Obama 7 - now what?

[Slap Shot]

"The jobs change, but the faces remain the same."

That's not really an answer. You're positing a cause and effect relationship exists between executive caps and international 'brain drains' and I'm curious which applicable experiences we can draw from to logically deduce such an outcome as it perteains to the present.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

How are Fox' first amendment rights being violated? They know what they are, we know what they are, and they're just as free today to be it as yesterday. Nobody has a "right" to be called objective. They aren't being censored, they're just being criticized.

I don't think Obama should give this any more oxygen -- it isn't as if calling Fox biased is an earth-shattering revelation. But if I had a penny for every time the right sneered at the "liberal media," I'd be typing this from my villa in Switzerland.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

How are Fox' first amendment rights being violated? They know what they are, we know what they are, and they're just as free today to be it as yesterday. Nobody has a "right" to be called objective. They aren't being censored, they're just being criticized.

I don't think Obama should give this any more oxygen -- it isn't as if calling Fox biased is an earth-shattering revelation. But if I had a penny for every time the right sneered at the "liberal media," I'd be typing this from my villa in Switzerland.

Sending your Chicago goons out to deligitimize them on other networks is way more than criticism. If Nixon were alive and sending out Haldeman and Erlichman to attack the legitimacy of, say, CBS, you'd be apoplectic. But since it's only Fox (and we know what they're all about don't we?) who cares?Plus, the other thing the WH wants to accomplish here is to intimidate other networks into staying off of stories from Fox (Van Jones, ACORN). "Nothing to see here. Everyone just move alone."

Trying to keep Fox out of a WH pool briefing IS censorship, and all of the members of the pool agreed that it was. Similarly trying to deny them access to government officials is way more than criticsm, and I'm pretty sure you know the difference.

Who said anything about a right to be called objective? Fox isn't and neither is CNN (which fact checks SNL skits but passes on slanderous statements about a guy they don't like without fact checking) or MSNBC, just to name two. I don't want their access to government officials restricted either.

Legally, you're right, there's no effort to deny Fox the right to speak. But there is a serious effort here to silence opposition, which all of my life mealy mouthed liberals have assured me is one of the things we should oppose in this country. But, in the case of Fox, an exception apparantly.

Bottom line for me, Barack Nixon's actions speak much louder than his words here. Trying to crush or at least hurt an entity that has the temerity to oppose him. Evidently we can't have Fox and "change we can believe in."

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Ok I need to ask a question and I forsee this leading to me getting ripped quite a bit for many reasons but it is an honest question so screw it I am going to ask

Has there been anything done since the meltdown to prevent the short selling of stock and the ever popular (and deliciously naughty sounding) naked short selling? I remember about the time Lehman Brothers collapse (I think it was Lehman, it may have been Bear Stearns) they suspended short selling for a couple weeks but as of now is it still active and allowed?

I know very little about Wall Street and how it runs itself, most of my info comes from here reading what is linked and various articles in Rolling Stone which, yes I know isnt the best source. It seems that defaulting on these stocks (which the seller doesn't have in hand, you are basically trading on an agreement you have with the owner of the stocks who is a third party) is accepted and even encouraged until it becomes unmanageable. (the article in RS showed Lehman and Bear Stearns were registering millions of defaults on their stocks which they say is based on these types of transactions the days before they went under)

So is there any practical purpose for these sales and if not why are they allowed? Isn't it just fraud, selling something you don't own, representing that you do own it, for the purposes of making a profit? If it is still allowed what is to stop people from doing the same things they did to Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers? (according to RS, there were more fake shares being sold about and defaulted on than there were public shares of the companies) Like I said I am less than a novice with this stuff so if I misunderstood something or misrepresented it it wasn't intentional its just my ignorance showing. Thanks!

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

The fault lies with almost everyone. Both parties for their inability to manage the country in a fiscally responsible way. Wall Street Banks. The Fed with it's easy credit and money philosophy. Fannie and Freddie. The public at large for being stupid enough to enter into mortgages they couldn't afford, and for using their homes as their personal ATMs. Mortgage companies and banks for lending to people they knew couldn't pay them back. Congress for encouraging this behavior. Over-leveraging. Securitization/passing risk onto other parties. etc. etc.

Not true at all. By blaming almost everyone you're blaming no one. And there is a clear line of blame: Fed-Bank-Congress. And there is a difference between borrowing on 50% of your assets for individuals vs 5000% for investment banks.

