(Karen) That may be so, but one general rule about cost cutting is that you don't cut your salesmen, your revenue producers. Ideally they should pay for themselves many times over. Obviously, if you buy another company's product line, the existing sales force can rep it too, creating the efficiencies. They have too many revenue "producers" already. They can spare some. Especially if they have much less access than they used to or are in a market with heavy managed care coverage which limits rxs. The big pharma co's oversaturated the market. You don't need 3-4 people to sell the same product to the same places, esp if they don't let you in to begin with. In other businesses I might agree more. And yes, sometimes they do keep the reps from the company sucked up for a short time, only until everyone is trained on the new products or til they figure out where a market is even more oversaturated with reps. Re: $$ for research, unless you're one of the small companies betting the farm on one product to come to market (where they almost universally have to align themselves with a bigger company for marketing bodies), the big guys have more than enough $$ for many things. They make cuts to prop up share prices in the face of declining revenue from expected patent expirations, drugs selling less than expected or drugs taken off the market or slapped with the dreaded black box, plain and simple.

(Me) (where they almost universally have to align themselves with a bigger company for marketing bodies), Or hire a contract sales rep company to act as their own force (aka Rent-a-Reps ;-)).

Well, I broke out my book, The Truth About Drug Companies - How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It by Marcia Angell, MD, and turned to Chapter 3, How Much Does the Pharmaceutical Industry Really Spend on R&D? [Her italics] There's too much for me to quote right now, but any R&D costs that one reads about can be inflated by surreptitiously adding in various types costs that are actually marketing/promotional in nature (but not labeled as such) and by other various accounting "manipulations". Also, some R&D costs are tax deductible. Bottom line though, marketing costs are the bulk of pharma expenditures. There was a healthcare forum done through Times Talks (NYT) last Tues including the author above, but I accidentally bought theater tix for the same night and couldn't go.

Also, I have a book called The Big Fix - How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers (2003) by Katharine Greider. Chapter 3 is, You Say Profits, I Say R&D. Says essentially the same things in a little bit different way.

So go buy stocks in these companies, if you think they're making so much $$$ now. Roll off the floor...you're losing time ;-)

if you think they're making so much $$$ You're right...Merck's 32.74% '08 profit margin left them practically broke. Schering should be crying poverty with a 9.70% '08 profit margin. Though Merck's stock price is off almost 50% over 52 wks (down almost 2$ today) and Schering's actually up 2.44% over 52 wks. You'd have to pay me to buy stock now.

You'd have to pay me to buy stock now. Our Fearless Leader says not to hide your $$$under the mattress...buy, buy, buy.

I am buying, just not stocks. ;-)

Bigger apparently isn't better, as far as R&D goes anyway. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc2009039_020072.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story

(Dorine) They have too many revenue "producers" already. They can spare some. Not disputing that they may have too many salespeople, just that it isn't typically where one cuts costs. Also my main criticism is with buying another "big" pharma company for its product line - the short-term approach to increasing revenues. (Evelyn) Our Fearless Leader says not to hide your $$$under the mattress...buy, buy, buy. I would if I had any left. Bigger apparently isn't better, as far as R&D goes anyway. Told you. Cuts in "operations"! R&D is much better in small companies or offshoots of the biggies that are managed entirely as separate entities.

Obama, taking on unions, backs teacher merit pay By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON � President Barack Obama embraced merit pay for teachers Tuesday in spelling out a vision of education that will almost certainly alienate union backers. A strategy that ties teacher pay to student performance has for years been anathema to teachers' unions, a powerful force in the Democratic Party. These unions also are wary of charter schools, non-traditional educational systems that they believe also compete with traditional schools for tax dollars. Obama, however, also spoke favorably of charter schools, saying that where they work, they should be encouraged. He did acknowledge in his speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that his proposals could meet heavy resistance in the education establishment. "Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom," he said, delivering the first major education speech of his presidency. "Too many in the Republican Party have opposed new investments in early education, despite compelling evidence of its importance." [...] Sounds like socialism to me. ;-) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_education

DJIA up 379 points or more than 5 percent. Must mean that Wall Street loves Obama now. ;-)

Here you go, Dorine. You've talked about this idiocy before and it looks like the gravy train may be ending...finally! Obama budget chief firm on Medicare Advantage cuts By MATTHEW PERRONE WASHINGTON (AP) � President Obama's budget chief isn't sugarcoating his message to health insurance executives: the party is over. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said Tuesday the government will no longer overpay companies that offer Medicare Advantage plans, the privately run portion of the government health program for seniors. For more than 10 years, companies like Humana Inc. and UnitedHealth have defended their plans, pointing out they offer lower premiums and extra benefits compared with government-run Medicare. More than 10 million of the 44 million seniors in Medicare receive care through the plans. But Orszag reiterated what industry executives have long known: the government spends significantly more money on Medicare Advantage than its own plan. When private insurers first entered the Medicare program in the late 1990s, many lawmakers assumed companies would lower costs with their managed-care strategies. More than a decade later, though, the government spends about $1.30 on Medicare Advantage patients for each dollar it spends on patients in traditional Medicare, Orszag said, speaking at the America's Health Insurance Plans' annual conference. He added that the cost burden falls on taxpayers as well as patients in regular Medicare, who pay higher premiums. "I believe in competition. I don't believe in paying $1.30 to get a dollar," Orszag told conference attendees, including representatives from Aetna Inc., WellPoint Inc. and Cigna Corp. The group's president, Karen Ignagni, said insurers would offer alternative proposals for controlling Medicare costs and hoped the White House would consider them. Orszag's address came less than a week after President Obama kicked off his health reform effort with a massive summit at the White House. In his remarks to more than 100 health care experts and stakeholders, Obama said he is willing to compromise on details to reach his overall goal of improving care and covering more people. As one of the interest groups that helped derail the Clinton health reform effort in the early '90s, gaining health insurers' cooperation is critical. But Orszag showed little intention of compromising on the Medicare Advantage issue. In his previous job as director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Orszag frequently warned lawmakers that the ballooning cost of Medicare was among the greatest threats to the nation's long-term economic health. Under President Obama's recent budget proposal, Medicare Advantage companies would have to compete to offer their services in different parts of the country. The government payment for each region would be based on the average bid submitted by companies, saving $177 billion over 10 years, according to the White House. Under the existing system, payments are calculated annually using a preset formula. Worries about the plan have sent shares of health insurers nosediving over the past several weeks, as investors were concerned about the effect on the insurers' profitable Medicare Advantage business. Orszag reiterated Tuesday that the best chance to solve the country's current health care predicament is to eliminate billions of dollars worth of wasteful spending. He pointed out that different regions of the country spend vastly different sums on seniors in Medicare, without showing much difference in health outcomes. The budget director cited figures from researchers at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy, who for decades have documented unnecessary care in the U.S. Researchers there have estimated that about 30 percent of U.S. health care spending, or $700 billion, could be eliminated without hurting the quality of care. Orszag assured executives that insurers are not the only group being asked to change how they do business. As part of his economic stimulus package, Obama provided $1.1 billion in funding for research comparing the effectiveness of various medical treatments. By rewarding physicians for using the most efficient practices, the administration hopes to reduce health care costs. "We are pushing hard on changing incentives for providers so that we are rewarding better care and not more care," Orszag said. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hxSSKHYVRQGfWQ9E7uRh0GW7rvZgD96RC92O1

Speaking of the S word . . . and this guy is a Republican. LaHood Hits Back Hard Against Charges Of "Socialism," "Obama Recession" Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood hit back hard on Monday to charges from White House critics that President Barack Obama's economic policies -- focused on leveraging government spending to stimulate demand -- had exacerbated the recession and constituted a form of socialism. In an interview with the Huffington Post, LaHood, one of the few Republican members of the Obama administration, scoffed at the recent talking points emanating from the congressional leaders of his own party. His voice rising at times with emotion, the transportation czar tackled first the notion that the president was a socialist in disguise. "I don't agree with it," LaHood said. "If you go out and interview these people working on this road in Maryland... these people are thrilled. They are thrilled that they are working in March on a good paying job building roads, which is what they were trained to do. That's going to be happening all over America. So the idea that this is socialism -- it is not socialism, it is economic development. "It is going to provide an economic engine around communities all over American for jobs; good paying jobs; and help people pay their bills. I don't call that socialism.... We are the model for the world when it comes to infrastructure. We are the model for the interstate system. I don't call that socialism. Our $40 billion [for the Department of Transportation]: not socialism. It is good paying jobs that is going to drive the economies in a lot of states and a lot of communities." LaHood's comments come amidst a growing chorus of GOP critics claiming that Obama is engineering a government takeover of the nation's main economic organs. The theme has found its way into mainstream political dialogue as well. In an interview last week with the New York Times, Obama was asked bluntly whether he is a socialist. The president initially brushed the question off, then called the reporters back after the interview ended to supplement his response. "It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," Obama told the Times' scribes. "I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks." Perhaps more importantly, public opinion polls suggest that a large proportion of Americans are open both to additional stimulus spending as well as government intervention to revamp insolvent banks. Faced with these numbers, Republican strategists have deployed a separate strategy: portraying the president, with each passing day, as more and more responsible for the current crisis. Asked about this line of attack, replete with phrases like the "Obama recession," Secretary LaHood offered a similarly ardent rebuke. If blame is to be cast, he declared, it can only, at this point, lie with the previous White House. "This is not an Obama recession," he said. "He inherited all of this. He inherited a $1 trillion dollar debt. He inherited the recession. He inherited the lousy stock market. All of this was inherited. The guy has been in office a little over a month and what he has tried to do is listen to every economist he could listen to. And he put in place some opportunities to get people to work quickly through the transportation bill portion of it, to help the banks, and to help the real estate industry. And it is going to take time."

