I hope your effort to institute socialilsm fails, too.
In fact, I hope it fails even more than Rush does!
By the way, all of you – my show is the Northern Alliance Radio Network, Volume II, heard every Saturday from 1-3PM Central on AM1280 in the Twin Cities, or at Town Hall for podcasts.
No, really. Fail fail fail. Not you, Mr. President, personally, but your policies, yes. Definitely.
Feel free to sic your dogs on Ed and I. Really. Please hop to it!
One side effect of the Democratic campaign against Rush Limbaugh has been to increase — dramatically increase — the talk show host’s ratings.
This morning I asked Rush if he had any numbers he could share on just what effect the increased visibility has had on his business. This is his response:
The latest numbers I have are for January, well before this kerfuffle began, and they are through the roof — six shares in NY, for example. There are daily ratings taken now in about the top 15 markets but I have not seen them yet. All I can tell you is that as of January, we booked 80 percent of all our 2008 revenue and we’ll be over 2008 by the end of this month.
Given those numbers, it’s clear that the most decisive economic stimulus produced by the Obama administration so far has been at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Socialism bad!
You’re Nancy Pelosi’s lapdog!
You’re destroying the market!
Who the hell does Michelle’s hair? T
hat should give you and your staff plenty to respond to. Please see to this. Thanks.
Enjoy your airtime while you can:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44588
When the DJIA drops to 4k the Obama’s will make a lot of noise about trying former Bush administration officials for . . . something. Show trials are a traditional socialist means of distracting the masses from the misery they see unfolding around them.
This will be followed by high profile prosecutions of the least sympathetic tax cheats they can find or create, presided over by Geithner.
Welcome to the Scouring of the Shire.
This evil slander against Our President will not go unnoticed. The Senate needs to move quickly to protect the public from poisonous blogs like this one.
Your day will come, Berg….
“CNS News”?? Ha, ha, that’s a good one Terry, I didn’t know the Obama birthers had their own news service.
Mitch, you personally didnt’ call dissenters traitors, but you raised little voice in objection to those who did (namely Limbaugh) – thereby giving him/them tacit approval to engage in totalitarian state tactics.
I don’t support squelching you, and clearly Obama didn’t try to squelch Limbaugh except through public pressure, but I will call him a hypocrite, because he NEVER said it was ok for the Democrats to dissent, but now he wants to use the rights he would have gladly denied them.
Tongue in cheek now – You don’t understand the meaning of the word socialism, clearly, as you seem to not understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy.
Tongue no longer in cheek – Mitch, the laizez faire (sic) policies of unrestrained capitalism directed and at the behest of corporate captains has failed – it is not surprising this is the last bastion of that unbridled policy of selfishness, but it has failed, not Barack Obama, who’s been in office 45 days, but rather the policies of Ronald Reagan have failed, the policies of Alan Keyes, of the Project for a New American Century, all of which were predicated upon the right of rich and priveleged people to prey upon the less power, they have all failed, and failed utterly. Conservatism merely is the new name for narcism, for hedonism, for piggish selfishness – and it is the name for economic catastrophe. This catastrophe is ‘yours’ not his.
Mitch, you personally didnt’ call dissenters traitors, but you raised little voice in objection to those who did (namely Limbaugh) – thereby giving him/them tacit approval to engage in totalitarian state tactics.
a) Saying “you did little to oppose…” (whatever you think should be opposed) is a game nobody can possibly win.
b) Please cite Limbaugh saying anything of the sort.
c) Totalitarian tactics?
I will call him a hypocrite, because he NEVER said it was ok for the Democrats to dissent, but now he wants to use the rights he would have gladly denied them.
a) Limbaugh doesn’t need to say it’s “OK” for anyone to dissent, because:
a1) the right is endowed us by our creator, and
a2) they control the mainstream media; they have all the freedom
they need.
b) Please supply cites of Limbaugh calling for Democrats to have their rights denied, gladly or not.
I’m asking because it never happened.
Tongue in cheek now – You don’t understand the meaning of the word socialism, clearly, as you seem to not understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy.
Tongue in nose…
…well, I just felt like saying that.
