The Fireside chat for March 21, 2009

"The buck stops with me"... (VIDEO)

The President on the White House lawn as he prepares to go to California...

The best part about his statement today was the fact that the President gave a wonderfully easy-to-understand explanation of why saving AIG is as important as it is.  (About 11:32 into the video).

If you ever hear a Conservative say that we should just let AIG fail, remember this quote.

Last year when the Federal Reserve decided to step in, again, that wasn’t a decision that we made but I actually think it was the right decision. AIG had insured a whole bunch of losses for a whole bunch of banks that had made bad bets on subprime loans and mortgages that had been packaged and bundled up and made into securities. These were massive insurance policies. Unfortunately, because of a lack of regulation, they were able to issue far more insurance policies than they could pay out on these various instruments that these banks had issued.

And had AIG been allowed to simply liquidate and go bankrupt, all those banks who were counterparties with AIG would have experienced such big losses that it would have threatened the entire financial system.

The complete transcript is at CQ.

Ben Shalom Bernanke (VIDEO)

The President sooo told him to do this.

A year in the making? Humanizing the Fed Chair? He's from Dillon, freakin' South Carolina?? His family business was once located on Main Street in Dillon? How, if you're our President, do you not promote that??

By the way, that's not a joke, or a dig. That's the man's name, Benjamin Shalom Bernanke.

Couple this with Geithner's recent (and I think successful) appearance on Charlie Rose, and this appears to be a coordinated effort by the Federal Government to tell America, "Hey, we hear you. You're pissed. We get it. We got this."

Here's Part 1:



And Part 2:

The Fireside chat for March 14, 2009

Jon Stewart's Finest Hour (VIDEO)

This was possibly, the most amazing thing Jon Stewart has ever done.

I mean, Stewart kicked the @#$% out of him.

Not that he gave Jim Cramer much of a chance to answer for himself, that really wasn't the point. What Jon did here was give voice to the public's anger, rage and frustration. He finally got one of the b@#%ds in his cross-hairs, and didn't let up on him.

Of course the truly, truly sad part is...after a week of this controversy, after the very public dressing down a comedian gave to one of their own, the chances that Wall Street is going to listen and change their ways is damn close to zero.

That means the President is going to have to change their ways for them.

The Intro

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Intro - Brawl Street: Get Ready to Buy Low! And Sell Die

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Part 1 (Unedited)

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Part 2 (Unedited)

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Part 3 (Unedited)

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

President Obama's Speech before the Business Roundtable (VIDEO)

This is the President's complete speech before top executives of the Business Roundtable.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Timothy Geithner with Charlie Rose (VIDEO)

This the complete interview, in case you missed it (like I did), or forgot to TiVo it (like I did).

Chicken Littles...

Ahhh, Krugman back to his normal self...

What he warns of is a possibility, but I would like to at least get to 2009 before the panic sets in.

"Your Bank has failed"... (VIDEO)

...now what do you do?

It's time to highlight the importance of regulation; the effort to keep markets healthy and the financial system working. This was an effort largely abandoned by the previous Administration, due to a slavish devotion to an ideology based on unrestricted markets, and laissez faire capitalism.

We see where this has gotten us.

In the coming months, there is a possibility that your bank, whereever you may live, no matter how big or strong you think it may be, may fail. What do you do then?

If it's FDIC Insured...you do nothing.  You don't have to.  If you have under $250,000 in deposits, your money is safe.

Here's last night's 60 Minutes piece to show you why.


Watch CBS Videos Online

The Fireside chat for March 7, 2009

The first time using the White House's new Video system.  Sorry I'm late, and fingers crossed.

UPDATE (March 9, 2009.  7:50pm, Pacific): Because of my own (and Dad's) complaints about the speed of the video feed, we are goin' back to YouTube, privacy issues be damned.  It's all about the speed, baby.

When Krugman's right...

Sometimes criticism of the Administration is fair, and in the case of the latest from Paul Krugman on the "dithering" about the Bank Plan...it's more than fair.

