And apparently I'm not the only one who has thought so.

"The US Treasury's effort to stabilise the
banking system through the TARP programme is a
hopelessly ill-conceived policy that enriches
speculators at public expense, according to
the buy-out firm supposed to be pioneering the
joint public-private bank rescues.

"The taxpayers ought to know that we are in
effect receiving a subsidy. They put in 40pc
of the money but get little of the equity
upside," said Mark Patterson, chairman of
MatlinPatterson Advisers.

The comments are likely to infuriate Tim
Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary, because
MatlinPatterson took advantage of the TARP's
matching funds to buy Flagstar Bancorp in
Michigan. His confession appears to validate
concerns that the bail-out strategy is geared
towards Wall Street.

Ya think ???

Under the convoluted deal agreed earlier this
year, MatlinPatterson has come to own 80pc of
the shares while the US government has ended
up with under 10pc.

Mr Patterson said the US Treasury is out of
its depth and seems to be trying to put off
drastic action by pretending that the banking
system is still viable.

"It's a sham. The banks are insolvent. The US
government is trying to sedate the public
because they are down to the last $100bn
(£66bn) of the $700bn TARP funds. They think
they're doing this for the greater good of
society," he said, speaking at the Qatar
Global Investment Forum.

Of course now Mark Patterson denies he ever said this
and the Telegraph has pulled the story. Wonder who
put the pressure on. Treasury maybe ?? Or the FED ?
Or both ??

C

Apparently it's happiness.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development says people in Denmark, Finland
and the Netherlands are the most content with
their lives. The three ranked first, second
and third, respectively, in the OECD's
rankings of "life satisfaction," or happiness.

There are myriad reasons, of course, for
happiness: health, welfare, prosperity,
leisure time, strong family, social
connections and so on. But there is another
common denominator among this group of happy
people: taxes.

Northern Europeans pay some of the highest
taxes in the world. Danes pay about two-thirds
of their income in taxes. Why be so happy
about that? It all comes down to what you get
in return.

The Encyclopedia of the Nations notes that
Denmark was one of the first countries in the
world to establish efficient social services
with the introduction of relief for the sick,
unemployed and aged.

It says social welfare programs include health
insurance, health and hospital services,
insurance for occupational injuries,
unemployment insurance and employment exchange
services. There's also old age and disability
pensions, rehabilitation and nursing homes,
family welfare subsidies, general public
welfare and payments for military accidents.
Moreover, maternity benefits are payable up to
52 weeks.

Well there you go. Proof positive that republicans simply a bunch
mean, nasty, grumpy old grouches. Squeezing, wrenching, grasping,
scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinners!

C
 

CNN's Bill Schneider made this comparison at UCLA.

 "The Republicans aren't a party, they're a cult."

"The moderates aren't a wing of the Republicans, they're
a feather."

In each case, Schneider said he was quoting what people
in Washington are saying to him. But he didn't seem to
disagree.

Schneider is certainly no drinker of Democratic
Kool-Aid; his home base is the American Enterprise
Institute. So the belief that the GOP is up the
proverbial polluted estuary with no visible means of
propulsion must be pretty widespread within the Beltway,
and not just among those for whom it reflects wish
fulfillment.

Schneider also had a good line about what "pragmatism"
means in American politics:

"Americans are pragmatists. A pragmatist thinks that if
something works, it's right. An ideologue believes that
if something is wrong, it can't possibly work, even when
it's working."

The possibility that something might "work" in the short
term and be morally wrong or disastrous in the long term
or both wasn't mentioned. Yes, there are ideologues who
insist on fitting the world to their views rather than
vice versa. But the belief that whatever works is right,
no matter how well that belief "works" politically, is
wrong.

Lets see now what are the defining characteristics of a cult.

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning
commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or
dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices
as the Truth, as law.

Check.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even
punished.

Check.

Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting,
speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and
debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve
to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

Yep. Bush and Bobby Jindal both qualify here.

The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how
members should think, act, and feel (for example,
members must get permission to date, change jobs,
marry-or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to
wear, where to live, whether or not to have children,
how to discipline children, and so forth).

Yep..and they all dress alike.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status
for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the
leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an
avatar-or the group and/or the leader is on a
special mission to save humanity).

What was that Bush said about being on a mission from
God ??

The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality,
which may cause conflict with the wider society.

The leader is not accountable to any authorities
(unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or
ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream
religious denominations).

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted
ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may
result in members' participating in behaviors or
activities they would have considered reprehensible or
unethical before joining the group (for example, lying
to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus
charities).

The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt
iin order to influence and/or control members. Often,
this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of
persuasion.

Subservience to the leader or group requires members to
cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter
the personal goals and activities they had before
joining the group.

Check and re check on all counts.

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Ooops....missed one.

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Maybe this one should be at the top.

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of
time to the group and group-related activities.

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or
socialize only with other group members.

The most loyal members (the "true believers") feel there
can be no life outside the context of the group. They
believe there is no other way to be, and often fear
reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even
consider leaving) the group.

Not much life these days within the context of the group either.

Well the GOP most assuredly fits these criteria.

C