Seeking Alpha

Energy emerges as one key from the State of the Union address, with President Obama launching...

Energy emerges as one key from the State of the Union address, with President Obama launching clean energy projects on public lands, calling for efficiency initiatives, and directing the Defense Department to buy plenty of clean energy. On the 99%-vs.-1% front, he put a number to a tax-reform "Buffett rule": If you make more than $1M a year, you should not pay less than 30% in taxes. S&P 500 e-mini futures slightly lower, +0.25%. (policy proposals summarized)
Comments (57)
  • typical Obama crap, he proposes putting on all kinds of "renewable energy" mandates on the dept of defence, then says he wants to "cut red tape" to get infrastructure investments moving...


    he called for all kinds of new tax credits and incentives, did he call for a simpler tax code as well ?


    the most "market friendly" thing that this joker could propose would be if he would not run again...
    24 Jan 2012, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • The DOD is plenty interested in renewable energy already.


    Oil isn't cheap or easy to ship around you know.


    I know solar is "evil", but would you rather have a soldier who is constantly charging his gizmos, or one who has to carry around a backpack full of batteries?
    24 Jan 2012, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • Yes your right, DOD is interested in renewable energy.


    So let give them money to do research. Don't artificially support technologies that aren't economically viable. Those receiving the subsidies will spend their time and money continuing the subsidies as opposed to doing research and development.


    Government money for pure research - fine.


    Government money to prop up favored companies - not fine and simply more crony capitalism.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • Your argument assumes conventional fuels aren't heavily subsidized.


    We've spent trillions and trillions in tax breaks and military actions to back them.


    Putting 1/1000th that amount into alternative energy seems more like we're playing favorites with oil than say solar.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:43 PM Reply Like
  • Thee "tax breaks" you refer to are depletion allowances, etc. That break is simply allowing the industry to depreciate their capital assets. No special tax breaks merely depreciation
    25 Jan 2012, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • Plus Oil companies pay very high tax rates
    25 Jan 2012, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • What? No "Obama is a communist" rants yet? You guys are disappointing me.
    24 Jan 2012, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • Shouldn't be much of a problem with that tax structure on the income over $1M.
    24 Jan 2012, 10:43 PM Reply Like
  • President Obama and the American families are right, top 2% must pay a fair tax rate which is equal to working middle class rate.
    24 Jan 2012, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • how about lowering the "working class" tax rate instead of raising the others? Of course the greedy politicians will never mention that, they always want more.
    24 Jan 2012, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • Ignore Terry330. Not an investor. Just a Dem troll working SA with a picture he lifted off the Internet.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:04 PM Reply Like
  • Federal taxes are already at 58 year lows.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • yeah I know, it still pisses me off though,


    and Terry, I guess I qualify as "working class", although I am in the second highest tax bracket, and taxes are not low. If you received a paycheck you would know that.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:13 PM Reply Like
  • Fine, they are at 58 year lows. Raise them to 30%.


    Guess what. You still have a trillion dollar deficit.


    What we need is to shrink the size of government by a massive amount.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:26 PM Reply Like
  • Actually you're both right/wrong.


    Neither raising taxes nor cutting government alone is enough to balance the budget and pay off the deficit in a reasonable time frame.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:44 PM Reply Like
  • Terry failed to note that 47% pay zero federal income taxes, and in fact some of those get a "refund" for taxes they never paid. Also failed to mention that 75% of all taxpayers are taxed at or below the 15% rate already.


    But Terry has never been really good with facts and figures.
    25 Jan 2012, 12:32 AM Reply Like
  • How about the bottom 50% who pay no taxes and get all kinds of free money? I know of 2 people offhand that are getting gov. unemployment just because they can and will only get a job when it runs out and another who defrauds the gov. to get free healthcare.
    25 Jan 2012, 03:08 AM Reply Like
  • Top 2% pay around 52% of all income tax. Where's the equality there?
    25 Jan 2012, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Spending is at a 223 year high...
    25 Jan 2012, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • By way of clarification, are you referring to the budget deficit, or are you referring to the total debt?


