Wall Street still doesn’t get it

Wall Street’s masters of the universe are a shameless bunch, their egos swelled with a sense of entitlement that would make the old railroad robber barons blush. Their predations are largely responsible for the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, but they don’t get it.

They are in denial about the damage they’ve caused worldwide. That’s why Kenneth Feinberg, the so-called pay czar, had no choice but to cut compensation for executives at seven companies that received government bailouts: The companies were prepared to reward abysmal performance with huge paychecks.

But pay cuts won’t tame the excesses on Wall Street. If the White House doesn’t insist on strict regulatory reform, the nation will see another banking crisis, perhaps worse than this one, within a decade, many experts say.

Last year’s huge taxpayer-financed bail-out of the banking industry remains extremely unpopular with Americans, who don’t think they got anything out of it. It’s likely, though, that the massive federal intervention prevented another Great Depression. Without the bail-out, the nation’s economic engines — sputtering even now — would have ground to a halt.

But given the behavior of the bankers, you can understand the resentment from Main Street. With the official unemployment rate at virtually  ten percent, most Americans wonder why moguls like Kenneth Lewis, outgoing head of Bank of America, walk away with their reputations blemished but their fortunes largely intact.  Wall Street is still expected to pay a record $140 billion in compensation this year.

Unfortunately, the Wall Street wizards have learned only one lesson from the economic cataclysm: They can do whatever they want because they’re too big to fail. The government will have to bail them out if they get in trouble again because their failures would take the entire economy down the tubes. And they’re right. When they implode, they cause collateral damage that ripples throughout a globalized economy.

“Those banks that were too big to fail, are now bigger. . The idea that the government is not going to let these banks fail, which was implicit a year ago, it’s now explicit. . Potentially, we could be in more danger now than we were a year ago,” Neil Barofsky, special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, told CNN recently.

Nobody, including President Obama, wants the government in the business of setting compensation for Wall Street executives or automotive industry moguls. America is a country that greatly respects the capitalist impulse — a creative force that rewards risk-taking.

But the government can’t allow industry to get away with privatizing the profits and socializing the risks. We are all best served when investment banks can take risks which affect only their stockholders.

The White House ought to seriously entertain a proposal from former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who has proposed preventing commercial banks from participating in the sort of risky investment schemes that brought ruin to many of them.

There’s a good reason why the nation hadn’t seen a crisis like this since the 1930s; the Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, prohibited bank holding companies from owning other financial companies. In other words, it kept a thick wall of separation between traditional banking — holding deposits, making loans, etc. — and the sort of risky trading that was the province of Wall Street investment houses. But Glass-Steagall was watered down over the last several years and finally repealed in 1999 in a bipartisan bit of folly.

The White House, though, has resisted Volcker’s proposal. That’s partly because the bankers are pushing back furiously against even less-sweeping regulation. But it’s also because the Treasury Department is itself a captive of Wall Street. Successive administrations, Democratic and Republican, have been taken in by the siren song of investment bankers, who claim that a new Glass-Steagall would unfairly cripple them in a global economy.

So what if their recklessness cripples the rest of us?

80 comments Add your comment

Carter is a Fool

October 28th, 2009
7:46 am

Just read yesterday that the circulation at the AJC was down again. It is obvious that your company still does not get it either.

Peadawg

October 28th, 2009
8:02 am

And obviously Bush AND Obama didn’t get it when they bailed them out.

Carter is a Fool

October 28th, 2009
8:08 am

What needs to be done to correct the government which is failing the citizens of this country? The Wall Street type have a portion of blame for this economic mess. However, in your hate capitalism viewpoint, they are the only ones to blame. No, that is not true. The wonderful government has a large share of ownership in this mess. The government passed laws under Carter and later enlarged under Clinton to loan money to everyone to buy a house. This is the foundation of the problem. You cannot loan money to people that cannot pay it back because they lack the ability to repay the loan. Loans were made to people with really shaky employment for properties that were over-inflated in value while ignoring the income ratios and credit reports.

This speculation was created by the Congress in another example of a well meaning law with dire consequences. When it became obvious what was happening, politicians such as the esteemed Barney Frank blocked several attempts to fix it before it blew up. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others have ownership for this mess, but the media who loves these hairbrained people and their ideas give them a complete pass.

