Enjoy: (source)

Video:

Partial Transcript:

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on [...]]]>

This is unbelievable.  (H/T HotAir)

Video:

Partial Transcript:

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

The problem is; that was not a part of his prepared remarks, here is what he was supposed to say:

Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.

By the way, the radio host is Mark Levin, whom I normally find to be highly annoying; mainly because his voice sounds like the equivalent of dragging a cat backwards through a fan. But, I have to say, that I agree with everything that is said here.

Ed Morrissey, whom I have much respect for, points out the glaringly obvious here:

He should have stuck with the TelePrompter. The President doesn’t get to decide when people have “made enough money.” In fact, as the radio host notes, that’s a statist point of view. Furthermore, the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn’t to “grow our economy,” core or otherwise. It’s to grow his own economy. In a properly regulated capitalist system, the natural tension of self-interests create economic growth through innovation and efficient use of capital and resources.

Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government. Barack Obama seems to have a problem understanding that.

But then again; Marxists usually do. Yesterday, I posted a video by Chris Matthews over at MSNBC basically saying that we should cool it with the Nazi references, when it comes to politics and the Right…and Left. The reason why I say that I agreed with that; is because comparing this President to Adolf Hitler is giving Hitler and this President way too much credit.  Nazism was started because Hitler saw the failures of socialism and sought to improve upon it; a plan the ultimately failed thankfully. This President is just a flat out socialist; he is highly against any sort of unfettered Capitalism at all. I mean, do not misunderstand me here; I am all for seeing the people that capitalized on our economy going down the toilet, having to pay the piper.  But to get in front of people and make a statement like this, is just inexcusable. This might come as a shock to those on the left; I am for Capitalism, but I am not for the reckless greed, that leads to destruction. There is a big difference.

The Bottom Line: The President needs to stick to the teleprompter. Because every time that he goes off of that teleprompter, he exposes himself and that exposure is starting to look very, very ugly.

Update: Others: RedState, Left Coast Rebel, Whiskey Fire, The TrogloPundit, Beltway Confidential, Cassy Fiano, ProfessorBainbridge.com, Neptunus Lex, Confederate Yankee, YID With LID, Animal Farm, Villainous Company, protein wisdom and Pajamas Media

Sign the Pledge at We Will Remember.

Via the NYT:

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move [...]]]>

Finally, some justice to these bastards:

Via the NYT:

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.

The suit also named Fabrice Tourre, a vice president at Goldman who helped create and sell the investment.

In a statement, Goldman called the S.E.C. accusations “completely unfounded in law and fact” and said the firm would “vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”

The instrument in the S.E.C. case, called Abacus 2007-AC1, was one of 25 deals that Goldman created so the bank and select clients could bet against the housing market. Those deals, which were the subject of an article in The New York Times in December, initially protected Goldman from losses when the mortgage market disintegrated and later yielded profits for the bank.

As the Abacus deal plunged in value, Goldman and a prominent hedge fund made money on their negative bets, while European investors like IKB and ABN Amro lost more than $1 billion, the S.E.C. said.

According to the complaint, Goldman created Abacus 2007-AC1 in February 2007, at the request of John A. Paulson, a prominent hedge fund manager who earned an estimated $3.7 billion in 2007 by correctly wagering that the housing bubble would burst.

Goldman let Mr. Paulson select mortgage bonds that he wanted to bet against — the ones he believed were most likely to lose value — and packaged those bonds into Abacus 2007-AC1, according to the S.E.C. complaint. Goldman then sold the Abacus deal to investors like foreign banks, pension funds, insurance companies and other hedge funds.

But the deck was stacked against the Abacus investors, the complaint contends, because the investment was filled with bonds chosen by Mr. Paulson, who is not named in the suit, as likely to default. Goldman told investors in Abacus marketing materials reviewed by The Times that the bonds would be chosen by an independent manager.

“The product was new and complex, but the deception and conflicts are old and simple,” Robert Khuzami, the director of the S.E.C.’s division of enforcement, said in a statement. “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party.”

In response Goldman Sachs says:

The SEC’s charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.

Yeah, sure the accusations are unfounded. If I were a Goldman employee; I would be looking for a new job pronto.

