Speaking on behalf of the people of Minnesota, we apologize for this nitwit. We don’t understand what the well-heeled dingbats in the satellite suburb of Stillwater think they are doing electing and re-electing this idiot, but we put it down to the kind of gated-community groupthink that makes us Twin Cities residents happy that they’re all thirty miles downwind. We’ll try again next election, hopefully with an opposing candidate whose name doesn’t make national reporters giggle. Again, sorry about all this.

Hey BT, wingnuts use the constitution as a shiny object.

The onerous winged monkeys esp. like Article II. Like it says what they want it to say “unitary executive” but it doesn’t. “Article II! Article II!” The caw of black crows. Note they don’t use the actual language, just point to it like a prop.

I love it when they answer, we get our authority directly from this body – you know, Congress, the same Congress mentioned in passing in the Constitution? And then she asks the same question again.

FUCK CONGRESS! WHAT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION!?!?!?!?!?

Will she take pledge not to take campaign contributions from financial institutions?

I also like how she got herself all dolled up for her Mr. DeMille moment.

Well frankly I feel this way about Congress from time to time.

Sexist.

DUMBIST!

The current model for regulating the financial markets relies on independent agencies that are independent from the political process.

Such as The Department of Redundancy Department.

Mr. Secretary, how do we know 2 + 2 = 4?

My favorite moment is still ‘Kazakastan”.

The current model for regulating the financial markets hes:
1. Failed
2. Been revised and staffed by political appointees who did not believe in regulating the the financial markets.

Barney Frank explaining the concept of ”time” to Congresswoman Bachmann is like explaining the concept of ”iPod” to a philodendron.

I *love* edit

Ah. A Bachmann montage.

The glasses make her so seriouslike. I think she’s trying to channel Sarah Palin.

what i find so striking is that the democrats couldn’t be bothered to defend the constitution during the bush years. so i guess i shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t do it now.

now, besides bernie sanders, dennis kucinich and maybe a couple of others (none in positions of party leadership), all we have are a few batshit crazy republicans doing it for hypocritical purposes.

it’s pains me no end to say it but: go bachmann!

coffee=========>monitor

teaching a cat Algebra….707

barney frank can bite me.

yesterday’s hearing was one big joke. and i’m not laughing.

when the fuck is he going to take his job seriously? oh, i forgot, his job is sucking up to the banksters and then pretending to care about the rest of us.

while we’re on money matters (sort of) here’s an article on how we’re going to get hosed some more:

Credit Card Fees

Although banks are scooping up billions in bailout money, or borrowing money from the Federal Reserve at as low as 0 percent, they aren’t passing those savings on to consumers. Credit card interest rates have generally increased for all major card issuers and even doubling or tripling for consumers who pay their bills on time.

Card companies have become fee-addicted. According to industry consultant R.K. Hammer, card issuers raked in $19 billion in penalty fee income in 2008, up 5 percent from 2007. This year, penalty fee income is expected to rise to a record $20.5 billion.

So IOW, credit card companies have incentives to keep us in hock. Like we didn’t already know that. My favorite tactic (not) is to slash your credit limit below the amount you have on the card, so they can collect more penalty fees. Pretty sweet deal, eh?

This one is so rich with irony, on so many levels, that I should probably make some popcorn before viewing it.

i love the WILLINGLY OBTUSE playing their obstructionist roles…great theatre

“… both China, Russia, and Kazakastan…”

Selise!!!

you truly are the Queen of Action Speaks Louder Than Words!

cut em up and toss em,have one for emergencys only

Taking your job seriously and enjoying your job are not mutually exclusive.

I think Barney Frank should be Treasury Secretary, personally. He frightens the banksters.

oh, and bachmann’s weird question about an international currency was probably in reference to the draft recommendations submitted last week by a UN commission (The Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System) that i think are being presented to the general assembly today for discussion. among many other reforms, they’ve proposed a change to the global dollar reserve system. and some members of the g20 have recently been speaking out about the need for a change.

the other Bernie…Sanders imo

Them black helicopters iz comin’ for you, Michelle!

must be hard,keeping all her GOOPER talking points together

He frightens the banksters.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

biggest laugh of the week. thanks, that was great. hahaha!

p.s. if you really want to scare the banksters and not just pretend to, make stiglitz treasury secretary. now that would be fun.

This of course is not a sexist post. It’s just that there happened to be a man putting a woman in her place. We’ve seen Frank put men in their place as well. Well, we’ve heard of such things, not speaking out of school.

I can speak whale, btw.

we’re sold politics like we’re sold laundry detergent and automobiles. iow, reality doesn’t have much to do with the stories we’re told. i’ve learned to treat words like advertisement copy until backed up by real action.