Tongue no longer in cheek – Mitch, the laizez faire (sic) policies of unrestrained capitalism directed and at the behest of corporate captains has failed – it is not surprising this is the last bastion of that unbridled policy of selfishness, but it has failed, not Barack Obama, who’s been in office 45 days, but rather the policies of Ronald Reagan have failed, the policies of Alan Keyes, of the Project for a New American Century, all of which were predicated upon the right of rich and priveleged people to prey upon the less power, they have all failed, and failed utterly. Conservatism merely is the new name for narcism, for hedonism, for piggish selfishness – and it is the name for economic catastrophe. This catastrophe is ‘yours’ not his.
I’ll rely on history to prove me right.
It usually does.
Tim in StP-
You are moron, but that goes without saying. The full text of the bill is here:http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s160/text
Peev-
the laizez faire (sic) policies of unrestrained capitalism directed and at the behest of corporate captains has failed
Mortgages and securities are highly regulated. These regulations only exist to defeat free market forces. By definition any regulated transaction is not a free market transaction. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Conservatism merely is the new name for narcism, for hedonism, for piggish selfishness
Only a liberal can believe that taking the money someone else has worked for and spending it the way you want is an unselfish act.
Project for a New American Century
Next peev will be peppering his comments with quotes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Peni,
How exactly is it, that you can look at a guy making $250,000+ a year & say “you have too much” & not consider that narcissism? How can you vote for a government that takes that guy’s money to “level the playing field” & not call that greed? How can you go to the government and demand that you get a piece of that guy’s money & not call it piggish selfishness? How can you combine all these & not call it jealousy?
The market crashes are directly related to Obama. He won the election, next day, biggest post election drop in history. He’s inaugurated, biggest inauguration day drop in history. He announces his stimu-less plan, huge market drop. He announces his housing plan, big drop. He announces his bank plan, big drop. He starts talking about “fixing” the health care system, big drop. In all the market has lost 3000 points directly related to Obama. Someone with a brain might start thinking that there is far more than mere correlation going on here.
None of this should be a surprise to an honest student of history. This is exactly what happened throughout the great depression. Market would drop with each & every new plan FDR came up with. Those plans caused uncertainty & distrust in the intentions of the administration, which kept people from investing, creating REAL jobs, & recovering from the malaise. One might say, FDR didn’t let his crisis go to waste.
Well the Protocols are based on Hammurabi, after all…
Peni & Timmy,
Maybe you’d like a glimpse into the genius that is OBAMA?
http://www.businessinsider.com/uh-oh-white-house-seeks-economic-advice-from-twitter-2009-3
Conservatism merely is the new name for narcism (sic), for hedonism, for piggish selfishness
Peev, I normally try to be civil but when in Rome……
Anyhow, you’re a friggin’ moron. You wanna talk selfishness you ass? It has been statistically proven that those who identify themselves as conservatives give a much higher percentage of their incomes to charity than do liberals.
In fact, President Obama only gave an average of 1% of his Adjusted Gross Income to charity from 2000-2004. But then he was elected to the U.S. Senate (and contemplated running for President) so he upped that to a whopping 5%. Then during the campaign he had the temerity to tell people like us who actually want to keep more of our hard-earned money that we’re making a virtue out of selfishness. My wife and I (and people like us) consistently give 10-12% of our AGI to charity to you can see why we might take exception to Obama’s shameless demagoguery.
AGI to charity to you can see why we might take exception to Obama’s shameless demagoguery.
Should have been: so you can see why we might take exception to Obama’s shameless demagoguery.
Wow. Being disinclined to read to the bottom of a Peev comment I missed narcism, for hedonism, for piggish selfishness which is self-referntial comedy if ever I read such. But there is bad news for Peev from the “reality-based community”. This catastrophe is ‘yours’ not his.
Wrong. It’s all his now, and he is doing a spectacularly bad job of addressing it.
Terry says
“Mortgages and securities are highly regulated. These regulations only exist to defeat free market forces. By definition any regulated transaction is not a free market transaction. You have no idea what you are talking about.”
Mortgages and securities are not effectively regulated, the worst of the ineffectual aspect being in the enforcement. I think the comments of the guy who tried, repeatedly for a period of years, to blow the whistle on Madoff is a pretty good illustration of that weakness (see last week’s 60 Minutes on CBS). Hedge funds are not well regulated, and the Derivatives market sure as heck is not regulated. Had they been well regulated – in the sense of having rules, and enforcement to go with them – we would not be in the position we are economically.
