Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $76,373
86%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $12k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by CutePuppy

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Ex-HP board member who voted to fire Fiorina endorses her [Tom Perkins]

    08/31/2015 4:41:47 PM PDT · 41 of 41
    CutePuppy to enumerated
    You get the gist of "powerful people" and their "trials and tribulations" right, but there is a world of substantial and substantive differences between the celebrity showman "It's all about me" Trump and the consummate come-from-the-ranks executive Fiorina.

    It goes well beyond firing people (or having them lose their jobs or not paid as the result of the debt-laden bankruptcy) or making some tough business decisions.

    If you read my posts on this thread, and the three links in my first post, you will recognize and appreciate them immediately. You already pointed out a couple of them.

  • Ex-HP board member who voted to fire Fiorina endorses her [Tom Perkins]

    08/31/2015 12:50:38 AM PDT · 34 of 41
    CutePuppy to Reno89519
      Bottom line is that Fiorina was FIRED.

    That's what this original post and several links have covered... or at least were supposed to. BTW, you understand that The Donald was also FIRED, several times, when his companies went bankrupt? Please read the links in first post, if you need explanation.

      She cost friends their jobs, she cost my company tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    So it's "personal"?

      ... he's bankrupted individual companies. That is normal business. ... It is business, not personal.

    Let's see if I understand this right — bankruptcies don't "cost" anybody anything, unless they happen "personally" to you or your friends or your company, it's just "normal business as usual"?

    You do realize now that your post makes no actual sense? Please search for the term "confirmation bias" — it seems very applicable to the condition that is afflicting quite a few people on FR, particularly during the periods of elections.

  • Ex-HP board member who voted to fire Fiorina endorses her [Tom Perkins]

    08/30/2015 11:55:34 PM PDT · 27 of 41
    CutePuppy to Reno89519
      Let me put it this way, who is a credible candidate? ...

    I don't see what any of this has to do with Fiorina's true record at HP and Lucent?

    Unless you are saying that her record of success at HP would be a game-changer, so for Trump to be the "one and only," it is necessary that this "very nice woman" has to be dirtied up by spreading and having others to believe the lies about her "failure" and the "terrible job at Hewlett-Packard"?

    Why is knowing the real executive / business record of Fiorina such a threat? Is it to distract and divert attention from that DJT stock chart that shows his management to be a dismal failure, in absolute terms and in comparison with just about any CEO in that industry or many other CEOs in other industries, including Fiorina, over the same period of time?

    That's like liberals having to convince people of man-made global warming, or their entire agenda would fall apart?

    Donald Trump's "magic" for everyone to see, in his own words: "The final key to the way I promote," he wrote, "is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts."

  • Ex-HP board member who voted to fire Fiorina endorses her [Tom Perkins]

    08/30/2015 10:23:12 PM PDT · 18 of 41
    CutePuppy to Reno89519
    You must not have read the links, or you would know the answer.

    And thank God, that in public sector they never fire anyone — that's why it works so much better than the private sector when the evil greedy heartless CEOs fire people whose positions become redundant due to mergers, acquisitions or changing markets and competition... Or they do it to save money to create higher profits, or else Wall Street is not going to be happy and the Board of Directors is going to fire them, and then cut even more workers.

    Was this a serious question?

  • Ex-HP board member who voted to fire Fiorina endorses her [Tom Perkins]

    08/30/2015 10:12:38 PM PDT · 16 of 41
    CutePuppy to BlueNgold
    Q: You mean this (in 2008, having to support McCain's idiotic ideas, including his support for a "different" cap-and-trade"?)

      Speaking at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minn., she praised Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) cap-and-trade plan as something that would "both create jobs and lower the cost of energy":

      I know John McCain. And in 2013, America will be more energy-independent because of his determination that we must power our own country, and his long-standing commitment to protecting our environment. John McCain will create a cap-and-trade system that will encourage the development of alternative energy sources. He will help advance clean coal technology, and nuclear power. And all of this will both create jobs and lower the cost of energy.

    BTW, Sarah Palin and almost every Republican in 2008 had no choice but to support McCain and his "brilliant" ideas... He and Romney and almost all other Republican "leaders" have done a lot of damage. Has Trump flipped on cap-and-trade and single-payer health plan that "worked so well in Scotland and other places" just a few days ago? If you are looking for a "perfect" candidate you won't find it playing these games.

    A: Yes, she did "renounce" Cap-and-Tax:

      In a 2010 campaign ad, Fiorina attacked her Democratic opponent for claiming climate change is an important national security issue. "Terrorism kills," Fiorina says. "And Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather."

    I don't think she explained how to beat Barbara Boxer or any other Democrat / Socialist in California (I don't know if anybody can "explain" how it could be done in 2010-2016), but I am pretty sure she can explain how to beat Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton and any other Democrat / Socialist in most of the 50 states... Is that good enough?

    Anyway, the article was about continuing misperceptions of her record at HP.

  • Ex-HP board member who voted to fire Fiorina endorses her [Tom Perkins]

    08/30/2015 9:43:24 PM PDT · 9 of 41
    CutePuppy to bobby.223
    So if someone says that Christianity could never have been a part of Renaissance or any other positive humanistic or artistic or scientific endeavours, because there was The Inquisition and The Thirty Years War and "Galileo" and pedophile priests, we then condemn everything that is or was associated with Christianity?

    Anyway, as I pointed out in first post, this was a very specific post about her business and executive experience. Let me try again:

    There are plenty of reasons to prefer some candidate[s] over others. You don't have to like Carly Fiorina as a candidate or you may have have a different favourite one — that's fine, but there is no reason to repeat the falsehoods about her excecutive record at Lucent and HP...

  • Ex-HP board member who voted to fire Fiorina endorses her [Tom Perkins]

    08/30/2015 9:05:31 PM PDT · 2 of 41
    CutePuppy to CutePuppy
    DJT  1995 - 2005
  • Ex-HP board member who voted to fire Fiorina endorses her [Tom Perkins]

    08/30/2015 9:04:22 PM PDT · 1 of 41
    CutePuppy
    Hopefully, this can put to bed the "Fiorina failed at HP" or "Fiorina destroyed a great company" silliness for good.

    There are plenty of reasons to prefer some candidate[s] over others. You don't have to like Carly Fiorina as a candidate or you may have have a different favourite one — that's fine, but there is no reason to repeat the falsehoods about her excecutive record at Lucent and HP just because NYT or Fortune wrote snarky articles, full of omissions, distortions or ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparisons, or because the current favourite populist Donald Trump decided to attack her record: "She's a very nice woman, she got fired, she did a terrible job at Hewlett-Packard, she lost in a landslide — other than that, she's a very nice woman."

    That's from a man whose own record at running Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. / Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts has been absolutely dismal — common stock symbol DJT, which he completely controlled through the separate majority voting class of stock, so none of his money were in common share class that lost hundreds of millions of dollars for his shareholders, in addition to billions of dollars in lenders' debt, while he personally was getting millions of dollars from lending the use of his "successful celebrity" name, executive salary and preferred dividends : Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts / DJT stock chart between June 1995 and March 2005

    Donald did what was good for Donald, not for his shareholders. Does this inspires trust? Here's what The Donald wrote in his book "Trump: Art of the Deal" about his public persona: "The final key to the way I promote," he wrote, "is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts."

