About mell


Befriend (8)
366 threads
Followed by 5
Following 0
Ignored by 5
Ignoring 2
Ignore mell
Registered May 09, 2012

mell's most recent comments:

  • On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, 8:22am PDT in Are people really this naive?, mell said:

    Greed - It all comes back either to Zionists or Austrian-born Republican free-masons.

  • On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, 7:28pm PDT in The Bush Family Goes 'All In' For Number Three (With The Help Of Its Bankers), mell said:

    Goldman Trumps AIG

    Insurance goliath AIG stood at the epicenter of an increasingly interconnected financial world deluged with junky subprime assets wrapped up with derivatives. When rating agencies Fitch, S&P, and Moody’s downgraded the company’s credit worthiness on September 15, 2008, they catalyzed $85 billion worth of margin calls. If AIG couldn’t find that money, Paulson warned the president, the firm would not only fail, but “bring down major financial institutions and international investors with it.” According to Bush’s memoir , Paulson convinced him. “There was only one way to keep the firm alive,” he wrote. “The federal government would have to step in.”

    The main American recipients of AIG’s bailout would, in fact, be legacy Bush-allied firms: Goldman Sachs ($12.9 billion), Merrill Lynch ($6.8 billion), Bank of America ($5.2 billion), and Citigroup ($2.3 billion). Lehman crashed, but Merrill Lynch and AIG were saved. The bankers with the strongest alliances to the Bush family (and the White House in general) needed AIG to survive. And it did. But the bloodletting wasn’t over.

    On September 18, 2008, George W. would tell Paulson, “Let’s figure out the right thing to do and do it.” He would later write, “I had made up my mind: the U.S. government was going all in.” And he meant it. During his last months in office, the Big Six banks (and marginally other institutions) would thus be subsidized by an “all-in” program designed by Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner -- and later endorsed by President Barack Obama.

    The bankers’ unruliness had, however, already crippled the real economy. Over the next few months, Bank of America, Citigroup, and AIG all needed more assistance. And in that year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average would lose nearly half its value. At the height of the bailout period, $19.3 trillion in subsidies were made available to keep (mostly) American bankers going, as well as government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    As George W. headed back to Texas, the economy and markets went into free fall.

    The Money Behind Jeb

    Jump seven years ahead and, with the next Bush on the rise and the money once again flowing in, it’s still the age of bankers. Jeb already has three mega super PACs -- Millennials for Jeb, Right to Rise, and Vamos for Jeb 2016 -- under his belt. His Right to Rise Policy Solutions group, which, as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, is not even required to disclose the names of its donors, no less the size of their contributions, is lifting his contribution tally even higher. None of these groups have to adhere to contribution limits and the elite donors who contribute to them often prove highly influential. After all, that’s where the money really is. In the 2012 presidential election, the top 100 individual contributors to super PACs and their spouses represented just 1% of all donors, but gave a staggering 67% of the money.

    Of those, Republican billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, donated $92.8 million to conservative groups, largely through “outside donor groups” like super PACs that have no contribution limits. Texas billionaire banker mogul Harold Simmons and his wife, Annette, gave $26.9 million, and Texas billionaire homebuilder Robert Perry coughed up $23.95 million. Nebraska billionaire (and founder of the global discount brokerage TD Ameritrade) John Joe Ricketts dished out $13.05 million. Despite some early posturing around other candidates with fewer legacy ties, these heavy hitters could all end up behind Bush 45. Dynasties, after all, establish the sort of connections that lie in wait for the next moment of opportune mobilization.

    “All in for Jeb” is the mantra on Jeb’s official website and in a sense “all in,” especially when it comes to national bankers, has been something of a mantra for the Bush family for decades. With a nod to his two-term record as Florida governor, Jeb put it this way: “We will take command of our future once again in this country. I know we can fix this. Because I've done it.”