The difference with this column is that instead of Krugman just telling you its a bad idea, ignorant of the political "facts on the ground". He takes the time to explain what's happening, and why (even though they're guesses).

Vicious...Vicious...Vicious... (VIDEO)

Possibly the most vicious, most evil...and thus funniest moment in the Daily Show's history.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

From Russia with Nyet...

I guess a Missile Shield is going into Poland after all...

Russia would be willing to discuss a new missile defense structure with the United States but sees Iran's nuclear program as a separate issue, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday.

Asked about a report in the New York Times that U.S. President Barack Obama had written to him offering to back off deploying a new missile system in Eastern Europe in return for help with the Iranians, Medvedev said signals from Washington were positive but the two issues were separate.

"If we are talking about any "swaps" (Iran for missile defense), this is not how the question is being put. This would not be productive," Medvedev told a news conference in Madrid, where he was on a state visit.

But he added: "If the new (U.S.) administration shows common sense and offers a new (missile defense) structure which would satisfy European (needs) ... and would be acceptable for us, we are ready to discuss it."

"I count on positive signals we are now receiving from Washington translating into agreements," Medvedev said.

I didn't appreciate the common sense crack.

The New York Times put it a little less harshly:

On Tuesday, President Dmitri A. Medvedev offered a measured response, saying that the Kremlin was “working very closely with our U.S. colleagues on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program,” but not in the context of the American missile defense plan.

“No one links these issues to any exchange, especially on the Iran issue,” Interfax reported that Mr. Medvedev said at a news conference in Madrid, where he was visiting to boost economic and political ties.

Uhh...we just did.

Listen, we've put it as plainly as we can put it. I am no fan of the Missile Shield, because in the end any WMD that's sent our way is going to be an Al-Queda suitcase bomb, something a missile shield can't stop. At the same time, I would like to remind our Russian (cough) friends, that the Missile Shield isn't targeting them, it's for Iran, more than likely in the event they try to strike Israel. We're just saying help us make sure Iran doesn't get the bomb, and we don't need a dang missile shield.

But at the same time, the article says that the letter hasn't been recieved yet, and thus...it hasn't been answered yet. You could assume this is posturing on the part of Putin---errrr, sorry, I meant Medvedev, Medvedev!

One-hundred egos...

Once again, a scumbag Senator is holding up not just one, but two of the President's nominees, this time in the field of science: John Holdren, who is in line to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, Obama's nominee to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

We should rise up, tar and feather the dirtbag Republican Senator who--

Excuse me, what was that?

It's a Democrat who's holding up the nominations?

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has placed a "hold" that blocks votes on confirming Harvard University physicist John Holdren, who is in line to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, Obama's nominee to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. According to sources who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the matter, Menendez is using the holds as leverage to get Senate leaders' attention for a matter related to Cuba rather than questioning the nominees' credentials.

Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said of Menendez's objections, "We will work to try to address any concerns that he may have."

This is a slightly personal matter to me, as I met Dr. Holdren when he presented an award to my dear old Dad in 2007.

Needless to say, despite the fact that this situation is being driven by an allegedly fellow Democrat, my assessment of the situation is no less harsh.

Mr. Menendez:

You barely won re-election, and maybe the reason it was so close because of narrow-ass bull@$# thinking like this.  So shut up, drop the hold or get nothing from this President ever again in the future, because Obama's carrying New Jersey in 2012 with or without you.

The power of talking?

Last month, I wrote:

Our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added an interesting litle kicker. "Gee, of course, if we had help with the Iran-going-nuclear-problem, it'd make this whole missile shield thing go away even faster."

I figured this was a big Valentine's Day card to the Russians.

Looks like I may have been right.

Well, according to the New York Times, it went a little further than a hint in Reuters:

President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

Moscow has not responded to the letter that was hand-delivered to President Dmitri A. Medvedev, above, three weeks ago.

The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

This officially falls into the let's take what we can get category.  I'm far more worried about Iran's potential nukes than Russia's current ones.  If we can get them to help us apply pressure, even a bilateral demand for IAEA inspection, good things can start happening.