    Also read these posts to get familiar with the real record of Fiorina at Lucent and HP, without omissions, distortions or opinions pretenting to look like facts:

    Carly Fiorina as a boss: The disappointing truth - FR, post #28, 2015 August 16

    Carly Fiorina as a boss: The disappointing truth - FR, post #26, 2015 August 15

    Carly Fiorina's Business Record: Not So Sterling - FR, posts #28, #30, 2015 August 18

  • European Chestnut Leaf Extract Disarms Staphylococcus aureus [and MRSA]

    08/27/2015 12:02:58 PM PDT · 25 of 26
    CutePuppy to Bob434
    [[They can still give you salmonella]]

    So don't eat raw snake sashimi or sushi ;-)   Eat yummy unagi or anago (sweet eel) instead. If you are more adventurous, go to expert licensed sushi master and try fugu (puffer fish / blowfish) sashimi.

    The poison (tetrodotoxin may be up to 1200 times deadlier than cyanide) from one fugu may kill up to 30 people, but if the chef does his job right, the experience is sublime.

  • European Chestnut Leaf Extract Disarms Staphylococcus aureus [and MRSA]

    08/26/2015 4:43:26 PM PDT · 23 of 26
    CutePuppy to Bob434
    [[Yeah, I wasn’t sure the adjective- perhaps ‘inactivated’?]]

    Yes, the extract deactivates the mechanism of toxin production and virulence in S.aureus, without killing the bacteria and potentially introducing microflora imbalance in some individuals, which often happens with broad spectrum antibiotics.

    The parallel would be something like defanging and/or removing the venom glands of a snake.

  • European Chestnut Leaf Extract Disarms Staphylococcus aureus [and MRSA]

    08/25/2015 11:01:36 PM PDT · 20 of 26
    CutePuppy to Bob434
    [[— works by taking away bacteria’s weapons, essentially shutting off the ability of the bacteria to create toxins that cause tissue damage.]]

    The presumption is that the biochemical change of bacteria is permanent or long-lasting enough, when it no longer poses a serious threat to a healthy immune system. In which case the "dormant" would not really be the proper adjective anymore. There are plenty of harmless and even useful bacteria and viruses in human bodies.

    [[The extract does not lose activity, or become resistant, even after two weeks of repeated exposure.]]

  • European Chestnut Leaf Extract Disarms Staphylococcus aureus [and MRSA]

    08/25/2015 11:01:09 PM PDT · 19 of 26
    CutePuppy to matthew fuller
    It's well known that Copper and Silver have antimicrobial properties (in particular, silver is widely used in dressings of wounds when antibiotics are counter-indicated or not effective) but their uses have certain side effects and are limited mostly to contact surface of skin and wound, and they are expensive, while this chestnut extract could be synthesized and cheaply made, and safely used with disinfectants as well as applied directly to patients.
  • European Chestnut Leaf Extract Disarms Staphylococcus aureus [and MRSA]

    08/25/2015 7:41:16 PM PDT · 1 of 26
    CutePuppy
    The European chestnut (Castanea sativa), also known as the sweet chestnut, is a species of flowering plant in the family Fagaceae, native to Europe and Asia Minor, and widely cultivated throughout the temperate world. The tree attains a height of 100 feet (30 m). It has rugged, grooved bark and glossy, serrate, oblong-lanceolate leaves up to 11 inches (28 cm) in length. Image credit: Willow, Germany / CC BY-SA 3.0. The European chestnut (Castanea sativa), also known as the sweet chestnut, is a species of flowering plant in the family Fagaceae, native to Europe and Asia Minor, and widely cultivated throughout the temperate world. The tree attains a height of 100 feet (30 m). It has rugged, grooved bark and glossy, serrate, oblong-lanceolate leaves up to 11 inches (28 cm) in length. Image credit: Willow, Germany / CC BY-SA 3.0.
  • Jeb Bush donors reach out to Kasich-supporting super PAC

    08/20/2015 6:40:05 PM PDT · 34 of 34
    CutePuppy to raybbr
    Bush could be quite happy that the media focus is not on him right now (while there are still many to replace him with in people's "hearts and minds") especially given his performance in debates and pressers — look at the "frontrunner" Hillary!
  • Jeb Bush donors reach out to Kasich-supporting super PAC

    08/20/2015 6:34:30 PM PDT · 33 of 34
    CutePuppy to neefer; jimbo123; xzins; lbryce; raybbr; Buckeye McFrog; sarge83; Trumpinator; The Final Harvest
    The PACs negotiating with each other or other candidates is business as usual (they are only not allowed to "coordinate" their activities with their candidate[s]) so there is nothing exciting in this news. This early in the campaign, they are using this time to check out and gauge who could be or become an ally (VP, cabinet, administrative position or promises of "sponsorship" of post-candidacy easy money or business opportunities) or who will be an earnest primary opponent.

    The problem with the Trump campaign is that right now he is sucking all the [media and financial] oxygen from the smaller and poorly financed conservative candidates, who might shake out early being starved of funding and media attention (which is now deliberately soft "all-Donald-all-the-time").

    Bush can afford to be "sitting this out" in the middle of the pack for now and keep raking in money for himself and his and GOP-e PACs, until the field gets a lot thinner and the non-Trump polled start shifting to better-known candidates still standing (i.e., better financed) who will also start getting more "free" media exposure. So then, the polls differential between Trump and smaller field will become much smaller and the "game" for 1-2 will be on...

    At that point the conservatives will have lost many of their favorite candidates. Many of them, especially those put off by Trump's crude style or business dealings or his wealth or whatever (he is getting about 25% now, which is impressive in a field of 17 but less so in a field of 3 or 4) will default to Bush - "the name we know" and "he can win" and the other candidate[s] said something nice about Hillary or said something bad about "my" candidate, etc.

    Don't underestimate Bush and GOP-e — "the more the merrier" is just fine with them for now, because they are collecting money and potential allies while the "Trump show" is essentially suffocating the smaller conservative fry, because they don't get media exposure (and therefore, financial support) and "normal" people who are not paying much attention to campaigns yet don't get the chance to know them.

  • Carly Fiorina’s Business Record: Not So Sterling

    08/19/2015 1:16:49 PM PDT · 30 of 30
    CutePuppy to stig
    He knows first hand what risking your own money and being successful is all about. Carly, and the rest of the Republican field only know how to risk other people's money.

    There is no doubt that Donald has been very successful over the years, even if not "self-made." But I just want to make an adjustment to the "risking his own money" part.

    The Real Estate Income Trust / REITs and public Resorts and Gaming enterprises to which he lent "full faith and credit" of his name and celebrity (not his money) in exchange for a minimum of 25% stake (more in some, including majority control) in the enterprise and the royalties on the use of Trump's name, usually traded on the market under symbols TRMP and DJT.

    Basically, ever the showman, he was selling Trump's name as the attraction of "success." His most successful "investment" was lending of the use of his celebrity name, in exchange for OPM (Other People's Money) and huge amounts of collateralized corporate debt, i.e., "junk bond" grade CDOs. As a matter of fact, he used some of that debt from a public company to buy his own casino, Trump Castle, and assuming its/his debt.