I am for Teacher Merit Pay. (Evelyn), BTW i think short- selling should be outlawed (Karen), Sounds like regulation to me or government interference in free markets. The easy way out would be to make it temporary, "In times of crisis" thing. I strongly agree that short-selling should be outlawed. It's a disservice to the country at a time of crisis, very unpatriotic. Now this theory on the Rush is new. Just blame Obama: Gingrich: Obama's Bipartisan Sham Sunday, March 8, 2009 Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a political maneuver orchestrated by the Obama White House to distract from its economic failures. It is "a deliberate strategy by the White House," to distract from the massive, $410 billion Congressional spending bill laden with 9,000 earmarks, Gingrich said. He specifically cited the "intense partisanship" of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel as the mastermind of the Limbaugh/GOP attack. Earlier in the week, Gingrich compared Emanuel to the dirty tricksters who ran the Nixon White House. "I think what they did with the whole Rush Limbaugh thing - they can't defend signing the 9,000 earmarks, they can't defend an energy-tax increase, they can't defend [Treasury Secretary Timothy F.] Geithner's failure to pay his income taxes, so they decide, 'Let's have a fight over Rush Limbaugh.' It is the exact opposite of what the president promised ... to focus on large things, not small things," Gingrich said. �The president promised to focus on large things, not small things; he promised to bring us together, not divide us,� Gingrich continued. �� It has to trouble you to have that level of intense partisanship as chief of staff if we're going to in fact come together as a country. And I just think either Emanuel's got to change, or the president's got to understand he is--he is going to have a very partisan regime.� Gingrich said that Limbaugh is not the head of the Republican Party; he�s a radio personality. �No, it's like saying does Chris Matthews help or hurt the Democratic Party? The fact is he has a large audience, he--the audience believes him, the audience calls their members, the audience has an effect,�� Gingrich said. �He's (Limbaugh) not the leader of the Republican party. And Michael Steele's one of the leaders. Bobby Jindal, who you had on recently, is one of the leaders. Sarah Palin's one of the leaders. Eric Cantor's a rising new leader. Paul Ryan's a--I mean, there are tons of leaders in the Republican Party. It is a deliberate strategy by the White House.� � 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

The stock market went up today because Citi group posted gains. Now let's get the stimulus package signed and start getting things back on track.

Fabulous about the managed Medicare plans, but I'll be cautiously optimistic that it won't work out better for the insurers in the end still. Obama was asked bluntly whether he is a socialist. The president initially brushed the question off, then called the reporters back after the interview ended to supplement his response. "It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," Obama told the Times' scribes. "I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks." *snort*

Must mean that Wall Street loves Obama now. ;-) They love Citi. And so do I. Now I'm waiting to love BOA;-) "The president initially brushed the question off, then called the reporters back" Thin skin. "Get over it." (Newt)�No, it's like saying does Chris Matthews help or hurt the Democratic Party" He's quoting me. 'cept I threw in Olberman and Maddow. I, too, am in favor of Merit Pay for Teachers. And school vouchers for DC schools.

Gingrich said that Limbaugh is not the head of the Republican Party; he�s a radio personality. Uh oh! Newt is going to have apologize like Michael Steele. They love Citi. You're going to have to make up your mind. When the market is down, they hate Obama and are afraid of him. But when it is up, it is because of a single stock, which (psssst) is partially owned by the govt now. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

I am for Teacher Merit Pay Merit pay for anybody is the antithesis of socialism.

Not sure why this is a "surprise" when I read last Thursday or Friday that a type of paperwork had been filed with the court that was highly indicative that he was going to plead guilty this Thursday. Maybe it was only in the NY papers. Madoff to plead guilty, could face up to 150 years By LARRY NEUMEISTER and TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writers 15 mins ago NEW YORK � In a courtroom surprise, it was revealed Tuesday that Bernard Madoff will plead guilty Thursday to securities fraud, perjury and other crimes, knowing that he could face up to 150 years in prison for one of the largest frauds in history. The revelation came as prosecutors unveiled an 11-count charging document against the 70-year-old former Nasdaq chairman, and as his lawyer, Ira Sorkin, told a judge that Madoff planned to plead guilty this week without a plea deal. [....] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_bi_ge/madoff_scandal

So explain to me how Citi bank can be turning an $8.3 Billion projected profit in the first quarter when they just had a very recent handout resulting in a 36% government stake. What did they need our help for then? And on short selling from the same article: "Reports also surfaced Tuesday that federal regulators are considering a proposal to reinstate the "uptick rule," which proponents say helps protect companies from excessive short-selling, when investors bet a stock will drop. The rule expired in 2007." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

I enjoyed this list... http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=18443

Officials: Afghanistan Taliban leader was at Gitmo AP http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gepueqQ9a2V5zxXES7DoGnVhSFHwD96REJ1G0 "He told the tribunal that he intended to return to a peaceful life in Afghanistan. "I want to go back home and join my family and work in my land and help my family," he said, according to a U.S. military transcript of the hearing" Aw, shucks...let 'em all go.

(Newt)Michael Steele's one of the leaders. Bobby Jindal, who you had on recently, is one of the leaders. Sarah Palin's one of the leaders. LOL! Steele, Jindal, Palin. The axis of drivel. I think calling Rush a Party leader is actually far less silly than calling O a socialist . . . or saying he pals around with terrorists.

(Dorine) So explain to me how Citi bank can be turning an $8.3 Billion projected profit in the first quarter (a) the market is willing to take anything, including an internal memo (i.e., unaudited) (b) the increase was in operating profit, before writedowns. Dum dum dum... These banks aren't having any problems generating operating profits.

A funny way to tell it like it is....:-) http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=992563&boardname=off&dt=2&boardid=2