    US Federal Budget Deficit, is the difference in the total amount spent by Congress, and the revenue received by the IRS.


    ( We just need to have certified financial people working on the budget committee. Any non-financial Congress types (read MA Econ or Finance) should not be allowed near those sessions, end of some "rock" making an "unqualified decision", too easy. We have top people, just put them in the right positions).


    With $300 Trillion in current assets, the US could pay off the $15 Trillion in National Debt, in a 10 second electronic online banking transaction.


    (But, it is the daily refinancing of that $15 Trillion in debt, which keeps thousands of people busy every day in the Financial Industry.)
    26 Jan 2012, 03:22 AM Reply Like
  • The equality is that that 2% likely owns more than 60% of the assets.


    You make it sound like the modern day feudal lords shouldn't pay anything.
    26 Jan 2012, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Several studies have shown that the single biggest contributor to status, wealth, health, etc etc are personal lifestyle choices. No amount of wealth redistribution is going to make the bottom 10% smarter, healthier, or more ambitious.
    26 Jan 2012, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • I kind of have a hard time swallowing the notion that an entity can own assets that have a higher value than the entire world's money supply.
    To me that says the estimated value of those assets does not reflect reality.
    26 Jan 2012, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • Keep believing what they tell you in the Press.


    Assets of the USG are listed monthly on many .gov websites.


    Z1: Flow of Funds of the United States produced after the end of each quarter by the army of economists working at the Federal Reserve Board.


    The entire world money supply would cause most to have a stroke, if they even knew how to read the number.


    Listed estimates come in around $200 Trillion USD, but we have seen reports of up to $300 Trillion USD, some even say as high as $400 Trillion USD, so the use $300 Trillion USD as the average estimate is common.


    Do you think the "also ran's" in the Forbes List are really the richest men in the world?




    Those are individuals whose COMPANIES MAY HAVE ASSETS in that amount, +/- a Billion or two.


    Many of us know of at least 10 individuals, most in the Middle east that are worth at least $100 Billion USD, $CASH MONEY$, we won't even talk assets for the purposes of this discussion, it is not a secret when you work in this industry, you know who they are.


    These REAL richest people are so powerful their names are not spoken aloud, because they will not allow it, that's real power.
    27 Jan 2012, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • "Many of us know of at least 10 individuals, most in the Middle east that are worth at least $100 Billion USD, $CASH MONEY$, we won't even talk assets for the purposes of this discussion, it is not a secret when you work in this industry, you know who they are."


    10 * 100B = 1T
    US Money supply (M2) = about 10T
    Europe = about 10T


    theres 21T. only 279 left.....
    (of course given the 100T margin of error in your asset valuation it could be anywhere from 179 to 379)


    My point here is, you said the U.S. government could pay off the entire debt in 10 seconds, I say they would have a hard time selling enough assets to finance the transaction when there are not enough USD in the world to do so, their asset valuation would quickly deteriorate the moment they start selling.


    also, it pisses me off when people say "FACT: blah blah blah....."
    27 Jan 2012, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • As I said,


    Z1: Flow of Funds of the United States, US ASSETS ALONE ESTMATED AT BETWEEN $200-400 TRILLION USD.


    * We aren't even beginning to add individuals to the World Money Supply, as most have hoarded assets you can't BEGIN to imagine.


    Dr. John Rutledge has done an enormous amount of work on this subject, please argue with him.


    You did say however, that you think the US would have trouble raising those assets that quickly? Here are some more FACTS for you, since you hate the truth.


    The US has at least $300 Trillion in assets it can put it's hands on in a millisecond, whether you choose to believe that or not, is up to you, not preaching here, just a healthy debate, ok?


    *Disclaimer: The following information is not my personal opinion, but rather fact, used only for general information purposes.


    The General Accounting Office (GAO).


