“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Lincoln’s Lavender Side






Abraham Lincoln's sexual proclivities have long been the subject of titillating rumors and historical debate, but Lincoln's alleged "lavender side" is conspicuously absent from Tony Kushner's Steven Spielberg biopic, "Lincoln."
The outspoken activist and writer first began writing the script six years ago, according to Gold Derby, but the final version, while meticulously detailed, is also sexless.
Kushner sat down with Gold Derby for an interview about the writing process. He addressed the absence of homosexual undertones in the film, despite his personal belief that there is reason to speculate Lincoln might have been gay or bisexual.
"I wanted to write about a very specific moment and I chose this moment and I don’t feel that there’s any evidence at this particular moment that Lincoln was having sex with anybody," Kushner said in the interview. "He seems to have not slept and taken no time off and during this period I think he was beginning to feel ground to a pulp by the war and by the pressures of his job. I find it difficult to believe that Lincoln was banging anybody."
Lincoln's close relationships with male friends is well documented.
Following his move in 1837 to Springfield, Ill., a young Lincoln shared a bed for several years with Joshua Speed, and he continued a lifelong correspondence with him after, according to Slate.
Then there was the former president's relationship with his bodyguard, Captain David Derickson, with whom he also occasionally shared a bed, according to Gold Derby.
Lincoln once answered a knock at his bedroom door while wearing Derickson's nightshirt as the captain slumbered in his sack. Gossipmeisters buzzed about them. The wife of a navy aide wrote, "Oh, there is a Bucktail soldier here devoted to the president, drives with him, and when Mrs. L is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!"
A teenage Lincoln wrote this poem, published in LA Weekly, which seems to hint at gay marriage:
"I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary
It is neither a Joke nor a Story
For Rubin and Charles has married two girls
But Billy has married a boy..."
The main problem for Kushner, as it has been for Lincoln's past historians and biographers, is a serious lack of solid evidence showing these hints and relationships ever moved out of the realm of speculation and rumor and became sexually intimate.
"There are, unfortunately, no memoirs, no diaries, nothing to say for sure," Kushner explains.
And of course, there is Mary Todd Lincoln, with whom Lincoln bore several children during a union that lasted for more than two decades.
"I absolutely believe that the Lincoln’s marriage was a real marriage. These two people loved each other," Kushner said. "It wouldn’t be the first time that a gay man and a straight woman hooked up and had a great marriage. But I don’t know. I really don’t know. And I think that’s what we have to say about it. We keep the door open and people should talk about it. I don’t feel, finally, that my politics are entirely determined by the fact that I’m a gay man.”

84 comments:

  1. The real-life Lincoln was America's version of Saddam Hussein: he slaughtered & maimed thousands of his own countrymen in order to consolidate his authority. & centralize power.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am still trying to take in the significance of Obama being sworn in using Lincoln’s Bible. What is it supposed to mean and to whom?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Lord, Deuce, the movie Lincoln has been nominated for 12 Academy Awards. What is there to wonder about?

      The man is shameless.

      .

      Delete
    2. Uh, you know, Deuce, "freed the blacks," and, . . . . uh, . . . . . he's . . . . . black, and . . . . . . uh . . . .

      You know.

      Delete
  3. On the other hand, he preserved the Union, and allowed it to become the greatest country on earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, he did stand for reelection in the middle of the war, right?

      Delete
    2. Lincoln was a libertarian’s worse nightmare.

      Delete
    3. "Libertarians" believe in Slavery?

      Delete
    4. You could have ended slavery by paying compensation to the owners and the slaves.

      Delete
    5. Never got the chance to try. He was elected; they seceded. Within a month.

      They were getting rich off the slave labor. They wanted more, not less.

      Delete
    6. As you say some where, rufus, the REAL issue were the tariffs.
      Bruce Canton agreed, in 'The Coming Fury'.

      Slavery was not the REAL issue, except as a symbol of the differing economic models.