I toyed with the idea a while ago of going to this, but in the end I decided it was more $$ than I wanted to spend on someone who I see on TV everyweek with someone who'll be his guest eventually and in such a large hall. In a smaller place I might have rethought going. But I pointed out this quite amusing line to my officemates as my favorite: �Who put two wars on a credit card?� Maher asked. �There is this debt because George Bush spent money like a pimp with a week to live.� Coulter, Maher spar at Radio City Michael Calderone � Tue Mar 10, 9:29 am ET NEW YORK � Bill Maher couldn�t have asked for a better act to follow. Maher took the stage at the Radio City Music Hall Monday after Ann Coulter � with whom he�d spend the rest of the night debating � had held forth for 15 minutes on the sins of liberals. The applause for Maher was huge � exactly as one might expect in not-exactly-blood-red midtown Manhattan. �If we were having this debate in Springfield, Mo., it would be different,� Maher said. But even in mostly hostile territory, Coulter was no shrinking violet. When moderate Mark Halperin brought up Meghan McCain�s swipes of Coulter on The Daily Beast from earlier in the day � the daughter of the would-be president called her �offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time" � Coulter said it didn�t bother her. And Coulter dealt with the occasional boos while debating with Maher over stem cell research, Iraq and of course, the 44th president � all while delivering her own blows on everyone from Timothy Geithner to Nancy Reagan. Coulter began her remarks by noting that it was once OK for the media to mock a candidate�s middle name � as when James Danforth Quayle was the GOP�s VP candidate in 1988. �Doesn�t the middle name �Hussein� in a Democrat reinforce the impression of the Democrats being soft on Islamic terrorism?� Coulter said, adding that she finds it �hilarious� when Republicans toss it around. Coulter talked said liberals are always first to be offended � and are �masters of finger-waving indignation.� She didn�t hold back on the media, either. �Overnight, the media went from being watchdogs for the people to guard dogs for the government. That�s with the exception of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, who are lapdogs of the government,� she said. �Time magazine got the ball rolling by comparing Obama to Jesus Christ,� Coulter said moments later. �So I lost a bet: They do know who Jesus Christ is.� Coulter riffed on the media�s comparisons of Obama not only to Jesus, but also to Lincoln, asking: �Did Lincoln do blow mostly in high school or did he wait until college?� That�s where Maher picked up when he got his 15-minute shot. �To start off, George Bush did a lot more blow than Obama ever did,� Maher said. �Please don�t ruin the only thing I like about him.� Maher, the host of HBO�s �Real Time,� aimed at the other side � such as congressional Republican indignation about debt. �Who put two wars on a credit card?� Maher asked. �There is this debt because George Bush spent money like a pimp with a week to live.� Maher got applause for any shots at Bush, as when he mentioned Obama�s quoting of Voltaire � �no George W. Bush, that�s not a Harry Potter character.� He used the term �bimbo� to describe Bush, Quayle and Sarah Palin. And Maher attacked those who consider themselves �real Americans,� by claiming that �if it wasn�t for the two coasts, this country would have been sold off to China thirty years ago.� While Coulter criticized the MSNBC hosts, Maher took on Rush Limbaugh. �We all say crazy s--t when we�re high,� Maher said. �I think it�s interesting that he is now the undisputed leader of the Republican Party. It shows how clueless they are. They went looking for the future and they found radio.� Following the opening statement and remarks, Halperin sat down with both Coulter and Maher and began asking about Monday�s news that Obama had ended the Bush-imposed limits on embryonic stem cell research. That led to the two battling over Nancy Reagan, who has come out in support for Obama�s decision. �Nancy Reagan was so madly in love with Ronald Reagan,� Coulter said, �if you told her that we could bring Ronald Reagan back to life, cure Alzheimer�s by disemboweling everyone in this audience, she would say �do it.�� Maher: �So you�re saying Nancy Reagan, the patron saint of the Republican party ... � Coulter: �She�s not the patron saint of the Republican party.� Maher: �She�s somebody you revere. ... You�ve just said she�s bats--t crazy.� Coulter responded that it�s funny to see liberals � who once chided Reagan for following astrology � now trying to bring her into a science debate. �I never saw her as a seer of technology,� she added. The two went on to debate evolution, Iraq and whether Wall Street is full of liberal Democrats, as Coulter claimed. But even the two political opposites had something in common � that is, in addition to enjoying talking in front of a big audience and getting publicity. At one point, Halperin asked if the debaters thought Obama regretted any of Obama�s personnel appointments. Maher said he regrets Obama�s choice of Geithner, because, he said, the treasury secretary �sounds like he�s sh--ting in his pants.� �Do you think he inspires confidence, or you more in the pants thing?� Halperin asked Coulter. �No, I agree with Bill 100 percent on this,� she said. �We�ve reached consensus here,� Halperin declared. �You both think Tim Geithner�s doing a bad job. If you were Tim Geithner, and heard that Bill Maher and Ann Coulter both thought you were doing a bad job, would you say, 'Oh good� or �That�s a bad thing�?� And on that, there was one more point of agreement: Both Maher and Coulter said that a Cabinet secretary wouldn�t want their support. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090310/pl_politico/19830

(Ann)That�s with the exception of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, who are lapdogs of the government,� she said. More than just lapdogs.... As someone said: "And nightly they have multiple Obamagasms." As do many others......;-D (Bill Maher is appearing here next month...a few blocks away.) I see that he's appearing with Ann in Chicago tomorrow . Perhaps we'll get a report;-)

Bill's out your way for his standup act?

Coulter, Maher spar at Radio City I saw that on the marquee for the Chicago Theater when I was downtown on Sunday, during my "dinner break" ;-)

Timothy Geithner was on a Special Edition of Charlie Rose last night. Best presentation I've heard from him. Really,he should hire Charlie to field him questions every time. IMO all presentations need an "Everyman"; not the reporters at the daily White House briefing who often throw those gotcha questions which are embarassing to me. I know some of you might enjoy them, but I don't . It demeans the profession IMO. (And while I'm speaking of the "professional behavior"...see my next post.) I hope you can catch last night's program. While I didn't agree with the premise of everything he said, I can see how he is connecting the dots. His courteous non- snarky responses(which seems to be in style these days;-) had a lot of clarity and detail, w/o the attitude of "We won...cram it!";-) Being quoted this AM on the Business channels I can live with a lot of what he said. 'sides...He's the Only Show in Town;-)LOL

From SALON. COM Heads should roll President Obama's clumsy, smirky staff is sinking him -- and resurrecting a deflated GOP! Plus: Lay off Rush! And a Brazilian diva, up close and electric By Camille Paglia Mar. 11, 2009 | Free Barack! Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship. Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!) First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair? And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years. President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism. Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants. Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base. If Rush's presence looms too large for the political landscape, it's because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn't responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years. And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. I was deeply upset, for example, by the sneering tone both Rush and Sean Hannity took on Inauguration Day, when partisan politics should have been set aside for a unifying celebration of American government and history. Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way. President Obama should yank the reins and get his staff's noses out of slash-and-burn petty politics. His own dignity and prestige are on the line. If he wants a second term, he needs to project a calmer perspective about the eternal reality of vociferous opposition, which is built into our democratic system. Right now, the White House is starting to look like Raphael's scathing portrait of a pampered, passive Pope Leo X and his materialistic cardinals -- one of the first examples of an artist sending a secret, sardonic message to posterity. Do those shifty, beady-eyed guys needing a shave remind you of anyone? Yes, it's bare-knuckles Chicago pugilism, transplanted to Washington. The charitably well-meaning but hopelessly extravagant Leo X, by the way, managed to mishandle the birth of the Protestant Reformation, which permanently split Christianity http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/print.html I do think they will gradually lose that "Chicago pugilism" (*in Lizzie mode*"as we see daily") and gradually acquire some good manners .

I've only skimmed the Paglia piece. Interesting. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream Does that include his being a drug-shopping Oxycontin/Vicodin addict who got away with a lesser sentence than he advocated at one time for similar people/situations?

It is "a deliberate strategy by the White House," to distract from the massive, $410 billion Congressional spending bill laden with 9,000 earmarks, Gingrich said. How hypocritical of Gingrich to speak of a bill that is "laden" with earmarks. The earmarks are about 1% of the total bill. Furthermore, 40% of the earmarks were requested by Republicans. Moreover, one senator, the Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) had $76 million of the earmarks! That's 14% of thr total for one guy. So let's not point fingers over who has what, Newt. Also, earmarks seem to have become a dirty word, but they're not all bad or a misuse. It's how congressional members get money out to their districts. As Jon Stewart says, "I get all excited over cheap populism." ;-)

Also, earmarks seem to have become a dirty word, but they're not all bad or a misuse. It's how congressional members get money out to their districts. But it doesn't mean that he approves. My district is getting a ton of money too, and I don't approve. "Taking advantage of a crisis".

It's only 1% of the budget, but it's received a disproportionate focus. Again, cheap populism. I'll have to trust Sen. McConnell et. al to spend it wisely.;-)

I don't care if it's .o5%..it's the principal. What's the percentage of infrastructure/jobs...I've heard everything from 15% to 45%. Both too low. And the rest?

Are you confusing it with the economic recovery act? Anyway, here's the appropriations bill that was signed today, i.e., the government's budget bill. If you click on each section, e.g., agriculture, health, etc., you can see what was in the 2008 budget vs. how much Bush requested for 2009, and how much was approved for 2009: http://appropriations.house.gov/

CABLE NEWS RACE TUES., MARCH 10, 2009 FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,212,000 FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,376,000 FOXNEWS BECK 2,331,000 FOXNEWS BAIER 2,274,000 FOXNEWS SHEP 2,044,000 FOXNEWS GRETA 1,965,000 CNN COOPER 1,214,000 CNN KING 1,185,000 MSNBC MADDOW 1,041,000 CNNHN GRACE 986,000 MSNBC OLBERMANN 928,000 ~~~~~~~~~~ Ha! Chris Matthews didn't even make it. I heard him debating (if you want to call it that) Ari Fleischer (*sigh*, handsomer than ever)tonight. What a clown. I only hope he gets dropped by NBC.