    This is where all the accounting goes on to keep track of the debt.


    All the states have to send reports to Washington D.C. Washington D.C. has to send reports to the GAO. Take a look at your state Comptroller's Annual Report to the Governor of your State. You can find it in the library located in the city of the corporate state capital. Look under "Trust Fund" for each state sub-corporation like the state courts, IRS, Banks, Education, yaddah, yaddah.


    You will be shocked at the amount of money being pumped into the Trust Fund from the various Corporate State Departmental Revenues (all revenue is referred to as taxes: fines, fees, licenses, etc.). There are billions and trillions of your hard earned worthless federal reserve notes, "dollars", being held in "trust." This accounting is the purpose behind M1, M2, M3, M4. and M5. All this accounting is closely monitored. Maybe not every day, but at least weekly. These M's are the reports of the amounts of money in circulation. The amount of debt out there, and the amount of credit out there. The floating of debt in the form of bonds. There are five (5) different categories. This system had to come into existence in order for the creditors to be on top of the bankruptcy at all times. This system allows the creditors to figure out and know exactly what is going on in their domain.


    From 1928 -1932 there were five (5) years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the world met in Geneva Switzerland for five (5) continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. all declared bankruptcy. Fact.


    In 1932, they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932, Franklin D.Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States. Roosevelt's job was to put into place, and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two (2) years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now. this doesn't mean the bankruptcy wasn't implemented before 1938 with the Erie vs. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as 'The Banking Holiday," and proceeded in pulling the gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the corporate United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.. Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 & Executive Order 6260. It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937 - 1938, there was a big fight between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme court with a bunch of his pals. Roosevelt tried to enlarge the number of justices and he tried to change the slant of the justices. The corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which would support their bankruptcy problem. A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate U.S. had already declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate several states had with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied the corporate several states to corporate Washington D.C, (the headquarters of the corporation called "The United States").Since the United States Corporation, having established its headquarters within the District of Columbia, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn't have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of the Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and the USG CORPORATION.


    It is Historical knowledge that the original Union States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the Federal government has taken control of her "Creators", the States.) She has become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the following: "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "United States of America", Washington D.C., District of Columbia, Feds. and Federal Government. She has her own U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office yaddah. yaddah., which is why those names cannot be used in corporate names, as they already exist. Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely gives her land, her personnel, and the money she takes from the Americans via the IRS. and her state corporations, to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for her debt. The corporate U.S. then, is the head corporate member, who met at Geneva to decide for all its corporate body members. The corporate representatives of the corporate several states were in attendance. If the states had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether Washington D.C. declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been represented at Geneva. The several states of America were not represented. Consequently, whatever Washington D.C. agreed to at Geneva was passed on automatically, via compact to the several corporate states as a group, association, corporation or as a club member; they all agreed and declared bankruptcy as one government corporate group in 1930. The several states only needed a representative at Geneva by way of the U.S. in Washington D.C. The delegates of the corporate United States attended the meetings and spoke for the several corporate states as well as for the Federal Corporate Government. And, BAM!, BANKRUPTCY was declared for all.


    From 1930 to 1938 the states could not enact any law or decide any case that would go against the Federal Government. The case had to come down from the Federal level so that the states could then rely on the Federal decision and use this decision within the states as justification for the bankruptcy process within the states. The corporate government is the corporate capital of the corporate state. The government is a neutral government zone known as the corporate capital of the corporate state. The government is where the corporate state is. It is corporate headquarters. Just like corporate Washington D.C. is the seat of the corporate Federal Government. The capital of the corporate state is the seat of the corporate state government.


    BE CLEAR HERE: "If the corporate Federal Government and her subsidiary corporate state governments want to join forces and declare bankruptcy that's not fraud. This is their corporate business." Legal under US Law.