The climate that created the crisis was engineered by Congress. To this you add people purchasing beyond their abilities and means. These people knew they could not afford the loans, but figured that the lender would just say NO. The lenders instead of saying NO, found new ways to say YES. Interest only loans, ARM loans, and if those fail – ignore the fundamental rules and make the loan anyway. Banks and Mortgage companies who decided since everyone was doing it, we can also ignore the fundamental loan ratios and credit worthiness requirements. Finally this smelly junk paper was packaged and repackaged by Wall Street bankers to make a profit. Granted this process involved lots and lots of profit at a high risk.

It is untruthful to ignore the role of the Congress and past Presidents in this mess. It is untruthful to ignore the buyers and lenders in this mess. Wall Street has a role in this, but they are not solely at fault.

When will Congress own their mistake in creating the environment for this mess to take seed and grow? The answer is probably never.

Yes, pay should be cut for Wall Street Execs. However, I dislike the government which only does one thing well (National Defense) dictating the pay. Since the companies took bailout funds, the lender in this case the Government can dictate the terms of the loan and the operation of the business including the pay structure. Hopefully, the companies will quickly payback the loans so that their share holders can run the company instead of the Government.

Turd Ferguson

October 28th, 2009
8:20 am

No Cynthia…Obobo doesnt get it. When this bailout money was handed over it was done so with no stipulations. Too bad. And dont be so upset as is shows you in a hypocritical light. No doubt Ms Tucker, you, have made buckets of money participating in the stock market, 401K etc.

“Dont cry for me Cythia Tucker, the truth is, yes I still love you…”

Call it like it is.

October 28th, 2009
8:20 am

Wow, Cindy take down your blog and put up “Carter is a fool,” His is better written, more facts and explains the real problem. “Remember when in doubt keep the government out!”

TheNextOne

October 28th, 2009
8:26 am

Cynthia, while I agree that the government has the right to dictate executive pay for companies that took bailout money and haven’t paid it back, many of your comments are still downright incorrect or based on poor assumptions. Why is the liberal’s answer to everything implementing some sort of government program or watch dog? Just as there are egotistical and entitled CEOs, there are just as many in the government. Not only does the government feel entitled, but they are catering to those so-called “Americans” that feel they should be entitled too.

In addition, while you say that “America is a country that greatly respects the capitalist impulse — a creative force that rewards risk-taking”, very little the government is doing supports that. At the same moment they restrict executive pay for private companies, they give themselves pay raises. Small businesses are going to be taxed out the wazoo in order to support the bloated spending of the current administration. Government continually looks for new ways to tax the American people rather than looking inside to see what they can do to reduce their own spending. Look at how much time has been wasted bickering about health care. The time spent equates to more money than any of us will see in a life time, but this “invented” health care “crisis” from the administration of “hope” and “change” is costing us more money and frankly it’s sickening. We do have a health care issue but I would hardly call it a “crisis”. “Crisis” was made up by this hopeful and change-agent administration to hoodwink the sheeple of this country into thinking that the goverment is the answer to solving these problems. Please; government needs to learn how to step aside and let the country do what it needs to do. And before you say that’s what caused the crisis, please don’t forget that the government had something to do with forcing the banks to make risky loans to people who couldn’t afford them thanks to another government program forcing “fairness”.

Turd Ferguson

October 28th, 2009
8:39 am

NO…govt does not have the right to do make demands after the fact. Typical democrat back-door activity.

2 cents worth

October 28th, 2009
8:52 am

I’m with Call it like it is . . . Carter is a fool knows what he is talking about!!!

jt

October 28th, 2009
8:52 am

“their egos swelled with a sense of entitlement that would make the old railroad robber barons blush.”

The old railroad robber barons were enabled by a corrupt congress too. Amtrek is still bleeding tax-payers dry.

“So what if their recklessness cripples the rest of us?”

Wait until you see what this gang of 525 does to our health-care.

TheNextOne

October 28th, 2009
8:54 am

Turd: I agree with you. Frankly, there should have been stipulations up front regarding any company who took the bailout money. The government (aka Monday morning quarterbacks) didn’t see that and are trying to rectify it now. I’m okay with it this time and maybe that will be the incentive to these organizations to pay the money back faster.

Road Scholar

October 28th, 2009
8:56 am

Many have contended that the laws passed by Congress that “forced” the banks to give bad loans are behind the downturn. What I can not understand is that good business practices (loan application review, credit check, etc.) should have still been the cornerstone of making any loan. In addition, why are these CEO’s/Boards still in business and have jobs at the banks that they took down. They are the best? They didn’t want to be “left behind” since other banks were doing it?