I think this might explain why Michelle went over her allotted time.

Er, I don’t know anyone credible who thinks the government’s intervention in the economy is unconstitutional.

As creepy as Bachman is, Geithner’s response was dumbfounding. Congress was granted extraordinary powers by the framers. Right wingers need to read Article I, obviously, but so does Geithner.

Interstate commerce, taxing and spending clauses. Borrow on the credit of the US, coin money and regulate the value thereof. Regulate foreign commerce. If all that’s not enough, “Congress shall have the power … to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and ALL OTHER POWERS vested by this constitution in THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR IN ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF.” (Emphasis added)

Bachman’s idiocy is expected. Geithner’s nonanswer demonstrates that there is a widespread, alarming ignorance of the constitution even among people who damn well should know better. No wonder right wingers are able to persist in the proliferation of false narratives about “big government.” If Geithner had had his chops together he could have highlighted Bachman’s clownhood for all to see, and in a way that would clear the field for further needed reforms. Allowing the Bachmans of the world to invoke the constitution to support their wingnuttery? Enough.

Yes, it is painful to see wingnuts asking the best questions. What Bernanke has been doing at the Fed is far more than anyone ever envisaged it doing. He has created multiple trillion dollar programs with no input or oversight from the Congress. What’s worse is that after all this is said and done he’s dumping hundreds of billions in residues from these programs back on the Treasury. No matter how you cut it, it is a complete end-run around the Constitution.

Saw the video, a loser.

Leave Michelle ALOOOOOOONE!

here’s the thing. yesterday’s hearing was so obviously designed not to get at the truth. it was not an exercise of even lame oversight. it was a joke. bernanke and geithner in particular were permitted to answer questions in same way condi rice used to – by running out the clock with delay, distraction.

for this barney frank was responsible. bachmann was and is a side show.

if only the issue wasn’t so very important for so many people – more than bush’s senseless war with iraq ( we are all on the same page wrt to the number of lives at stake?). but it is, and that is what fuels my outrage.

please see hugh’s comment @38.

to which i only want to add “amen!”

off to lunch with Levi…apples and organic carrots….later all

http://www.horsedeals.com.au/c…..139965.jpg

she’s firmly convinced that Geithner has a serious crush on her.
she believes he finds her a rare and wild beauty……

I guess I might as well say it, I have a hard time watching this Bachmann airbrain because she looks so much like my girl Marie with brown hair rather then black and straight. Once the Bachmann opens her mouth all comparisons fly away tho. Thanks to Barney Frank for stopping her snotty drivel.

I noticed that, too. I’m pretty sure the tinfoil is buried under the coiffure…

Watch Timothy Geithner’s face

Can’t access it here at work, but I’ll bet it looks a little something like this…

http://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/ima…..erhead.jpg

C|N>K

The big problem here is that Bachmann is terribly inconsistent with her focus on whether the constitution is being adhered to. She certainly never cared about whether Bush and Cheney were following the constitution or the rule of law. If only she held those convictions when it comes to torture, pre-war intelligence, undermining the DOJ, subpoena’s etc. She would then find herself in the company of members of congress who have the ability to be bi partisan at times. Bachman is not a contender. She is a flat out hypocrite in the worst way

Oooh! damp panties and clutched pearls all over Wall Street!!

I agree but I did want Geithner to answer her last question about what % the American people would get back. Would have been interesting.

There is *no* Constitutional basis for the Fed.
The Larouchies have been harping on this forever.

I called Frank’s office this morning and made the point that this whole five-minute rule is doing nothing but facilitating and enabling the heist. I asserted that this process needs to take as long as it takes. If it’s necessary to take the hearings into multiple days, then that’s just the way it has to be. Some of the questions can’t even be formulated in five minutes, let alone answered. Moreover, when Geithner and/or Bernanke run their mouths ad nauseum without actually answering the question – more often the rule than the exception – follow-ups must be permitted. How the fuck else are we supposed to get decent answers?

On the other hand, I recommend duct tape for Bachmann’s mouth. To characterize her as a sick joke would be much too charitable.

I remain unconvinced that the Fed and the Economic Recovery Act are unconstitutional. Sorry.

Yeah, seriously Albatross, how did this person get elected? The bigger question is, how did she get a seat on a committee?

LOL!
That’s EXACTLY how he looked!
you didn’t miss a thing!
LOL!

It’s truly scary to watch/listen to this automaton regurgitate NeoNut talking points she’s obviously been rehearing for days….

Albatross, thanks for the apology but living anywhere close to this lunatic has GOT to be agonizing…NOW she wants all Minnesotans to be ‘armed and dangerous’ toward the Federal Govt. ??