And there is clear difference between who is getting hurt. stupid people are getting punished by losing their homes, losing their jobs and probally getting hit with crappy credit rating so it'll be difficult and costly to borrow any money for a long time. while the talented mr. banker is getting bigger bonuses, loans and backing from the Fed (Ie stupid taxpayers) and 100% on their MBS that they foreclosed on the homeowners (Ie stupid borrowers).

And that brings us to what we do about problem: The fed wants more power(so no one else can interfere). Congress is divided by party lines deadlocked and nothing is done. And Bankers are rolling in the bonuses "it's never been better sir" "what recession?".

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Has there been anything done since the meltdown to prevent the short selling of stock and the ever popular (and deliciously naughty sounding) naked short selling?

So is there any practical purpose for these sales and if not why are they allowed? Isn't it just fraud, selling something you don't own, representing that you do own it, for the purposes of making a profit?

Nope doesn't look like it. But they probally should limit the short % to the float to stop manipulation. And you can't default on short selling since your margin requirements (50%) are the same long or short and the NASdaq/NYSE guarantees the trade.

It's allowed for market makers/specialist to naked short at will, well to keep the market orderly when you have too many buyers or hedging. And it's mostly used to hedge (long position) or bet on the down-side by hedgefunds.

This had nothing to do with the collapse of Bearstern or Lehman. They went under because they got a margin call. Plus Bear got bought out by JPmorgan for $1 ($10) with Fed guarantees. In hindsight it probally would have been cheaper to guarantee Lehman debt and let someone take them over. would have kept AIG from going under from CDS contracts and the panic uncertainty that created for the counter party.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Ok I need to ask a question and I forsee this leading to me getting ripped quite a bit for many reasons but it is an honest question so screw it I am going to ask

Has there been anything done since the meltdown to prevent the short selling of stock and the ever popular (and deliciously naughty sounding) naked short selling? I remember about the time Lehman Brothers collapse (I think it was Lehman, it may have been Bear Stearns) they suspended short selling for a couple weeks but as of now is it still active and allowed?

Short sales are still allowed.

The thing that traditionally keeps short-selling in check is the fact that when you take a short position, you're exposed to limitless market risk, which is not true if you take a long position.

Short Position: You borrow shares from another party, and then sells those shares on your own. While paying interest to the original party (margin), you want the asset to go down in value.

See, it's called "short" because you have never owned the asset you just sold. Think of it like this, you're baking a cake, but didn't have enough sugar. So you go to Mrs. Plumper next door and she lends you a cup of sugar. You bake your cake and eat it. Then when you go out to the store, you buy some sugar and then return that cup to Mrs. Plumper.

Long Position: You purchase an asset, just like you would purchase a television or a burrito.

The reason a short position has limitless risk is that if you sold 1 share at $5.00, this asset could go up in value as high as the market will take it. You don't know the upper-limit. At some point, you'll have to payback that 1 share you borrowed, and it could be for many multiples of what you paid for it. Even then, the asset may have become so attractive that people are unwilling to sell their asset, so you have to wait for a willing seller, thus extending your risk even further. The reason a long position has limited risk is that if you instead buy that asset at $5.00, the only thing at risk is your initial investment of $5.00.

The reason this was seen as a problem in the markets last year is that people saw a stock valued at some $80 and knew it was in for a big tumble. So they took a short position (in parlance, they "shorted it"). So that created even more sellers than buyers than there would have been otherwise. The only thing that surprised me is that there were buyers for those securities outside of the market makers.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Nope doesn't look like it. But they probally should limit the short % to the float to stop manipulation. And you can't default on short selling since your margin requirements (50%) are the same long or short and the NASdaq/NYSE guarantees the trade.

It's allowed for market makers/specialist to naked short at will, well to keep the market orderly when you have too many buyers or hedging. And it's mostly used to hedge (long position) or bet on the down-side by hedgefunds.

This had nothing to do with the collapse of Bearstern or Lehman. They went under because they got a margin call. Plus Bear got bought out by JPmorgan for $1 ($10) with Fed guarantees. In hindsight it probally would have been cheaper to guarantee Lehman debt and let someone take them over. would have kept AIG from going under from CDS contracts and the panic uncertainty that created for the counter party.

No I know that isnt what brought them down we all know what brought them down, but the inflation of the stock value had to hurt what little position it had left. I think the stat I read was one of them had something like 25 million defaults the day before they collapsed...that means 25 million shares were shorted that day but never delivered. (but still paid) That is a lot of people selling shares they dont have...many of them probably selling the same shares they dont have.

