There are significant differences between the words fairness and justice and a good lot of people would do a lot of good to learn the difference and then choose their words accordingly.
(For the sake of self-betterment, reading the United States Constitution through a couple times - or even once - wouldn't hurt either.)
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
A new level of low
I disagree with the current administration and the politics that back it on virtually everything. I think the campaigning for this election was underhanded and graceless and I think that the American people are not only being fed, but also eating lies. But I watched scapegoating on TV today and I think this is a new level of low from our current “leaders.” I don’t intend to go off on the AIG “scandal” for too long or to dissect or quote people on the subject. But has anybody been watching Congress tear Liddy apart on the subject of AIG? Congress has turned AIG (and its questionable integrity) into a scapegoat to hide its own huge mistakes which involved:
1) throwing bailout funding (money that, incidentally, doesn’t even exist in America)around like it’s Monopoly money when they shouldn’t have approved any money to go out to begin with, and
2) not explicitly stating what the receivers of the money were and were not allowed to do with it.
AIG’s use of bailout money is not the problem we are facing; the problem is the bailout itself. And everyone (some with excruciating slowness) is beginning to notice. Now, realizing their own horrendous mistake, Congress has decided to find a conveniently big name like AIG and try to bring it down with the support of the taxpayers by framing it to look like it is AIG’s fault that the government stole and negligently used taxpayer money. It’s a beautiful thing: a whole slew of Congressmen against Liddy, asking him obscene questions that he can’t answer because if he does they will tear him (or his associates) further apart for the way he worded something or for some promise he made that he didn’t actually make but that they can make it look like he made. Liddy actually said (okay I am going to quote) “I’m sorry to be so evasive, but…” (and he went on to explain his concern for his associates’ safety if he revealed names and other information). When was the last time we heard a politician or corporate head or any other big shot ADMIT that he was being evasive and then explicitly explain why he was being evasive for good cause? It indicates to me that Liddy is still a human being which is more than I can say for the majority of Congress sitting “stone cold dead” on their high horses trying to make AIG look bad so that nobody will notice their own failures. And the bald guy yells at Liddy (actually interrupts him with), “YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE EVASIVE…” And all I can think is that this guy must have done something really terrible because anyone who is that passionate about bringing someone else (who is not even guilty) down must have a lot of his own hide resting on it.
So President Obama’s stimulus crap continues to fail (Caterpillar is still laying off tractor-loads of people) which is no big surprise to any rational human being; Congress is too stupid to insert a small clause that says, “you can only use this money for the following ten things…;” and AIG gets blamed. It’s very convenient. Because Obama stands up there comparing himself to Lincoln and people keep swooning over him and AIG is the type of Big Bad Business that everybody loves to hate. Well played. This game is a great test of the public’s intelligence.
1) throwing bailout funding (money that, incidentally, doesn’t even exist in America)around like it’s Monopoly money when they shouldn’t have approved any money to go out to begin with, and
2) not explicitly stating what the receivers of the money were and were not allowed to do with it.
AIG’s use of bailout money is not the problem we are facing; the problem is the bailout itself. And everyone (some with excruciating slowness) is beginning to notice. Now, realizing their own horrendous mistake, Congress has decided to find a conveniently big name like AIG and try to bring it down with the support of the taxpayers by framing it to look like it is AIG’s fault that the government stole and negligently used taxpayer money. It’s a beautiful thing: a whole slew of Congressmen against Liddy, asking him obscene questions that he can’t answer because if he does they will tear him (or his associates) further apart for the way he worded something or for some promise he made that he didn’t actually make but that they can make it look like he made. Liddy actually said (okay I am going to quote) “I’m sorry to be so evasive, but…” (and he went on to explain his concern for his associates’ safety if he revealed names and other information). When was the last time we heard a politician or corporate head or any other big shot ADMIT that he was being evasive and then explicitly explain why he was being evasive for good cause? It indicates to me that Liddy is still a human being which is more than I can say for the majority of Congress sitting “stone cold dead” on their high horses trying to make AIG look bad so that nobody will notice their own failures. And the bald guy yells at Liddy (actually interrupts him with), “YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE EVASIVE…” And all I can think is that this guy must have done something really terrible because anyone who is that passionate about bringing someone else (who is not even guilty) down must have a lot of his own hide resting on it.