The management of the banks, as well as many other corporate boards are like fraternities, not seeing the impact they have on each other. Some fresh blood may be in order. Some backbone and making sound financial decisions, other than which politician to back, should be the foundation of any business. This is also true for those citizens who over spent their means. But remember Bush’s one time mantra after 9-11:Shop, Spend Shop! Was this downturn really the fruit of trickle down economics?

norman ravitch

October 28th, 2009
9:15 am

Stop peddling populism. It if very dangerous and leads to fascism.

lovelyliz

October 28th, 2009
9:17 am

Where were all the neo-cons when professional sports leagues instituted salary cap?

Or is it that people who don’t do any actual labor as so special to the GOP?

Joan

October 28th, 2009
9:30 am

Road Scholar, banks were forced to lend to bad creditors due to the community redevelopment act, which was enforced in the courts against banks that did not want to do it, by ACORN, represented by your esteemed Mr. Obama as their counsel.

RAMBLE ON!!!

October 28th, 2009
9:44 am

But I thought it was all Bushes fault?

dahreese

October 28th, 2009
9:44 am

” The government passed laws under Carter and later enlarged under Clinton to loan money to everyone to buy a house. This is the foundation of the problem.”

This statement is ignorance at its best. No one forced the lending institutions to lend to unqualified buyers. Rather, the lenders became nothing better than snake-oil salesmen preying on the borrowers and conviencing them that they could afford more than they really could.

Perhaps the borrowers were foolish, but the lenders who caused this mess should serve a long time in prison for deceptive lending practices.

Give Wall Street time and this will just happen again.

Turd Ferguson

October 28th, 2009
9:54 am

The Carter/Clinton debacle is what started this mess.

“Deceptive lending practices”??? OH…in other words since the loan applicants didnt read their agreement then of course its the loan officers fault. Grow up little nanny goat.

jconservative

October 28th, 2009
9:58 am

I am of the opinion that a major portion of the American voters do not believe the nation was on the brink of a “great depression”. Reason, if you believe that then you must believe that the massive spending was necessary. And, after watching Bush 43 increase the national debt by $6+ trillion, most Americans are saying “Enough!”.

Donovan

October 28th, 2009
9:59 am

I am an American who believes in capitalism. I have made lots of money from Wall Street and don’t feel guilty about it. Although there will always be some pirates empowered by the system of capitalism, those who use the system in its free legal sense will enjoy the fruits of its dynamics. Comrade Tucker, on the other hand, makes her money writing about anti-American ideologies that others have put forth in the past. Those esteemed individuals go by the names of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Chavez, and Ortega. Ask Comrade Tucker if she turned down participating in her 401K plan.

Road Scholar

October 28th, 2009
10:00 am

Joan: I’m sorry to be dense at times, but good business practice overrides what someone wants you to do. What penalty was threatened? Did the government back the loans or insure them if they were defaulted ? In a way I guess they did since they had to bailout many lenders! As for the bundles/derivatives, that trading was/is just plain stupid…not knowing what is in the bundle.

Sam Costanzo

October 28th, 2009
10:02 am

There were several flaws in your article on Wall Street.

1. The Volcker plan would protect deposit taking banks but do nothing to
constrain “too big to fail” investment banks. Lehman had no deposits but
None of the solutions being discussed will be able to shut down the
Wall Street casino. Wall Street will always be a step ahead of regulators
and their money will prevent adequate safeguards from being legislated. To
shut down the casino we must impose a tax on all securities transactions
calibrated to remove the profit from the 80% of Wall Street trading that is
pure gambling. Such a tax would force Wall Street to focus on the socially
useful task of financing projects and firms that will grow the economy
rather than gambling on what the prices of securities might be the next day,
next hour, or in the case of computerized trading, the next nano second.

JF McNamara

October 28th, 2009
10:03 am

I agree with Cynthia on this one. We should be listening to Volcker.

There’s no way an investment house and a bank should operate as one. There are too many conflicts of interest and the investing side is encouraged to take on too much risk in search of higher returns. Unless we want to bail a firm out every 5-7 years, they need to be split.