      Protectionism, Centralization of Power and the Draft along with the first Income Tax were librarians nightmare, then, now.

      Delete
  4. …sort of like the controlling husband that kills the wife because he loved her too much to let her have a divorce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, tough stuff, for sure. Now, I might be wrong about this, but I don't remember the people of S. Carolina, or any of the other states, being allowed to "vote" on whether they wanted to secede from the union.

      Delete
  5. Why are we so pathetic that we need heroes and myths, legends and Lincolns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I don't see anything wrong with having "heroes," as long as we don't try to turn those that we admire into "Gods," or somesuch.

      Delete
  6. I guess Putin loved the Chechens too much to let them go, The Turks the Kurds and of course King George loved the Americans too much to let them go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I asked the question upthread, and it was a serious question; "Who, Exactly, was it that made the decision to Rebel?"

      Were the "Citizens" polled?

      Or, was it just the Governors, and a handful of autocrat/plutocrats that made the decision?

      Delete
  7. Everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence was a secessionist.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Carolinians asked the federals to leave. They viewed them as an occupying force. Lincoln should have withdrawn. Why was the fort there in the first place? To protect the port from foreign invaders, not to protect the fort from Carolinians. Had Lincoln any diplomatic and political skills, he would have asked Carolina to man the fort at their own expense and sent them a thank you letter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First question: "Which" Carolinians?

      2nd: They attacked the Fort only a couple of weeks after demanding the Federals leave. Not nearly enough time for a debate. Not even enough time to schedule a debate.

      As for why the Southerners hated the port: It was there to enforce the "abominable tariffs" - a really hated set of laws.

      Delete
    2. Lincoln was anti-slavery, but there was no real reason to think he would try to abolish it (much less be successful.)

      Those tariffs, however, were there to stay. Also, I suppose, the law against further importation of slaves.

      The South was going to secede. They stated before the election that if Lincoln was elected, they were gone. He was elected, and they left.

      Delete
  9. Lincoln was a miserable bastard, married to a shrew, a closet bisexual with all the baggage that went with that in the 18th century. Maybe, he had to show how tough he was. Maybe it gave him the thrill that he had as a young man wrestling with other young men slathering in sweat and testosterone. Perhaps if he could have played with the Village People, he wouldn’t have had to kill several hundred thousand other young men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :)

      I don' think we're going to "reach consensus."

      Delete
    2. You'se a good fella, Deuce; but we're not gonna agree on this one. :)

      Delete
    3. Perhaps he would have been impeached if he hadn't reacted.

      Delete
  10. There seem to be three issues:

    (1) the politics of secession,

    (2) a cultural need for heroes, and

    (3) Lincoln's sexuality.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4) Two differing and conflicting readings of the Bible.

      Delete
  11. The real-life Lincoln was America's version of Saddam Hussein

    This is what I call 'a blind spot'.

    My wife is a big reader of things Lincoln. I believe she said they (Speed and Lincoln) were riding circuit together. Hotel space was limited in those days, the practice common. She doesn't buy into it.

    And really so what if he was a little lavender.

    Something truly great happened during those years. One group fought to free another group from slavery. It's not like Lincoln did this by himself. The leading anti-slavery folks were at fever pitch.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Maybe it gave him the thrill that he had as a young man wrestling with other young men slathering in sweat and testosterone.

    Good grief, that really is ingenious.

    You may be the only man in America that has thought of that take on things.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rufus on Wheel of Fortune -

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/01/12/video-the-worst-wheel-of-fortune-fail-ever/

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lincoln may have been anti slavery, but he was definitely anti negro. He detested them and would have sent them all back to Africa given the chance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I guess Lincoln was the first Log Cabin Republican to recognize the secret handshake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :)

      I never knew there was such a thing.

      http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/shake.html

      Rufus, take this number down, in case you need it.

      Delete
    2. No, wait, you can't. It says:

      WHERE THE WORTHWHILE WORSHIP. UNSAVED UNWELCOME!