    Most of these joint ventures / partnerships, including all public/listed ones, later found themselves in at least one bankruptcy but didn't cost him any money or entailed any financial risk on his part — some legal entanglements, sure, but that's what good contract lawyers and agreements are for — actually, they brought hundreds of millions of dollars to The Donald, without him "risking his own money" while possibly "risking" but also taking more than full advantage of his business reputation.

    As a matter of fact, I believe he is still in a lawsuit against Carl Icahn, trying to remove his own name from Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino and Trump Taj Mahal, the last of Resorts / Casinos still bearing his name or have anything to do with him — his remaining 10% ownership and use-of-name royalties are contested in bankruptcy court — and he denies control which is technically and legally true. There is a reason he has not been involved with the Resorts and Gaming Industry for a while (except outstanding lawsuits) - the people won't do business with him, let alone use his name for the property again.

    As far as I know, he didn't do anything illegal (same way as Mitt Romney, who wasn't a "businessman" as many stated but rather a manager of successful consulting and investment company didn't in 2012) but claiming that overwhelming majority of his fortune was made due to "risking his own money" is simply inaccurate. Like most before him, he made his fortune old-fashioned way — with good lawyers and OPM... not that there is anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld used to remind us.

  • Carly Fiorina’s Business Record: Not So Sterling

    08/18/2015 9:35:30 PM PDT · 28 of 30
    CutePuppy to areukiddingme1; dowcaet; SeekAndFind; 5thGenTexan; Buckeye McFrog; longtermmemmory; ...
    "There are known knowns - there are things we know we know... There are known unknowns - we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know" - Donald Rumsfeld

      "I know her track record at HP wasn’t great..."

    You "know" this from opinion articles in NYT and Fortune?

    Why not try a little bit of the factual data first — that they omit or distort — and then decide what we really "know"?

    Carly Fiorina as a boss: The disappointing truth - FR, post #28, 2015 August 16

    Carly Fiorina as a boss: The disappointing truth - FR, post #26, 2015 August 15

  • Donald Trump leads big in new Arizona poll as Carson, Fiorina gain

    08/18/2015 6:23:23 PM PDT · 91 of 92
    CutePuppy to RoosterRedux; HiTech RedNeck; GilGil
      What Amazon is doing is buying market share by holding down prices.

    Yes and no. E-tailers' and discounters' market holds down prices; Amazon's size allows it to run on slimmer gross margins, which it does to buy market share and push marginal players out of the market entirely and some larger competitors out of certain segments of the market and reinvest in inventory and infrastructure (such as storage and delivery)... which in turn buys some more market share. The reason Amazon can continue to do this at a loss for so long is...

      I must admit, I have not examined Amazon carefully to figure precisely what they are doing.

    The reason Amazon can continue to do this at a loss for so long is... because the market / WS recognizes that it has another, hugely profitable, but much less known component — and that is the "Amazon cloud" known as Amazon Web Services / AWS which is the excess of virtualized storage capacity it "rents" to e-stores and other companies, for Software/Storage-as-a-Service (SaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) or Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS). It's the largest cloud service, ahead of Microsoft's cloud service known as Azure, Google's Compute Engine and others like Salesforce and Rackspace etc.

    AWS is massive and has, by some estimates, 5 times the capacity of next 15 competitors combined and for now is one of the least expensive options of "renting" virtual space. The most recent research has AWS with 28% of total cloud market, followed by Microsoft (10%), IBM (7%), Google (5%), Salesforce (4%) and Rackspace (3%), though Microsoft's Azure is gaining share fast, particularly in enterprise and hybrid cloud services.

  • Clinton probe tests FBI chief

    08/18/2015 2:42:22 AM PDT · 29 of 42
    CutePuppy to piasa; Mariner; Betty Jane; 1010RD; Graybeard58; kabar; All
    That's what they said about Fitzgerald.

    Exactly. For those who don't remember: James Comey was the driving force behind I. Lewis Libby "investigation" farce and his best buddy Fitzgerald was appointed as Special Prosecutor on his insistence.

    One of the [many] biggest mistakes of George W. Bush was the appointment of Comey to the DOJ, as Deputy AG, on the recommendation of Chuck Schumer (who convinced Bush that Comey was "independent" and "straight shooter").

    There are many threads on FR about him from that period.

  • Carly Fiorina as a boss: The disappointing truth

    08/16/2015 7:35:53 PM PDT · 28 of 30
    CutePuppy to Perdogg; jimbo123; ClearCase_guy; hoosiermama; BuffaloJack; q_an_a; Gunslingr3; Calvin Locke; ...
    Before posting and relying completely on the selected "facts" presented in selected hit-and-run Fortune opinion articles (I am sure you can find at least a few about The Donald there as well), maybe people should get better acquainted with real facts of her tenures at Lucent and HP:

    1. "hired her with no CEO experience"

    She was the President of and running a very successful $19B division (that's larger than many S&P 500 companies) of Lucent at the time HP begged her to turn around an aging, drifting company with legacy businesses and dozens of mostly independently run divisions whose products were being commoditized and margins shrinking, with several competitors gaining market share. Without major restructuring and change of direction, HP was going the way of Kodak, Polaroid and Xerox. Far from "destroying" HP, Fiorina's actions saved it.

    2. Yes, there were thousands of layoffs - partially because of merger with Compaq, partially because of consolidations of divisions and eliminating of internal redundancies and dealing with the aftermaths of the "dotcom" bust and 9/11, just like there were in most other companies, for those who still remember.

    At last count, there are more than 300,000 employees at HP today, with the revenue per employee of about $355K and profit per employee of about $15K - does that mean company is successful, unsuccessful, or these numbers, in isolation, are meaningless?

    Hint: don't ask Fortune to give you the answer. But note that the price of HPQ stock is at about the same level that was 10 years ago, when Fiorina was "fired" by the dysfunctional board.

    BTW, while the stock coasted up for a while as a result of her restructuring, both CEOs who followed Fiorina were also fired by the dysfunctional board — Mark Hurd "for cause" and Leo Apotheker who lasted barely 1 year on the job and really wrecked the company with mindless acquisition of Autonomy for $11B which had to be entirely written off, and cutting several promising product research projects. Oh, and two members of the dysfunctional board have resigned a year after firing Fiorina because they were implicated in a massive scandal of leaking confidential company information.

    3. Fortune article omits and/or distorts financial performance of Lucent and HP by selective irrelevant comparisons. You can find more, better facts in this post: Carly Fiorina as a boss: The disappointing truth - FR, post #26, 2015 August 15 Fortune

  • Carly Fiorina as a boss: The disappointing truth

    08/15/2015 7:32:49 PM PDT · 26 of 35
    CutePuppy to alloysteel; conservative98; bigbob; Future Snake Eater; Lazamataz; BRK; MD Expat in PA; All
      Yeah, “Fortune” is a big-time lefty rag. Their facts may be on-point (if they share ALL of the facts), but their analysis will always, always trash conservatives

    Un-"Fortune"-tely, their "facts" have also many errors of omission, and profound misunderstanding of changing printing, communications, networking and storage technology landscape of the time.

