenspan became much more respectful of those that kept him in power. I thought that Greenspan meant what he said at the time with strong foundation, but his actions afterwards where of a different tune. Enough so that he bowed to the whims of both the Clinton and Bush administrations, taking irrational exuberance to bubble proportions.

    Goldman also gave us John Thain. John is now CEO of the New York Stock Exchange. Mr. Thain helped to complete the reverse takeover of the NYSE by Archipelago in 2005. As you may have guessed – Archipelago’s largest owner - Goldman Sachs.

    Well, who is the current Secretary Treasurer of the United States? It is Henry Paulson, former CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs. Mr. Paulson took the reins in early 2006. Yet another Goldman guy.

    Everyday the Federal Reserve operates an open market operation to add and subtract liquidity from our financial system. This is where the big NYSE member banks go to get additional funds. I can’t think of another person that may be more important to a financial firm like Goldman Sachs on a daily basis. I am sure the Federal Reserve looked far and wide for someone to run this very important unit as it oversees domestic open market and foreign exchange trading operations as well as the provisions of account services to foreign central banks.

    They picked Goldman Sachs former Chief Economist, William Dudley. An ‘economist’ for a trading operation? I know, it doesn’t sound right to me but maybe he takes direction well. William took this post in late 2006.

    World Bank, you ask? Who runs the World Bank? The President of the World Bank is Robert Zoellick. Mr. Zoellick spent most of his career working for various governmental agencies. No Goldman connection here? Almost. He resigned in June 2006 to join Goldman. After a one year stint of indoctrination of how things work at Goldman, and who truly butters his bread, he was appointed World Bank President in June of 07’.

    So, former Goldman people are in place as the United States Secretary Treasurer, the head of the NYSE, the head of the trading operations at the Federal Reserve (an economist at that), and President of the World Bank. Big deal? It gets better.

    Just after the 1987 stock market crash the President of the US signed an executive order forming a committee of government and private individuals to monitor the financial markets. This group was named the ‘Working Group’. We traders have nicknamed this group the Plunge Protection Team – the PPT. Their mandate was to make sure all steps were taken to make sure nothing like that crash would happen again.

    In 1998 the financial world was shaken by the financial shenanigans of a hedge fund named Long Term Capital Management. ( ‘Long Term’ lol!) After which time the US President’s Working Group approached the major NYSE member banks and said, “hey guys, listen, we ain’t suppose to let things like this happen. You guys need to get your act together.”

    These banks formed the Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) The members are the top NYSE member banks, General Motors, a couple of hedge funds, and some well connected law firms and accounting firms. The group met and produced a document but was asked again in 2004 by the Working Group to come with more defined policy procedure. This effort resulted in the publication titled ‘Toward Greater Financial Stability: A Private Sector Perspective’.

    Who was the leader of this group? Gerald Corrigan, Chairman of Goldman Sachs. Who was the transmittal letter addressed to at the opening of the report? Henry Paulson, then CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs, now US Secretary Treasurer. Who developed the policy? Well here is an excerpt from the transmittal letter; “I want to express to you my sincere gratitude for the time and effort devoted to this project by Craig Broderick who served as a Member of the Policy Group and the others from Goldman Sachs who participated in the project and are named in the Report.”

    Link to the report; www.crmpolicygroup.org/docs/CRMPG-II.pdf

    Here is what the CRMPG stated as their primary purpose; “The primary purpose of CRMPG II — building on the 1999 report of CRMPG I — is to examine what additional steps should be taken by the private sector to promote the efficiency, effectiveness and stability of the global financial system. As practitioners, the members of CRMPG II recognize that periodic financial disruptions and shocks are inevitable. However, the Policy Group also believes that it is possible to take steps that would be capable of reducing the frequency of such shocks and, especially, to reduce the risk that such shocks would take on the contagion features that can produce systemic damage to the financial system and the real economy.”

    Again it appears the CRMPG mandate is to control the markets. How else are they to reduce the frequency of periodic financial disruptions.