Rather timely in light of today's discussion: President Obama mocked the irony of earmarkers protesting earmarks (virtually all of them Republican): "I also find it ironic that some of those who rail most loudly against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own � and will tout them in their own states and their own districts." President Obama pointed out that Democrats were the ones to begin reforming the process: "In 2007, the new Democratic leadership in Congress began to address these abuses with a series of reforms that I was proud to have helped to write. We eliminated anonymous earmarks and created new measures of transparency in the process, so Americans can better follow how their tax dollars are being spent." And President Obama emphasized that not only did the earmark era flourish under the GOP, it concluded with indictments and convictions. "Any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts. The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we�ve already seen." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/11/144711/294/579/707247 (with video)

And while I think this is from last week, I think Evelyn is a secret poster there. ;-) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/6/13825/22156/520/705288

And this is interesting in talking about "types" of earmarks, good and bad. "I think we need a new term that applies to the GOP-type of earmark - special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. As opposed to the so-called "earmarks" of which the GOP complains now - transparent, useful and acutely needed to repair our schools, communities, infrastructure and manufacturing base. All earmarks are not created equal." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/2/221237/9111/866/703909

This might be a little more comprehensive explanation, but still the same as above. This guy's a better writer though. And it does touch on Mari's points today. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/27/1215/85012/281/702476 I'll be without a computer a good bit of tomorrow, so I figure this will keep you busy til I get back. ;-)

Don't you remember? I don't read Daily Kos links ; so I'll never know. "President Barack Obama said he will crack down on future spending for congressional pet projects before signing an �imperfect� $410 billion spending measure stuffed with thousands of them. " http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/awjntxtaagws;_ylt=AieknJjx77AD42iTQ4.7HMis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJkNDc3ZDZwBGFzc2V0A2Jsb29tYmVyZy8yMDA5MDMxMS9hd2pudHh0YWFnd3MEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFzaWduc3Nw Optimum word here:future If he's The Great Earmarks Enforcer Why didn't he veto the bill if it was so imperfect Hypocrisy, I say. "Do as I say......blah, blah"

And this goes to the discussion of tax cuts vs. no tax cuts to stimulate growth. I haven't read the pdf yet. Before the Bush Recession Supply Side Tax Cuts Failed to Deliver Jobs and Growth Between 2001 and 2007 SOURCE: AP/Ron Edmonds By Joshua Picker | February 23, 2009 Download this report (pdf) In his final days in office, President George W. Bush told the American Enterprise Institute: [T]he benefits of the tax cuts have been obscured by the recent economic crisis, no question about it. But when they finally take a look back at whether or not tax cuts were effective or not, it�s hard to argue against 52 uninterrupted months of job growth as a result of tax policy. And so my hope is, is that after this crisis passes�and it will�that people continue to write about and articulate a public policy of low taxes. This and other efforts of the �Bush Legacy Project� to rehabilitate the last administration�s job creation image and defend its tax cuts ignore the stark reality that the Bush administration�s tax policies fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades, and ignored alarming labor market trends in minority communities. This record of anemic job creation was accompanied by sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth that characterized the period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went into effect. Yet conservatives continue to argue for another round of permanent tax cuts similar to those of the Bush administration. Even if all of the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled, the projected cost of the Bush tax cuts to the federal budget over the next ten years is $3.9 trillion, an average of 1.4 percent of the country�s total economic activity (GDP) per year. Those asking for more permanent tax cuts continue to justify the cost, claiming tax cuts create jobs. But their analysis ignores what actually happened during the economic cycle that began in March 2001 and ended in December of 2007�which almost exactly coincides with the Bush presidency and the implementation of the Bush tax cuts. This period registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty. Given this incredibly weak record, it is astounding that some conservative members of Congress held up�and eventually voted against�the Obama administration�s economic stimulus and recovery package because it did not contain additional permanent tax cuts. The anemic Bush economic cycle directly contradicts the idea that those tax cuts delivered broad-based economic growth and job creation�never mind the promise of long-term economic growth so quickly squelched by the onset of the recession beginning in December 2007. This paper will examine the jobs, income and poverty legacy wrought by supply-side ideology over the course of the Bush presidency. This review is important not least because conservatives continue to pitch supply-side remedies as valid alternatives to the Obama recovery package amid a worsening recession. And beyond the economic recovery, the upcoming fiscal 2010 and 2011 federal budget debates will prominently feature questions about whether to extend some or all of the Bush tax cuts. The evidence in this paper demonstrates that conservative rhetoric about the job creation potential of supply-side tax cuts does not match up to the anemic Bush-era record. Download this report (pdf) http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/bush_recession.html

so I'll never know. I find that sad to limit yourself. Even I read everything, on both sides. I may not like it or agree, but I inform myself of what's being said anyway. It just makes what some people say about us correct IMO. I don't completely disagree with you on the hypocrisy and is noted by myself and others. (If you read the links, you'd know that) It's not the first time for him either.

Fight....it's a real fight!! Funny thing is, Limbaugh is most likely right on some of it anyway. Limbaugh Calls Gingrich A �Fly-By-Night Operator� Who �You Can�t Depend On� And �Will Sell You Out� This past Sunday on Meet the Press, former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich took a shot at Rush Limbaugh, saying that anyone who doesn�t want President Obama to succeed is �irrational.� Today, Limbaugh responded on his radio show. �You know, I�m frankly getting tired of talking about Newt,� Limbaugh began. �I mean, it�s a pointless exercise.� He then ripped Gingrich for being a typical �fly-by-night,� finger-in-the-wind politician who can�t be trusted: They are fly-by-night operators, and most of them stand for nothing until they see a poll about what the American people want, and then they go out and try to say one way or another what the American people want while trying to falsely hold onto an ideology at the same time � and you can�t count on them. You can�t depend on them. They will sell you out; they will throw you overboard to save themselves, faster than anything. And they�ll use you on their way up as often as they can at the same time. Limbaugh claimed that Gingrich is simply jealous of his influence. �I know that Newt would give his whatever to have what I�ve got,� he said. �So would any of these other critics of mine. � Newt Gingrich wishes they were running TV ads against him. But they�re running TV ads against me. So I love it. I�m up for it.� Listen here: Gingrich is looking �seriously� at a 2012 run for the presidency. How far can Newt get if the leader of the Republican Party won�t give him his blessing? http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/09/limbaugh-gingrich-fight/#comments

Well, to each her own. Live and let live. Etc. I'll respect your.....reticence.... to read such material. :-)

WOW! Those poor kids. All that pressure they didn't ask for. I didn't know there were breakup rumors. Last I heard they were possibly secretly married. Alaska Gov. Palin's daughter's, boyfriend break up By RACHEL D'ORO, Associated Press Writer 16 mins ago WASILLA, Alaska � Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin, the teenage daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin, have broken off their engagement, he said Wednesday, about 2 1/2 months after the couple had a baby. Johnston, 19, told The Associated Press that he and 18-year-old Bristol Palin mutually decided "a while ago" to end their relationship. He declined to elaborate as he stood outside his family's home in Wasilla, about 40 miles north of Anchorage. He also said some details of the breakup, rumors of which had been swirling on the Internet, were inaccurate. Bristol Palin said in a statement that she was devastated about a report on Star magazine's Web site that quoted Levi's sister, Mercede, as saying Bristol "makes it nearly impossible" to visit the teenagers' infant son, Tripp. The baby was born Dec. 27. "Unfortunately, my family has seen many people say and do many things to `cash in' on the Palin name," said the statement, which was issued through the governor's political action committee. "Sometimes that greed clouds good judgment and the truth." SarahPAC spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton did not immediately respond to calls seeking further information. The governor's spokesman, Bill McAllister, declined comment. Sarah Palin revealed her daughter's pregnancy just days after being named John McCain's running mate on the Republican presidential ticket. She had said in December that her daughter and Johnston "are committed to accomplish what millions of other young parents have accomplished, to provide a loving and secure environment for their child." In an interview that aired on Fox News last month, Bristol Palin said her fiance saw the baby every day and described him as a "hands-on" dad. Johnston and Palin had said they were considering a summer wedding. "We both love each other," he told the AP in October. "We both want to marry each other. And that's what we are going to do." ___ Associated Press writer Anne Sutton in Juneau contributed to this report. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090312/ap_on_re_us/bristol_palin

I just had a twisted thought... What if the baby isn't really Levi's, but they trotted him out because he was rather photogenic and scrubbed up real nice vs whoever the real dad could be? Surely that would've gotten out though. I'm also curious if she would've even had the baby if her mom hadn't been jonesing for the VP job. Yeah, I know.

(me)so I'll never know. (Dorine)I find that sad to limit yourself. Even I read everything, on both sides. I may not like it or agree, but I inform myself of what's being said anyway. It just makes what some people say about us correct IMO. "My faults according to your calculations are heavy indeed" But there is a stubborness about me tha can never bear to be firghtened at the will of others" courtesy of Jane Austen

oops..forgot the ;-) FYI I don't read blogs on either the "right or left" I know I'm missing great literature...(albeit narcissistic), but i just don't have as much time as you. However, others, enjoy it, I'm sure...so I'm not being judgmental;-))) But if posts aren't too long, I do read them. (Keep them pithy...getting ready for Twitter) psst... That American Progressive group that continues to beat up on Pres Bush is leftie too. *Tolerant evelyn*

Here they goooooooo Corporate oil booms in low-tax Switzerland "Swiss cantons are free to set their own tax rates. For example in Zug, corporate tax is about 16 percent but can fall as low as 9.5 percent for companies that do most of their business outside Switzerland. That compares with an average global corporate tax rate of 25.9 percent, according to consultancy KPMG. {Ed note: US rate is 35%...and Timmy says it will rise after the recession ends) http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22