    For example, she didn't "destroy" Lucent before being begged to save HP from being a market-share-losing printer and disk manufacturing company. Just before coming on board as CEO of HP, Lucent for 2 consecutive years had a 2:1 stock split (i.e., 4x - ironically, on April 1, 1998 and on April 1, 1999 - due to significantly increased LU share price which went from $7.56 to $84 and eventually reached valuation of $258B) and helped set up in motion spinoffs of separate communication companies with multi-billion revenues, Avaya (AV, now private) in early 2000 and — due to 2000-2001 "Internut" bust and 9/11/2001 — delayed spinoff of Agere Systems (AGR.A and AGR.B, later acquired by LSI Logic, which was itself acquired in 2014 by Avago (AVGO), a US-Singaporean semiconductor company.) - Lucent Technologies Inc. flowchart

    Fiorina was no more responsible for "destruction" of Lucent (remnants of which were sold to France's Alcatel which is now being acquired by Finland's Nokia) than of Nortel (NT), Tellabs (TLAB), Cisco (CSCO), Juniper Networks (JNPR) and numerous other telcos or CLECs who disappeared from the telecom/networking landscape.

    A few months after she joined HP, the company had a major spinoff (approved by the board and previous management prior to Fiorina's input) of the Agilent (A), at the time a $19B IPO, removed from the company's book value and distributed to HP shareholders. Adding that value alone would significantly change the record of her tenure, comparing the stock performance against similar rivals, and that's not even counting the huge value added to combined HP through the merger with Compaq - then a leader in server storage and "portables," with a great end-user and corporate channels.

    There had been layoffs at HP, by most counts about 30,000 people, due to redundancies in management and overlapping operations in merged companies, as well as streamlining HP from unmanageable 53 divisions down to 4 and instituting a more channel-friendly policy rather than relying on dying direct-sales policy (IBM and many other big tech companies followed suit). And all that, of course, happening right in the middle of the Internet crash and after 9/11. No surprise that many people didn't like the changes and weren't happy with Fiorina, including the Hewlett siblings who sat on the board while the company had been sinking into irrelevancy, like Xerox and Polaroid. She was, after all, an outsider, not "of HP."

    All she did was save it from sliding into oblivion, by restructuring it under extremely difficult economic and political circumstances and with some people on the board constantly standing in her way, while later taking credit for the successes of the restructured HP. Or need we remind how the same board hired "master of disaster" Leo Apotheker after turning blind eye to Mark Hurd's problems?

    Sure, she had a lot of unhappy people and enemies. "If you have no enemies, you are not important enough to have made any" - Alexandre Dumas

    Ironically, it was the Fortune article that put Fiorina's name on the Big Map:

      In 1998, a reporter for Fortune came to Lucent to interview Fiorina for a feature on the most powerful women in business. At the time, Fiorina was president of Lucent's Global Service Provider division. Though her group was responsible for churning out roughly $19 billion in revenue annually, Fiorina wasn't exactly a household name. Yet when the Fortune piece came out, she was ranked in the No. 1 slot — ahead of Oprah Winfrey and Martha Stewart. Fiorina topped the list, Fortune wrote, because she "sells no less than 'the things that make communications work' — big-ticket networking systems and software for telephone, Internet, and wireless-service operators in 43 countries around the globe. In short, she's at the center of the ongoing technology revolution that's changing how we live and work."

      After that, recruiters for major companies started calling. The call that intrigued Fiorina most came from Hewlett-Packard. Soon enough, she was the company's new CEO — the first to come from outside HP, and the first female head of a Fortune 20 company.

    Also see the post from Carly Fiorina: 'Here's what I will do as Commander in Chief' - FR, post #21, 2015 July 29

  • Clinton aides vow not to destroy emails

    08/13/2015 1:45:51 AM PDT · 61 of 93
    CutePuppy to Aria; Mariner; Secret Agent Man; FredZarguna
    Does anyone know that if true why it wasn’t a problem then?

    Because it was neither true nor accurate.

    I don't know how "the smartest woman" thought she could get away with leaving no trace of digital communication with the State Department mail servers. Most secure communications would specifically require it, especially when she was out of the country or "the zone."

    Some dumb-dumbs, like Lois Lerner, have been using the corporate / government email system for [some] personal communications; other dumb-dumbs have been using personal email channels for sensitive and must-be-secure corporate / government communication.

    Amazing...

  • Trump Trolls Critics Again: While PP Does Abortions, No Tax Dollars Should Go Their Way

    08/12/2015 10:07:40 AM PDT · 64 of 83
    CutePuppy to arthurus; E. Pluribus Unum; DoughtyOne; nickcarraway; ElainaVer; All
    "While the organization conducts abortions, they should receive no taxpayer dollars."

    The real question that should be asked is — abortions or no abortions — what is it about Planned Parenthood that should entitle them to any federal funds at all, any more than any number of non-profit or charitable organisations doing "good works"?

    "Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information."

  • Fiorina impresses as Trump's schtick wears thin

    08/09/2015 12:49:46 AM PDT · 15 of 79
    CutePuppy to 2ndDivisionVet
    The last two men who picked females as running mates went down to bitter defeats, but you think there will be a third stab at it?

    Fiorina is not running for VP. She [knows that she] has nothing to contribute as VP, not being from a typical "Washington political class," with wide and deep connections on the Hill.

    However... there is a very good chance that GOP VP spot on the ticket will be given to a female Hispanic Governor from New Mexico, Susana Martinez (changed party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 1995).

  • Fiorina impresses as Trump's schtick wears thin

    08/09/2015 12:19:52 AM PDT · 2 of 79
    CutePuppy to CutePuppy
    From Trump Was For Socialized Medicine Before He Was, Sort Of, Against It - IBD, by John Merline, 2015 August 07

    In the Republican debate on Thursday, Brett Baier asked Donald Trump about his past statements on health care. "Now, 15 years ago, you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren't you for it now?"

    Baier is right on the facts. In Trump's 2000 book The America We Deserve, he wrote that "The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than America. ... We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing."

    Trumps answer to Baier's question should trouble anyone who believes in free market health care reforms.

    "As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you're talking about, here."

    Really? Let's take these claims one at a time.

    First, as IBD has frequently detailed, single payer doesn't work in Canada, unless you consider extreme wait times, and the fact that Canadians often come to the U.S. to get needed care, working. One study found that roughly 41,000 leave Canada in a given year for needed health care.

    Patients in Scotland, too, suffer from chronic delays. The Sunday Herald, for example, reported earlier this year that "Scotland's health boards are seeing delays of at least three times the target (emergency room) waiting times of four hours — and one health board recorded a wait of over 24 hours."

    If you have cancer, Scotland's single payer definitely doesn't work "incredibly well." As Forbes Avik Roy points out, cancer survival rates in the U.S. are 40% higher than in Scotland.

    And Trump's last point that single payer could have worked in the United States "in a different age" makes no sense whatsoever, since Trump supported single payer just 15 years ago.