Save the banks in the future (even though we shouldn’t have to if they split) and let the investment houses go down.

booger

October 28th, 2009
10:06 am

This administration missed a great opportunity to break up the banks which were too big to fail as part of the bailout. This was the suggestion at the time of many top economist. Rather than take this, the logical approach, they chose a straight bailout, with the promise of tons of new regulation.

The reason. This government wants to control. By leaving the mega banks too big to fail, they can control a large portion of the financial business in the US in a few nice neat packages. They are now controling pay, once again coercing them to make bad loans, and promise many new regulations to come.

This would not have been nearly so easy had they broken the mega banks int smaller units which were not too big to fail.

Scott

October 28th, 2009
10:14 am

When will Congress have their pay cut back. They are part of the problem. Their pay should be determined based on their performance. If they get the budget in check and the country is not in the red, they get their normal pay. If they are in the red and they continue to bankrupt the country, they only get 10% of their pay. If they make drastic changes and have a budget surplus, they get a little bit of a bonus. Instead, we get Congressmen that are not accountable and feel like they can dictate rules about other businesses when in fact, they cannot even manage their own “business.”

TnGelding

October 28th, 2009
10:16 am

Carter is a Fool

October 28th, 2009
7:46 am

What about hits at ajc.com?

TnGelding

October 28th, 2009
10:19 am

Joan

October 28th, 2009
9:30 am

Hogwash! Even if true, it was peanuts compared to the bungling on Wall Street.

TheNextOne

October 28th, 2009
10:24 am

lovelyliz

October 28th, 2009
9:17 am

“Where were all the neo-cons when professional sports leagues instituted salary cap?

Or is it that people who don’t do any actual labor as so special to the GOP?”

So people who don’t do actual labor are so special to the GOP? Not physical labor, but it’s labor nonetheless. Liz (forgive me if I don’t refer to you as “lovely” because from your opinions you seem anything but), you are clearly a government-lover and anti-capitalist. If it weren’t for those “evil corporations”, you wouldn’t have computer manufacturers that support blogs such as these that enable you to publish your drivel.

Enjoy your Obama-laden Kool-Aid, because as part of the sheeple, you clearly need someone to do your thinking for you.

dahreese

October 28th, 2009
10:33 am

““Deceptive lending practices”??? OH…in other words since the loan applicants didnt read their agreement then of course its the loan officers fault. Grow up little nanny goat.”

Actually, “nanny goat”, it’s been well proven that the lenders INTENTIONALLY misrepresented the loans to the borrowers. After all, when the commissions on those loans are paid up front to the lenders, the lender isn’t going to be too concerned what will happen to the borrower in the future.

(Oh, my, it just takes my breath away how those “honest lenders” worked soooo hard to make the borrowers understand the terms of the loans ).

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

JF McNamara

October 28th, 2009
10:38 am

Sam Costanzo,

I’m not sure that taxation is the answer for Wall Street. The only people who would be inhibited from “gambling” are successful small traders. The guy who lives across the street and trades for a living. The investment houses likely won’t bat an eyelash.

If it does end speculation, however, it potentially hurts everyone with a 401K because volume will dwindle. You’ll likely see much, much larger swings in prices simply because of supply and demand. It’ll be less about the value of the company and more about the availability of the stock. You’ll increase the volatility which will give an even bigger advantage to Wall Street.

TheNextOne

October 28th, 2009
10:41 am

dahreese, why don’t you show some of your “proof”?

Once again, you do not seem to accept that personal accountability and responsibility is also at fault (note the word “also”, not “only”). I have been buying homes since I was 23 and have never been duped by these “evil” lenders.

The ignorance lies in those folks who do not believe in personal accountability. Read a contract; it doesn’t matter what a lender says. The terms of the contract (fixed, floating, balloon, etc.) are there in BLACK AND WHITE. Ignorance also lies with the people who don’t understand that our brilliant government FORCED risky loans based on their legislation. Sheesh!

dahreese

October 28th, 2009
11:02 am

“dahreese, why don’t you show some of your “proof”?”

Would the fact that I once sold real estate make any difference to you?

Some of you folks just don’t want to admit that it wasn’t Clinton or Carter who started this collapse. What they did was to make it illegal for the lending institutions, banks in particular, to red-line qualified buyers simply because they were minorities. In other words, the banks were happy to take the deposits of the minorities, but not make loans to them.

Deregulation of the lending industry started with the removal of the Glass-Stengall laws, and that happened under Reagan.