This is cute...Lighthearted ... Who is Gail Collin? A NYT blog....Happy?;-) A CONVERSATION Talking between columns March 11, 2009, 6:47 pm Obama�s To-Do List By David Brooks and Gail Collins Gail Collins: David, remember when the early Clinton administration got trapped by its own little economic crisis and James Carville grouched that if there was reincarnation, he wanted to be reborn as the bond market because then �you can intimidate everybody�? I think I want to come back as a moderate Republican. A club so exclusive it could hold a meeting in a Capitol elevator. But these days, nothing moves unless they�re happy. Stimulus packages hang on two senators from one of the most underpopulated states in the nation. And even the hardly-moderates are getting into the act. The appropriations bill seems to be all about Thad Cochran from Mississippi. Want to fix the health care system? It�s all up to Grassley of Iowa. These days, nothing moves unless moderate Republicans are happy. I was so impressed when you reported having been summoned to the White House by top members of the administration who wanted to convince you that they were moderates, too. More so, since I have it on good authority that one of those four unnamed Obamites was the man himself. Cool to have the president ask you to come over for a long policy discussion. So very much cooler not to mention it. Fess up. And once we�ve gotten that out of the way, let�s get down to the problem at hand. I know you�re very upset about the scope of Obama�s proposals. You think he�s trying to do too much at once. What would you want him to drop from the to-do list? Health care reform? Energy? Global warming? Education? Obviously the banks and the economy have to be on top, but what good is it if we finally stagger out of the current crisis with a health care system that�s still draining our resources and making our manufacturers unable to compete with companies overseas? Or so dependent on foreign oil that the next crisis in the Middle East sends us reeling right back into an economic slump? Or with a school system that�s not training our kids for the jobs of the future? I say, go for it all and get all you can while the getting�s good. But then of course who cares what I think? I�m not a moderate Republican. Although for the right price, I might be willing to convert. David Brooks: Gail, you wouldn�t be so light-hearted about becoming a moderate Republican if you knew about the rewards that come with it: a complete collection of the novels of William Weld, an Elliot Richardson blow-up doll, an autographed photo of the semi-annual Olympia Snowe-Susan Collins thumb-wrestling match. Actually, I�m not that kind of moderate Republican. I�m more the Teddy Roosevelt-Alexander Hamilton-David Cameron kind � sort of testosterone driven but with a sweet, nurturing side. The president is taking his eye off the ball if he spends hours every day working on health care, education and energy. As for what policies I�d drop from the to-do list because of the crisis, at this point I�d have to say all of them. For years, I�ve been reading alarmed commentators like Martin Wolf of The Financial Times and thinking them a bit on the outer edge of pessimistic thought. Now I am not so sure. Now I think this economic crisis could be like nothing we�ve seen in our lifetimes. Big-name economists are talking seriously about another depression. In that context, I don�t think we can do anything but fixate on this. That is, I think the president should spend 50 percent of his time on the banking crisis, 25 percent of his time on getting our allies to coordinate with a global stimulus package and 25 percent of his time beginning work on a second round of stimulus. He�s taking his eye off the ball if he spends hours every day working on health care, education and energy. Worse, he adds uncertainty into the market. If by summer the crisis has passed, then he should go back to the long-term stuff. But the world is too uncertain just now. If the economy collapses, history will judge him very harshly for having a budget process that is on an entirely separate track from his crisis-response process. You ask if the Big Man himself was one of my four unnamed sources for my column last week. I actually wasn�t clear on the ground rules for some of those conversations, so I decided to play it safe. Let�s just say when I say I speak to senior administration officials, I take the meaning of the word �senior� very seriously, and I now have a very cool autographed copy of a chart showing non-defense discretionary spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. It�s signed, �To Comrade Brooks� and then there�s a name underneath.[Ed note :my bolds] Gail Collins: David, Theodore Roosevelt isn�t my specialty. (He�s got too many groupies already. I prefer the unpopular presidents. If you want to know anything about Grover Cleveland, call any time, day or night.) But I�m pretty sure if T.R. were running the show now, he wouldn�t decide that because the situation was dire, he should do only one thing. It�s my impression that most of the people who want Obama to give up on health care, energy etc. don�t really want to do health care, energy, etc., anyway. Or at least people who suspect that they�d prefer indefinite inaction to any version of health care, energy etc. that the Democrats would cook up. As the president pointed out the other day, we�ve been told that the country can�t fix health care when there�s war, when there�s peace and when there�s prosperity. Having eliminated all the other options, I�d say go for it now. But I am so jealous of that autographed chart showing non-discretionary spending as a percentage of G.D.P., I can hardly type.

Jim Cramer is braving Jon Stewart on The Daily Show tonight. Can't miss TV! ;-) I'll give props to him if he actually goes and doesn't wuss out like Santelli did.

*runs to set DVR* Stewart hammers Cramer on `The Daily Show' 1 hr 1 min ago NEW YORK � Jon Stewart hammered Jim Cramer and his network, CNBC, in their anticipated face-off on "The Daily Show." In an interview taped Thursday afternoon that went far beyond its allotted time, Stewart repeatedly chastised the "Mad Money" host and CNBC for putting entertainment above journalism. He also accused the financial news network of willfully ignoring corporate dishonesty. For his part, Cramer disagreed with Stewart on a few points, but mostly agreed that he could have done a better job foreseeing the economic collapse. Cramer called himself a "fan of the show" and said his network was "fair game" to Stewart's criticism. "The Daily Show" otherwise cloaked their headline-grabbing feud in humor, calling it "the weeklong feud of the century." The episode airs 11 p.m. EDT Thursday on Comedy Central.

Props to Jim Cramer! I actually only saw 2 minutes of it, but he did ok. Well played (from what I saw). This bit is for Evelyn to ignore. ;-) I find the mild snark quite funny. Be sure to go to the link to click on the orange "We Surround Them" which takes you to Glenn Beck's site. I don't disagree with most of his principles for the most part actually, except for a couple. Not sure of the point of all of it though. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/12/205227/892/990/707877 URGENT: Ultraconservatives Rally; Possible Surrounding Imminent by Hunter Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 07:50:19 PM PDT An urgent reminder to our liberal, moderate, and not-conservative-enough readers: please keep in mind that Friday is 'We Surround Them' day, the day when newsperson Glenn Beck, noted not-Hollywood not-celebrity Chuck Norris, and a collection of ultrapatriotic Randian nobodies are going to flex their muscles and show all of America the tremendous power of their particular brand of ultra-conservative movement. I believe this power will manifest itself primarily through outdoor barbecues, but nobody's been very clear on that. And the barbecues have something to do with resisting socialism, where socialism is defined as... well, that's not really been made too clear either, but I think it has something to do with the Bush tax cuts being allowed to expire, or making fun of Sarah Palin one too many times.

Looks like RNC Chair Steele is toast. That's what he gets for rastlin' with Rush. ;-) Actually, it's for coming out and speaking his truth on pro-life vs. pro-choice (which contradicts his previous statements on it). Or it was the last straw anyway.

(Dorine) Props to Jim Cramer! I actually only saw 2 minutes of it, but he did ok. Well played (from what I saw). You only saw two minutes. You need to see the whole thing which should be up on the site or there will be a replay soon. Cramer came off as a total fool, mainly for agreeing to appear on the show. Jon said things on behalf of all the people who put their trust in the markets (the long-term view) and blasted CNBC for sitting back and not exposing what they knew was going on. He showed video of Cramer in another interview admitting to doing all those things (like short selling) because the SEC was stupid and wouldn't figure it out. Jon was blunt and rationale. Cramer was hardly on point and trying to be "likeable." Jon handled it very well. http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2009/03/brawl_street_jo.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

(Karen) Cramer came off as a total fool, mainly for agreeing to appear on the show. Hey, at least he showed up. More than Santelli did, that wuss. I think he should get credit for putting himself out there to take more blatant criticism and ridicule (and I'm not saying he didn't deserve it) to his face. More than many would do. And in the part I saw, he didn't come out defending himself like an arrogant a*hole (though I think he did on the Today Show the other day, right?). It was by far the calmest I've ever seen him. ;-) I can't judge Cramer on the content at the moment. Now when I see the whole thing, I may have a revised opinion, but I won't change that I give him props for showing up. Isn't there a bit more than what they showed on the broadcast? Isn't that why Jon said to watch more at their website?

(Dorine) Hey, at least he showed up. More than Santelli did, that wuss. I think he should get credit for putting himself out there to take more blatant criticism and ridicule (and I'm not saying he didn't deserve it) to his face. More than many would do. From what I've seen, he was the one who made it an issue, by going on all the NBC shows to rail against the Daily Show, when it was about all about the network. (Dorine) And in the part I saw, he didn't come out defending himself like an arrogant a*hole No, by then it was futile. BTW, it was very uncomfortable to watch. You had to wonder why he would go on. I got no satisfaction watching him squirm, but did admire the JS's comments and qusetions. On the website, there will be more than what was on the show. It had to be edited down because it was too long.

