I'm sorry?

Did I hear that right? I will have to dig up a link later, but this is about the denial that Bush is still in, and the qualification Wells Fargo (CEO or someone) made, about the bail out not going for executive salaries. It is unfair for me to begin this blast without further digging, but just the surface sod is soaked with effluence. So I will sort some key words from the Bush: "capitalism" in conjunction/contrast to "free market".

With Wells Fargo it is a matter of bookkeeping and an earlier flip-flop it seems, on the matter of what the bailout is going for... are we rescuing failing institutions or helping those that are efficient? In this case I have rather unparsed and taken a tangent from the trickle-down of the bonus problem, but there is a righteous problem about the housing bubble and fundamentals.

Maybe a graphic form will help:
Capitalism - - Free Market
Bonuses - - Book Keeping
Rescue - - Help
Bubble - - Fundamentals
Meaning, Myth, Model, Metaphor; may be my mantra,
but there is a cycle that needs work.

And to my estimation (tergiversate[**] or not) the housing bubble is a result of a fundamental flaw in economics. It works for those that buy it. But it really matters what the it is. Not to mention who sells it.

Not to mention the media again: WWWWWH? I might return to give more particular sources, but for now I leave with the answer: who, what, when, where, why, and how? as well as note the only labels at this time are Progressive Media and Thom Hartmann, and if I return I will [bracket][*$*]changes.[*]

[* as soon as I finished this and bracketed that, I thought, and must note that I have now made minor edits (& bold) for clarity sake, unbracketed.]

[** I wonder if I am a De-tergiversator ***?]

[*** I had to go old school and open a book, the answer is; not if it is (the latter) to change one's opinion, but may be others, not the De. Yeah, the De and the Un.]

[*$*] passing the buck I have not returned but simply connected here

FYI

And you know who UR.
Or * might be.

As Men kin might say...*~
Ferguson Your Info.

In other words...
an awkward segue to the Net Work.

*H.L.
[an hommage to Hill Label...
...'n e. w.]

(FP?)
[Footnotes Page to be a ranged]
...
[Pp la e.b./m.c.]
~ = 2b edited
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=wwwwwh

"More Scrutiny Needed!"

Bloomberg Commentary by Betsy McCaughey
Not necessarily the one to do it.

Update: 2-13-09 [Shout Out: Media Matters]

[Update 2-12-09 "Conservative Media Echo Chamber..."
Also more on Misinformation... ]

[from dialogue with Thrasymachus * ]
...the last paragraph was an eye opener if you believe it. Well not really; it confirms my world view or rather your world view. Health care should be a growth industry and cost is no object.

But second: health-care reform is made up of more than just government programs, and will not replace the healthcare industry or the insurance industry, so it is very easy to cherry pick and hits the nail on the head with my last post:

It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.

And this gal is not not up to Journalism 101. WWWWWH? (that too...or also)

BTW: I really did some ridiculous math (further amendment to my blog) that went on in the comment section. If the $800 billion (jobs bill) were purely partisan or completely extremist (utopian?) and the choice were between more Bush tax cuts, and all food stamps (which I can't imagine anyone proposing) (but probably some on the right might) the Bang for the Buck would be negative .71 / dollar or positive .73 / dollar. But that is only if some would have it only their way. HOWEVER it seems even a balanced partisan bill would result in closer to zero effectiveness. This is extreme rhetoric(and math), but seems to demolish the moderate approach as well. It does however prove the importance of new thinking rather than more of the same.

* a nickname for an emailer
** see previous post for these asterisks and below link for Bloomberg

I'm Sorry?

Did I get that right? OK, I will skip the wise cracks and just link to other references to what touched me off, and one weird coincidence. Also. WWWWWH?

And yesterday, Ed Schultz had a caller that claimed that the auto industry should have known about the coming financial crisis, which Ed met with skepticism or faith in our fellows, so to speak. But really they should have known given their interconnectedness, and that is probably the problem.(Thanks Thom Hartmann) And the connectedness to the media. So I hit two bailins on the head. Randi Rhodes helped with the Larry King link(weird). Lou Dobbs helped with the Bush link(references). Not to mention what* matters.

My morning joe is only in the cup, sometimes I get my morning wakeup first (AM1090)

* a challenge (where I embed links that might matter)

Also (Randi)
More (Ed)
Rant (Thom) Respectfully
GoLeftTV (Ring of Fire)
And not the least (Rachel Maddow)
Nor the worst.(Keith Olbermann)

As long as I'm digging (the Daily Show) Jon Stewart and my name sake .

4M and the Fix