While I do not take away the responsibility of the borrower, the lenders were never “forced” to lend to an unqualified buyer. And they knew better than the borrower (just as they know today) what the borrower really could afford and not afford.

After all, how many borrowers, including yourself, perhaps, know how the stock market really works and keep up with it from day to day?

But, I’ll be happy to see your “proof” otherwise.

F. Sinkwich

October 28th, 2009
11:30 am

“What they did was to make it illegal for the lending institutions, banks in particular, to red-line qualified buyers simply because they were minorities. In other words, the banks were happy to take the deposits of the minorities, but not make loans to them.”

BS. Banks were forced by the CRA and Acorn extortionists to make loans to losers.

But you knew that.

JM Keynes

October 28th, 2009
11:36 am

JF McNamara

How many small traders do you know who make a living from trading? About as many as make a living buying lottery tickets? If successful, they would become rich in no time.

The volume of trading was 80% lower in 1992. Prices are more volatile now then they were then and, I don’t know about you, but my 401K did much better back then. The Dow is now at the same level it was in 1998 while the volume of trading has increased 30%.

DirtyDawg

October 28th, 2009
11:42 am

A young man I know that was active in the ’sub-prime’ mortgage business, when I asked him ‘what in hell happened?’, described it thusly. ‘It was like selling crack cocaine…Wall Street created the stuff (in the form of bundled loans passed along as secure investments and derivatives that demanded more and more loans with inflated values, exploding APRs and abilities to pay that relied on too much ‘wishful thinking’)…the lenders pushed the stuff through huge mortgage wholesalers and store-front and basement mortgage retailers that relied on realtors, builders and appraisers and all were hell-bent on making as much money as they could for as long as they could..and, finally, users that began to rely on the equity in their homes to ‘live beyond their means’ and thought that those homes would continue to appreciate at a rate that would never catch up – or at least not before they could sell ‘em and cash out…and then the bottom dropped out and the rest is history.

So you see, in the end, uncontrolled, under-regulated ‘Greed’ did us in. After all, that’s ‘The American Way’…make as much money as you can, for as long as you can before it all collapses or you get caught…or both. There’s no such thing as ethics or prudence when it comes to fleecing folks. Like the guy said…’Whatever’s not nailed down is mine…whatever I can pry loose is not nailed down.’…and I would add to that, ‘whatever I can take from you without you doing anything about it, is also mine.’

booger

October 28th, 2009
11:44 am

Dahreese,

Lenders weren’t forced to make bad loans but they were coerced to do so. When community organizers, by policy, became partners with the govt. in the community revitalization efforts, banks who would not write enough subprime loans in targeted areas were identified, and taken off Govt preferred list of banks. In some cases this meant thy were not allowed to expand there business in certain areas. This is coersion.

Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie were paying the bonuses of their exectuives based on the number of subprime being written. Wall St. did get out of hand, but to say the government was not complicit in this meltdown is complete denial.

TheNextOne

October 28th, 2009
12:00 pm

dahreese:
“While I do not take away the responsibility of the borrower, the lenders were never “forced” to lend to an unqualified buyer. And they knew better than the borrower (just as they know today) what the borrower really could afford and not afford.”

Even though you say you don’t take away responsibility of the borrower, you still ended your paragraph with putting accountability on the lender knowing better than the borrower what they borrower can and cannot afford. It is still the borrower’s responsibility. The 30% of earnings that lender says the borrower can afford is still up to the borrower to know whether they can afford it based on their other expenditures. Period.

This problem was an evolution of many, many things. Fair housing was one component. There are many others. But to blame the “evil lenders” or that “evil Bush” without looking at the activities that took place over a 20 year continuum is short-sided.

I will say though that printing more money, tripling our deficit, creating red herring “crises” won’t help the matter. Unfortunately that is where we are right now until 2012.

dahreese

October 28th, 2009
12:05 pm

booger, I don’t deny the mismanagement (if your prefer, “complicity”) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac once the ball got to rolling. Nor do I deny the roll of subprime loans to targeted minorities – meaning lower interest loans than usual that ordinary folks could not get.

But I hold the line that those loans were government forceably made to unqualified borrowers.

Most folks, even educated folks, counted/count on the honesty of the lender. And less admit, the lender wasn’t honest. Nor did he do his homework and get all of the relevant financial information from the borrower. He didn’t care……..