    CRMPG: “since we know that financial disturbances and even financial shocks will occur in the future, and we know that no approaches to risk management or official supervision are fail-safe, we also know that we must preserve and strengthen the institutional arrangements whereby, at the point of crisis, industry groups and industry leaders, as well as supervisors, are prepared to work together in order to serve the larger and shared goal of financial stability.”

    We need to work together for financial stability? What does that mean for the public or retail investor? Obviously every trade has a counterparty. If these firms get in trouble with sub-prime loans, is it their idea to transfer that risk to the public to insure their financial stability and therefore the stability of the US economy as what they represent, as we can not have failing banks and a strong economy. But it would be acceptable to have a block of retail investors (small counterparties) suffering financial disruptions as long as it did not affect the general public or the greater good of the large NYSE money center banks?

    Former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan acknowledges the CRMPG and their collective “eye” on the market in a speech he gave in 2002; “In today’s markets there is an increased reliance on private counterparty surveillance as the primary means of financial control. Governments supplement private surveillance when they judge that market imperfections could lead to sub-optimal economic performance.” Link to speech; http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/200209252/default.htm
 
That leads me to Program Trading. Program trading ran about 16 to 19% of all shares traded on the NYSE from 1987 to 1998 when the Long Term Capital diabolical hit. Since that it has climbed to 65-75% of all shares traded on the NYSE.
 
The NYSE stock exchange issues a weekly report on Program Trading. For the week ending August 31st, program trading accounted for 73% of all shares traded on the NYSE. Now you will look at this report and see that it says 36.5%. What gives? Well, the NYSE formerly reported program trading as both sides of the trade. They did this for a couple of decades, or the inception of program trading. (Program trading is defined as a trade of 15 or more issues with a value over one million dollars.) Then in June of 2006, shortly after the Goldman guy took over, they changed the reporting to just one side of the trade. In addition, they deleted all past reports from their news archives. One day they were there, the next they were all gone. The old way of reporting worked for many years giving a more accurate summation of total program trading. I continue to use that number as it is more truthful. Link to recent report; http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/PT082707.pdf

    Now you may suspect who the top program trader is. Well, sometimes it is Goldman but lately it has been Lehman Brothers. However, if you look at program trades made as the broker being the principal and not acting as an agent for others, Goldman does indeed take the top spot. For the referenced report they accounted for 25% of all program trades made as principal. Looking farther we see that the top six firms accounted for 69% of all program trades, or 50% of ALL shares traded on the NYSE. 50% of all shares traded in the hands of program traders of just six firms that are all members of the CRMPG, with the goal working together for the greater good? How would you like to be on the other side of those trades?

    Again Greenspan in his speech of 2002 says it best.” To require disclosure of the structure of the innovative product either before or after its introduction would immediately eliminate the quasi-monopoly return and discourage future endeavors to innovate in that area.”

    Quasi-monopoly returns! That, my friends, leads me to Goldman’s third quarter earnings release today. Earnings were up an eye-popping 88% from last year. It was as though Goldman was on the right side of every trade.

    But how could this be? We saw the headlines;
    ‘Goldman’s Exclusive Hedge Fund Drops By 10%’
    ‘Goldman hedge fund falls 22.5 pct in Aug’

    Well, you see, Goldman doesn’t manage OTHER peoples money quite like it manages it’s own.

    From the report - Asset Management (money they manage for others), Goldman: “Asset Management net revenues were $1.20 billion, 31% higher than the third quarter of 2006, reflecting a 40% increase in management and other fees, partially offset by lower incentive fees.”

    Lower incentive fees? Fees were down 52% from last year. Incentive fees reflect doing a good job. Looks like their performance was lacking from last year.

    Goldman: “During the quarter, assets under management increased $38 billion to $796 billion, reflecting money market net inflows of $31 billion, non-money market net inflows of $19 billion spread across all asset classes, and net market depreciation of $12 billion, reflecting depreciation in equity and alternative investment assets, partially offset by appreciation in fixed income assets.”

    Increase of $38 billion. That’s a lot of money but still just 5% increase. But with $38 billion in net inflows after depreciation it appears that they had negative organic return on the assets that manage.

    All on all, the money they manage for OTHERS had a bad quarter.