So President Obama’s stimulus crap continues to fail (Caterpillar is still laying off tractor-loads of people) which is no big surprise to any rational human being; Congress is too stupid to insert a small clause that says, “you can only use this money for the following ten things…;” and AIG gets blamed. It’s very convenient. Because Obama stands up there comparing himself to Lincoln and people keep swooning over him and AIG is the type of Big Bad Business that everybody loves to hate. Well played. This game is a great test of the public’s intelligence.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Maybe this is what Limbaugh means by failure
The headline on CNN right now says: “FIRST STIMULUS PROJECT ‘A WASTE?’” They’re in St. Louis making some enormous deal about how shocking and offending it is that stimulus money in St. Louis is being used wastefully and I think – out loud and to the misfortune of everyone else in the room attempting to have a peaceful evening– how amazing it is that they are SURPRISED by the fact that stimulus money is being used negligently. To think that billions of dollars worth of money being negligently thrown at people by a government that has no respect for fiscal responsibility to begin with should then be used negligently by companies and industries that were irresponsible enough to get themselves in the situation to need the money! To think that people who are fiscally irresponsible have not magically become responsible after having large sums of unearned money thrown at them! To think that billions of dollars worth of money does not make people smarter!
But what I really want to say is: thank goodness for companies like Northern Trust (who, before you call me shortsighted, I fully admit probably has a lot of low, unethical, and wasteful action going on behind the scenes that has no association with their recent “infamy”) and God keep me from strangling the virtual necks of the unintelligent people who comment on these news reports! The story goes (and it is startlingly difficult to get a straight story. “Where the press is free and every man can read…” – Jefferson, right?) that Northern Trust Bank threw a huge appreciation gala for a bunch of their clients and execs after having received federal bailout money. The golf tournament, music extravaganza was the second annual Northern Trust event and, according to some sources, raises large amounts of charity money. According to Northern Trust, they never wanted bailout money to begin with. The company made $641 million dollars last year and didn’t need any federal money, but “agreed to the government’s goal of gaining the participation of all major banks in the United States.” Supposedly, they are more than willing to give the money back, albeit gradually. According to some sources, however, Congress, despite being up in arms about the incident, won’t actually accept the money back. People are even angrier because Northern Trust apparently laid off 400-some employees in December. This doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly large number, but that’s not the most important point. The most important point is that laying off employees that are not needed is one of the ways to keep your business from flopping, as is schmoozing loyal customers. Both of these actions on Northern Trust’s part seem to me well-thought-out business decisions, not extraneous acts of negligence.
But all of this is irrelevant when compared to the fact that Northern Trust never wanted or needed government money to begin with. Furthermore, if their gala cost them less than $641 million, then it is a totally justifiable argument that they were not spending government, but their own money. Besides which, there were no specific directions by Congress prohibiting this type of spending with bailout money. Thus, for the government to condemn Northern Trust is a blatant attempt to exert even more excessive control over the banks. If Congress can arbitrarily proclaim that a company, industry, or individual is not using “their” (i.e. my) money “properly,” then there are virtually no lines at all that they can and will not cross.
I’ve left out another relevant detail. Apparently, Northern Trust signed a contract two years ago that they would host this event for the next five years, well before any bailout money was offered to (or forced on) them. The article on ABC news online by Maddy Sauer ACTUALLY STATES: “Critics say even if the bank has contractual obligations, money could have been saved by canceling concerts or staying in budget accommodations.” So now, a company is free to spend its money as it pleases unless socially moral and intelligent judges like Barney Frank proclaim that they are being (and I quote) “lavish.” I see.
Tom Schatz, some meager human being with the title President of Citizens Against Government Waste (reminds me of the Dr. Seuss book where the watcher needs a watcher!) suggests that, “that’s really the issue more than prior commitments. You can cancel a concert.” Apparently, a contract no longer means anything. This is good news for me as the state is stealing $23 in taxes from me this year and I am glad to hear that the signature I put at the bottom of my tax form is null and void and I can keep my twenty three bucks. But Schatz doesn’t stop there. He is, after all, a concerned citizen. “Firing” (I read a shirt once that defined liberalism as changing the definitions of words to suit their own needs) 450 employees, Schatz says “isn’t great…for the morale of taxpayers.” He’s right! When I heard that Northern Trust had laid off 450 employees, I was on Prozac for weeks, but when Obama raised everybody’s taxes and stole hard working people’s money to give to failed businesses, that was only fair.
Apparently, though, some people agree with Schatz. If the articles on Northern Trust aren't ridiculous enough, people’s commentary on the (this was the favorite word) “greed” of the Big Bad Bank is over the top. Aside from the patriotic citizens like “help this country,” who said things like “the bailout was rewarding bad behavior to begin with,” so many people seem to believe that Northern Trust’s extravagant spending (of their own money) is an insult to hard-working Americans, though stealing our money to begin with was all in the line of duty. “lalibertekai0111” asks “Why was the money taken if they DID NOT NEED IT!!!” (apparently, “lal” entirely failed to actually read the article) and wants to “build some kind of database that every corporation should install therefore tracking exactly where the money was spent” This amazes me! Granted, random people leaving messages at the ends of online news articles don’t have to qualify as intelligent (at the risk of sounding egotistical, random ranting bloggers don’t have to be qualified either), but this person calls himself (for all the politically correct crusaders out there, this is not me being sexist, this is just me being unwilling to write: him/herself every time I don’t know someone’s gender) an AMERICAN and wants a universal database through which companies have to input all their spending for government surveillance. “So this is how democracy dies - to thunderous applause.”