"A new regulatory framework" (VIDEO)

President Barack Obama. February 24th, 2009:

"So I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary. Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession. And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse."

I imagine a good place to start would be the SEC, where...if this story from 60 Minutes is correct, the SEC Regulators are Lawyers with no experience in the fields they are regulating, and tend to come in after the bank's been robbed to assign blame and explain what happened.

I know for a lot of people (myself included) just seeing or reading the words high finance will make your eyes glaze over.  But in case you haven't heard, the laughably poor standards of the Bush Administration paled in comparison to his SEC.

We need to do better.

If you ever need to remember why regulation of Financial Markets is vital and important, just watch this 14 minute piece from 60 Minutes.

The Fireside chat for February 28, 2009

Uhhh, bring it on??

I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

So am I.

NYT: Krugman's Happy Again...

In fact, he's overjoyed.  This is the closest I've seen him...actually, read him dancing in the streets.

From this morning's New York Times:

Elections have consequences. President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.

The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.

And about the deficit?

Many will ask whether Mr. Obama can actually pull off the deficit reduction he promises. Can he actually reduce the red ink from $1.75 trillion this year to less than a third as much in 2013? Yes, he can.

Right now the deficit is huge thanks to temporary factors (at least we hope they’re temporary): a severe economic slump is depressing revenues and large sums have to be allocated both to fiscal stimulus and to financial rescues.

But if and when the crisis passes, the budget picture should improve dramatically. Bear in mind that from 2005 to 2007, that is, in the three years before the crisis, the federal deficit averaged only $243 billion a year. Now, during those years, revenues were inflated, to some degree, by the housing bubble. But it’s also true that we were spending more than $100 billion a year in Iraq.

So if Mr. Obama gets us out of Iraq (without bogging us down in an equally expensive Afghan quagmire) and manages to engineer a solid economic recovery — two big ifs, to be sure — getting the deficit down to around $500 billion by 2013 shouldn’t be at all difficult.

NYT: Nationalizing my Credit Card...

The Wall Street Journal said it first.  Now, the New York Times now confirms.  The U.S. Government is taking over 30-40% of Citigroup.  The CEO can stay.  The Board has to go.

It all depends on what your definition of "Residual Force" is...

So, it's finally going to happen.

As I am typing this, on (Thursday evening, February 26, 2009) President Barack Obama is preparing to give an address at Camp Lejune, North Carolina where he will announce the end of the Iraq War.

Praise be Jesus!

Now, the plan has had a few changes. Instead of the 16 month withdrawal plan he campaigned on, he is now talking a 19 month withdrawal plan.

As much as I want the War over with (and over with yesterday), I can live with 90 extra days. I'm not certain some soldiers can, but if this is what he's gotta do...

Even Republicans are on board with this plan, including gasp, shock and horror, one John Sidney McCain.

And that's where the world goes all topsy-turvy. Because, while Republicans are signaling "thumbs up" for the plan, Democrats are signaling a definite thumbs-down.

"I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated," Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the pullout "has to be done responsibly, we all agree. But 50,000 is more than I would have thought, and we await the justification."

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) echoed his worries, saying: "I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can." Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) issued a statement saying he is "concerned" about the level of troops that would remain in Iraq.

Nancy Pelosi's was on with Rachel Maddow, and said it flat out, she's not cool with the idea of leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq.

So, what are we talking here?  Nancy and the Senators all seem to be objecting to the size of the force.  They also seem a little put-off by the notion of a residual force in the first place.

You're kidding me, right?

I have to ask a question.  Back in 2008, when the candidate was speaking, was anybody freakin' listening?!?

From a July 14, 2008 Op-Editorial, written by one...Barack Obama (which is basically his standard stump speech on Iraq in newspaper form):

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

So, what did everyone miss?

I guess I get annoyed with the idea of a candidate actually saying something, and his fellow politicians (along with a heapin' helpin' of voters) all getting together and saying "Yeah, he said that, but he's really not going to do that, is he??"

Well, yeah.  Apparently so.