    Further they have not and do not disclose that their intention is to get you and every other American in this country to pledge to pay off their corporate debt to their corporate creditors. The corporate bankruptcy is the corporate state and federal responsibility, not the responsibility of Americans, The People. "We the People" who created and signed the contract/compact/agree... of, by, and for the Constitutional Corporation (U.S.) using the trade name of the "United States of America," is a corporate entity (legal fiction) which is DISTINCT AND SEPARATE from Americans or the disenfranchised people of America. The private natural American people did not create the corporation of the United States. The United States Inc. did not create the private natural American people. America and Americans were in existence prior to the creation of the United States Corporation. The United States Corporation has located its U.S. Headquarters in Washington D.C.


    I will give you just a few commonly accepted examples of what is possible within seconds:


    1) The CFTC, just through the Dodd-Frank Legislation, has absolute federal jurisdiction over the estimated $300 Trillion USD in the derivatives market alone. That's one sector, one example, where complete control of assets can be exercised by the USG, without your approval or opinion being asked before hand. A 10 second transaction, and a $15 trillion USD drop would be noticed, yes. But, can they do it or, do they have the "authority" to do it?


    Absolute authority, full stop. Happened before, July 2011, and it will happen again, start counting the days.


    2) Your life savings could be seized within an hour by the USG, full stop. Anything held in a bank, insurance, investment can be seized by Uncle Sam without your permission, full stop. Keep believing you have rights. You do know how your government works, no? I am assuming you do since you are telling me that the US Economy is not an asset of the USG, when like it or not, it most certainly is.


    3) Payments from the USG could be stopped altogether at any time, also without your permission, for an unlimited time frame, for whatever reason they choose to dream up. No Welfare, Social Security, Small Business Loans, yaddah, yaddah.


    4) Inflation, self explanatory. Been done before, will be done again.


    *The following are infrastructure examples, that can be liquidated without a discussion, like a "garage sale", if you will, simple corporate assets:


    The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that a full upgrade of US Infrastructure would cost $1.3 Trillion USD. China said they would be willing to pay 10 x that amount, cash for those assets. There's another $13 Trillion USD they can raise without your permission through a phone call.


    5) According to US Treasury’s Financial Management Service, USG owns 600-700 million acres of land, or about 30 percent of the country’s land surface, much of it in the Western states, where as much as half the land is federally owned. That can be liquidated for literally 100's of Trillions of USD, within seconds as well.


    6) Network of Power Grids (Hydro-electric) owned by the US Army Corp of Engineers, valued in low 20's of Trillions USD, could be sold over the phone within seconds, and privatized.


    7) Federal Highway System (this includes State Highways and roads) valued in the low 50's of Trillions USD, could be liquidated with a phone call, and privatized.


    So you see, just because something is not "parlor conversation", does not mean it doesn't exist or has not happened without our knowledge.
    29 Jan 2012, 03:34 AM Reply Like
  • Never good anytime Obama talks about clean energy....
    24 Jan 2012, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • Indeed, if you give out thousands of grants, and one goes bad, that means you should never give out grants, right?


    The old version of this went something like:


    If someone dies in a coal mine that means we should stick to burning wood.


    If someone dies in a nuclear accident, that means we should stick to coal.


    Etc, etc, etc.


    Investing in technology is inherently risky, ask any venture capitalist. They lose on lots of investments, doesn't mean they don't make a profit overall.


    DARPA had lots of failed projects, I guess that means they never should have started research on the internet?
    24 Jan 2012, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • A lot more than one of Obama's green energy programs have gone bad - it is somewhere between 20% and 45%, depending on how you define failure. In fact, I challenge to show ONE single success story.


