Christopher Hall

another reich-wing question? You should be ashamed Mr. Hall. David- I don't make gratuitous swipes at fellow forum members, or slander them, or imply that they are Nazis, or call them elitists. So, if you think that I am an elitist or a Nazi, come tell me to my face. In the interim, refrain from calling me names. Chris

Does anyone think that Obama would pardon OJ?

I think you will find that it will be passed later on this week. The system will not be able to survive without it. It may not pass this week if a substantial number of the Democrats and most of the Republicans try to tank it like they did yesterday, which I think is a good thing. As for whether the system can survive without the bailout, the proponents of it (led by the Bush Administration) told us last week that the sky would fall if Congress didn't pass the bailout. It will be interesting. It seems that Congress was eventually convinced that if it did not pass the bailout the system would collapse. However, the stock-markets today suggest that they are not convinced that the measure is enough to save the system. It turns out that it will be six weeks before the bailout will be operative. "However, the stock-markets today suggest that they are not convinced that the measure is enough to save the system." Exactly. The market needs to suffer the consequences of awful investment strategies (e.g. hyper-leveraging). The institutions do not need to be the beneficiaries of a hysterical Congressional response to their own self-inflicted institutional failures. I thought that the bailout (which I call the "sellout") would result in even greater market upheaval.

So how was the Wecht JFK Assassination conference? Did anyone attend?

Thanks, John. I will check out these sources.

The problem is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole system is under threat. As much as it must hurt, Bush had no choice but to nationalize them. What alternative strategy do you suggest Bush should take? Let everyone take their lumps and then lets move on. We eitther take the big hit, suffer and then rebuild or we die the death of a thousand cuts. I'll take the big hit. It is laughable that right-wing politicians are claiming that they are blocking this government aid for ideological reasons. Nouriel Rouriel described George Bush, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke as “a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the United Socialist State Republic of America”. Bill Perkins took out an ad in the New York Times and called the plan “trickle-down communism”. However, there is nothing new about the Bush administration providing bailouts for its friends. Bush has given out state aid to his financial backers ever since he took power. Corporate welfare is a consistent feature of advanced capitalism. The only difference this time is the publicity that has surrounded the move. According to a report by the Cato Institute, in 2006 the federal government spent $92bn subsidizing business. Most of this went to major corporations who support the Republican Party. $21bn went to farmers. This was distributed very unfairly with the richest 10% taking 66% of the payouts. In 2006 the Bush administration gave out hundreds of millions to other countries as part of its Foreign Military Financing programme, which enables them to purchase weaponry from US Corporations. In 2006 Boeing alone received $4.5bn from this fund. Another report revealed that Wal-Mart alone received over $1bn of public money from a fund that had been set up to regenerate depressed communities. A report by the Institute for Policy Studies shows that Bush has been spending $20bn a year subsidizing executive pay. A system was introduced that enables multimillionaire executives to declare their income as capital gains. This means that they pay lower rate of tax than the people who clean their offices. An attempt to remove these loophole last year was blocked by the Senate after a lobbying campaign by these multimillionaires. These lobbyists were also involved in stopping legislators banning unsustainable lending. A major figure in this is John McCain’s current campaign manager. Over the past financial year, the big banks spent $49m on lobbying and $7m in direct campaign contributions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent $180m in lobbying and campaign finance over the past eight years. Much of this went to the House financial services committee and the Senate banking committee. This money was well-spent. When Dick Durban’s 2005 amendment seeking to stop predatory mortgage lending, it was defeated in the Senate by 58 to 40. According to Jim Leach, when he proposed re-regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their lobbyists managed in “less than 48 hours to orchestrate both parties leadership” to crush his amendments. According to George Monbiot: “Campaign finance is the best investment a corporation can make. You give a million dollars to the right man and reap a billion dollars’ worth of state protection, tax breaks and subsidies. When the same thing happens in Africa we call it corruption.” This has some good quotes. Can you give any links to the bolded quotes? BTW, I agree with the cartoon that you posted a couple of days ago. I am going to fax "Vote No on the Bailout" letters to both of my state's Senators and to all of the House members.