Not unlike the problems back in the day with Enron, there are substantial problems with the non-regulatory entitities that were supposed to keep people honest. Had the securitized mortgages not gotten bogus ratings, they would never have been sold the way they were. Had a variety of practices been scrutinized by someone empowered to keep business honest, we would not be in the position we are in. I fully expect that we will see more instances of outright criminal activity, a la Madoff, Stanford, and Petters, as our financial crises unfolds. The financial sector needs effective policemen to keep business honest; deregulation that takes away that police function doesn’t work – as observed during recent congressional hearings.
Canada enacted similar regulation to that in the US in the 1930’s era. Unlike the US, Canada kept most of their regulations intact, and their banks are ranked #1 in the world. They are somewhat affected by the current world crisis – but not to as severe an extent. The banking industry in those countries abiding by Islamic guidelines are not having any comparative crises; some of their ideas and practices are worth looking at for future guidelines and regulation. I certainly applaud other moves by Obama, like revoking the no-bid contracts without any oversight or accountability. While I agree in theory with the concept that the private market CAN, SOMETIMES do a better job than government, without REGULATION, and OVERSIGHT, and accountability, it is simply providing the private sector with an unlimited opportunity to steal.
There is plenty of big money sitting on the sidelines watching the markets. My guess, they’ll be swooping in to start buying somewhere between 4,500 and 5,500 on the DJIA. In any case, I was brought up on the notion that the markets attempt to anticipate events about six months out, not react to day to day developments (with rare exceptions, sometimes called Black Swan events).
There is a rule of thumb in real estate, first in first out. Meaning recovery occurs in approximately the same order that the economy tanks. Florida was one of the first and worst to have the real estate bubble burst; and there are signs that some of those areas in Florida that were ‘first’ are starting to turn around, starting to recover. I don’t think we are going to recover quickly, and I certainly think there are some things that could be done better, but overall – I do think things are going to improve in the latter part of ’09, probably much more so in ’10.
In any case, correlation is not proof of causation, which is by way of observing that there are many factors in play, the least of which I believe to be Obama’s first month and a half in office.
Dog gone, it is clear that mortgage securities, CDS, etc were not well-regulated, or, as you say, we wouldn’t be in this mess. I object to peev’s constant cry of ‘unbridled free-enterprise’ as being the fault of every ill in the world. An “improperly regulated securities market” requires some adjustments to the regulatory structure. This country has had nothing like an unregulated free market in financial instruments (other than bags of weed & cocaine) in a very long time.
Dog Gone, let me revise and extend my remarks. Mostly directed at peev but towards your comment as well.
The new sheriff in town (Obama) has done nothing to increase oversight of the securities market — other than pseudo-nationalize failing institutions (neither did Bush). The man now in charge of treasury is a confessed tax cheat.
The proper solution to a poorly or under regulated securities and banking industry would be to reform or enforce existing regulations. Obama’s solution is to socialize the economy for partisan ends.
Terry, I agree with you completely that we have a need for increased oversight in regulating our financial institutions.
I think further we need to have Pecorra style investigation into what has taken place to make sure we make the right revisions to regulation.
I cringe every time I hear objections to regulation of the financial institutions because frankly, GOOD regulation doesn’t impair growith, it is the framework for healthier growth. It makes the playing field even for those who should be getting ahead through hard work and merit. Something we have not had for awhile now, certainly not during the last eight years, but in some ways further back in time than that.
While Obama hasn’t done anything about fixing regulation so far, it’s early days yet. Time will tell.
We may be miles apart geographically (Hawaii – I’m so jealous!) but perhaps not so far apart on-topic…
I am afraid, Dog gone, that congressmen have their fingers so deep in Wall Street money that we’d never get any kind of honest investigation or reform. If anyone could have done this is more likely to be McCain than Obama. There is no evidence that Obama is personally corrupt, but he had no problem swimming like a fish in the sea of corruption that is Chicago & Illinois politics.
Personally I would like to see reform towards greater openness, especially a gauge of real financial risk.
The problem is that risky investments schemes succeed, long enough for insiders & early investors to make lots of money, when they are able to convince buyers that they are less risky than they really are.