    Now look at their proprietary trading unit – THEIR money. Trading and Principal Investments were $8.23 billion, 70% higher than the third quarter of 2006. Equity trading revenues were up a mind boggling 154%. This is in quarter were we saw a rough drop of about 3% in the S&P500.

    Goldman: “Significant losses on non-prime loans and securities were more than offset by gains on short mortgage positions.”

    They shorted mortgage positions with THEIR money! Shorting mortgages – a bet that citizens will default on their loans and possibly lose their homes. Goldman made money when things were good by pushing these sub-prime loans, now they win again when they go sour.

    OTHER peoples money (OTM); NEW YORK, Sept 13 (Reuters) – “Goldman Sachs Group’s Global Alpha hedge fund fell 22.5 percent in August on losses from currency and stock trades, Bloomberg News reported, citing an update sent to investors.”
    Goldman has the largest collection of hedge funds in the world. How is it that they receive 75% of their revenues from trading, but the hedge funds they manage for other people’s money under-perform the returns Goldman receives on its OWN money? When Goldman’s hedge funds are long sub-prime, why did not the shorting of mortgages strategy that they used for THEIR money save some of the OTHER people’s money? Trading is a zero sum gain. Did Goldman need someone to take the other side of the trade?

    Greenspan said this in the same speech above; “Most financial innovations in over-the-counter derivatives involve new ways to disperse risk. Moreover, our constantly changing financial environment supplies a steady stream of new opportunities for innovation to address market imperfections. Innovative products temporarily earn a quasi-monopoly rent.”

    I think everyone would have to agree that Goldman has been very innovative in benefiting from market imperfections. They place their former executives in high positions of public power. They manage the CRMPG that allows them insight into the inside workings of their competitors. They have been aggressive in their managed hedge funds by establishing a counter-party to their trades. They certainly are getting their share on THEIR money with “quasi-monopoly rent”.

    And they are getting paid well to do it.

    Goldman: “Compensation and benefits expenses were $5.92 billion, 68% higher than the third quarter of 2006” The number employees increased only 7%. Nice raise guys!

    So how does Goldman get away with this? Obviously the influence peddling is there. Why is the financial community of the slightly less connected not out there screaming about the potential for collusion and manipulation by these large member banks with their CRMPG association? Trading is a zero sum game. Why are so many willing to take a bullet for Goldman on an un-level playing field?

    I just read a commentary from Bill Bonner expressing some of what I mention here. He wrote this after a similar stunning Goldman report in June of 06’;
    “Well, how is it possible that a company like Goldman – with thousands of traders – can make 75% of its revenues from trading? You’d think their lucky trades would be balanced out by their unlucky trades. They can’t all be lucky. And they can’t all be geniuses. As Buffett says, there aren’t that many geniuses around.”
    “Or to put it another way, here’s a company making billions, mostly by trading. Who’s on the other side of these trades? Who’s losing? Where does the money come from? How is it possible for so many traders to have a result that is so far beyond equilibrium…it seems to defy gravity.” Bill Bonner

    So why do I care about all of this?

    Greenspan (same speech) said this; “No one can deny that fully informed market participants will generate the most efficient pricing of resources and the most efficient allocation of capital. Moreover, it could be argued that, if all information held by individual buyers or sellers became available to all participants, the pricing structure would more closely reflect the underlying balance of supply and demand. Thus full information would appear to be the unambiguous objective. But should it be?”

    “But should it be?” Hell yes it should be. Fully informed market participates is central to a free market. Allowing Goldman and the CRMPG, with the blessings of the Federal Reserve to sway the markets in the direction that benefits them most, in the name of financial stability is a bullet to the chest of capitalism. Who was Chairman Greenspan helping when he suggested adjustable rate mortgages at interest rate bottoms? Some kind of innovative sub-prime scheme perhaps? The time to save our free markets is now. The complacency bullshit needs to stop!

 

[CougarKing]

I was reading an article today where Obama is advocating shouting down/getting into dissenter's faces as a tactic....apparently this same tactic was used against Hillary supporters.....

bit of a bully tactic.... ???

:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKVPay1eBH8

 

[a_majoor]

I was reading an article today where Obama is advocating shouting down/getting into dissenter's faces as a tactic....apparently this same tactic was used against Hillary supporters.....

bit of a bully tactic.... ???

And more evidence is bubbling up:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009602.html

Palin Attacks Orchestrated

Rusty Shackleford has turned his attention (and his skills) from bringing down jihadist websites to investigate the origin of the Palin smears;

    Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

    Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.

    It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign.

It's a long and detailed post. Don't be surprised to see this story break through to the mainstream. Posted by Kate at September 22, 2008 1:14 PM

 

[GAP]

Palin Attacks Orchestrated

Rusty Shackleford has turned his attention (and his skills) from bringing down jihadist websites to investigate the origin of the Palin smears;

    Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

    Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.

    It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign.

It's a long and detailed post. Don't be surprised to see this story break through to the mainstream. Posted by Kate at September 22, 2008 1:14 PM

Interesting Blog......I wonder if this will grow legs.....

The Jawa Report

 

[tomahawk6]

Jawa has been on my daily reading list for several years now. Good stuff and well researched.

 

[CougarKing]

Some interesting statements from Obama's running mate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_el_pr/biden

BALTIMORE - The National Guard deserves a stronger voice within the Defense Department, given its role in the war on terror, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Monday.

Addressing the annual conference of the National Guard Association of the United States, Biden noted that more than half of the veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are guardsmen and reservists.

With citizen soldiers carrying such a burden, Biden said Lt. Gen. Craig McKinley, slated to become the first four-star general to head the National Guard, deserves a seat at the table with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"Tell me why there's any rational reason why you shouldn't have a seat at that table," Biden said, speaking one day after Republican presidential candidate John McCain addressed the group.

Maj. Gen. Frank Vavala, adjutant general of Biden's home state of Delaware and president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States, said such recognition, similar to that given the Marine Corps after initial representation by the Navy, is long overdue.

"It's something that we certainly are advocating as an association," said Vavala, who noted that more than a third of the Army and Air Force consists of National Guard units, and that the Guard numbers almost 500,000 men and women.

"Our people are fighting the war every day," he said, adding that the notion of Guardsmen as "weekend warriors" no longer applies.

Biden's eldest son, Delaware attorney general Beau Biden, is a captain in a National Guard unit that is to report for training next month before being deployed to Iraq.

"My son, Beau, is proud to wear the uniform and proud to answer the call to serve," the senator said.

Biden also said that if he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama are elected, they will work to ensure that health care funding for veterans, particularly those suffering from traumatic brain injuries, will be a budget priority.

"It's the only sacred obligation that a nation has," said Biden, a longtime supporter of the National Guard.

Biden said the burden of proving that a traumatic brain injury is combat-related should be shifted from the soldier to the government, and that returning veterans who have lost limbs should be guaranteed state-of-the-art prostheses for life.

Biden criticized McCain for suggesting a day earlier that Obama's positions on issues facing the country are rooted in his ambition to be president.

"After the last eight years, the last thing we need now is more politics of division," he said, adding that Obama's judgment, whether it be the need for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq or the need for more troops in Afghanistan, has proven to more prescient than McCain's.

When the Department of Defense proposed cutting the National Guard's force strength in 2006, McCain refused to join 75 of his Senate colleagues, including Biden and Obama, in opposing the move, Biden said.

He also noted that he and Obama supported a proposal to boost education benefits under a more expansive GI bill, while McCain said the proposal was too generous.

 

[CougarKing]

McCain has suddenly called for his campaign and the the Pres. Debate this Friday to be put on hold as he claims he wants to focus on the current Financial/Economic Crisis.

Obama has responded that he would be willing to participate in such a bipartisan move to help with the current hearings/negotiations, though stated also that the debate must go on this Friday, arguing that the severity of the crisis made it even more important to the American people that the candidates made their positions clear on not only the major issues, but also on how they would handle such crises as the current one.