      Delete
  16. The fact that ole Abe liked to take it up the ass puts a whole new perspective on things.

    I wonder why Gay Hollywood decided to leave that out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a fact. It's mostly not accepted by scholars. It is a kind of slander used by people like Deuce that have 'issues'.

      Delete
    2. And even if it were true it is meaningless in relation to the reasons of that struggle.

      Delete
    3. if he were gay what historical significance would it have?

      Delete
    4. I can't see it would have any. You'd think he might have 'freed the gays' though.

      Delete
  17. Perversion taints everything it touches.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ole Abe was a depressive suicidal demented man, maybe taking it up the ass was a good thing at the time. His wife was a schizophrenic who didn't know any better. Do you think she had any influence on his decision making? Hm....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He may have been depressive, but he certainly wasn't demented.

      This post matches that of Deuce in stupidity.

      Delete
    2. Depressive...suicidal...mental...lunatic...demented...It's all the same. Maybe not today, due to all the alternative medicine we have but how do you think he was treated back then. I wonder.

      Delete
    3. Well, I guess I just find it hard to believe Abe was demented as he was able to stand up there and debate Douglas out in the open for six hours at a stretch.

      but how do you think he was treated back then. I wonder.

      Medically, I don't know. My wife might. Maybe they had him chewing cocaine. That was a big deal back then. Other than that, treated pretty well, overall, except by the guy that shot him. He did win two open free elections. Excluding 'the southern vote' of course.

      :)

      Sorry I was rude. Deuce's approach to this Lincoln stuff always pisses me off.

      Delete
  19. I find it amazing, here we are talking about a truly transcendent political event in the most stupid, sordid, disgusting terms.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpZ3jPMM5Ac



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_Hymn_of_the_Republic




    In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
    With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
    As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
    While God is marching on.


    I call that beautiful. It nearly makes me cry.

    I'm going to the Casino.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob you are an interesting study. No wonder the unwashed here at the EB call you names.

      But we know that is what shallow people do.

      Delete
    2. But boobie, Christ supported the Master
      Slavery was an institution that Jesus approved of.

      How could Jesus be supportive of perversion and still be glorious?

      Delete

    3. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

      King James - Matthew 23:11

      Jesus spoke in parables to the blind, such as you.

      Delete
    4. Paul spoke about slavery directly, on occasion. When Jesus did, which was rare, it was in parable form, as far as I can recall. I recall him healing the slave of some Centurion, can you imagine that, the slave of a Centurion in Roman occupied Israel.

      This is more of an answer than your stupid post deserves.

      Delete
    5. Jesus talks glory -


      Luke 18:19 (1611 King James Bible)

      And Iesus said vnto him, Why callest thou mee good? None is good saue one, that is God.


      Look, society wasn't his primary concern. His primary concern was sharing his experience, which was one of seeing things as made out of love, against nearly all expectations and much experience. He used images, relationships, common happenings, nature etc from everyday life around him to try to do this.

      ....

      The Hero leaves his everyday hut, and moves to a realm of supernatural wonder.

      Jesus goes to the mountain.

      The Hero encounters obstacles.

      Jesus confronts Satan.

      A victory is won and a boon bestowed.

      Then, after defeating Satan, the angels ministered unto him, bestowing a boon.

      The Hero returns to the world of common day and tries to share his experience, his boon, which is a rise in consciousness.

      Immediately Jesus come off from the mountain, he began to teach.

      As found in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

      That's the myth, and I see it right there in the gospels.

      This is not something that happens 'out there', even though it is often represented that way, but something that happens 'in here'.

      That's my take, take it for what you will.

      Delete
    6. He also said, what I can do, you can do too, and more.

      This human experience is open to all, maybe only through reading, and there is always more.

      Delete
  20. Ole Abe was a depressive suicidal demented man, maybe taking it up the ass was a good thing at the time. His wife was a schizophrenic who didn't know any better. Do you think she had any influence on his decision making? Hm....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He may have been depressive, but he certainly wasn't demented.