    Does he mean to say that it would have worked in 2000, but won't work in 2015? If so, how come? ..... < snip >

  • Fiorina impresses as Trump's schtick wears thin

    08/09/2015 12:15:01 AM PDT · 1 of 79
    CutePuppy
  • (Scornful Megyn Kelly) Debate Question for Sen. Cruz: 'Any Word From God?'

    08/07/2015 11:56:17 AM PDT · 92 of 148
    CutePuppy to bolobaby; Mr Rogers; xzins
    First, full disclosure: I don't watch FoxNews (and CNN, MSNBC etc.) - I get enough info by reading various news sources, including foxnews.com site.

    I think that Megyn Kelly did a favour to the candidates by asking them the question(s) they should have an easily ready response and by weeding out early those who have no reasonable response to a simple question that will be sure to come up in a more serious future debates in a more hostile environment and under tougher scrutiny.

    If a candidate is unprepared to answer this and similar questions that come supposedly "from the left" (as it was characterized about 4 years ago about a question put to another putative GOP candidate in the primary) - then he/she doesn't know the answer and doesn't belong on a stage or ready to be a candidate.

    Better to get these out early and for us to know who is viable, and for them to know what they can expect and be prepared.

    Thank God for small favours.

  • Carly Fiorina: 'Here's what I will do as Commander in Chief'

    08/05/2015 11:47:13 PM PDT · 64 of 65
    CutePuppy to Pining_4_TX
      If someone really wanted to make the US more secure, he or she would bring US troops home and put on our borders...

    That's the infamous "ostrich strategy" that has served poorly to a number of nations, including in many instances the U.S., e.g., fairly recent ones, like in Kenya and Tanzania, 9/11, etc. — it never worked against asymmetrical warfare and terrorism.

      Russia is Europe's problem.

    The same way that Hitler's Germany was Europe's problem? It's a good thing that Ronald Reagan didn't think this way about Russian / Soviet "sphere of influence" in Europe.

      Nothing the US is willing to do would be enough to stop Iran from getting a nuke.

    Simply not accurate, and somewhat defeatist, i.e., the Obama-Kerry Middle East doctrine. Much could have been done about Iran, which has been surrounded by our troops in Iraq (west) and Afghanistan (east), without actually resorting to direct military action, under the right leadership.

    Please acquaint yourself with the concept of The Gap, advanced by Thomas Barnett in "The Pentagon's New Map", originally in Esquire article. Please read my comments ##19, 20, 22, 24 in this FR thread (Strains grow over strategy to rein in Iran (Cheney vs Condi+Euros), 2007 June 04) and the thread Can David Petraeus Rebuild a Nation? - FR / Esquire, by Thomas P. M. Barnett, 2007 January 25.

      We have no Muslim allies, only people willing to use us for a time.

    It may be 99% accurate but it's 100% irrelevant. We can also "use" them "for a time," as long as the (albeit, possibly short-term) goals are beneficial to all parties involved in partnership, which may outlive its usefulness upon completion of the goals. That was the brilliance of Donald Rumsfeld's and Condoleezza Rice's concept of the somewhat loosely structured and deliberately non-permanent "Coalition Of the Willing (COW)" when the old, formal coalitions, like NATO, were too slow, rigid, bureaucratic, fractured, unprepared, unfunded, unwilling or had no self-interest in taking certain actions against certain actors — nations, groups or networks.

      To [loosely] quote Lord Palmerston: "[Nations / Countries / Governments] have no eternal friends or allies, they have no perpetual enemies, they only have permanent interests."

      (The last bit is quite arguable, of course, due to generalization and [sometimes rapid] changes of nations' governments, demographics and cultures) - see more / example in (Israel's Netanyahu calls for supporting Kurdish independence - FR, post #17 by CP, 2014 July 01)

      If we don't solve the problems of government spending and regulation, illegal immigration, ... then nothing we do overseas will make a bit of difference

    Very true, but it's a different subject — you are taking one segment of the speech regarding a single subject, and conflating separate — internal and external — unrelated issues as if they are sequential or entirely overlapping/dependent in nature.

    That's not how [effective] nations / governments, organizations or people work. Those who can't multitask ("walk and chew gum at the same time") don't succeed.

  • If you care about California, care about Salinas

    08/02/2015 6:38:42 PM PDT · 28 of 28
    CutePuppy to Don Corleone; PGR88; Mariner; All
    California in recent years had three "colorful" Governors — Gray, "Black" (Schwarzenegger) and now Brown — and, of course the legislature that is "green on the outside, red inside".

    No wonder the formerly Golden State is all Brown State now.

  • Carly Fiorina: 'Here's what I will do as Commander in Chief'

    08/02/2015 4:47:14 AM PDT · 59 of 65
    CutePuppy to trisham
    She's pro-choice. No deal.

    She has been very outspoken about being pro-life.

  • African Bishop Points Out Hypocrisy of Obama’s Pro-Homosexual Agenda

    07/29/2015 10:54:29 PM PDT · 20 of 21
    CutePuppy to skr; NYer; BitWielder1; Aria; All
    Is this the same Obama who in December of 2009 stated that he "didn't want to meddle in other countries' internal affairs" when Iranian people were protesting their presidential elections and were only looking for words of support and encouragement?
  • Carly Fiorina: 'Here's what I will do as Commander in Chief'

    07/29/2015 8:31:57 PM PDT · 21 of 65
    CutePuppy to Extremely Extreme Extremist
    *Cough* - California.

    *Cough* - After merging HP with Compaq — at the time the largest server and "portable PC" competitor — she transformed and ran a mostly struggling market-share-losing printer and disk drive manufacturer into the company which for many years had revenues larger than the budget and revenues of state of California (I don't know if it's still the case) and she left HP in stronger shape than she "inherited," despite dealing with the Internet stock market bubble blowup and 9/11.

  • Carly Fiorina: 'Here's what I will do as Commander in Chief'

    07/29/2015 7:27:34 PM PDT · 1 of 65
    CutePuppy
    Worth reading and watching, she doesn't mince words, but does it calmly and forcefully.

    It's understandable why meritocracy is a big deal for her. So far she definitely stands out from most in the field in style, demeanor, experience and substance. This should help her do well in the debates.

    "On my first day in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls. The first will be to my friend Bibi Netanyahu. I will reassure him that the United States will always stand with the State of Israel.

    "My second call will be to the Supreme Leader of Iran. He might not take the call, but he will get the message. I will tell him: New deal. .....

    "These two calls are also signals that the United States is back in the leadership business. I will not call Vladimir Putin. We have talked way too much to him. But he too will get the message."

    "In order to defeat ISIS, we must be willing to call it what it is: Islamic extremism."

  • Mind-blowing Temperature Fraud at NOAA

    07/28/2015 9:38:00 AM PDT · 21 of 35
    CutePuppy to rlmorel; RedMominBlueState; DungeonMaster; All
    Just start and keep calling it a "Man-Made-Up Global Warming" and/or "Man-Made-Up Climate Change"
  • EXCLUSIVE: Entire US national security system possibly compromised by year-long cyber-assault

    07/24/2015 2:20:58 AM PDT · 61 of 69
    CutePuppy to dragnet2; SeekAndFind
    Trump told us we're being led by incompetent idiots.