What is in your water supply that actually breads people like her??

Last night’s Frontline showed how Bush/Cheney did an end run around the Congressional budgetary process to get trillions for war spending by keeping it *out* of the budget. Where was Meeee-shell then?

I think you mean “breeds” people like her, not “breads”. But it’s the best imagery of the day! Baked or fried?

bachmann is a batshit crazy hypocrite. on that we are in complete agreement.

Did she really say MMMFFF?

No one is saying these wingnuts are not wingnuts or that they aren’t being hypocritical, but the point remains they are still the ones asking the best questions. Where are the Democrats? Why aren’t they asking these kinds of questions? The Fed is acting as some kind of shadow extension of the Treasury department but without any of the usual Constitutional checks and balances attached to it. To date the money the Treasury has laid out through the TARP is about $400 billion. The Fed has put probably $3 trillion out there with commitments of $6 trillion more. We need to be looking at the Fed much much more in all this and asking a lot tougher questions. And Congress has got to get a handle on it because right now the Fed is effectively operating outside the Constitution.

Thank you, selise and Hugh @ 38. I just read again the Constitution and I believe Bachman is right. The appearance of the defender of our most basic law upon which all others must be based matters not to me.

IMHO, those who cannot attack the message are here attacking the messenger in the most adolescent way.

IMHO, by allowing this slight of hand maneuver by Bernanke and Geithner to go unchallenged by Congress is allowing them to usurp the monetary and taxation powers granted to the Congress alone.

Was wondering if I wasn’t the only one who noticed the Eraserhead resemblance. ;)

well, that’s a completely different position than the one you first described @36. and really not on point anyway, because the question was about the constitutionality of what the fed is now doing. if you claim there is no sane reason to be asking that question, i’m just going to disagree. better put me in your “not credible” column.

Thomas Jefferson:

“If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Ding! Ding! Ding!
As usual, right on the money, Hugh

Mr Frank, PLEASE READ THIS COMMENT!!!

thanks for calling. we really need some competently run hearings. we’ve had them in years past, so there’s no reason other than piss poor congressional leadership that we can’t have them now.

Pressure needs to be put on Frank’s office today. Proposed points:

1. Sufficient time needs to be allotted for a thorough examination of the facts. If the hearings go into multiple days, then so be it. The process takes as long as it takes. (And question the five-minute rule BS.)

2. Why is it that the Repubs are asking tougher questions than the Dems?

You’ll get a staffer, but emphasize that you wish for your points to be taken to Frank today, prior to tomorrow’s hearing.

The main number is: (202) 225-5931

That’s where I recognize Geithner from. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

The Fed is still operating with a Bush era mentality.
secrecy, lack of transparency ,make up the rules as you go

The Fed is very unconstitutional.

Sad to say Bachman has a point even if she is a friggin twit !

So all things not explicitly contained in and spelled out in the Constitution are not allowed? And Congress can’t legislate? If she applies that to everything she/Congress does, she’s in real trouble.

more contact info here.

also, when i call, i’m asking that the committee members designate someone appropriate (knowledgeable, experienced counsel) to do the questioning.

“i’m asking that the committee members designate someone appropriate (knowledgeable, experienced counsel) to do the questioning.”

Very good suggestion. Let them know how obviously incompetent they are proving themselves to be. I’m not above rank humiliation at this point.

I’m not above rank humiliation at this point.

i agree. they should be ashamed of themselves.

The original intent was to do exactly as you suggest BUT bread actually fits as well!! THANKS….

p.s. since we’re in epu-land. my diary yesterday: Dear Congress: Your Hearings Suck

New post—>

by constitution, she meant a permission slip with her signature on it. LOL

The Fed is NOT unconstitutional. It was created by Congress under ample authority granted by the Constitution. (See my comment above.) Course, that doesnt mean what the Fed does is always right or wise. Wikipedia has a pretty good discussion of the history of the Fed.

The problem is fractional reserve banking. If you’re going to have a system of fractional reserve banking, you have to have strict regulation of leveraging, speculation and reserve requirements. The free-market ideology of the last 40 years has evaporated these types of regulation. That’s the problem. To say the Fed is unconstitutional only amplifies the voices of the Bachman’s and Ron Paul’s of the world.

Which is correct as to what Jefferson said…but Jefferson was not around when the Constitution was written. He was not a delegate…he was in France.

The argument about whether the Federal Reserve is Constitutional has long ago been decided by the Supreme Court. As to whether particular actions by the Fed are Constitutional, or within the mandate of what Congress has legislated, are two different questions.

The Fed could still exist and yet be violating Congressional mandates…OR, the Fed may be following Congressional mandates but those may not be Constitutional mandates for an independent agency.