Another thing I read was technically you can do all this as long as you can prove that you made a good faith effort to try and get the stock. I can't believe that though, I mean that basically means you could say you own a stock and sell it like you own it even if you dont have an agreement to sell it as long as you TRY to get said agreement.

This whole seems like a very sophisticated version of check fraud. Write a check for money you don't have in the hopes that by the time it clears you will have money in the bank. How does Wall Street justify allowing this? Why can't they just make it a rule that to sell a stock you need to have it in hand? (not literally, but you have to own it or have proof that you are in possession of it)

Thanks for your responses guys, sorry about my naivete about this stuff.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Sending your Chicago goons out to deligitimize them on other networks is way more than criticism. If Nixon were alive and sending out Haldeman and Erlichman to attack the legitimacy of, say, CBS, you'd be apoplectic. But since it's only Fox (and we know what they're all about don't we?) who cares?Plus, the other thing the WH wants to accomplish here is to intimidate other networks into staying off of stories from Fox (Van Jones, ACORN). "Nothing to see here. Everyone just move alone."

Trying to keep Fox out of a WH pool briefing IS censorship, and all of the members of the pool agreed that it was. Similarly trying to deny them access to government officials is way more than criticsm, and I'm pretty sure you know the difference.

Who said anything about a right to be called objective? Fox isn't and neither is CNN (which fact checks SNL skits but passes on slanderous statements about a guy they don't like without fact checking) or MSNBC, just to name two. I don't want their access to government officials restricted either.

Legally, you're right, there's no effort to deny Fox the right to speak. But there is a serious effort here to silence opposition, which all of my life mealy mouthed liberals have assured me is one of the things we should oppose in this country. But, in the case of Fox, an exception apparantly.

Bottom line for me, Barack Nixon's actions speak much louder than his words here. Trying to crush or at least hurt an entity that has the temerity to oppose him. Evidently we can't have Fox and "change we can believe in."

Get back to us when he's spying on them, poring through their tax records, and breaking into their offices.

Until then, this 'Nixon' talk is just a bit hyperbolic, isn't it?


The whole purpose of pool reporting is so those that were there can then go on and brief those that weren't. There are dozens of media representatives not allowed in the pool. Would, say, keeping the political reporter from the Butte Montana Times be censorship?

Get a grip.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Get back to us when he's spying on them, poring through their tax records, and breaking into their offices.

Until then, this 'Nixon' talk is just a bit hyperbolic, isn't it?


The whole purpose of pool reporting is so those that were there can then go on and brief those that weren't. There are dozens of media representatives not allowed in the pool. Would, say, keeping the political reporter from the Butte Montana Times be censorship?

Get a grip.

That's a good bumper sticker: "He's not as bad as Nixon" or "Nixon Was Way Worse" Although Nixon's abuses were more comprehensive than BNPPWO's, even the tricky one didn't try this. The president's job description does not include making determinations as to which media outlet is "legitimate" or not.

You can try to spin this anyway you want. It stinks. And it's an abuse. But you're so filled with anti-Fox bias you've convinced yourself that keeping a network out of the briefing is the same as keeping out a beat reporter from an obscure paper. Notice, BNPPWO's brown shirts caved when the other pool members pushed back.

This naked abuse by BNPPWO's goons isn't that much of a surprise to me. What is surprising is the reaction of Kool aid drinkers like you who've got handy justifications for that which is unjustifiable. If BNPPWO's predecessor had tried this you'd have to be pried down from the ceiling. And I'd be right there with you.

Try to recall all of the bullet points you've used over the years about a free press, access to public officials, the importance of having a vigorous debate on important issues, etc, and remember that somewhere, sometime, some president might try this against your side of the argument. Just a wag, but I'm guessing you'd have a different perspective.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Well, George Bush actually did eavesdrop on reporter's telephone calls, and none of you f-tards were calling him 'Nixon', so I'd have to say there's something beyond Obama dissing Fox News that has your dander up.

But hey, just keep telling us how patriotic and all you are for standing up to this president's criminal conduct.

If BNPPWO's predecessor had tried this you'd have to be pried down from the ceiling. And I'd be right there with you.

Umm, he did try this.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080520-5.html

Q On the back-and-forth between you guys and NBC News, one of the issues Ed Gillespie brings up is NBC calling Iraq a civil war for a period, and then Ed notes that it stopped around September of 2007. Then Ed asks in his exchange with NBC, "Will the network publicly declare the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?" I'm wondering if you guys have gotten a response on that matter, and if not, are you still calling for a response from NBC?