    Trump is either too politically diplomatic — not his usual trait — or is fooled.

    That's what they want you to think. In fact, they all too readily cop to people and agencies being "incompetent," "untrained," and/or "underfunded [by Republicans]" every time there is a scandal, mischief, felony or treason...

    Besides, the "incompetence" doesn't lend itself well to charges of premeditation and planning, and therefore, possible conspiracy — it's confined to few, certain, usually lower level people.

    If you had a choice between a charge of criminality, conspiracy, treason or "incompetence," which one would you chose, every time?

  • Plan to Close Guantanamo Bay Prison in the Works

    07/24/2015 1:17:47 AM PDT · 23 of 23
    CutePuppy to xzins; Brad from Tennessee
    As Al Gore said some time ago: "What was up is down, and what was down is up."

    "Disaster and disgrace
    The king has lost his crown
    Suddenly
    He's clumsy like a clown
    Ha-aaaahh
    The world is upside down..."
    - ABBA, "The King Has Lost His Crown"

    The world is upside down: Netanyahu and Israel are enemies; Ayatollah and Iran are partners; Fidel Castro and Raul Castro are Obama's BFFs...

    That would make for good bumper stickers and banners at rallies, except one can't even see it on that low-rated unfunny comedy channel called GOP.

  • Top Iranian Nuke Deal Negotiator Admits "Anytime" Inspections Are Pretty Much Bogus

    07/18/2015 3:31:28 AM PDT · 18 of 19
    CutePuppy to rightwingcrazy; Kaslin
      "rhetorical flourish"
      That's what they're calling a "lie" these days.

    "That phrase, 'anytime, anywhere,' is something that became popular rhetoric, but I think people understood that... there was not a shred or a smidgen of truthiness in it..."

    Gruberisms (if there isn't yet a Wikipedia entry for it, there should be one) are just flying out from this "most transparent administration in history."

  • Ky hospitals: Obamacare forcing cuts, layoffs

    06/08/2015 1:40:14 PM PDT · 20 of 20
    CutePuppy to Moonman62; Ray76; All

    KY hospitals should’ve been stocking up on KY Jelly - I heard rumors that ObamaCare goes down easier with it.

  • Emails show Clinton's interest in arming Libyan rebels despite prohibitions

    05/28/2015 1:39:33 PM PDT · 13 of 33
    CutePuppy to Diana in Wisconsin; SuzyQue; Ray76
    The relationship between the CIA and the real Madam Secretary is much more interesting than the imaginary and sycophantically "flattering" one in the TV series.
  • Emails show Clinton's interest in arming Libyan rebels despite prohibitions

    05/28/2015 1:05:09 PM PDT · 1 of 33
    CutePuppy
    Several individuals connected to Benghazi and Hillary Clinton's term at the State Department now work at the D.C. consulting firm Beacon Global Strategies. Among them are Clinton's principal gatekeeper Philippe Reines; Morell, who's listed as a senior counselor; and Andrew Shapiro, who was a Clinton policy adviser at the State Department whose portfolio included ridding Libya of shoulder-launched missiles called MANPADs...

    Can we say "Libya-Contra"?

    Muammar Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program and promised cooperation against al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organisations (on which he mostly delivered), at the end of 2003, shortly after Saddam Hussein was captured. Thousands of Iraqi workers participated in that program. That alone could have been hailed by Bush administration as a big part of "Mission accomplished" by helping get rid the region of military nuclear development threat.

    The elimination of Qaddafi by Obama / Hillary administration using "Arab Spring" as a cover, led to chaos and takeover of Libya by the same Islamic terrorists we used the "strongman" Qaddafi to guard against, while we had our "boots on the ground" stabilizing strategically important areas, Iraq and Afghanistan, surrounding and checkmating Iran on the east and west flanks.

    The killer-drone campaign of Obama is purely tactical, and without taking over military and political/civilian control of territory cannot succeed. Unfortunately, he thinks that these strikes are actually a "strategy" - the only strategy it's designed to solve is pretend to do something in the region and kick this poison gas can to next president. Keeping the "No boots on the ground" campaign promise became his sole definition of "success" - for which we'll be paying with blood and treasure for years to come.

  • Secret space plane, solar sail and CubeSats launching Wednesday

    05/20/2015 1:54:36 AM PDT · 6 of 8
    CutePuppy to cripplecreek
    Not a new concept... James Bond and Willard Whyte in Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
  • Sources: U.S. Special Operations forces kill ISIS commander Abu Sayyaf in Syria raid

    05/17/2015 5:19:59 PM PDT · 81 of 83
    CutePuppy to McGruff
    His wife, an Iraqi named Umm Sayyaf, was captured and taken to Iraq...

    Obama got a "trophy wife"?

  • AP-GfK Poll: Many Approve Iran Deal; Most Don't Trust Tehran

    05/12/2015 8:10:17 PM PDT · 7 of 11
    CutePuppy to dfwgator; FlingWingFlyer; dp0622; TribalPrincess2U
    Actually, this poll is very encouraging, despite extremely misleading headline ("Many Approve...").

    It turns out that "Many" comprises only about 3 percent... that majority of Americans stand with Israel and not with Obama/Kerry on the issue (i.e., Netanyahu is winning the argument)... that Democrats are badly split on the issue and that almost 60% of them prefer Obama's and Iran's interests and not Israel's, while more than 70% of Republicans are standing with Israel... that Americans are finally taking more interest in the [diminishing and mostly incomprehensible] role of the U.S. in the world, and apparently do not like very much what they're seeing.

    Regarding only 16 percent "actually paying close attention to the complex Iran negotiations" — what is the point of trying to pay attention to Kerry's or Obama's pronouncements and/or ever-changing "conditions" that the agreement might entail? There is little coverage of them, and more importantly, we already know where Obama is going with it, and already know how the Senate and Congress are going to react, so "closely" following these two clowns' "negotiations" with Iran in the meantime is useless and liable to produce nothing but anguish and headaches.

    What this poll shows (and it's skewed toward higher Democratic participation, as usual) is that Obama / Kerry already lost the public on this and his "foreign policy" and losing more every week, and are taking a lot of Democrats with them, and no amount of lipstick is going to make this pig into Miss America.

  • AP-GfK Poll: Many Approve Iran Deal; Most Don't Trust Tehran

    05/12/2015 6:20:00 PM PDT · 1 of 11
    CutePuppy
    How the AP-GfK Poll on Iran Was Conducted:
      The AP-GfK Poll of 1,077 adults was conducted online April 23-27, using a sample drawn from GfK's probability-based KnowledgePanel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points. Respondents were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods, and later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn't otherwise have access to the Internet were provided access at no cost to them.

    Obama's foreign "policy," if it can be called that — he is only looking at it as a search / venue for "legacy" — is getting less and less popular ever since "Obama got Osama" and various "resets," "red lines" and "springs" blew up in his face.

    He is now left trying to make a go of it with Cuba and Iran, and neither is the right "policy" nor should become popular, even with so-called "libertarians" who, with no explanation, frivolously and off-handedly make a claim that the other policies "didn't work."