    Based on Bush family history, by “we” he effectively meant the family’s billionaire and millionaire donors and its cavalcade of friendly bankers. Topping that list, though as yet undeclared -- give him a minute -- sits Adelson, who is personally and ideologically close to George W. In April, the former president was paid a Clintonian speaking fee of $250,00 for a keynote talk before the Republican Jewish Coalition meeting at Adelson’s Las Vegas resort. While Adelson has expressed concerns about Jeb’s lack of hawkishness on Israel when compared to his brother, that in the end is unlikely to prove an impediment. Jeb is making sure of that. He recently told a gathering of wealthy New York donors that, when it came to Israel, his top adviser is his brother. (“If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it’s him.”)

    Let’s be clear. The Bush family is all in on Jeb and its traditional banking allies are not likely to be far behind. There is tradition, there are ties, there is a dynasty to protect. They are not planning to lose this election or leave the family with a mere two presidents to its name.

    The Wall Street crowd began rallying behind Jeb well before his candidacy was official. Private equity titan Henry Kravis hosted a 25-guest $100,000-per-head gathering at his Park Avenue abode in February, one of six events with the same entry fee. In March, Jeb had his first Goldman Sachs $5,000-per-person event at the Ritz Carlton in New York City, organized by Dina Powell, Goldman Sachs Foundation head and George W. Bush appointee for assistant secretary of state. A more exclusive $50,000 per head event was organized by Goldman Sachs exec, Jim Donovan, a key fundraiser and adviser for Mitt Romney who is now doing the same for Jeb.

    And then there’s the list of moneyed financiers with fat wallets still to get behind Jeb. New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who donated more than any other conservative in the 2014 election, has yet to swoop in. Given the alignment of his foreign financial policy views and the Bush family’s, however, it’s just a matter of time.

    With the latest total super PAC figures still to be disclosed, we do know that Jeb’s Right to Rise super PAC claims to have raised $17 million from the tri-state (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) area alone so far. Its head, Mike Murphy, referred to its donors in a call last week as “killers” he was about to “set loose.” He intimated that the July disclosures would give opponents “heart attacks.” Those are fighting words.

    Sure, all dynasties end, but don’t count on the Bush-Banker alliance going belly up any time soon. Things happen in this country when mountains of money begin to pile up. This time around, the Bush patriarchy will call in every chip. And know this: Wall Street will be going “all in” for this election, too. Jeb(!) and Hillary(!) will likely split that difference in the primaries, then duke it out in 2016. Along the way, every pretense of mixing it up with the little people will be matched by a million-dollar check to a super PAC. The cash thrown about in this election will be epic. It’s not the fate of two parties but of two dynasties that’s at stake.

  • On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, 7:13pm PDT in Supreme Court says Constitution gives gay people right to marry, mell said:

    curious2 says

    Ugh. They didn't redefine anything. Same-sex couples have been getting married for millenia, although the so-called "traditional" definition reflects the most common experience. Most people are right-handed and a "traditional" handshake connects the right hands of two people; some people are left-handed and there is no law precluding them from shaking hands with their left. Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) used his left hand, having injured his right arm during WWII. Two people shaking hands would still constitute a handshake, regardless of whether it involves two right hands or two left.

    Ok so you call it clarified or rectified then, and it case of the supreme court you are right since they mostly had and kept this position from the beginning, though other courts ruled differently.

    curious2 says

    You seem to misunderstand the consequences of the decision. Marriage was already a fundamental right. SCOTUS invalidated anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 (Clarence Thomas wouldn't be married to his Heritage Foundation consultant bride without that right), and subsequent decisions spanning decades recognized marriage as a fundamental right. A marriage license is not like a driver's license, which SCOTUS has called a privilege.

    That was what I was referring to, it was called a fundamental right back in that decision and that should have led to demand the government get out of the marriage license business, as well as any tax breaks and special rights or duties for couples. It doesn't matter much if a marriage license is easier to obtain than a driver's license, it still is granted by the government which could change the rules or qualifications any time. Of course such action could be appealed again before a court, but it may take time to undo damage and it could even be that the SCOTUS approves the changes. Voting is considered a right as well but it really currently isn't (though no license is necessary) since felons cannot vote. All I am saying is that (in my view) if you call something a right, one should be able to exercise it without government blessing and the government should not tack on special rights or duties to their blessing/license.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net