      This post matches that of Deuce in stupidity.


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMFfvvR9JXI

      If they had roulette at the Casino, I'd play.

      Delete
  21. I find it amazing, here we are talking about a truly transcendent political event in the most stupid, sordid, disgusting terms.

    600,000 Americans killed, who knows how many wounded, the country thrown into a depression, because of the ineptness of politicians is stupid, sordid and disgusting in the extreme. Pipes, whistles, banners and pretty words is some small salve. All to the glory of god and the republic. Insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Another maggotty meal for the lords and masters. God bless them all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have preferred to see them live a full life, the only one they will ever have had, to see the rewards of a good life, instead of ending as fly shit and that my friends is stupidity. Hail to the dunces of the world.

      Delete
    2. I would have preferred to see them live a full life, the only one they will ever have had, to see the rewards of a good life, instead of ending as fly shit and that my friends is stupidity. Hail to the dunces of the world.

      Yes, the slaves should have had a full life, instead of worked to death, and turned into fly shit. We can all agree with that.

      Thanks a lot for getting me stirred up.

      I exit, so as not to say something untoward, and lose at the casino.

      :)

      Next time I will just stay and slug it out.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Since you never, ever mention the suffering slave, I thought I would.

      What a cheap sordid way to attack Lincoln, it's like sneaking around in his bedroom with a video cam.

      Delete
    5. Dammit, how do I get that number out of there. It designates my picture number. I was sending pictures to Mat, and was getting ready to send Antoine Roquentin's Root, taken up a slough from the Kentucky River on our trip of recent memory.

      Delete
    6. The way Roethke describes looking at roots is much more profitable and much less nauseating.

      Delete
  23. Despite such terminology as "fiscal cliff" and "debt ceiling," the great debate taking place in Washington now has relatively little to do with financial issues. It is all about ideology. It is all about economic winners and losers in American society. It is all about the power of Big Money. It is all about the soul of America.

    In America today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, and more inequality than at any time period since 1928. The top 1 percent owns 42 percent of the financial wealth of the nation, while, incredibly, the bottom 60 percent own only 2.3 percent. One family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans. In terms of income distribution in 2010, the last study done on this issue, the top 1 percent earned 93 percent of all new income while the bottom 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent.

    Despite the reality that the rich are becoming much richer while the middle class collapses and the number of Americans living in poverty is at an all-time high, the Republicans and their billionaire backers want more, more, and more. The class warfare continues.

    to be cont.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My Republican colleagues say that the deficits are a spending problem, not a revenue problem. What these deficit-hawk hypocrites won't talk about is their spending. They won't discuss what they did to dig the country into this $1 trillion deep deficit hole. They waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without paying for them. They gave away huge tax breaks for the rich. They squandered taxpayer dollars on the pharmaceutical industry by making it illegal to let Medicare bargain for lower drug prices. They also rescinded financial regulations that enabled Wall Street to operate like a gambling casino, leading to a severe recession that eroded tax revenue and left more than 14 percent of American workers unemployed or underemployed.

      Now, despite the deficits their policies helped to create and despite the enormous suffering which exists in our society, the Republicans want to cut Social Security, veterans' programs, Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition programs, and virtually every program which benefits low- and moderate-income Americans. They choose to turn their backs on the economic reality facing a significant part of our population: high unemployment, reduced wages, 50 million without health insurance, college graduates saddled with enormous student debt and elderly people living in desperation. And they have tried to slam the door on any further discussion about how to raise revenue by ending tax loopholes and unfair tax breaks.

      Republicans like Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who say the revenue debate is over don't want you to consider these facts:

      Delete
    2. • Federal revenue today, at 15.8 percent of GDP, is lower today than it was 60 years ago. During the last year of the Clinton administration, when we had a significant federal surplus, federal revenue was 20.6 percent of GDP.

      • Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.

      • In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 percent -- lower than any other major country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and Iceland.

      • In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest since 1972.

      • In 2005, one out of four large corporations paid no income taxes at all while they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one-year period.

      We know where the Republicans are coming from. What about the Democrats? Will President . . . . .

      Giv'em Hell, Bernie

      Delete
  24. Politicians all claim that economic growth is necessary and the only way to close widening and structural deficits.

    In order to restore GDP growth, which is needed to bring down public and private debt ratios, politicians will decide that fiscal policy must shift in an expansionary direction. If higher budget deficits are financed by bond sales to the private sector, there will be problems with higher interest rates and public confidence may be eroded by rising public debt ratios.

    Therefore politicians will “order” the central bank to expand the monetary base to finance the budget deficits. This will hold down the public debt ratio, and if it causes inflation to rise, that might be a welcome side effect. Any other way of solving the debt crisis, it is argued, would be politically and economically more painful, so politicians and their electorates will inevitably follow the path of least resistance.

    Either way, the rich get richer and that ensures the vast underbelly does not.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Shanghai, China - This country's economic boom has lifted millions of its citizens out of poverty and led to predictions it will become the world’s largest economic power by 2030. However, while China's GDP has increased, so has the gap between its wealthiest and poorest citizens, placing the country among the most unequal nations in the world, according to a study by a Chinese institute.

    China's Gini coefficient, a widely accepted measure of income distribution, reached 0.61 in 2010, according to findings by the Survey and Research Centre for China Household Finance. A score of zero represents perfect equality while a score of one represents total inequality, with one individual possessing 100 percent of a country's income.

    Inequality is starkly visible in large cities such as Shanghai, where Lamborghinis and Porsches are a regular sight outside expensive restaurants, while beggars sit on the pavement with plastic cups looking for change. In the shadow of looming skyscrapers lie cramped dormitories for migrant labourers who work on some of the world’s most expensive properties.

    The Chinese government has not released official Gini coefficient figures since 2000, when they put the figure at 0.412. In 2012, the National Bureau of Statistics said it was "slightly higher than 0.412" in 2010, but didn't give an exact figure, reported Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency. In March, Bo Xilai, the now ousted former Communist Party secretary of Chongqing, said that the figure had exceeded 0.46.

    The World Bank, in a report published in February, cited income inequality as one of the main challenges facing China. The report stated that "the sustained increase in income inequality places China at the high end of income inequality among Asian countries". The World Bank hasn't issued Gini coefficient figures for China since 2005, when it estimated it to be 0.425.

    Chinese estimates of the country's Gini coefficient have varied considerably. For example, in September, the International Institute for Urban Development in Beijing calculated China's Gini coefficient to be 0.438 in 2010, much lower than the Survey and Research Centre's result. Professor Gan Li, the centre's director, said he could not explain the differing figures but added that their study, which surveyed 8,400 households, was the first to publicly release all its data.

    In an interview with the Communist Party-owned Global Times newspaper, Zheng Xinye, a professor at Renmin University, said the real figure may be even higher than 0.61 - as it is difficult to survey the super-rich in China. He blamed the widening income gap on "restrictions that kept small and medium-sized companies from entering high-profit sectors, as well as by employment discrimination".

    However, Professor Martin Whyte, a sociologist at Harvard University who has carried out research on attitudes towards inequality in China, said he found the figure of 0.61 hard to believe. “T/he best survey research on income gaps leads to the same conclusion that the figure [Gini coefficient] is rising but is nowhere near these sort of figures,” he said.

    ReplyDelete
  26. On that note:

    WASHINGTON -- In the wake of news that both the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve rejected the minting of a trillion dollar coin as a solution to help raise the debt ceiling, the White House issued the following statement to The Huffington Post.