I'm sorry, but that woman in this story did have a choice on the second house. Just don't sign! Shop around more! It's not like she'd have been homeless. She already had one house. I can't feel so sorry for people like that. Why was it so imperative her son lived next door. If there were more details maybe I'd have a different opinion. Though that doesn't absolve the banks, if the allegation is true. NAACP says bank giants steered blacks to bad loans By JESSE WASHINGTON, AP National Writer Jesse Washington, Ap National Writer � 1 hr 21 mins ago The NAACP is accusing Wells Fargo and HSBC of forcing blacks into subprime mortgages while whites with identical qualifications got lower rates. Class-action lawsuits were to be filed against the banks Friday in federal court in Los Angeles, Austin Tighe, co-lead counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, told The Associated Press. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_re_us/naacp_mortgage_discrimination

(Karen)it was very uncomfortable to watch. You had to wonder why he would go on. I got no satisfaction watching him squirm, but did admire the JS's comments and qusetions. Agreed. He was basically telling Cramer, whose interests to you represent? What kind of reporting is it that cheerleads AIG, Bear Stearns, Citi, etc.--some places that are/were leveraged 35-1--and then turns around and airs a rant that places the entire blame on the mortgage holders, as if *they* single-handledly caused the collapse? The type of "reporting" that accepts at face value, unchallenged, the bullshit their CEOs see fit to peddle during their interviews with CNBC? Jon asked who is looking out for the interests of the average 401(k) investor who has seen his/her wealth evaporate while no one was minding the store on these shenangians? As I watched, I was thinking that Jon and his writers are doing the type of work that investigative reporters used to do, and are supposed to be doing.

And, it would now appear that the *revered* WSJ should get widespread exposure for its recent survey of economists who give Obama a failing grade. (The survey was cosponsored by NBC!) Turns out the economists are primariily conservative and most have supported McCain's economic policies. This is getting a lot of play on consdervative media outlets, which shall go unnamed. But as I've said repeatedly, I've never heard of an economist being fired for getting anything wrong. Back to Bernie. So Madoff goes to jail. He's old and won't likely serve long enough to suit most people. But what I found interesting is that the sentencing order says he is supposed to make restitution. I wonder how that is going to happen. What percentage will swindled investors get back? I can't imagine anyone is going to be able to dig up all $65 billion, no matter how many liquidation sales they have.

This bit is for Evelyn to ignore. ;-) You're catching on.LOL Not to interrupt your party... Uh oh...he won't be happy.... Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN and SCOTT RASMUSSEN*** " "Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001" ***Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company

Here's a video defending Jim Cramer: http://www.thestreet.com/video/?bcpid=1243645856&bctid=16457618001 I don't watch Jim or Jon Can't stand Cramer's fist pounding or Jon Stewart's "know -it- all "face.

"Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001" Gee, was the economy in the toilet during that "analogous period in 2001" and the prognosis for far worse to come? No. What a totally worthless comparison, but I expect most people would notice the irrelevance of it from the get-go.

Numbers are numbers.

Left wing conspiracy going into action..... The new left-wing conspiracy From Politico, Dorine....your fave... "The project began last year as a launching pad for attacks on John McCain, but failed to raise money for television advertisements, and served in the later days of the presidential campaign as a platform for disseminating opposition research critical of his policy plans. ..." LOL That's what they do in Venezuela. When your policies don't sell themselves,....deciminate the opposition. Scary. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19846.html

Numbers are numbers. But is 'analogous' a number? Maybe I missed the Great Depression of 2001. Go figure. Also from Politico: Media critics pile on Cramer, CNBC By: Michael Calderone March 13, 2009 09:54 PM EST When Robert Gibbs was asked Friday about Jon Stewart's grilling of CNBC "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer, the White House press secretary flashed a smile, and told reporters that he "enjoyed it thoroughly." Gibbs reaction to the Thursday "Daily Show" interview isn't surprising, given that he and President Obama have been complaining a lot lately about the white noise of "cable chatter" in the midst of financial crisis. But is the public also ready to tune out the talking heads? Media critics, at least, seem to be. Variety proclaimed Thursday's "Daily Show" interview�which followed an eight-minute monologue last week in which Stewart bashed CNBC for �cheap populism� and bad predictions�"the most foolish appearance by someone whose name sounded like 'Cramer' since 'Seinfeld' went off the air," while others called it "a beat-down" (The Chicago Tribune); "a massacre" (Huffington Post); and a "remarkable public service [in] gutting Cramer" (The Baltimore Sun). A certain amount of Schadenfreude could be expected when the loudest guy in the room pipes down, and accepts blame�and Cramer admitted to being "wrong" four times on Thursday night. But much of the piling on seemed to be less about Cramer than about how cable news�and particularly cable business news�covers serious topics in what are, for most Americans, serious times. "You knew what the banks were doing, and yet were touting it for months and months," Stewart said. "The entire network was. And so now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst." The never publicity-shy Cramer skipped a scheduled appearance Friday on "Morning Joe" that was billed as his first chance to discuss the "Daily Show" debate; host Joe Scarborough noted on Twitter that Cramer "had a late night." And TVNewser reported that MSNBC asked producers to leave the Stewart-Cramer interview out of their shows, with CNBC hosts also saying little about the interview. That's a far cry from CNBC's initial reaction to Rick Santelli's rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange last month. At that time, the business network�as well as NBC and MSNBC�continued hyping the incident for days, while the CNBC website highlighted classic Santelli rants on �before the reporter, who now seems to be somewhat under wraps, canceled a scheduled interview on the "Daily Show." "CNBC produces more than 150 hours of live television a week that includes more than 850 interviews in the service of exposing all sides of every critical financial and economic issue," said CNBC spokesperson Brian Steel in statement Friday. "We are proud of our record and remain committed to delivering coverage in real-time during this extraordinary story and beyond." Chris Roush, who teaches business journalism at the University of North Carolina, said that when it comes to covering the economic crisis on cable, "the more that CNBC allows its reporters and anchors to state their opinions instead of simply reporting facts, the more it will hurt CNBC in the long run." The increasingly opinionated dispatches from CNBC's stars parallels MSNBC�s shift during the 2008 campaign to more aggressively opinionated commentary, and could similarly overshadow the actual reporting done by the business network�s rank-and-file. Even so, Roush contends that incorporating opinion into reporting on business different than doing the same with political coverage. "When you state an opinion and you're wrong" in business news, "you cause people to lose millions or billions of dollars," said Roush. "Stating opinion with business news is extremely dangerous. Stating politics in political news is not as dangerous because people know that the person is stating their political viewpoint." And while political prognostications are more subjective, Cramer talking up Bear Stearns stock days before it tanks is a quantifiable mistake. Still, viewers have at times grown weary of cable television's need for heated political debate shows�most notably, following Stewart's October 2004 appearance on CNN's "Crossfire." There, Stewart told hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala that they should "stop hurting America." "I'm here to confront you," Stewart said, "because we need help from the media and they're hurting us." Stewart was declared the victor by many in the media after that appearance, and less than three months later CNN pulled the plug on the 22-year-old right-left shout-fest. Upon "Crossfire's" cancelation, network president Jon Klein noted the Stewart critique, telling the Washington Post that "he made a good point about the noise level of these types of shows, which does nothing to illuminate the issues of the day." Carlson, reached Friday, described Stewart as "a partisan demagogue." "Jim Cramer may be sweaty and pathetic�he certainly was last night�but he's not responsible for the current recession," Carlson told POLITICO. "His real sin was attacking Obama's economic policies. If he hadn't done that, Stewart never would have gone after him. Stewart's doing Obama's bidding. It's that simple." Begala said that "as an Overpaid TV Guy myself, I hate to see the Overpaid TV Community ripped apart in this time of crisis." As to whether Stewart's takedown could again impact cable punditry, Begala said he had "no clue." And simply because media pundits hyperventilate when Stewart wags his finger, it doesn't mean network executives will respond accordingly. Three years after the "Crossfire," appearance, Stewart blasted Chris Matthews, describing the MSNBC anchor's self-help-styled book "Life's a Campaign" as a "recipe for sadness." Although Matthews dubbed it "the worst interview I've ever had in my life"�and it became a YouTube staple�Matthews continues shouting on a nightly basis. The now famous "Crossfire" appearance came after Stewart made similar criticisms of the network in a little-noticed 2002 interview with Howard Kurtz. Beyond Stewart�s takedown and the television critics frothing at the mouth, CNBC brass will surely be looking at the numbers to see if the recent publicity�s been a good thing. It�s too soon to tell, but early numbers show a slight dip. Portfolio�s Jeff Bercovici noted Friday that looking at the first three days this week, CNBC's Business Day programming block dropped 10 percent in the key adults 25-54 demographic, and 11 percent overall. �Meanwhile, �Mad Money� was also down 10 percent in the 25-to-54 demographic,� wrote Bercovici, �but only 4 percent among all viewers�suggesting that maybe some of those bored college kids who watch Jon Stewart did, in fact, tune in to find out exactly what is the deal with this Jim Cramer character.� But the problem extends further than Cramer�s �Daily Show� sit-down, according to Andrew Tyndall, an independent television news analyst and proprietor of the Tyndall Report website. "It is not the shouting that Stewart is objecting to at CNBC," Tyndall said. "It's the shilling." Tyndall explained that the "raison d'etre� of a network like CNBC is to persuade viewers that "the best measure of prosperity in an economy is the value of financial assets," and that the markets are rational, efficient, and civic-minded. But as the country's mood shifts, such highly-paid, highly-opinionated business pundits might run into trouble if successfully depicted as being in the pocket of Wall Street rather than fighting for Main Street. "The reason voices are raised is because the disagreement is stark and crucial," Tyndall said. "The entire neo-liberal economic orthodoxy is at risk of being discredited. If that goes, CNBC's foundational identity goes with it." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19997.html

"I'm here to confront you," Stewart said, "because we need help from the media and they're hurting us." I'd be a whole lot more impressed if Jon Stewart had *confronted* Rep. Barney Frank and Sen Dodd from the government ...on their part of the fiscal meltdown...to say nothing of Sen Dodd's questionable;-)special mortage he got from Countrywide or his impetuous remark about Indybank in Califronia that caused the run. Cramer is the new Rush. And what about the press secretary Robt Gibbs remarks yesterday about "enjoying" that show. What pettiness!...with all the problems confronting this country...a WH press secretary taking on a TV show personality who dared to criticize the president. Lacks class...my Ari never would have stooped to that. As Paglia said last week..."Chicago bare-knuckled pugilism".