Apparently, “lal” isn’t the only one touting socialism. According to him, “we ALL [emphasis mine] agree that the money should go to the most appropriate places as long as it revives the economy.” In fact, when I wrote 90% of my hard-earned salary away to the feds, I specifically noted that ALL of my money should be used in the MOST appropriate places JUST SO LONG AS IT WOULD REVIVE THE ECONOMY. I trust that Congress will be able to judge what is “appropriate” for me, as I am clearly not competent enough to do so, but I asked for a contract stating that I would receive a refund if the economy was not dramatically improved by Tuesday. They signed the contract, but Tuesday has come and gone and the economy still stinks. I can’t even get two cents on eBay for the signature because this is America and we don’t abide by contracts here.
This other guy (P.C. gal), "pinkpoppies09," says that “the actions taken by Northern Trust were a slap in the face of every hardworking American who is going to have to pay higher taxes down the road for the bailout money they were given.” This represents truly superior thinking because I am sure that, had Northern Trust adamantly resisted the money being forced down their throats to the point of being sent to jail for nonconformity, the government would have taken their allotted money and redistributed it to all of us hard-working Americans, thus reducing the katrillion dollar debt we have already prepared for our children by 0.0000000023%. Six-digit disability money being given to a woman who thinks she is Angelina Jolie and is birthing large quantities of babies without any prospect of acquiring a job is not an insult to taxpayers. Taking more money from rich people who have earned their money through blood, sweat, and tears, and distributing it to people who lack the motivation, ambition, courage, or persistence to do the same is just the American way. Northern Trust using their own money to further their business, now THAT’S a slap in the face.
There’s still hope. IberiaBank Corp. is sending the money back. Based in Louisiana, the bank has filed paperwork to repay some $90 million from the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s Capital Purchase Program (the more words, the more vague and gray appears the evil), because, they say, “We believe recent actions, interpretations and commentary regarding various aspects of the program places our company at an unacceptable competitive disadvantage. Our board of directors has determined that continued participation in this program is no longer in the best interest of our company and its shareholders.” (i.e. lalibertekai0111’s universal database is scaring the need out of Iberia) So what if the companies realize that the government intrusion on their livelihoods isn’t worth the pay? And what if the people realize that the way their money is being spent isn’t worth the working hours? Well, what if America becomes a free-market again? Maybe this is what Limbaugh means by failure.
But what I really want to say is: thank goodness for companies like Northern Trust (who, before you call me shortsighted, I fully admit probably has a lot of low, unethical, and wasteful action going on behind the scenes that has no association with their recent “infamy”) and God keep me from strangling the virtual necks of the unintelligent people who comment on these news reports! The story goes (and it is startlingly difficult to get a straight story. “Where the press is free and every man can read…” – Jefferson, right?) that Northern Trust Bank threw a huge appreciation gala for a bunch of their clients and execs after having received federal bailout money. The golf tournament, music extravaganza was the second annual Northern Trust event and, according to some sources, raises large amounts of charity money. According to Northern Trust, they never wanted bailout money to begin with. The company made $641 million dollars last year and didn’t need any federal money, but “agreed to the government’s goal of gaining the participation of all major banks in the United States.” Supposedly, they are more than willing to give the money back, albeit gradually. According to some sources, however, Congress, despite being up in arms about the incident, won’t actually accept the money back. People are even angrier because Northern Trust apparently laid off 400-some employees in December. This doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly large number, but that’s not the most important point. The most important point is that laying off employees that are not needed is one of the ways to keep your business from flopping, as is schmoozing loyal customers. Both of these actions on Northern Trust’s part seem to me well-thought-out business decisions, not extraneous acts of negligence.
But all of this is irrelevant when compared to the fact that Northern Trust never wanted or needed government money to begin with. Furthermore, if their gala cost them less than $641 million, then it is a totally justifiable argument that they were not spending government, but their own money. Besides which, there were no specific directions by Congress prohibiting this type of spending with bailout money. Thus, for the government to condemn Northern Trust is a blatant attempt to exert even more excessive control over the banks. If Congress can arbitrarily proclaim that a company, industry, or individual is not using “their” (i.e. my) money “properly,” then there are virtually no lines at all that they can and will not cross.