Len- This is an article (from a source with which I am not familiar) which discusses Joe Biden's relationship with MBNA: http://www.rense.com/general83/biden.htm

This is an interesting article from across the pond: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...den-946127.html Len- You are comparing salaries for top firms in 2008 with what a young lawyer, who flunked the Bar exam 3 times, made quite a few years earlier. There is no market for lawyers who flunk the Bar exam 3 times, because virtually no one wants to hire them as associate attorneys. Thus, it's hard to do a market comparison for someone whom no one wants to hire. Lawyers who flunk the Bar exam more than once tend to go out on their own and, at least early on, not do nearly as well financially as a government lawyer. Like I said, ask your friend how many lawyers in his firm have flunked the Bar exam 3 times. Chris

I think you will find that it will be passed later on this week. The system will not be able to survive without it. It may not pass this week if a substantial number of the Democrats and most of the Republicans try to tank it like they did yesterday, which I think is a good thing. As for whether the system can survive without the bailout, the proponents of it (led by the Bush Administration) told us last week that the sky would fall if Congress didn't pass the bailout. It will be interesting.

John- To what bailout is the cartoon referring? The one that didn't happen? Congress voted down the proposed bailout yesterday, of course, with both parties (in particular, the Republican Party) soundly rejecting it. I hope that the Senate doesn't succeed in resusciating it when it convenes tomorrow. Time will tell.

If the moderators rule that it is verboten to mention Saucy Sarah on the Biden thread, then I will cease and desist from mentioning Sarah's obvious lack of qualifications when compared to Biden. If I am not allowed to point out on this thread how unqualified Sarah is, is it OK if I mention on the Palin thread how much more qualified Biden is? Raymond- I was, for the most part, using your post about Palin on the Biden thread to mildly kid you about this matter. Your comment was, of course, not out of line. No harm intended. But I would rather see comments on each candidate on his or her respective thread. I know that it is hard to resist making retorts about the other candidate, because I have refrained from doing so; but, I think it's best to segregate the comments, links, etc. about each candidate. Chris

Yes but depends on the details, the school gave him a reletively mild punishment at the time and his prof said it wasn't a big deal. If that's the worst thing he's done in 43 years he's one of the cleanest pols in he US Receiving an F, with the opportunity to correct it, is a big deal. Whether that is the worst thing he has done is a cummulative assessment that one has to make by looking at his entire career. You wrote: “This, and his borrowing from another person's speech without attribution, led to his decision to withdraw from the 1988 Presidential race “ It turns out that he did give credit to the author on several other occasions. This assertion is correct, Len. I followed that election closely at the time. Why do you think he dropped out of the race on the heels of such disclosures? Do you agree that using speech written by "ghost writer" is worse? What are you talking about. Virtually everyone uses speechwriters. http://mediamatters.org/items/200808230003 Actually Assistant United States Attorney is not an especially high status or pay position. Although apparently in Biden’s time it was a 2 tier job currently all lawyers at United States Attorney's Offices (other than higher level attorneys) are given the title AUSA*. The Philly office has“134 Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) currently on staff”**. The range of basic pay is $42,684 to $125,938 plus 20.14% locality pay”***, that comes out to $ 51,221 – 151,126. Presumably Biden’s pay was towards the bottom of the scale because “Assistant United States Attorneys’ pay is administratively determined based, in part, on the number of years of professional attorney experience.”*** $ 55,000 or so is pretty meager for a lawyer in a major city and is not much more than a the $ 42 K starting pay for a cop in the same city*4 and is below the nationwide average even for lawyer with less than 1 year experience*5 (Biden had over 2). You’d think if Biden Sr. used his considerable political muscle to get his son a job it would be to get him one where he would get paid less than lawyers with similar levels of experience. The problem is that decent firms don't hire lawyers who flunked the Bar exam 3 times. In many cases, flunking it once is enough to get someone fired. Biden, Jr. was damaged goods and having his last name appears to have gotten him a job. I wonder how many other assistant US attorneys there are who flunked the Bar exam 3 times and have no political influence. It should be noted that Biden (jr) did pass the Maryland Bar Exam on his first try and presumably passed the Federal Bar exam so he’s not that much of a dolt. I disagree. Being able to practice law in Delaware state courts would not be relevant to lawyer whose job would only entail working in Pennsylvania Federal Courts. Even a supporter of his opponent said his failure has irrelevant to his opponent said this was irrelevant to his attempt to get elected Delaware AG. “I’ve seen many good prosecutors who have failed the bar on a couple of occasions,’’ said Wilmington attorney Jeffrey K. Martin, a Republican supporter of Wharton. “I really don’t think it’s a reflection of one’s legal abilities. ... Much of it is pure cramming and rote memory.’’ I wonder how many lawyers his firm has who flunked the Bar exam 3 times. But I agree he is probably only the Democratic nominee because of his dad. But from getting into Yale to being elected governor all of Bush’s opportunities during his adult life were due to his dad and McCain became a pilot because of his dad etc, etc. Also Syracuse is not Ivy Leauge. I didn't say he graduated from an Ivy League Law School. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, which is an Ivey League school. * At least in the Philly and DC offices ** http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/about.html *** http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/ausa_web_ad_01_2008.pdf *4 http://www.ppdonline.org/career/career_benefits.php *5 http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=At...f_Lawyer/Salary What is MBNA? MBNA America Bank, N.A. It is the largest issuer of credit cards in the world.