Wen Voices Concern Over China's U.S. Treasurys "We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S., so of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. Frankly speaking, I do have some worries,.." Please. No one tell him that he's funding senior citizen community centers and ACORN http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123692233477317069.html

And what about the press secretary Robt Gibbs remarks yesterday about "enjoying" that show. He was asked. Isn't *he* entitled to an opinion and to state it? Besides, that's all he said. I'd be a whole lot more impressed if Jon Stewart had *confronted* Rep. Barney Frank and Sen Dodd from the government ...on their part of the fiscal meltdown. It would be nice if you stayed somewhat on point.

(Karen)he* entitled to an opinion and to state it? And so do I . And what about the press secretary Robt Gibbs remarks yesterday about "enjoying" that show. (karen)He was asked. Isn't *he* entitled to an opinion and to state it? Besides, that's all he said. No he didn't: From the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES Gibbs said, "the President and I talked earlier in the day yesterday about watching it. I forgot to email and remind him that it was on, so I don't know if he's seen it. I enjoyed it thoroughly -- (laughter) -- despite, even as Mr. Stewart said, that it may have been uncomfortable to conduct and uncomfortable to watch. I thought it was -- I thought somebody asked a lot of tough questions, and I am not surprised that the video of Mr. Cramer's appearance doesn't appear on CNBC's web site today." http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/03/obamas_gibbs_said_he_enjoyed_j.html The fool blabbed on as he does every day at those briefings.

who cares?

"Stewart's a comedian and Cramer is a showman," said Robert Howell, professor at Dartmouth University's Tuck School of Business. "If anybody takes seriously anything that (Cramer) says, they're stupid." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090314/ap_on_en_tv/meltdown_financial_reporters

Again, try to stay on point.

From today's UK TELEGRAPH Barack Obama's aides admit errors are making him less popular ...... "A source close to Mr Obama's top team telephoned this newspaper last week to say that White House officials now regard it as "a mistake" to have returned the bust of Winston Churchill that the British government loaned George W. Bush - a story first reported by The Sunday Telegraph - and then to have sent the prime minister home with a gift of 25 DVDs after his visit to Washington. ....... "Clearly it was a mistake, and they want people to know that they know that," the source said. "There is a collective desire to learn from the experience. They pride themselves on attention to detail. They didn't have their eye on the ball... they all know they've got to do better." .....The veteran Newsweek political columnist Howard Fineman, previously an enthusiastic cheerleader, delivered a withering verdict under the headline "The Turning Tide", which concluded: "Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes." ........ (Warren Buffet) "Job one is to win the war, the economic war. Job two is to win the economic war - and job three," he said. "You can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat" You can read the rest at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4991247/Barack-Obamas-aides-admit-errors-are-making-him-less-popular.html I must say that I admire them for apologizing. Those stupid DVDs...did someone go to Walmart to pick those up at the last minute. How provincial.

Since you can't bother to watch the actual program and make comments on the content, I'll give you this quote: "You know, we're both snake oil salesman to a certain extent," Stewart said. "But, we do label this show as snake oil here. Isn't there a problem selling snake oil as vitamin tonic and saying that it cures impetigo, etc., etc. etc.?" Jon Stewart's program was directed at CNBC. He made that very clear. Evidently you don't seem to understand the larger issue and continually shooting the messenger is getting beyond tiresome.

(Evelyn) Lacks class...my Ari never would have stooped to that. No he was too busy with Chris Matthews the other day continuing to perpetrate the myth/lie that Saddam was involved with 9/11. Check the video out.

I wasn't insinuating that Chris Matthews was perpetrating that also, quite the opposite as he was calling Ari out on some things. Also, I can't go back to copy your post now, but can you show the Rasmussen poll that specfically shows numbers on O's popularity. I went to Rasmussen's site to look for it and I saw a headline that O was up +9 points.

LOL, ladies! I'm catching up on this topic. And now for the future comedic relief of our late night TV hosts, Bush has announced that he will do a speaking tour. ;-)

(Dorine) No he was too busy with Chris Matthews the other day continuing to perpetrate the myth/lie that Saddam was involved with 9/11. I heard it the other day. It was sad. It was pitiful. Such inanities out of Ari Fleicher's mouth. You could tell Chris M was exasperated with Fleicher's inability to answer questions. Sounded petulant on Ari's part. Hardly what one would expect from a former spokesperson for a president. (Moon) And now for the future comedic relief of our late night TV hosts, Bush has announced that he will do a speaking tour. ;-) LOL! You sure they're not confusing it with Will Farrell's Bway show, which is airing on HBO tonight. Done live.

No, he really is. I forget where I read the first one is. I forgot the HBO show of that was this weekend and forgot to DVR. I passed by the theater yesterday with all the digital/control room trucks parked all down the street for it with the wires funneled into the theater.

I watched Ari with Chris Matthews and thought he did admirably...was proud of him:-D He showed *Matthews* some manners..."Do you always interrupt the guests on your show'? It was Matthews who was frothing at the mouth (literally & figuratively , the guy is always spitting)And it was *he* IMO who looked "pitiful" . C'mon Ari *hosed* him. Hey, put your comments on the TELEGRAPH website..I only posted what they said about Obama today. Let's see what happens at the G-20. I bet those guys won't jump over the hoops for him like his henchmen in Congress. Anyway, I'm finished for today. I just finished my tax material:_))))and am celebrating....taking myself out for dinner. Wanna come???? ;-)

Yeah, try defending the logic that Bush kept this country safe since there hadn't been attack since 9/11. But the converse that the attack happened while he was in office can't be attributed to his Administration. Irrational. Illogical. Ari got all uppity when Chris presented that little bit of logic to him. It was sad how petulent Ari became. Ever take a logic course?

(Evelyn) Here's a video defending Jim Cramer: http://www.thestreet.com/video/?bcpid=1243645856&bctid=16457618001 Golly, just can't imagine why thestreet.com would have a video defending Jim Cramer....can you? ;-) Their CEO just announced yesterday he was stepping down. "TheStreet.com NASDAQ: TSCM is a financial company and website started in 1996 by Jim Cramer and registered on the NASDAQ Stock Market. ...TheStreet.com arguably is still best known for its free, flagship site, and the direct, in-your-face tone of some of its reporters and contributors. Its most popular features include: Top 10 Stocks; You Ask, Cramer Answers; Jim Cramer's Portfolios of the Week; ...Board member Cramer remains one of the company's commentators... ...Many investors worry about the over-dependence of TheStreet.com on Jim Cramer, according to investing columnist Henry Blodget.[4] Cramer promotes TheStreet.com on his TV show Mad Money and is one of the main contributors to TheStreet.com's paid subscription and free content." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheStreet.com

(Evelyn) When your policies don't sell themselves,....deciminate the opposition. Does "your side" look in the mirror much? ;-)

And, Chris Matthews wasn't the one to bring up the Bush Administration's claim to fame regarding 9/11. Matthews related what he'd been taught in boy scouts about leaving a camp ground in better condition than you found it and asked whether he could make the same comment about the country. It was Ari who hemmed and hawed and finally grasped at his only straw about the country not having been attacked. He set himself up.