MS. PERINO: We have not heard back from them on that specific matter. We anxiously await any response that we would get on it. But I think it's quite telling that they have been silent.

The reason that we sent the letter yesterday is because we had gotten fed up with the way that the President's policies are being mischaracterized, or the situations on the ground weren't being accurately reflected in the reporting. We had complained before. And it just reached a boiling point when things had boiled over when we believed that NBC News specifically edited out -- intentionally edited out -- something that the President said in response to a question in an interview regarding Iran, and that it mischaracterized the whole interview because of it.

As regards the civil war, I remember very distinctly how there was quite the pomp and circumstance when NBC, on the Today Show, decided to declare -- that they were declaring that Iraq was a civil war. But since then, after the surge and things certainly improved in Iraq, NBC has never had a corresponding ceremony to say that Iraq is not in a civil war. I was just curious to find out what they believe.

And the same goes with the economy. When we got the numbers just two weeks ago on the GDP for the economic growth, it said that we had grown at 0.6 percent. And yet the anchor that night decided to disavow that number. We're just curious what part of the official government data that's been coming out for years do they not agree with. So we haven't had a response on that.

And just another point on this is that President Bush is going to continue to state what United States policy is for the next eight months, and certainly during the six months that there's an election going on. If, for example, if tomorrow President Bush says that he believes that the tax cuts should be made permanent, that doesn't mean he's attacking anybody; he is stating his policy. And we just want to make sure it's really clear that we're not going to allow the President's policies to be dragged into the '08 election unnecessarily and unfairly.

"When we got the numbers just two weeks ago on the GDP for the economic growth, it said that we had grown at 0.6 percent. And yet the anchor that night decided to disavow that number. We're just curious what part of the official government data that's been coming out for years do they not agree with. So we haven't had a response on that."

They're calling out NBC for what they say is negative or biased reporting towards the President. Directly attacking one specific news anchor. "Fed up with their biased and misharacterized" reporting. You know, like slapping a 'D' after a Republican who's been caught in scandal's name. Over and over again


As for what was in Gillespie's letter to NBC.

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Sounds pretty much what this WH is saying towards Fox, that there's little to no difference between their opinion pieces and their hard news people.


I must have missed you standing right there with me. Guess you must have been lost in the crowd of all you patriotic Repubs calling George Bush "Nixon".

And no, I'm not claiming it's ok cause he's not as bad as Nixon. I'm saying it's disingenuous of you and the rest of the f-tards to characterize it as 'Nixonian' when it in no way comes anywhere close to what Nixon, or even George Bush, did to the press. No one 'owes' any person or organization of the media any type of access whatsoever, they can choose to offer access to anyone they wish. And denying access is in no way a criminal or unconstitutional act. If the WH doesn't want to have members of their administration appear on Fox news, that's perfectly within their rights.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Well, George Bush actually did eavesdrop on reporter's telephone calls, and none of you f-tards were calling him 'Nixon', so I'd have to say there's something beyond Obama dissing Fox News that has your dander up.

But hey, just keep telling us how patriotic and all you are for standing up to this president's criminal conduct.




Umm, he did try this.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080520-5.html





They're calling out NBC for what they say is negative or biased reporting towards the President. Directly attacking one specific news anchor. "Fed up with their biased and misharacterized" reporting. You know, like slapping a 'D' after a Republican who's been caught in scandal's name. Over and over again


As for what was in Gillespie's letter to NBC.


Sounds pretty much what this WH is saying towards Fox, that there's littel top no difference between their opinion pieces and their hard news people.


I must have missed you standing right there with me. Guess you must have been lost in the crowd of all you patriotic Repubs calling George Bush "Nixon".

Please remember your attitude here when the worm turns. You and BNPPO are dead wrong (and many libs agree) but you just keep on rationalizing this behavior.

Another bumper sticker: He's Not as Bad as W.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Completely missing the point.

One. Obama is not eavesdropping on Fox News, their reporters or their management. George Bush was for a fact eavesdropping ion news reporters, catalogueing their phone calls and who they were speaking to. Called out the media publicly from behind their briefing podium. Not a peep from all you Constitutional protectors about how they were abusing free speech, the law, and the Constitutution.

Nixon did the same and more.

Obama's administration does one siimple thing, simply criticizes Fox news as not being 'fair and balanced' as they claim, and now you've all got the vapors.

I didn't care what the Dubya administration said about the press, I doubt you could find a post here where I did. That's them just working the refs. You didn't care about it either. Now, suddenly you do. Cause it's not MSNBC under attack, but your beloved Fox News. Cause it's not a Republican doing it, but a Democrat.