So is this a general show of concern on McCain's part or an unprecedented political stunt?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

McCain suspends campaign, Obama plans to continue
Story Highlights
NEW: Obama says he plans to continue to prepare for Friday's debate

NEW: Obama says he'll join McCain in Washington if it helps negotiations

McCain to suspend advertising, calls for postponing Friday's debate

Obama and McCain campaigns have spoken by phone


NEW YORK (CNN) -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain announced Wednesday that he is suspending his campaign to return to Washington and focus on the "historic" crisis facing the U.S. economy.

Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama in a news conference later Wednesday said that he and McCain had spoken by phone and had agreed to issue a joint statement about shared principles in the approach to resolving the economic crisis.

But he disagreed with McCain's call for postponing Friday's first presidential debate in Oxford, Mississippi.

"It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person will be the next president," Obama said. "It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. It's more important than ever to present ourselves to the American people."

Regarding McCain's call to join him in Washington to help participate in the debate over the economic recovery plan, Obama said: "I will be anywhere at any time," he said. "If you need us I'll be there."

Announcing his decision to suspend his campaign, McCain said, "I am calling on the president to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem." Watch McCain's announcement »

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement saying the presidential debate should go on and that McCain's negotions should not be a "photo op."

"It would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation's economy," the statement said. "We need leadership, not a campaign photo op."

"If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now," he added.

McCain senior adviser Mark Salter briefed reporters shortly after. He said the campaign will suspend airing all ads and all campaign events pending Obama's agreement.

Salter also said McCain called President Bush and talked to colleagues in Washington and learned that passage of the Paulson plan was next to impossible to be passed.

McCain would partake in the debate if they passed an agreement, Salter said.

McCain's campaign also said that he had canceled his scheduled appearance on "The Late Show with David Letterman" for Wednesday night.

The announcement came just hours before President Bush was scheduled to address the nation on the troubled state of the U.S. financial system -- a problem for which his administration has proposed a $700 billion bailout.

Immediately after the announcement, White House press secretary Dana Perino released this statement: "We welcome Sen. McCain's announcement. We are making progress in negotiations on the financial markets rescue legislation, but we have not finished it yet. Bipartisan support from Sens. McCain and Obama would be helpful in driving to a conclusion."

Obama called McCain early Wednesday morning to ask for a joint statement, a McCain senior advisor said.

An Obama campaign source confirmed the call and said that McCain returned his call six hours later, and accepted the concept and suggested the two of them return to Washington to join the negotiations. The source says that Obama told him that he would do that only if negotiators saw it as useful.

According to the Obama source, soon after they ended the call, McCain announced he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington.

The bailout plan has met with a cool reception in two days of hearings on Capitol Hill, where both Democrats and Republicans have expressed skepticism about the proposal drafted by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

"It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the administration's proposal," McCain said. "I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time."

But he added that he believes Congress could forge a consensus on legislation "before the markets open on Monday."

McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, were in New York to meet with world leaders at the United Nations. They had met with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.

"Senator, governor, I'm really honored to be here with you. I know you have a very important campaign to run," Saakashvili said. "Overall, I have to say I greatly appreciate the solidarity we felt from the American people."

Earlier, Palin met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Obama on Wednesday lashed out at the Bush administration and his opponent on the handling of the crisis on Wall Street as well as the $700 billion bailout plan by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

Congress and the White House are trying to negotiate the details of what would be the most sweeping economic intervention by the government since the Great Depression. Bush has asked Congress to act quickly on the bailout proposal following news of failing financial institutions and frozen credit markets.

"The clock is ticking on this crisis. We have to act swiftly, but we also have to get it right," Obama said in Dunedin, Florida. "And that means everyone -- Republicans and Democrats, and the White House and Congress -- must work together to come up with a solution that protects American taxpayers and our economy without rewarding those whose greed helped get us into this problem in the first place."

Obama said it's unacceptable to expect the American people to "hand this administration or any administration a $700 billion check with no conditions and no oversight when a lack of oversight in Washington and on Wall Street is exactly what got us into this mess."

He said struggling homeowners must be taken care of in any economic recovery plan -- and that taxpayers should "not be spending one dime to reward the same Wall Street CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess." Read more on both candidates' recovery plans

He also hit McCain for switching from his stance as an advocate for market deregulation to a strong supporter of regulation since the Wall Street crisis became front-page news.