But an even larger problem is that Sarah Palin would be unlikely to even qualify for admission to Syracuse Law School. Raymond- This thread is about Joe Biden. The forum has a separate thread for trashing Sarah Palin. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13400 Chris

Tis all seems petty ante and pretty old the plagiarism occurred 43 years ago. If you have to go that far back to find such piddling dirt on him he is pretty clean according to the Times "Mr. Biden's professor today played down the incident of plagiarism." his punishment was failing the class but having it stricken from his record so they did not sem to have taken it tahat seriously at the time. As for lifting lines from speeches this relatively common, people don't footnote speeches. Many pols have entire speeches written by writers whom they don't identify. As for his son there was no documentation for the claims however the blog entry did say that he passed the Maryland Bar exam on his 1st try and was promoted after 2 years in a less prestigious job at the same DOJ office. So unless someone can show he didn't a good job in his 1st post there is little basis for speculation his dad pulled strings for him. Len- I have tried to stick with linking posts and, for the most part, not commenting on Biden. Actually, plagiarism is a big deal, and apparently was at the time of Biden's infraction. I don't think that he would do it again, and I think that he learned his lesson. As for lifting lines from speeches, I agree that it is pretty commonplace and, as a result, is a venial sin at most. I don't think that I even mentioned it in my post. As for flunking the Bar exam 3 times (particularly for someone who is an Ivy League School grad), it is indicative of someone who has probably chosen the wrong field or profession. If Biden's son flunked the Bar exam 3 times and still got a high paying government job, it was very likely as a result of his last name. (Update) Len- This story confirms the Bar exam failure matter: http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2006/10/...oes-matter.html As an aside, I wonder how much the people at MBNA contributed to Beau's campaign for Delaware Attorney General. It would be interesting to see how much.

And didn't he go through a phase when he wet the bed as a kid? But why has Sarah Palin or John McCain refused to release THEIR law school transcripts, or details of how either of them did on the Bar Exam? Raymond- I would think that you wouldn't need to be a law school grad to appreciate the magnitude of plagiarism, but it is a serious matter and reflects on one's character and integrity. Plagiarism is a form of cheating. Apparently, the Syracuse University School of Law faculty considered it to be a larger problem than you do.

And his son, Beau, got a job as an Assistant US Attorney, notwithstanding the fact that he flunked the bar exam 3 times: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2077656/posts As a lawyer, I have a lot of sympathy for someone who flunks a bar exam. It can happen to smart people. Flunking a bar exam 3 times, though, reflects a serious lack of knowledge, ability or both. But how does someone who does flunk a bar exam 3 times secure a high-paying job as an Assistannt US Attorney? Let me guess.