    As far as DARPA and the internet goes, you should dig a little deeper into the history. The internet would have happened anyway. DARPA may have sped it up by a couple of years, but IBM and Honeywell were already working on similar research.
    25 Jan 2012, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • Right on. DARPA resembles the Internet as much as ENIAC resembles an iPhone. One poster kept claiming the PC was a government invention even though HP, IBM and others pioneered the entire market.
    25 Jan 2012, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • DARPA/Internet was a technological leap forward. I'm not sure I would put glorifed windmills and mirrors in that same category.
    25 Jan 2012, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • Political commercial paid for by the taxpayers.
    24 Jan 2012, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • Have you never listened to a State of the Union before?
    24 Jan 2012, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • You only have to look at historical evidence to know that Americans who make in excess of 1 million US$ per year are paying the lowest tax rate historically than they ever have. It's doing nothing more than bankrupting the country.


    For someone to complain that the democrats just want to tax and spend.. that's pretty silly. Where private payrolls are growing.. government payrolls are shrinking. And rightfully so. Government needs to shrink and be less intrusive in the every day life of people. But even with that shrinking most local and state governments can no longer make ends meet. It is strictly based on the rich not paying enough.. and corporations outsourcing and not paying enough as well. Does GE need over 1000 tax lawyers on it's payroll? Do they need to make billions without paying tax? Ofcourse not. If they want status as "American".. they can pony up and be honest about their taxes.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • Dream on Trever. I know you pay your fair share of taxes in your own eyes but then doesn't everybody? And as for G.E. not paying any taxes, look at all the jobs Immelt has created (just kidding) so that he was appointed jobs czar.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • Trevor,


    I think you'll find most reasonable people want carried interest done away with. Most want the tax code drastically simplified and to get the government out of picking who gets what breaks.


    The problem is that almost every study I've ever seen, raising the top tax rates to any number doesn't get us to a balanced budget - even if you remove mortgage deductions and charity deductions.


    And all the talk about the 1% or 2% or whatever only gets us another 40-120 Billion a year depending on the study - leaving a Trillion dollar deficit as far as the eyes can see.


    What we need is to drastically reduce government and balance our budget. So yes, lets fix the tax code and have the Romney's of the world paying 30% or whatever. But lets also be honest that the driving factor in our fiscal problem is the spending and huge size of our government.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • "Where private payrolls are growing.. government payrolls are shrinking."


    Fact check. Since the Obama Administration took over, Federal payrolls have expanded by 179,000. Federal spending increased in 2011 by 5%.
    25 Jan 2012, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • My expenses went up by 5% in 2011. That's not much of a reference stat.



    Shrink DOD budget back to 2000FY spending levels and you're saving 400 Billion a year. That shouldn't be that difficult. And the USA would still be spending 3 times the next country.



    The USA spends more on military than the next 20 countries combined.
    25 Jan 2012, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • Ok, I'll agree to reducing Defense spending to 2000 FY - and I'll throw in 100 Billion for your rich people tax increase.


    That leaves about 700-800 Billion in additional spending cuts needed to balance the budget (so really about a Trillion so we can pay down the debt).


    What gets cut next? Might I suggest Department of Energy, Education, Commerce, Transportation, IRS, etc, etc, etc.


    I agree with what Mitch Daniels said - government is to serve the people not supervise them. Time to get rid of a lot of nannies.
    25 Jan 2012, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • "My expenses went up by 5% in 2011. That's not much of a reference stat."




    Not sure of your point on your own expense rise. Merely offered up the 2011, 5% increase as a fact that disproves all the political self- aggrandizement talk on austerity.


    Also, while I am absolutely not a war advocate, the pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to affect domestic defense companies and their suppliers. We have seen these down turns in the past. So, short-term at least, we will probably see a real (as in absolute, not size) economic decline with the loss of consumable war machine production.
    26 Jan 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • I agree with you completely.


    I'm not a big government advocate.. I tend more towards libertarianism.


    I would cut every department back to 2000FY budget (just to make the DOD feel like they're not being spited)..