"He's suddenly a hard-charging populist," Obama said. "And that's all well and good, but I sure wish he was talking the same way over a year ago, when I introduced a bill that would've helped stop the multimillion-dollar bonus packages that CEOs grab on their way out the door."

McCain's bombshell comes as a new CNN "poll of polls" out of Virginia on Wednesday shows McCain with the slimmest of leads in a state that traditionally has been a safe bet for Republicans.

The latest polls could be a warning sign for McCain that he still has work to do to lock down certain states where previous GOP nominees had to spend little time or effort doing so. Watch more on where the candidates stand in the latest polls »

In the new poll of polls, McCain holds a 1 percentage point lead over Obama (47 percent to 46 percent) in Virginia, while 7 percent remain undecided.
The poll of polls is an average of three recent surveys of the state -- MSNBC/Mason-Dixon (September 17-22), ARG (September 17-20) and ABC/The Washington Post (September 18-21). The poll of polls does not have a sampling error.

CNN's Ed Hornick, Alexander Mooney and Rebecca Sinderbrand contributed to this report.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It makes life tough for Obama: if he refuses then it appears that only McCain has "taken the high road" and put duty to country - his strong suit - ahead of partisan politics. But, if Obama follows suit then it makes him look like he's just  copy-catting McCain's good idea.

Smart move for the McCain team when the polls are all, so I read, all going Obama's way.

 

[GAP]

It makes life tough for Obama: if he refuses then it appears that only McCain has "taken the high road" and put duty to country - his strong suit - ahead of partisan politics. But, if Obama follows suit then it makes him look like he's just  copy-catting McCain's good idea.

Smart move for the McCain team when the polls are all, so I read, all going Obama's way.

From what I can see it is only a pretty fluid 3% difference nationally. I think the Democrats are putting a brave face on the impact Palin is having on them.....men and women....the undecideds are still there...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Obama says: and that taxpayers should "not be spending one dime to reward the same Wall Street CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess."

Boy, he's not just biting the hand that feeds him, he swallowed it up to the wrist and is chewing on it. ;D He'll have to be careful, should those same benefactors decide to pull their support.

 

[CougarKing]

At least both candidates have supposedly put aside their partisan bickering in order to deal with this crisis; however, there is still no deal at this time, although they supposedly agree on certain principles on how to deal with it, such as ensuring that none of the bailout money becomes financial rewards for the CEOs of the affected companies.

IIRC from the CNN interview today of Georgetown professor and former Clinton economic adviser Paul Begala that both said that they didn't need an injection of Presidential politics in these exceptionally complex negotations. Begala in particular said that these financial bailout and negotiations are not necessarily in McCain's expertise since he was on the Senate Armed Services committee and that if this was a question of troop levels in Iraq, McCain would certainly be in his element.

Both the candidates can be seen at the extreme left and right end of this picture with Bush and other key officials involved.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/25/political.risk/index.html

Still some would argue that  McCain must still go on with the debate not only because Obama has vowed to go on, but because a good leader would be able to handle both the debate and the aforementioned bailout talks.

McCain's move: Putting priorities or politics first?
Story Highlights
John McCain suspends campaign, says he won't go to debate without bailout deal

Democrats accuse him of looking for a distractions, injecting politics into bailout

McCain says most important debate is the one on Capitol Hill

Voters tell CNN they want the debate to go on

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign is being played by Democrats as a desperate ploy from a campaign in decline and by Republicans as a courageous move to rescue the economy.

The Arizona senator said he won't show up for Friday's presidential debate if no deal is reached on the government's $700 billion bailout proposal, leading Democrats to accuse him of looking for a distraction.

"I think it shows that John McCain is becoming increasingly desperate in his campaign," said Keith Boykin, a Democratic strategist and host of BET's "My Two Cents."

"It's an indication that John McCain shoots from the hip -- or more likely shoots from the lip -- every time he speaks, and he's not a guy who's got the judgment to make decisions," he said.

Conservative writer Matt Lewis called the notion that McCain is afraid to debate "laughable."