Pffft! Washington Monthly March 15, 2009 CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS NOT DUE.... Wall Street had a nice little rally this week, but former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino hopes President Obama doesn't get too much credit. Former White House spokesperson Dana Perino said on Sunday that the Bush administration, while presiding over the start of the current recession, nevertheless deserved some credit for the modest uptick that Wall Street experienced this past week. Appearing on CSPAN's Washington Journal, the last of Bush's press secretaries said it was "not a secret" that the current economic mess started under her boss's watch. But, she cautioned, the public had yet to realize the full extent to which the past president's policies "alleviat[ed] the downturn." Take, for instance, the improvement in the Dow Jones Industrial average this week. "You were just speaking earlier about the possibility that since we had a little bit of a better week on Wall Street does that spell a turnaround?" Perino said. "Can all the credit go specifically to President Obama? Well, I would say no. We are just going to have to take a while to let all of this settle down and let the policies that our administration and the new administration are trying to put in place have a chance to work." I see. Just so we're clear, here's a helpful guide to the rules of market watching, as they relate to partisan politics: When the market went down on Bush's watch before the 2008 elections, this was Bill Clinton's fault. When the market went down on Bush's watch between November 2008 and January 2009, this was Barack Obama's fault. When the market went down during Obama's first seven weeks in office, this was definitely Barack Obama's fault. And when the market rallies on Obama's watch during the second week in March, George W. Bush deserves at least some of the credit. I'm glad Perino helped set the record straight. Putting aside whether watching Wall Street is a useful guide to measuring the strength of economic policies -- it clearly isn't -- the point to remember is that positive developments are evidence of Republican wisdom, and negative developments are evidence of Democratic failure. Remember when you were a kid and someone told you, "I'll flip a coin -- heads I win, tails you lose"? It's kind of like that. —Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41) http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017299.php

Putting aside whether watching Wall Street is a useful guide to measuring the strength of economic policies -- it clearly isn't Agreed. Never has been and shouldn't be considered one. Remember when you were a kid and someone told you, "I'll flip a coin -- heads I win, tails you lose"? It's kind of like that. *hee hee* Exactly. And to change course radically, this is beyond revolting: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5922459.ece

Thank you, Mr President.... From POLITICO March Madness: W.H. on defense "Republicans were gaining traction with their charge that President Barack Obama�s proposed tax hikes would hurt small businesses. So no surprise when the White House threw an event on Monday�s schedule to extol the administration�s plans to funnel stimulus funds to entrepreneurs. " http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1152C48F-18FE-70B2-A8EE70E52D295480

chicagotribune.com A little hardball might be just the medicine AIG needs David Greising March 17, 2009 The last time Edward Liddy faced a vexing compensation issue, as chief executive of Northbrook-based Allstate Corp., he cut costs with all the finesse of a blunderbuss: He axed 6,000 of Allstate's highest-paid agents. That was then; this is now. As head of insurance giant American International Group, which is 80 percent owned by taxpayers, Liddy seems to be going all wobbly on compensation issues. Liddy is going ahead with $165 million in bonuses. That is the first payment of $492 million due to employees in a unit of AIG that would have put the company out of business last year had the U.S. government not come through with $173.3 billion in bailout money. But those AIG traders were promised fat bonuses. And Liddy, who was brought in to clean up the mess the traders and product managers made, has decided the bonuses must be paid. Outside lawyers have told him so. "Quite frankly, AIG's hands are tied," Liddy, AIG's chief executive, wrote in a letter Saturday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. What ever happened to the Liddy who went after Allstate agents a decade ago like a scythe through chaff? No cautious legal counsel stopped him then. The agents sued. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued�twice. Liddy fought those lawsuits, and Allstate has won at every stage. Michael Lieder, the lawyer who represents the 6,000 Allstate agents, is struck by Liddy's newfound respect for the power of employment contracts. "The positions he is taking at AIG are in direct conflict with the positions he was taking with regard to our clients," Lieder said. This time around, a little of the old Ed Liddy would go a long way toward arriving at what is right for AIG and the taxpayers who essentially own the company. Liddy likely has the power to fire AIG's bonus babies on the spot. Employed as they are on at at-will basis, he can simply let the whole lot of them go, say compensation experts familiar with AIG's structure. Not that Liddy should let them all go. After all, he does need some of them to wind down the derivatives business and its toxic tide of assets. Some he needs, others he does not. And since he can get by without all of them, then virtually none should feel secure. That's why most of them, perhaps all of them, should be willing to forgo their bonuses in order to save their jobs. Liddy need not make any threats. He merely needs to take the traders and product managers at AIG Financial Products Group and explain the facts of post-bailout life. "He can say, 'Hey, I know we had an agreement, but times are changing. The klieg lights are on. I'm not going to fire anyone, but something has to change,' " said Brian Tobin, practice leader at Hay Group, a firm specializing in compensation and human resources consulting. It's true the times have changed since those employments contracts were written in early 2008. Motorola, Continental Airlines and Applied Materials are among struggling companies where top executives are ripping up their contracts and giving back pay. A growing number of companies are reclaiming bonuses from executives who puffed up financial results. A move against the bonus babies at AIG would merely extend a growing trend. The AIG employees know Liddy's history. They know he can play hardball. They also know this is no time to start a job hunt in the derivatives business with three scarlet letters�AIG�on their r�sum�s. If this sounds tough-minded, it is and it should be. After all, these are the traders who ran the business that broke the company that helped wreck the economy. If they still want a bonus after all they have done, a little hardball from Liddy is the least they should expect. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-tue-greising-aig-liddy-0317-mar17,0,1566068.column

Retention payments to people who are no longer employed? Sounds like a fraudulent payment to me. Don't know why it continues to surprise me at how morally bankrupt these people are. :-( The gall! It knows no ends. I say name the names of the recipients like dead-beat dads. And print their addresses too. And I won't apologize like Grassley. Cuomo Details Million-Dollar Bonuses at A.I.G. By LOUISE STORY Seventy-three employees were paid more than $1 million in the latest bonuses at the insurance giant American International Group, according to the New York attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo. The attorney general provided new details on Tuesday about some of the $165 million in bonuses that A.I.G. paid out last week in a letter sent to Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services. �A.I.G. made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing a taxpayer bailout,� Mr. Cuomo wrote in the letter. �Something is deeply wrong with this outcome.� Mr. Cuomo did not name the bonus recipients, but the numbers are eye-popping, given A.I.G.�s fragile state. The highest bonus was $6.4 million, and six other employees received more than $4 million, according to Mr. Cuomo. Fifteen other people received bonuses of more than $2 million, and 51 people received bonuses of $1 million to $2 million, Mr. Cuomo said. Eleven of those who received �retention� bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer working at A.I.G., including one who received $4.6 million, he said. A.I.G., which is now 80 percent owned by the government, paid out the so-called retention payments, saying the bonuses were needed to persuade workers to remain at its financial products unit. But the payouts have caused a public furor, and the White House said on Monday that the Treasury would write new requirements about the bonus money in the next $30 billion that it provides to the insurance giant. Already, the government has given A.I.G. $170 billion. Amid the fury, Democratic lawmakers proposed three separate bills on Tuesday that would tax the bonuses if A.I.G. refused to rescind them voluntarily. Republicans channeled their anger into attacking the rest of Mr. Obama�s economic plan, especially the huge economic stimulus bill that will cost the government almost $800 billion over the next two years. Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, questioned whether Mr. Geithner should resign. �I don�t know if he should resign over this,� Mr. Shelby said, adding that he �works for the president of the United States. But I can tell you, this is just another example of where he seems to be out of the loop. Treasury should have let the American people know about this.� Mr. Frank said that it was �time to exercise our ownership rights.� �I think we should be suing to get the bonuses back as the owner,� he said of A.I.G. Bonus recipients should have been told, he said, that they had not performed as expected and did not deserve a payout. Mr. Frank also questioned the need for retention bonuses in this economy, saying �It is hardly a tough market for hiring people with financial expertise.� Mr. Cuomo subpoenaed A.I.G. on Monday for the names of the people who shared in the new bonus pool. He said the fact that 11 people who received some of the money were no longer at A.I.G., raised questions about whether the bonuses were truly for retention purposes. Mr. Cuomo may be able to use a state law about fraudulent conveyance to force A.I.G. to rescind the bonuses. Mr. Cuomo would have to show that A.I.G. was undercapitalized when it paid the bonuses and that the people who received the bonuses did not earn them. �I understand they have contracts,� Mr. Cuomo said in an interview on Monday. �That�s not necessarily determinant because a lot has happened since that contract was signed.� A.I.G. altered some of its practices last fall after discussions with Mr. Cuomo. The company canceled about $160 million in planned expenses for conferences as well as $600 million in payouts in deferred compensation plans after Mr. Cuomo threatened to sue. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business/18cuomo.html

The mind reels, eh? Larry King's show had a good segment about this with Ariana Huffington and Ben Stein. And I have to agree with them, Obama and Co. are letting this stuff get outta hand.

It all goes back to the kind of deals that were made before handing out the money. The government owns, what, 80% of AIG. If any one entity owned a quarter of that, they'd be calling all the shots: replacing the board, its management, etc. And this issue of being "contractually obligated," gimme a break. Place the company in bankruptcy and those contracts would be smoke. Think of all the companies that followed this method to reneg on their pension obligations.

That's what I was thinking. They were giving out the money to retain "good" people (who promptly left with the $$) and didn't want to encourage lawsuits?! Since when did a company care about its employees suing them (unless it's for sexual harrassment or EEOC violations?