Nor do I feel sorry for those institutions buying loan packages from other lenders without checking first to see what they were buying only to find out they had been deceived and now want the government to bail them out.

Dirtydawg is right, both the borrower and the lender who was making lots and lots of commissions was “living above his means.”

Turd Ferguson

October 28th, 2009
12:17 pm

dahreese

October 28th, 2009
10:33 am

No…the illiterates that shouldnt have gotten loans in the first place were given such due to race based legislation via Carter then again by Clinton. And these illiterates, even then after being given every chance possible still muck it up. To that I say…HA HA HA *FLUSH*

With Obobo comes the end of Personal Responsiblity cuz we all duh same, and all victims of Bush…LOL.

Turd Ferguson

October 28th, 2009
12:19 pm

“Most folks, even educated folks, counted/count on the honesty of the lender.”

Well those people relying on that pseudo fact are quite stupid, lazy and pretty much get what they deserved.

Shananeeeeee Fananeeeeeeee

October 28th, 2009
12:23 pm

Obama doesn’t get it. He is as corrupt as they come. Change in 2010 and 2012, Change we are looking forward to.

citizen

October 28th, 2009
12:25 pm

Ms. Tucker, a better topic would be “Americans still don’t get it.” Get out of the shell game called Wall Street and invest in what you understand, not some illusion.

TheNextOne

October 28th, 2009
12:27 pm

Isn’t it funny how the president who espoused “hope and change” during his campaign is now espousing “doom and gloom” during his presidency? I guess it really isn’t funny; it’s quite sad, actually.

The president does make quite a good orator, though. But then again all he knows how to do is flap his gums while reading from a teleprompter.

Chris Broe

October 28th, 2009
12:56 pm

The bailout money and the stimulus money obvious went back into stocks, and thus we saw the big rally this spring and summer.

The bailout allows the same loser banks to continue with the same business practices that they’ve been corrupting the system with for years.

Why would anything be different? Nobody was prosecuted except for Madoff. he’s the poster child. He’s the bad guy, and he’s in jail.

Our system of justice is also at risk here. Nobody ever seems to pay for anything they do. (See OJ Simpson, Pee Wee Herman, and Hulk Hogan)

Aw, I don’t wanna talk about it.

MAC

October 28th, 2009
1:06 pm

Wall Street is a big Obama and DNC campaign cash contributor. And a huge employer of lobbyists that were promised to be excluded from this administration and instead have increased under this empty rhetoric president’s first nine months. Expect a lot of populist window dressing and little substantive change from the government on Wall Street and banking. The money still talks.

Change indeed…..

MAC

October 28th, 2009
1:09 pm

Wall Street gets it. The people who expect the Administration and Congress to do anything that really matters about it are the ones who don’t “get it”.

Tax payer funded Public Option, NEVER!

October 28th, 2009
1:11 pm

Obama gives donors special access, report says
The Associated Press

Change we can believe in….Transparency….No lobbyist in the White House…..mmmmmm, mmmmmm, mmmmmm Barack the LIAR Obama

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has rewarded top Democratic donors with perks ranging from holiday visits to the White House to policy briefings, carrying on a practice of past presidents despite his promise to change how Washington works.

MAC

October 28th, 2009
1:36 pm

“Carter is a fool” otherwise good summary left out the role of the Fed and Mr. Greenspan in fueling the real estate bubble and the rampant speculation with easy money printed and handed out at artificially low interest rates.

BoneHead

October 28th, 2009
2:01 pm

The only reason they bailed out the banks was to try and not look bad for bailing out AIG, which holds almost 80% of the congress and senates retirement funds. Kind of makes you say hmmmmmm

ck hall

October 28th, 2009
2:14 pm

Cynthia, you really don’t get it!!!!

Carter is a Fool

October 28th, 2009
2:36 pm

Mac, you are right. I did leave the role of the Fed out. Thanks for correcting me.

If any of you think Congress gets it — look at Barney Frank. He does not get it. Nancy does not get it. She is sooooooooo out of touch and drunk on power. Harry does not get it, but I think the voters have and will send him into retirement actually FIRE HIM. Nancy has too many kool-aid drinkers to have to worry about being fired.

Turd’s comments are right on.

Has anyone noticed that Obama is taking on the worst characteristics of Carter and surprisingly Nixon. Anyone wonder about his enemy list?