"Everybody knows that John McCain is very, very good at actually taking tough questions. I think what we have seen here today and yesterday, though, is an example of a statesmen," he said. "I think it's ludicrous to say that by wanting to put politics aside, John McCain is somehow injecting politics into the debate."

Democratic candidate Barack Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday accused the Republicans of looking for a "distraction."

"They don't want to debate the issues with us," he said Thursday in Louisville, Kentucky. "They don't want to debate the issues ... because they know they really literally don't have a political leg to stand on."

McCain said Thursday that Washington needs "all hands on deck" to work on the government's proposed $700 billion bailout plan.

"I cannot carry on a campaign as though this dangerous situation had not occurred, or as though a solution were at hand, which it clearly is not," McCain said in New York. "With so much on the line, for America and the world, the debate that matters most right now is taking place in the United States Capitol. I intend to join it."

Democrats have also implied that McCain is trying to buy more time for vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. McCain suggested having the presidential debate take the place of next Thursday's vice presidential debate, and moving that one to a later date.

But Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, called McCain's decision to suspend his campaign the "greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate."

"It is surprisingly irresponsible and politically dangerous for the Obama campaign to try and insist on a debate Friday night," he said.

McCain says he does not think the bailout proposal will pass as is, and he is returning to Washington to push what he sees as "fundamental improvements" to the legislation.

Obama's campaign says they can take care of the bailout proposal and still hold the first presidential debate, scheduled to take place Friday in Oxford, Mississippi.

The University of Mississippi, which is hosting the debate, has already invested millions in preparing for it.

"I think we can do both of these things at the same time. The next president is going to face multiple crises on the same day," Robert Gibbs, Obama's top adviser, said on CNN's "American Morning."

"We've got a presidential debate scheduled. We've got a stage. We'll have an audience. My guess is we'll have a moderator and at least one of the presidential candidates," Gibbs said.

But considering that Obama and McCain are senators, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan said both candidates should focus on the bailout plan because it's their job.

"They should be doing their job, especially at a time of crises when their vote, when their leadership could really make a difference in this bill," she said. "These fellows are the senators. It is their responsibility. It's what we pay them to do."

Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist, said the debate is the most important thing the candidates could do right now.

"It's preposterous that we can't have a presidential debate in the middle of this economic crisis. We had a presidential campaign in 1864, when Sherman was marching on Atlanta. We had a presidential election in 1944, when D-Day was going on in Normandy," he said. "We can have a debate on Friday. In fact, it's probably the most important thing McCain and them could be doing, would be to debate the issues."
I-Reporters told CNN that no matter what, they want to see the debate go on.

Len Parks, an independent from Stockbridge, Georgia, said he liked both candidates, but now he will probably vote for Obama.

"It made no sense to me for him to suspend his campaign. I think he's kind of grandstanding here," Parks said.

Democrat Dereck Blackburn called canceling the debate a "political stunt."

"It's very disrespectful to the elections process and disrespectful to everyone who is involved," said Blackburn, who is from Manayunk, Pennsylvania.

And Republican Katy Brown, from Kent, Ohio, said in this situation, McCain needs to take Obama's advice.

"I want to see John McCain show up, I know he's trying to do his best, and I know it's his duty to be there for this vote on the economy and the $700 billion bailout. But he also needs to be there (at the debate) because Americans need to hear from him," she said. "So hopefully this doesn't hurt him, hopefully he takes Obama's advice and multitasks and shows up."

Alan Silverleib, CNN's senior political researcher, said only time will tell how McCain's political gamble will play out.

"What is going on here is that John McCain has been in a rut the last couple of weeks ever since this economic crisis broke. It plays to the economic advantage that Democrats have in this campaign," he said, noting that polls show that more people think Obama would do a better job handling an economic crisis than McCain.

Obama has been on a steady rise in national polls this past week. According to CNN's latest poll of polls, he now leads McCain by 4 percentage points.

"The Democrats, of course, are very afraid that McCain is going to swoop into these delicate negotiations on Capitol at last minute and when they reach an agreement, he's going to claim credit for having brought those negotiations to a successful conclusion," Silverleib said.