  • Obama Endorses Removing Cuba From Terrorism List

    04/14/2015 3:52:15 PM PDT · 43 of 51
    CutePuppy to sappy; Truth29; EQAndyBuzz; JimSEA; stephenjohnbanker; MeshugeMikey; Iron Munro; All
    try to marginalize both cruz and rubio while doing what he does best. cozy up to criminals, murderers, America haters and despots

    I doubt that the timing of Cuba announcement or Iran deal by Comrade Barack Che Obama has anything to do with Cruz or Rubio, or any Republican presidential candidate.

    Che Obama is in a mad rush to do all these unpopular things NOW so this Carteresque "legacy" becomes fait accompli by the time presidential campaigns are in a full swing and it wouldn't affect the next Democratic candidate — and him/her having to defend or denounce the "policy" or its outcome — when it can be dismissed as "old news" and therefore, with the help of the media, unimportant and as such, "time to move on[.org]" to issues they want to emphasize.

  • 2016 politics: White House chooses its fights _ when it can [Republicans only react to him]

    03/12/2015 4:54:37 AM PDT · 6 of 6
    CutePuppy to Cincinatus' Wife
      Is there a more arrogant person on the planet?

      He's getting no push back from our "leaders" on the Hill - so he has a bounce in his step.

    It's his naked arrogance that makes him so much more transparent, and much less likable to the average person than he was aspiring to be in 2007 and 2008. When Bill Clinton was getting into trouble politically, he could count on his "I feel your pain" persona, to bail him out; Obama has no personal "out" when he gets into trouble, which is one reason why his poll numbers are not likely to rise and are likely to be a drag on Democrats in 2016... and they know it, yet have no choice but keep doubling down with him.

    He may have a bounce in his step but his arrogance makes him pick the wrong battles, on the wrong fields and at the wrong time, and he is risking to lose and is losing a large number of them (in courts and elections, and later on in executive authority), with substantial — but still "safe" for now — portion of Democrats in Congress abandoning him on key issues (like on Keystone votes).

    Display of arrogance could be a smart tactic, when it's a part of a wider overall strategy; in this case it's "organic" and is just a tactic without a strategy... except kicking the can as far down the road as possible, hoping to distract and run out the clock, and some Hail Mary passes, hoping for Republicans to make a mistake (which, knowing the GOP, they just might oblige).

    "Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win" - Jonathan Kozol

    "Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning" - Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

    "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" - Napoléon Bonaparte

    "True genius is knowing when to stop" - Johann von Goethe

  • Donna Shalala to head Clinton Foundation [long history with Hillary]

    03/08/2015 1:03:29 AM PST · 38 of 38
    CutePuppy to Captain7seas; Cincinatus' Wife
    If I remember correctly, back when Newt first was Speaker he held a press conf. on CSPAN where he advocated reading Alvin and Heidi Tofflers book which was about advancing the Third Way.

    You remember incorrectly. Alvin Toffler's book Third Wave (1980) was a sequel to Future Shock (1970), which later was followed by Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century (1990). However, in 2006, an updated theme of Third Wave was published in a much expanded book Revolutionary Wealth (2006), which I would highly recommend - particularly because many of the things described there as "the future" have already happened, and some are happening with lightening speed... whether we like it or not, it helps to know what to expect so we could either be ready for them, help advance some of them or lead the fight against some of them.

    Third Wave in Tofflers' terminology is the Information Age, contrasted with the Second Wave which was the Industrial Age, assigning the First Wave to the Agrarian Age **. It has nothing to do with the Third Way which is a euphemism for a fascist socialist tight public-private economic integration, which was promoted by the Clintons and Tony Blair, among others. ***

    --------

    ** Ref: Historical and Technological Timelines

    *** Michael Barone: Obama, Brown, and the 'Third Way' - The Left loses its way by abandoning the... - FR, posts #3, #9, 2010 May 03

    Goodbye Fannie and Freddie, Hello MCGE - FR, post #13, 2009 September 02

  • Donna Shalala to head Clinton Foundation [long history with Hillary]

    03/08/2015 12:58:26 AM PST · 36 of 38
    CutePuppy to Captain7seas; Cincinatus' Wife
    If I remember correctly, back when Newt first was Speaker he held a press conf. on CSPAN where he advocated reading Alvin and Heidi Tofflers book which was about advancing the Third Way.

    You remember incorrectly. Alvin Toffler's book Third Wave (1980) was a sequel to Future Shock (1970), which later was followed by Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century (1990). However, in 2006, an updated theme of Third Wave was published in a much expanded book Revolutionary Wealth (2006), which I would highly recommend - particularly because many of the things described there as "the future" have already happened, and some are happening with lightening speed... whether we like it or not, it helps to know what to expect so we could either be ready for them, help advance some of them or lead the fight against some of them.

    Third Wave in Tofflers' terminology is the Information Age, contrasted with the Second Wave which was the Industrial Age, assigning the First Wave to the **. It has nothing to do with the Third Way which is a euphemism for a fascist socialist tight public-private economic integration, which was promoted by the Clintons and Tony Blair, among others. ***

    --------

    ** Ref: Historical and Technological Timelines

    *** Michael Barone: Obama, Brown, and the 'Third Way' - The Left loses its way by abandoning the... - FR, posts #3, #9, 2010 May 03

    Goodbye Fannie and Freddie, Hello MCGE - FR, post #13, 2009 September 02

  • There's a new mortgage crisis brewing [Richard Bove]

    02/26/2015 2:15:46 PM PST · 21 of 25
    CutePuppy to 1010RD
      Luckily, government chose the winners and the losers and saved us from a “downward credit spiral”.

    During the crisis most of the losers and winners were easily identifiable (Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual vs JP Morgan; Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch vs Bank of America; Wachovia vs Wells Fargo etc.). Of course, government having another chunk of "extra" money to loan, could and — in the worst traditions of crony socialism — did disperse some of that money to their friends (which was well documented here on FR at the time), but using the natural government corruption to deny the need for TARP-like injection if liquidity to financial system so the consumers' and business deposit accounts can be backed and then trickled down to businesses and customers is ridiculous. The lenders of last resort did exactly what the lenders of the last resort were supposed to do, faced with the credit and liquidity crisis.

      1. Do downward credit spirals really happen?

    You betcha. Persistent depression / compression and deflation are two of the examples that basically self-perpetuate themself, aka the vicious cycle.

      2. If yes, are the caused or cured by government?

    Could be either. It depends on the government. For example, take Greece... (please!) People there just elected the government that told them what they wanted to hear (stop "austerity," restart higher government spending paid for by higher taxes on the rich and clamp-down on tax evasion / "cheaters," even though it's exacty what caused the current problems and is the wrong prescription for Greek economy. Germany, on the other hand, weathered the storm relatively unscathed and is the main engine of the EMU and EU economy.

  • There's a new mortgage crisis brewing [Richard Bove]

    02/26/2015 12:25:41 PM PST · 20 of 25
    CutePuppy to 1010RD
      The problem in RE is the overhang of too high mortgages in underperforming, over financed properties.