I’ve left out another relevant detail. Apparently, Northern Trust signed a contract two years ago that they would host this event for the next five years, well before any bailout money was offered to (or forced on) them. The article on ABC news online by Maddy Sauer ACTUALLY STATES: “Critics say even if the bank has contractual obligations, money could have been saved by canceling concerts or staying in budget accommodations.” So now, a company is free to spend its money as it pleases unless socially moral and intelligent judges like Barney Frank proclaim that they are being (and I quote) “lavish.” I see.
Tom Schatz, some meager human being with the title President of Citizens Against Government Waste (reminds me of the Dr. Seuss book where the watcher needs a watcher!) suggests that, “that’s really the issue more than prior commitments. You can cancel a concert.” Apparently, a contract no longer means anything. This is good news for me as the state is stealing $23 in taxes from me this year and I am glad to hear that the signature I put at the bottom of my tax form is null and void and I can keep my twenty three bucks. But Schatz doesn’t stop there. He is, after all, a concerned citizen. “Firing” (I read a shirt once that defined liberalism as changing the definitions of words to suit their own needs) 450 employees, Schatz says “isn’t great…for the morale of taxpayers.” He’s right! When I heard that Northern Trust had laid off 450 employees, I was on Prozac for weeks, but when Obama raised everybody’s taxes and stole hard working people’s money to give to failed businesses, that was only fair.
Apparently, though, some people agree with Schatz. If the articles on Northern Trust aren't ridiculous enough, people’s commentary on the (this was the favorite word) “greed” of the Big Bad Bank is over the top. Aside from the patriotic citizens like “help this country,” who said things like “the bailout was rewarding bad behavior to begin with,” so many people seem to believe that Northern Trust’s extravagant spending (of their own money) is an insult to hard-working Americans, though stealing our money to begin with was all in the line of duty. “lalibertekai0111” asks “Why was the money taken if they DID NOT NEED IT!!!” (apparently, “lal” entirely failed to actually read the article) and wants to “build some kind of database that every corporation should install therefore tracking exactly where the money was spent” This amazes me! Granted, random people leaving messages at the ends of online news articles don’t have to qualify as intelligent (at the risk of sounding egotistical, random ranting bloggers don’t have to be qualified either), but this person calls himself (for all the politically correct crusaders out there, this is not me being sexist, this is just me being unwilling to write: him/herself every time I don’t know someone’s gender) an AMERICAN and wants a universal database through which companies have to input all their spending for government surveillance. “So this is how democracy dies - to thunderous applause.”
Apparently, “lal” isn’t the only one touting socialism. According to him, “we ALL [emphasis mine] agree that the money should go to the most appropriate places as long as it revives the economy.” In fact, when I wrote 90% of my hard-earned salary away to the feds, I specifically noted that ALL of my money should be used in the MOST appropriate places JUST SO LONG AS IT WOULD REVIVE THE ECONOMY. I trust that Congress will be able to judge what is “appropriate” for me, as I am clearly not competent enough to do so, but I asked for a contract stating that I would receive a refund if the economy was not dramatically improved by Tuesday. They signed the contract, but Tuesday has come and gone and the economy still stinks. I can’t even get two cents on eBay for the signature because this is America and we don’t abide by contracts here.
This other guy (P.C. gal), "pinkpoppies09," says that “the actions taken by Northern Trust were a slap in the face of every hardworking American who is going to have to pay higher taxes down the road for the bailout money they were given.” This represents truly superior thinking because I am sure that, had Northern Trust adamantly resisted the money being forced down their throats to the point of being sent to jail for nonconformity, the government would have taken their allotted money and redistributed it to all of us hard-working Americans, thus reducing the katrillion dollar debt we have already prepared for our children by 0.0000000023%. Six-digit disability money being given to a woman who thinks she is Angelina Jolie and is birthing large quantities of babies without any prospect of acquiring a job is not an insult to taxpayers. Taking more money from rich people who have earned their money through blood, sweat, and tears, and distributing it to people who lack the motivation, ambition, courage, or persistence to do the same is just the American way. Northern Trust using their own money to further their business, now THAT’S a slap in the face.
There’s still hope. IberiaBank Corp. is sending the money back. Based in Louisiana, the bank has filed paperwork to repay some $90 million from the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s Capital Purchase Program (the more words, the more vague and gray appears the evil), because, they say, “We believe recent actions, interpretations and commentary regarding various aspects of the program places our company at an unacceptable competitive disadvantage. Our board of directors has determined that continued participation in this program is no longer in the best interest of our company and its shareholders.” (i.e. lalibertekai0111’s universal database is scaring the need out of Iberia) So what if the companies realize that the government intrusion on their livelihoods isn’t worth the pay? And what if the people realize that the way their money is being spent isn’t worth the working hours? Well, what if America becomes a free-market again? Maybe this is what Limbaugh means by failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)