Thursday, April 12, 2012


Other than a vague awareness that many unions and lots of liberals aren't happy with the just-signed JOBS act, I haven't been paying much attention. But I admit I took a little more notice when I saw the leering face of Eric Cantor hovering over Obama as he signed the bill. Can't be a good sign, I thought. Turns out I may have been right. Matt Taibbi thinks so, anyway.

The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to everything else, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market.

In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets.

Ostensibly, the law makes it easier for startup companies (particularly tech companies, whose lobbyists were a driving force behind its passage) to attract capital by, among other things, exempting them from independent accounting requirements for up to five years after they first begin selling shares in the stock market.

The law also rolls back rules designed to prevent bank analysts from talking up a stock just to win business, a practice that was so pervasive in the tech-boom years as to be almost industry standard.

Even worse, the JOBS Act, incredibly, will allow executives to give "pre-prospectus" presentations to investors using PowerPoint and other tools in which they will not be held liable for misrepresentations. These firms will still be obligated to submit prospectuses before their IPOs, and they'll still be held liable for what's in those. But it'll be up to the investor to check and make sure that the prospectus matches the "pre-presentation."

Without spending way more time than I want to, I'm in no position to comment on the claim (not that that's ever stopped me before). But Matt Taibbi has written some pretty impressive articles, and seems to be an actual reporter of the type that pretty much no longer exists: one who digs deep and asks hard questions of all parties. So it concerns me.

I still believe that the whole idea of encouraging businesses to hire people makes no sense. Unless they're stupid, they hire when there is work to be done, not because they get a tax break or other considerations. The way government creates jobs is to create jobs. Projects, for which it pays.

Meanwhile, it seems Barack Obama is, once again, giving in to right-wingers and their long-since debunked claims that deregulation is the honey that greases the duck. Is it political? To say he's for jobs? Is he still thinking if he just bends over farther still they'll finally start kissing his ass?

Whatever it is, until I learn otherwise, count me disappointed. Again.

You can watch a video of Matt Taibbi on the subject here. Meanwhile, tell me again: in what way is President Obama a socialist???


Frank Drackman said...

Wow, maybe I SHOULD watch the news more...
First of all, who's the Babe directly behind President-Bar-Sinister?
And if I wasn't totally P-whipped, I'd consider voting for his Nappie-ness.
Extended the Bush, I mean Obama Tax Cuts, Killed Bin Laden, Opposes Gay Marriage,
and for the last 14 years, I've had to intubate patients right handed, cause all they have is Right Handed Laryngoscopes.
And the one time I bought a Left Handed Laryngoscope it felt so wierd, I put the tube in the Goose.
Imagine if you had to Operate with Left Handed Scalpels, how many more of your patients would have died? Or left handed suture? Or if the bunny had to go around the tree the opposite way, you'd have a headache.
and speaking of Headaches,
Mrs Drackman lets me have the ZO6, the Man Cave, the Hot Bosnian Maid(She's 60)but she controls the ballot.
Oh I could vote for Black Guy, but she'd know.
Cause we vote "Absentee" which is a fancy way of saying she fills out my ballot...


Anonymous said...

Yes, yes, DrekMan, we all know that Bush also says that he sadly wishes people would call them something other than "The Bush Tax Cuts."

But the "Bush Tax Cuts" is what they were, and will remain, and Bush will go down on history, as the author of the "Bush Tax Cuts" because, as we all know, Bush sucks!

And, parenthetically; so do his lame-inane apologists!


"I'd consider voting for his Nappie-ness."

So, you want it to be true, that you aren't really a racist, it's just your wife who's racist! Right?

You're sound like my schizochristic, brother-in-law - who famously said:

"Yeah, I'm a racist, but I don't want people to call me one!"

He's the soul of sensitivity, you see, and he finds "Racist" to be offensive!


Popular posts