From the SEC Press Release:

The SEC’s complaint alleges that after participating in the portfolio selection, Paulson & Co. effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (CDS) with Goldman Sachs to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS capital structure. Given that financial short interest, Paulson & Co. had an economic incentive to select RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. Goldman Sachs did not disclose Paulson & Co.’s short position or its role in the collateral selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum, or other marketing materials provided to investors.

The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre was principally responsible for ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre structured the transaction, prepared the marketing materials, and communicated directly with investors. Tourre allegedly knew of Paulson & Co.’s undisclosed short interest and role in the collateral selection process. In addition, he misled ACA into believing that Paulson & Co. invested approximately $200 million in the equity of ABACUS, indicating that Paulson & Co.’s interests in the collateral selection process were closely aligned with ACA’s interests. In reality, however, their interests were sharply conflicting.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the deal closed on April 26, 2007, and Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS. By Oct. 24, 2007, 83 percent of the RMBS in the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded and 17 percent were on negative watch. By Jan. 29, 2008, 99 percent of the portfolio had been downgraded.

Investors in the liabilities of ABACUS are alleged to have lost more than $1 billion.

The SEC’s complaint charges Goldman Sachs and Tourre with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

Allow me to humbly submit that I hope that these bastards get exactly what is coming to them. I mean, these guy literally gambled as the stock market and by proxy; our economy went straight into the toilet.   Many people that I know; like my parents, lost a good deal of money on this stuff. Not only that, after the credit crises hit; G.M. ended up having to shed a bunch of expenses; and as a result, my parents lost their optical and dental insurance. That came as a indirect result of this Wall Street mess. So, as far as I am concerned; throw the book at these bastards.

Capitalism is one thing, heartless greed is another; and these bastards crossed that line, big time.

Just remember, Ron Paul believes in negotiating with these bastards. Therefore, he is a terrorist supporter. So are Democrats.

Gadgets come and gadgets go. The iPad you buy today will be e-waste in a year or two (less, if you decide not to pay to have the battery changed for you). The real issue isn’t the capabilities of the piece of plastic you [...]]]>

Irk! Now this is not a good thing to read:

Gadgets come and gadgets go. The iPad you buy today will be e-waste in a year or two (less, if you decide not to pay to have the battery changed for you). The real issue isn’t the capabilities of the piece of plastic you unwrap today, but the technical and social infrastructure that accompanies it.

If you want to live in the creative universe where anyone with a cool idea can make it and give it to you to run on your hardware, the iPad isn’t for you.

If you want to live in the fair world where you get to keep (or give away) the stuff you buy, the iPad isn’t for you.

If you want to write code for a platform where the only thing that determines whether you’re going to succeed with it is whether your audience loves it, the iPad isn’t for you.

via Why I won’t buy an iPad (and think you shouldn’t, either) – Boing Boing.

I have to give props to Mr. Cory Doctorow for his brutal honesty. The article is quite the good read; from a standpoint of someone, who does not even own a iPod, much less an iPhone! I mean, I am just not big into, what I like to call, useless gadgets. To me, a phone is for making phone calls. Not for sitting there and playing games and all the crap you can do on them today. I mean, there is a thing called “Sexting” which is transmitting rather nasty pictures of one’s self over the internet. We never had to contend with stuff like that when I was a kid. (I am 37, by the way…) Besides that, you would not want to be transmitting naked pictures of my body anyhow; as I am almost sure it would cause someone great problems of the psychological sort to see me naked.

Now, from a greedy capitalist’s stand point; if I had a bunch of shares with Apple right about now and I saw this article. I would be asking for this guys head on a platter. I mean, just who the hell does this grumpy old jackass think he is? I am sure that Steve Jobs is not too happy about someone dissing his product, that he’s worked his rear end off to produce. On the other hand, this is just one man’s opinion of this product and I am sure that there are many others who have written that this is an exciting product to try.

The bottom line is this; we live in a free market, capitalistic society, and that free market will decide if this product is a smashing success or if it will be a flop. That is because that Free Market allows the PEOPLE, not the Government, to choose whether a product will be sold or even successful or not. Granted, it will take effort to make this happen; promotion by the company, the sales people and even the customer to buy the product. However the point is….. the freedom of choice is there. You can choose which product you wish to own by apple, all of them or none of them at all. That is the beauty of America. The only thing stopping you is your financial situation and also possibly your personal desire to own such product. Personally, even if I did have the money to own one of these iPads, I most likely would not own one. Because I personally do not see the point in owning such a thing. I have a very nice laptop, which suits my needs perfectly. I also do not see the point in owning something like this, and then having to own a iPhone or something similar, why not just put a camera and the ability to make phone calls in it as well? Again that is wonderful power of personal freedom and choice.