    "There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default," said Press Secretary Jay Carney. "When Congressional Republicans played politics with this issue last time putting us at the edge of default, it was a blow to our economic recovery, causing our nation to be downgraded. The President and the American people won't tolerate Congressional Republicans holding the American economy hostage again simply so they can force disastrous cuts to Medicare and other programs the middle class depend on while protecting the wealthy. Congress needs to do its job."

    If there were any lingering doubts about how the Obama administration will handle the debt-ceiling issue, Saturday's pronouncements put them to rest. Moments before Carney offered his statement, Treasury spokesman Anthony Coley offered one of his own, declaring that "neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."

    And so, there will be no coin minted to assist Treasury with its efforts to help the country meet its financial obligations. The politics of the debt ceiling standoff are now . . . .

    Old Poker Saying, "I'm Tired of Thinking, You Think Awhile" - said as one pushes all his chips into the pot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, btw, Don't EVER do that unless you have One Hell of a Hand. Trust me on That One. :)

      Delete
  27. .

    We know where the Republicans are coming from. What about the Democrats? Will President . . . . .

    I'm afraid the answer is no Bernie, he won't.

    I like Bernie Sanders and most of what he points out in his article is true. The problem is that like most on the left he doesn't recognize how deep a hole we are in and the reasons for it. He doesn't recognize how we got in this hole or the people that got us there. He blames the whole fiasco on the GOP without recognizing the part the Dems played.

    Will the President, in Rufus' words, give them hell? The answer is no.

    Everyone seems to think that Obama won on the fiscal cliff deal because he held out and forced the GOP to up taxes on the rich. The White House was ecstatic. But what did they actually get?

    He got about $66 billion a year for 10 years. He gave back about $67 billion a year for ten years by forcing back into the deal the very tax breaks Sanders is blaming on the GOP. However, Obama did get about $115 billion a year from the middle class by letting the FICA tax cuts expire.

    So, in net, what did Obama accomplish. He got his $66 billion a year from the rich then gave back $67 billion to those same rich netting out to zero. So all the celebrating is over the $115 billion he took from the middle class.

    Bad enough, but the worse is that now the GOP say they have done their part. They gave at the office. Both Boehner and McConnell have stated that the tax cuts are over and won't be on the table in this next round. They are both so pissed off at Obama and Reid right now that I tend to believe them.

    Sorry Bernie, your a nice guy but it's time for some reality and a couple important lessons.

    1. We are not going to get out of this mess without both spending cuts and taxes increases.

    2. The people you are dealing with on both sides of the aisle are all dicks and they serve many of the same masters.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      In the previous post, I pointed out that in order to get out of the previous mess we had to have both tax hikes and spending cuts.

      Of course there is another question, or two.

      1. Do we really want to get out of this mess? Polls indicate of course, as long as we don't have to pay more taxes or give up any of the benefits we currently enjoy. But this is, of course, impossible.

      2. What would increasing taxes or cutting services actually buy us? I contend that it likely would buy us nothing. The dicks in D.C would merely go out an accumulate more debt, debt that the nation would be responsible for yet the benefits of which would go to the usual suspects. So the next question becomes,

      3. Should we even worry about our debt or continue on as we are right now and in the end monetize our debt till we reach the point that doing so is no longer an option. Why should the public worry about the debt. Let the people that are benefitting from it worry for a while.

      .

      Delete
    2. Actually, you're right. It won't be the poor paying off the debt.

      Delete
    3. If we get spending down to around 21.0 to 21.5% of GDP, then we can let the rich pay for it any way they want (spending, borrowing, robbing 7/11's, whatever.)

      This is one thing I've always agreed with Uncle Miltie on.

      Delete
    4. Btw, congratulations; you're the first person in this whole debate that I've heard snap to this particular truth.

      Delete
    5. .

      Initially, I blamed everything on Bush. After the first year or two I started blaming it on Obama and Bush. I now blame it on everyone involved including, the FED, the Treasury, the SEC, the banks, Wall Street, everyone involved in the fiasco. It takes books to describe every aspect of this continuing clusterfick. However, the link I posted to the Rolling Stones article on the bailout by Matt Taibbi is one of the best I've seen at pointing out the lies and corruption that have been foisted on us by the boys in D.C.