Joe Biden's brother and one of his son's are defendants in a fraud lawsuit involving investors and a hedge fund: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8082302200.html

This is an article by E. J. Dionne about Joe Biden's law school plagiarism episode: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75AC0A961948260 To paraphrase Andrew Sullivan, the money quotes are: ''My intent was not to deceive anyone"...."For if it were, I would not have been so blatant.'' At another point, the young Mr. Biden said that ''if I had intended to cheat, would I have been so stupid?'' This, and his borrowing from another person's speech without attribution, led to his decision to withdraw from the 1988 Presidential race.

Thanks, Terry. What is the source of this article? Christopher Dodd got a sweetheart house mortgage by simply calling Countrywide's President, whom he had never met. I am pretty sure that Dodd was also the largest recipient of campaing contributions from Fanny, from Freddie and from Washington Mutual. Barney Frank stated just a few years ago that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound. Check out the following youtube link: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/...ffed.html#links And didn't Soros make part of his enormous fortune by shorting the US dollar in foreign currency exchange trading? Who wants his advice? And now Warren Buffett warns us of cataclysmic econmic consequences if the bailout is not passed, but he just bought $5 Billion in Goldman Sachs stock last week, so it's not exactly like he doesn't have a hefty stake in the success of financial institutions. So, the real questions are: 1. Should the government act, as proposed, in a largely socialist manner? 2. Will the proposed bailout even work? 3. What will happen if the government does nothing (i.e. will the sky fall)? 4. How much of the loans are recoverable (I suspect that the loans are not all toxic)? 5. Whom can we trust for advice (I heard on Mark Levin last night that over 100 economics profs from prestigious universities all over the country have written letters to Congress telling them that the bailout was a terrible idea)? 6. What are the collateral consequences of a bailout (on the US economy for many years, on the dollar, etc.)? This whole mess is kind of like reality television.

I agree that the bailout will further tank the dollar. But I hope that we don't see the second coming of FDR. The rest of the country doesn't need to subsidize a sector of the economy whose profligate spending drove the sector into the ground. If we are all going to suffer, let's let the financial sector suffer the most.

On a more serious note, we are at a pivotal point in the national decision-making process as to whether (or the extent to which) the US govt bails out Fannie, Freddie and AIG. Here is Ron Paul's thinking and advice on the issue: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/pau...lout/index.html I largely agree. I would rather have a recession now than perpetuate a failed system. I think that the breaking news tonight about the US Justice Department's investigating the demise of the above institutions, along with Lehman Brothers, is designed to garner public support for the bailout by giving everyone the feeling that someone will be held accountable for this debacle. I don't believe that anyone will be held accountable and I don't particularly care whether that happens. In short, this breaking news about the investigation is a thinly veiled publicity stunt designed to spur the country (and recalcitrant Congress members and Senators) to back the Paulson bailout package. I object to the government's socializing banking losses, while letting the shareholders and insiders reap the upside. That kind of apporach is nothing more than "heads, they win, tails you lose". Where Obama and McCain come down on this issue may serve as a pre-election test of leadership, certainly moreso than some of the other spin and news that we see everyday. I think that neither one wants to go first on this matter. Bankrupt institutions, and more fortunate (or prescient) ones who get acquired before declaring Chapter 11, will serve as good reminders as to what happens when management runs corporations on the fringes (from an operational and leveraging point of view). In hindsight, the Fed (our shadow government) should have let Baer Stearns sink.

Joe disagrees with Obama on clean coal: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/090...ca.html?showall I agree with Barack.

Joe disagrees with Obama on the AIG bailout: http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimateb...11246&f=108 I agree with Joe on this one.

Here is a pretty good one by Joe from an interview with Katie Couric: http://cbs2.com/politics/joe.biden.interview.2.823202.html Joe thinks that FDR was President when the market crashed in 1929 and that he got out on the television airwaves to explain everything to the public. I think that Joe was unaware of the facts that Hoover was President and that there was no commercial television in 1929, but it appears that those facts flew over Katie's head as well.