Now I could yammer on here about how the some of the Democrats and the socialists want to do away with all this freedom and change the system we have here in America. But I think everyone that reads this knows my position on those subjects. It also is not lost on me, where this thing is produced and the political positions of some of the people that will own one of these things.  However, I will not bring that into this discussion here, as I am blogging about an iPad.

Update: Others Talking about the iPad: Pajamas Media, The Confluence, Althouse, Vanity Fair, Bits, Scripting News, VentureBeat and Gawker

Update #2: Message to AllahPundit: Do you really want to be known as the dude who owns a electronic gadget, who’s name basically invokes thoughts of a Electronic Maxi-Pad or Internet Maxi-Pad? Not if you are Beta-Male. I mean, you are already being called a candy-ass Rhino as it is; you do not need anymore help. I’m just sayin’

Welcome to my World!

Via The Old Grey Lady:

The United States economy shed 190,000 jobs in October, and the unemployment rate reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, up from 9.8 percent in September, the Department of Labor said Friday in its monthly economic appraisal.

While [...]]]>

Just wanted to be nice about it.

Welcome to my World!

Via The Old Grey Lady:

The United States economy shed 190,000 jobs in October, and the unemployment rate reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, up from 9.8 percent in September, the Department of Labor said Friday in its monthly economic appraisal.

While the pace of job losses has slowed significantly since the peak of the recession last winter, the unemployment rate, which measures the number of people actively seeking work, continues to climb, and economists do not foresee relief until well into next year.

“There’s no doubt that the slashing and burning of jobs has abated quite a lot,” said Allen L. Sinai, the founder of Decision Economics, a research firm. “The economy is recovering, but it is a very soft recovery.”

The biggest losses came in the construction, manufacturing and retailing sectors. Health care companies added 29,000 jobs to their payrolls, and the number of temporary workers increased by 34,000 — a significant gain that could indicate employers are beginning to expand their businesses again.

The Labor Department also revised September’s losses to 219,000 from 263,000.

Dean Baker, a director for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said he did not expect declining unemployment rates until next spring. “We may be looking at very high levels,” Mr. Baker said, “barring a policy response, for several years into the future.”

Um, Why should there be any policy response? I believe that we are already tapping our resources to the limit now.

On Thursday, in anticipation of the unemployment report, Congress overwhelmingly voted to extend benefits for jobless workers for up to 20 weeks. That will soothe the short-term financial pain of many families, but demands for a new wave of government relief may intensify if companies continue to cut back.

Yes, let’s encourage people NOT to look for a job and continue to spend ourselves into a hole; by being a nanny state.

So far, the federal stimulus package has injected billions into local economies, giving states money, for instance, to finance construction projects or retain teachers. The housing and auto sectors have been propped up with government credits meant to encourage spending. But weak consumer demand and hefty labor costs are still forcing many employers to cut positions and reduce hours to survive.

So much for Hope and change!

The article goes on trying to defend President Obama, which is so typical for the New York Times, but it is quite obvious, this President has failed on all fronts, the stimulus, the bailouts —- everything. He is, in fact, a black Jimmy Carter.

Ed Morrissey says:

This is now Obama’s economy.  He owns the double-digit unemployment level, having bought it with the $787 billion stimulus plan that he promised would keep unemployment no higher than 8%.

I agree with that. Obama simply continued the bailouts that President Bush started, which was a huge mistake.

The AP Reports:

But the loss of jobs last month exceeded economists’ estimates. It’s the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years.

Counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.

Now, if I were a partisan Blogger, I would simply sit here and blame Obama for it all. However, I am a bit more smarter than this. This all goes to Carter and then to Clinton. This video from the Wayne County Republicans will explain:

These unemployment numbers are just a ripple effect of all of this. Bush had a hand in it, as well as Obama. This is what happens when you elect faux Conservatives as Republicans and it is what happens when you elect Socialists.