      It's about 5 pages long so I'm not sure if anyone bothered to read it but I plan on pulling excerpts from it and posting them over the next couple of days. Unfortunately, some of the charts that were in the magazine article weren't included in the online version.

      Here's one, and a reason we need regular audits of the FED

      The bailout ended up being much bigger than anyone expected, expanded far beyond TARP to include more obscure (and in some cases far larger) programs with names like TALF, TAF, PPIP and TLGP. What's more, some parts of the bailout were designed to extend far into the future. Companies like AIG, GM and Citigroup, for instance, were given tens of billions of deferred tax assets – allowing them to carry losses from 2008 forward to offset future profits and keep future tax bills down. Official estimates of the bailout's costs do not include such ongoing giveaways. "This is stuff that's never going to appear on any report," says Barofsky.

      Citigroup, all by itself, boasts more than $50 billion in deferred tax credits – which is how the firm managed to pay less in taxes in 2011 (it actually received a $144 million credit) than it paid in compensation that year to its since-ousted dingbat CEO, Vikram Pandit (who pocketed $14.9 million). The bailout, in short, enabled the very banks and financial institutions that cratered the global economy to write off the losses from their toxic deals for years to come – further depriving the government of much-needed tax revenues it could have used to help homeowners and small businesses who were screwed over by the banks in the first place.

      Even worse, the $700 billion in TARP loans ended up being dwarfed by more than $7.7 trillion in secret emergency lending that the Fed awarded to Wall Street – loans that were only disclosed to the public after Congress forced an extraordinary one-time audit of the Federal Reserve. The extent of this "secret bailout" didn't come out until November 2011, when Bloomberg Markets, which went to court to win the right to publish the data, detailed how the country's biggest firms secretly received trillions in near-free money throughout the crisis.



      Secrets and Lies of the Bailout

      .

      Delete
    6. Maybe Congress should have a couple of hearings on Lance Armstrong, and Blood Doping.

      Delete
    7. Quirk, I saved you the work on the next post.

      Delete
  28. Have you been getting free medical care from the VA, or do you have to pay something for it, Rufus. Just curious as to how it works, as my friend is basically broke, and has been for as long as I've known him. And I wondered about it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Antoine, it's complicated. I got "grand-fathered" in on some stuff (cost-wise.) I had used it for a minor operation years ago when I was self-employed, and found out I could get it done for free.

    I still get free medical visits, and some tests (although I think Medicare Part B picks up most of it. I started back for the Drug Co-Pay, but now that's not much, if any, better than Medicare Part D.

    All I can tell you is have him go down and talk to them. That doesn't cost anything; and the ones I've dealt with have been very nice people.

    They do take income into consideration, but all they did with me was ask, "how much do you earn?" (btw, thanks for reminding me, I need to talk to them again. My earnings aren't ezzackly what they were when I started; maybe I can get my co-pays down a bit.) :)

    But, really, he should check it out. All I remember needing was a DD-214, and they helped me send away for that. They have some pretty good Doctors (and a few dingbats,) and are pretty nice people.

    ReplyDelete
  30. That was too wordy. Let me put it this way. If he doesn't have much money, and he's a Veteran, then he absolutely should check it out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Rufus.

      He was talking with his brother back in Michigan the other day on the phone so maybe some family is getting involved.

      Delete
    2. I got turned back onto the VA this time around when my Doctor put me on Crestor, and my brother (who has enough money to burn a TEAM of Wet Mules) told me he was getting his drugs through VA, and getting a Co-Pay.

      I was leery because a lot of the older hospitals were dumps, but I was very pleasantly surprised to find that the hospitals, today, are very clean, and pleasant.

      Delete
  31. I posted Q’s Rolling Stone article in the following post. Move on. Nothing more to see here.

    ReplyDelete