    The problem in RE is the same as it was before the financial/credit crisis : overregulation, same players forcing the same kind of rules that led to the crisis in the first place (many hands of federal and state governments trying to force lending to marginal or unqualified borrowers) while at the same time forcing same lenders keep much higher capital reserves (thereby reducing their lending capacity) and running "stress tests" and inspecting their MBS and other credit portfolios for "risk level" as well as reducing earning capabilities of such lenders by Frank-Dodd and CFPB regulations (e.g., against private trading and credit cards fees etc.) in already low-interest environment - in other words, there are now even more regulations of and penalties against financial/lending institutions and most of these are more draconian than were before the crisis, which also explains why there are fewer [smaller] banks than were before the crisis - the environment is simply not conducive to small lending. Even if it's "qualified" by one of the agencies today, doesn't stop them from suing and/or levying fines on the lender tomorrow ("been there, done that, lost their shirts"). Being sued or penalized for not originating the mortgage loan is a lot less likely and a lot less painful than for originating a "potentially questionable" mortgage loan, as the article clearly spelled out.

        Had government done nothing then:

      1. Housing prices would have fallen.

    ... as they did.

      2. Interest rates would have risen.

    ... as they did - Libor did sharply and credit froze (which is why it's been called a credit crisis, along with other names) until it became obvious that TARP allowed to net out (see one of the previous links for explanation of mechanism) most of the liabilities and/or backstop others for extensive period of time until it was no longer needed.

      3. Smart money would have snapped up real bargains.

    ... as they did, after it became obvious that credit crisis was [nearly] over and they no longer needed or required to hoard the money to cover any credit/debt, legal or regulatory liabilities - e.g., Buffet was asked to use his unrestricted cash to provide credit/investment to shore up the balance sheets and viability of some financial institutions on very favourable to him terms; backstops were also used to help temporarily finance transfers of deposit-bearing accounts at institutions/banks/brokerages that would overwhelm puny resources of FDIC and SIPC and would cause run on the banks on unprecedented scale, with government liabilities in trillions of dollars.

      4. States and municipalities would have been forced to fix pensions/budgets based on reduced property tax revenues.

    Forced? Not any more than they are now, Detroit and Chicago and Puerto Rico and few mostly Dem states, that we all know, being prime examples. They can always find a few more taxes to levy or cut "non-essential" programs and/or ask the state/federal government to bail them out to preserve as much union-backed defined-benefits plans, with as little haircut to themselves as possible (e.g., Risky Rates: Government pension funds take chances with their employees' money. - B (sub), by Thomas G. Donlan, 2013 September 09 -   names   "Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Rochester, Providence, and many other cities — and some states, notably Illinois and California..."     and     State of the States - B (cover), by Andrew Bary, 2012 August 27, with the table of all states, with lowest and highest unfunded liabilities (JPG)).

      5. Market equilibrium would have been established years ago.

    ... as it has, save for bad old and new taxes, mandates and regulations, some of which were clearly described in the article.

      6. The economy would be hot, naturally hot.

    All because the deposit-bearing and credit institutions (banks, brokerages, money-market funds, ccredit unions etc.) and scores of non-financial businesses would fail (as they started to do as they no longer could obtain financing or credit or get any sort of liquidity from their assets, marked-to-market/marked-to-zero to meet payroll or accounts payable) resulting in Depression-era unemployment and additional government obligations while the Fed and the governnment looked blithely on? How about the bear raids and run on the banks that already started to happen (see Reserve Primary Money Market Fund "breaking the buck" and consequent run, though unseen by most because it was electronic and was met with immediate action by the Fed**)

    Exactly how would not providing temporary liquidity (i.e., TARP/TALF) to shore up financial institutions — which cut short the financial credit and liquidity crisis — would produce such wonderful, "naturally hot" economy? Based on what parameters or history***? What is "natural" about US government's tax, spending and regulatory policies?

    Why are fiscal and regulatory policies which have the primary role in economy ignored or never mentioned in these discussions of economy's problems? Would we have fewer programs (stimuli, cash-for-clunkers, Obamacare, "infrastructure" etc., etc.) regulations, taxes or more if we had the Depression-era financial, housing and unemployment situations? Anybody seriously think that whatever feeble recovery is now (thanks to the Fed's low interst rates and QEs temporarily and partially absorbing piiles of new government debt) it would be allowed to grow "naturally" and would become "hot" despite all the socialist policies of Obama administration and Democratic/split Congress as well as half the industrial world still being in recession or near it and in disinflation, with other countries governments and their central banks playing "competitive currency devaluation" games, and most of the countries' populations having lost and still losing equity and real purchasing power compared to 2008?

    The fixation on the Fed and monetary policy as the end-all and be-all of the economy, while ignoring the fiscal and regulatory policies, is only playing to Obama's and Dems' hands - they will take credit for anything that's good (like recently saying "You're welcome", taking credit for lower gasoline prices that he worked so hard to increase) and implicitly or explicitly blaming the Fed for subpar employment growth or anything else, no doubt being joined by the chorus of "Paulist" conservatives and libertarians who made their careers using attacks on the Fed as their stepping stones in politics.

    Here's a simple example: European Union's (EU) "eurozone" (EMU) has the Europran Central Bank (ECB) and single currency - euro. All eurozone countries' economies should therefore be similar, right? How do you explain Germany and Greece or Spain? Same currency and same interest rates, entirely different governments' fiscal policies and respectively, their economies (think Texas and New Jersey or Illinois - same Fed's monetary policy, same QE, same TARP, same interest rates, different taxes, different regulations, different deficits, different economies etc.) See The State of Greek Business - FR, post #44, 2012 February 08,   and   The great euro Putsch rolls on as two democracies fall - FR, post #29, 2011 November 13

      7. Liberty would have grown.

    Exactly how would liberty have grown in the Depression-era environment, where even more people would depend on the government money and services? Did liberty grow under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his policies? How would it grow under Obama who would use it to create evem more socialist programs and regulations than he was able to do using "the worst economy since the Depression" to push his agenda? More likely he would nationalize or come close to it, the banking system and some other "essential to financial security" industries, just like he did, or attempted to, with insurance, student loans and so on.

      Thanks to the DC Uniparty none of the above happened, but the stock market is booming.

    What's wrong with the stock market booming, if it's based on real profits? As long as we point out the real reasons for it and don't give credit where it is not due, we should be OK. Of course, GOP is notoriously bad at that, except couple of times in the 80s and 90's, thanks to few individuals who knew how to do it.

    ----------------

    ** Defusing A $5.5T Run On The Banks - FR / NYP, by CP, posts #1, #12, #24, #25, #32, #36, #38, 2009 February 15

    Father of money market funds charged with fraud - FR, posts #10, #11, 2009 May 05

    TARP repayments of $194 billion exceed outstanding balance of $190 billion - FR, posts #7, #14, #18, #34!, #35, #41!, #42!, #44!, #46, 2010 June 12

    Taxpayers Face Heavy Losses on Auto Bailout | Sleep-At-Night-Money Lost in Lehman Lesson Missing $63 Billion - FR, post #25, 2009 September 09

    *** When One Man Was the Central Bank | Rand Paul Draws Liberal Fire As The Left Discovers Its Inner Love Of The Fed - FR, post #16, 2015 February 25