    After that I'd allow Americans to buy imported prescription drugs and remove all duties on said drugs. There's no reason for Americans to pay 3 to 5 times as everyone else in the world simply because the drug lobby in the US is so powerful. they spend more on advertising than they do on research. I find that completely idiotic.
    26 Jan 2012, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • admittedly ... terrible choice by Obama. I can't disagree with you on that one bit.
    24 Jan 2012, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • Carried interest?
    We spend four trillion dollars a year and take in three...
    And we're thinking carried interest is the lynchpin of the issue?
    Wow. We're in trouble.
    25 Jan 2012, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • I think the point is more about fairness: you shouldn't cut social security, medicare, medicaid - all programs that the rich could do without anyways - and then tell private equity managers who are pulling in millions a year that they don't even have to pay regular tax rates. That's plain offensive to 99% of the people, and they will never support real cuts to government knowing that the rich haven't given up a single perk - and will continue to vote out anyone who dares trying to reform these programs.


    So in reality, fixing the trillion dollar deficit does mean taking care of these little things first.
    25 Jan 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • With all the noise coming out of Washington lately,maybe Hot Air Balloons will make a comeback.Still waiting for those millions of jobs to appear out of the foggy mist.Perhaps 2016?
    25 Jan 2012, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • We read about some athletes signing multi-million dollar contracts. Do you think they are going to be caught up by this 'Buffet' tax? The contracts defer much of the compensation until later years. The same principles will be used in avoiding the tax by high income people (as Buffet and Soros and Gates do now) if this is passed. It's an issue that O didn't address and I'm sure doesn't understand.
    25 Jan 2012, 12:18 AM Reply Like
  • When is Buffett's secretary going to release her tax return?


    I would like to see what she REALLY pays.
    25 Jan 2012, 12:47 AM Reply Like
  • Some estimates say she makes around $350K a year. Also, just purchased a second home. Buffett needs to introduce her to the CPA staff that contrive his own and corporate returns.
    26 Jan 2012, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • I personally thing that a bill should be passed to tax JUST buffet at 40%. Then he can shut up for good.
    25 Jan 2012, 03:11 AM Reply Like
  • His people have already not paid on a billion in back taxes. He would just add it to his negotiated settlements with the IRS.
    25 Jan 2012, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • I'd like to hear some state and union pension fund managers closely questioned as to how raising the capital gains tax on equities will deflate the value of their collective holdings, devastate their members' individual investment portfolios, and add to the burden of unfunded liabilities. Then I'd like them to take a stand for or against the government extracting more "revenue" from capital gains.


    That would be rich. Perhaps Kudlow or Varney could pull it off.
    25 Jan 2012, 08:54 AM Reply Like
  • The US government should also pass a law requiring all white collar criminals to be mixed in with the population of regular criminals. Send them to SuperMax's. Where's the incentive to not screw the American public when the worst that can happen is to be sent to a low security executive prison in upstate new york.


    I guarantee banks will stop defrauding the American taxpayer if they did that..
    25 Jan 2012, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • Federal "pound me in the ass" prison....
    25 Jan 2012, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • Unfortunately, we have to prosecute the banksters before we can send them to jail...... and Obama - Mr. Law Professor himself..... has given them all a walk.


    I'm all for your proposal but the DOJ isn't going after anyone - compare that to the S&L crisis where 3000 folks went to jail for fraud.


    Instead of Supermax, clowns like Rattner are the Presidents advisors!!!!!
    25 Jan 2012, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • Same reason there isn't more hedge fund regulation. Everyone in Congress is invested in one!


    Congress gets to do insider trading but the Martha Stewart goes to prison? Whaaaat??
    26 Jan 2012, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • Mr. Obama was NEVER a Professor of anything.


    UC Law School statement:


    " The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."


    So, condensed version is UC Law School allows part-time teachers to call themselves, "Senior Lecturer" allbeit "self styled" at that. Simply put, he was a teacher.


    Most teachers are like Alex Trebek, smart-assed attitude, while holding the answer book in their hand, pretending to hold the keys to the Universe.


    "Those who can do; those who can't teach."


    Career killer in Law, teaching. All theory, no practical experience, and perpetual providers of false hope to bright young minds.
    26 Jan 2012, 08:50 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)