Just wish all you unbiased non-partisans would just admit it.

When you show me Obama's spying on the press, or using the power of his office to persecute Fox News, I'll be right there with you. Unlike you who was MIA a year ago when Bush was doing all this.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Completely missing the point.

One. Obama is not eavesdropping on Fox News, their reporters or their management. George Bush was for a fact eavesdropping ion news reporters, catalogueing their phone calls and who they were speaking to. Called out the media publicly from behind their briefing podium. Not a peep from all you Constitutional protectors about how they were abusing free speech, the law, and the Constitutution.

Nixon did the same and more.

Obama's administration does one siimple thing, simply criticizes Fox news as not being 'fair and balanced' as they claim, and now you've all got the vapors.

I didn't care what the Dubya administration said about the press, I doubt you could find a post here where I did. That's them just working the refs. You didn't care about it either. Now, suddenly you do. Cause it's not MSNBC under attack, but your beloved Fox News. Cause it's not a Republican doing it, but a Democrat.

Just wish all you unbiased non-partisans would just admit it.

When you show me Obama's spying on the press, or using the power of his office to persecute Fox News, I'll be right there with you. Unlike you who was MIA a year ago when Bush was doing all this.

"The White House has basically said that they don't believe in the marketplace of ideas, they're not willing to engage in debate, and they are going to be associated with John Adams and the Sedition Act and Richard Nixon and his 'enemies' list – is that the company they want to be in?" says Mike Farrell, director of the First Amendment Center at the University of Kentucky"

As far as you're concerned, the answer is an enthusiastic "yes." I can understand your desire change the subject and find some rationalization for this behavior in history. Evidently, your mother was off base, two wrongs DO make a right. Pity.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Like i said, when and if Obama or other Dems go beyond criticisms to actually taking vindictive action against them, I'll be right there protesting. I'll have my chance to denounce them. There is no room for debate or "the marketplace of ideas" when one side is deliberately and repeatedly lying and fabricating things about you. They deserve to be called out on it.

You already had your chance to speak out against Bush and the Republicans for doing exactly this, and even more, and you were silent. So forgive me if your bleatings now have little effect on me.


The Republicans want to engage in debate, then bring it on. But debate the facts and the merits, not this bull**** about death panels and Kenyan births, and throwing Republicans in prison camps.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Like i said, when and if Obama or other Dems go beyond criticisms to actually taking vindictive action against them, I'll be right there protesting. I'll have my chance to denounce them.

You already had your chance to speak out against Bush and the Republicans for doing exactly this, and even more, and you were silent. So forgive me if your bleatings now have little effect on me.

They have already gone beyond criticism. The question now is, what will be their next step in the service of "change?"

Nice of you to pass out "chances" for me to say what you want me to say. That's not in the slightest bit arrogant.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Rhetoric aside, what are the actual, factual incidents in which the administration has denied Fox News its first amendment rights?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Rhetoric aside, what are the actual, factual incidents in which the administration has denied Fox News its first amendment rights?

#1 We've already discussed this.

#2 It's more subtle than a denial of First Amendment rights. BNPPWO and his Chicago pals want to intimidate other media outlets into ignoring stories they don't like (Van Jones, ACORN) and into focusing instead on hagiography. Let's see, what's the meaning of "is" again? So let's get past the legalisms here, and focus on that 800 pound gorilla in the living room.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

#1 We've already discussed this.

Humor me. All I've seen are vague accusations without any teeth. On what date, in what way, did the administration violate Fox News' first amendment rights, precisely? Honest question -- I'll be right there on the barricades with you if you can demonstrate a real case rather than just a partisan accusation.

"Chilling Effect" is so broad that it can easily be extended to anything.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

They have already gone beyond criticism. The question now is, what will be their next step in the service of "change?"

Nice of you to pass out "chances" for me to say what you want me to say. That's not in the slightest bit arrogant.

I'm not passing out any chances. It was all yours to act when it was happening, when George Bush was collecting records of reporters' phone calls, and making accusations about NBC from the WH press room. You chose not to. And yet, you expect me to take a stand on something that barely scratches the surface comparitively.

I guess some abuses toward the Constitution, free speech rights, and abuses toward the media are just perfectly fine in your book.

BTW, what steps have they taken beyond criticism? Asking other media outlets to call Fox for what they are as well? Oooh, how positively criminal of them.

So, why didn't you say anything about George Bush's abuse of the media? Maybe Rush and Beck and Drudge weren't yammering about it 24-7?