But when I hear the argument devolve about the very existance of the Fed being Constitutional…you are arguing against over a hundred years of Supreme Court decisions based on the premise that it is a legitimate agency. Perhaps one can also argue that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of the Constitutionality of issues, too?

What’s wrong with her eyes? They look like she got a surprise poke deep in her backside. Is that a bad make up job, or does she always look like that.

Just wish I believed Bachmann was sincere for just one minute. Opportunist. .and I admit she is asking some good questions. Just do not trust her for one minute

Will never forget Michelle on Chris Matthews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axf81ck_O-E

The powers that both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have are obtained through Congressional action.

These institutions (and their forebears) have a long history and were debated and adjudged in the early days of the Republic. It wasn’t as if the Framers were unfamiliar with many of these issues. Jefferson (and other anti-Federalists) and Hamilton (and other Federalists) debated these before Congress and in the Press.

Second Bank of the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland ">McCulloch v. Maryland

well, that’s a completely different position than the one you first described @36. and really not on point anyway, because the question was about the constitutionality of what the fed is now doing.

What? It’s not completely different — it’s in fact actually exactly the same. The fed is part of the government. And I have not read anyone credible arguing that there’s something unconstitutional about the current series of bailouts/interventions.

If you can point to one, link. Easy.

OMG! HIGH-larious! I love it at the end when Barney Frank has that, “Oh for the love of gawd woman! Are ya stupid!!!!?!!!!” attitude towards her. Beautiful.

New post—>>

It’s not completely different — it’s in fact actually exactly the same.

here are your two statements:

@ 36:

I don’t know anyone credible who thinks the government’s intervention in the economy is unconstitutional.

@ 54:

I remain unconvinced that the Fed and the Economic Recovery Act are unconstitutional.

i don’t read these statements as exactly the same – the first is a statement about what other people think and the second is a statement about what you think.

i have no problem with your second statement. it’s the first one i object to. as for links, i refer you to hugh’s comments on this thread. i have disagreed with hugh about a lot of things, but i would never call him “not credible.”

my position is that it is not crazy (or something worthy of being mocked) to be questioning the constitutionality of what the fed is doing. particularly as we don’t actually know what the fed is doing. i just wish it was democrats asking those questions instead of the batshit crazy right wingers.

Michelle is a shining star for the Republican party. As Democrats we should encourage her out into the open more often. The best bait for Michelle appears to be a microphone.

Perhaps she could do a reality show with the other shining star, Sarah Palin or is that Parah Salin???? The intellectual components of the program would be almost identical to those exemplified in The Simple Life with Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie!

Yes, the second is implicit in the first as it was a response to your comment about how no Democrats are “defending the Constitution.”

And I take it this last response means you don’t have any sources. That’s fine, but to take a strong position like that and have nothing to back it up other than a comment by another user in the same thread — while cheering on Bachmann — is a little odd.

Bachmann is of course a total idiot and her questions show absolutely no clue or insight into the problem she supposedly is asking questions about. She is the kind of person who would stand on the hose to stop the fire department from putting out a fire.

Interestingly, I think liberals and conservatives probably agree that the Federal Reserve is one agency that probably we could live well without: Milton Friedman proposed abolishing the Federal Reserve and proposed having Congress just set monetary growth targets. Liberals like J.K. Galbraith thought that the Federal Reserve contributed mainly to the nation’s culture by having nice buildings. The most important monetary agency was the FDIC protecting runs on banks by insurance on accounts.

Progressives R Us have repeatedly asked to have the Anti-trust laws enforced. And over the past 28 years (since Raygun), not a single statute has been enforced. The major goal for these people is to eliminate the middle class. If you don’t believe me – look at all those “gated communities”. Are they worried that those gates might prevent the citizens from entering the premises?

Of course! They think if you dumb-down public school education that our children will be more easily controlled. By enforcing the “No child left behind” Act, we have been forced to accept a lower quality of education. Doesn’t that make our children unable to live in the same middle class life style?

During the French Revolution (which actually was inspired by our American Revolution), almost all of the royalty and aristocrats were guillotined because the aristocrats and the monarchy didn’t see it coming. btw, Marie Antoinette never said “Let them eat cake”.

A famous quote: Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

If you think that the right wing nutjobs’ interests are not aligned with our middle class values, you should see that that this is the complete destruction of the middle class and possibly our democracy.

Thanks for humoring me. ;-)

Is Bachmann a representative of Uranus ?

Apparantly she has spent too much time on the republican party media sliming circuit and didn’t have time to prepare for her questioning time at the hearing.

Maybe Rush’s dog ate her homework?