Meanwhile, over in the real estate market, business is booming in our tent cities.

In the end, our current president will get the blame, whether he deserves it or not. That reality seems to have pierced the bubble.

What hasn't pierced the bubble is any serious debate on whether top down recovery will lead to our desired result as a nation, and world. I can imagine a recovered stock market coupled with high unemployment and homelessness in the US.

Obama and his advisors seem locked within the Gipper-Clinton-Bush tradition that average people are not economic actors, or even very real. You can break your contracts with them because their trust in the system doesn't matter. But, corporations are "too big to fail." Has anyone seriously thought through that notion? I'm sure the monopolies of the early 20th century made the same arguments. Why does our intelligentsia (sic) accept this notion without challenge? Why can't recovery begin with average people, rather than at some point, possibly, maybe, if it's convenient, maybe include them?

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, recovery for all MUST start at the bottom.

The best way to help the Middle East, Israel included, is to prioritize establishing relationships with all the countries that Israel has highlighted for the US to hate on. That doesn't mean we have to love them. That doesn't mean we should rendition to them (looking at you Syria and Egypt).

Iran also has to be seen as part of the whole porous Afghan-Iraq-Pak tangle. Jesus-Allah have mercy, we have enough enemies as it is.

We should not give up on human rights. We should not become enamored or lulled by the ease of negotiating in the marbled halls of nation-states.

But, Obama is on the right course here.

And, apparently, AIG is using US taxpayer money to fund the lawsuit against the US, not to mention that the US also happens to own an 80% stake in AIG!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20aig.html?em

Just when you thought it couldn't get any stranger.

How did saving a too-big-for-its-britches insurance company become synonomous with saving the economy and the rule of law? Why isn't anyone taking a big stick and busting this trust?

I'll even chip in for his whores.

Per today's papers, the gummint will provide our money as low-cost loans to investors who will buy the toxic assets.

Why does this solution smell funny? Who is looking out for our interests, since the Obama administration is on record as only looking out for the contractural interests of Big Money?

1. The bonuses were larger than reported, per the Connecticut attorney general.

2. The fire sale of assets funded with our money.

3. AIG is suing the US (hereafter "us") with our money to pay the lawyers in order to retrieve tax money in excess of the bonuses. AIG had tax-dodge foreign companies in the Caymans and elsewhere with names like "Foppingadreef" If succesful, this lawsuit would net AIG in excess of the total bonus amount. We OWN AIG. We are suing US.

4. All this theivery and the budget combined will cost far, far more than Obama told us, per the congressional budget office.

I have to say, though, this is excellent coffee.

Maybe "Foppingdareef, baby" will replace "living the dream" as a catchphrase.

I loved that, but apparently the bonuses were 218 million, not 185.

I guess that inflation has finally started to kick in. Even the cost of distraction is rising.

Bill Clinton solicited over a hundred million dollars in payoffs for his work as president that caused our current financial crisis.

Now Obama wants the power to limit executive compensation. But what about limiting Obama and company's post-administration compensation?

The Obama administration admits that it sees itself as a corporate law firm representing the contractural interests of high level executives.

Tomorrow the administration will announce that it will negotiate with Big Finance to pass liability for toxic assets to average US citizens. Obviously, there is an enormous incentive for Obama and his staff to negotiate in bad faith.

What can we do to correct this conflict of interest in the administration. How about limiting any future compensation to their government pensions, or current salaries, whichever is lower?

If we can't limit the direct monetary benefit to Obama, Geithner, Summers and others, is there another mechanism by which the people can be represented in these transactions involving their money?

Who will represent the interests of our country and citizens against the combined power of international finance and the power of the White House?

Why don't we tax every living president 99% on every dollar they make (or made) in excess of a million dollars per year?

Is that bipartisan enough for ya, Timbukton?

I figure Jimmy Carter would still have enough bucks to build houses for the poor and flip off Israel on occasion. The other bozos should pay up for their greed and treason.

Obama is twin to Bill Clinton, a bookend. Both suave, good-looking salesmen. Both espousing populist policies that sound good for the environment and regular folks.

And both systematically undermine those goals by creating and enforcing an exclusive, feudalistic elite global financial system.

Obama's welcome of labor leaders to the White House has no more value than Bill Clinton's side agreements to WTO.

Obama is skewing every major system to the benefit of wealthy global elites--regulatory, legal, economic, political.

Obama may be many things to many people, but let's not fall (again) for his pretense of populism. A populist movement must generate its own leaders, there are few current politicians who would qualify.