Very nicely crafted strawman. Well done.

Wait. You said the economy is not going to turn around because business owners won't do squat because of government spending and he says that's not true. I know the word strawman is the cool buzz word on political sites when someone beats your point of view, but I don't think you even know what it means now.

By using the word 'solely' in his post, he was making an argument that no single business made their decisions based on debt increases alone. That's a 'duh' statement at its finest. He created an argument that I never made. That, by definition, is a strawman argument and has little to do with 'cool buzz word on political sites'. This is far from a political site.

How many more shots can Geitner take at this point before he's out? Report on Bloomberg says that AIG was asked to cover up some of its practices by Geitner-led NY Fed.........

Geithner’s New York Fed Told AIG to Limit Swaps Disclosure

Solely, majority, even a few. You made a comment that made it seem like the economy would not grow because owners would be scared of the government and its spending. Maybe there are a couple business owners like that, but those owners would be out of business regardless for being bad business owners in the first place. It's just a ridiculous argument not based in reality. Just like the argument that raising taxes on someone over $250k will magically have employers firing employees left and right.

And you have fallen into the same assumptions which don't mirror my argument. The debt is being run up by multiple factors. Those factors are also reasons why business have curtailed spending/hiring, but the skyrocketing debt is the easily identifiable symptom. They're the same things we've been talking about for months now and it hasn't changed. JPhillips grabbed something and ran with it when it had little to do with my argument. Much like others hold me to a higher standard in this thread, it's about time that JPhillips is held to a similar standard. His arguments have become lazy and honestly disappointing of late. He's better than that (or at least I think he is). Perhaps I'm asking too much of him.

Seriously? You're calling out someone for shoddy standards? I mean, just this morning you were back to your weekly "feigning shock while posting yet another anti-Democrat talking point" routine.

SI

You weren't shocked that a democrat was the one taking the jab at Obama? Perhaps this points out that no one is shocked by anything that the Democrats do to get some of these bills with weak public support through Congress, especially when a Democrat leader is the one pointing it out. It's a good point by you.

Well, at least I'm not dishonestly disappointing.

Enjoyed this story over lunch. It's kindof a simple premise, but needs reiterating, particularly in this polarized climate.

SI

i'm no fan of geithner - if this stuff is true as it seems to be and it was essentially another taxpayer-funded round of bailouts for AIG's CDS division then the guy should be thrown out on his ass, and frankly, prosecuted on behalf of the taxpayers whom he helped to defraud.

i think the "guilt by association" has to end somewhere though. otherwise there'd be nobody left in government. and i think i have been pretty consistent about that from the Bush administration to now - unless there's direct evidence that there was knowledge of this by the administration, or pressure from the administration to do this, then you can't tie it back to the White House. And that's regardless of which party is in power.

This isn't guilt by association. Geitner was their boss. That's a pretty direct relationship.

oh no, i agree with that, and like i said, geithner seems to be in hot water over this. just wanted to point out that i don't think it's valid to level any criticism at the administration "upstream" based on this unless there's some sort of link to his decisions. I was presuming that someone would jump to that conclusion rather quickly.

Well, Obama did appoint him, so you've got to wonder just how much vetting was involved. But I think the fact that Obama's likely going to have to fire him and appoint a new one is punishment enough in that regard.

The unfortunate part is that we're likely to be without a permanent Treasury secretary for a few months during a time when we desparately need good leadership in that department.

How do you feel about Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney?

I'm not a fan of Dick Cheney, so you're asking the wrong guy if you're looking for a defense of that relationship.

you can only vet someone so much. you can't uncover everything about a person. if someone like this comes up you fire the person and pick a replacement and you've done your job.

I agree that what Geitner did is messed up, but it seems like EVERYONE who was involved was trying to get Goldman a sweetheart deal. The whole thing leaves a real sour taste in my mouth.

probably since they're all in Goldman's pocket one way or another.

Did you read Aaron Sorkin's book? Wonderful read on the whole situation. Can't recommend it enough.

I'm really curious to see how this administration will handle a double-dip recession.

really? is this guy serious? do they just think people are stupid, or are they that dumb?

This smells of "the economy will collapse if there isn't confidence" type of thinking...or the loss of even more in the financial system. Seemed to be popular at that time amongst many of our "best and brightest" financial minds.

How about we had attacks under both of them and if we don't shift our never-ending war policy in the Middle East they will continue? Obama is light years ahead of where Bush ended up as far as Middle East policy goes but unfortunately his escalation of the war in Afghanistan shows that neither political party can get off the tit of the military industrial complex. When Obama won I had a lot of mixed emotions. I was glad that the Bush clone McCain wasn't going to get us into world war III. I was proud that our country elected a black president. I was scared about possible economic boondoggles like health care and jobs programs. I was very eager for a Democrat to lessen the drug war, make huge strides with civil liberties, and end the pointless policing of the world. He has been allright but until the Republicrats get to the root of why somebody would want to take their own life and hundreds of others on a flight to (of all places) Detroit they will never understand that you can't win a war against a tactic. They don’t hate our money and our freedom and until the general public stops buying the government line on that one we will just have to be “shocked” when somebody tries it again.

As far as Giuliani goes hopefully even the Republicans realize what a useless retard he is. 9-11, 9-11, 9-11...

Sadly Guliani's applause just shows how the sheep don't listen to what Paul is actually saying. And the end is pathetic with all of the candidates clamoring for 30 seconds to say "Rah rah rah America" and to not admit that maybe some of the shit this country does is wrong.

I suppose he would try to spin that and blame 9/11 on Clinton? :)

When did the Shoe Bomber happen? Wasn't that under Bush's administration? Didn't the Shoe Bomber get tried in a civilian court in the United States?

that too

Cool. Thought maybe my dates were off.

On a side note...who cares what happened under which administration, just fix the f'ing problem. It is obvious that the (semi) intellegence agencies are STILL not talking to each other and are STILL not sharing information. It's nice to see egos taking precidence over safety.

I agree but there are too many couch potato soldiers who want us sending young adults into these endless wars that don't change anything.

it's also been obvious for years that the job performance of the intelligence agencies has nothing to do with which administration is in power, or even who is in charge of the agencies, it's all about the career officers staffing them.

I agree with that. It's just a "Good ol Boys" system they have in place.

The Geithner article refers to what I've been calling the 'AIG shell game' and every bit of it is true. Its corruption at its finest, and its bipartisan before you guys try to make it a Republican/Democrat issue. They all rub each other's backs and suck off each other in the backroom while they are fucking us over. Enjoy the two(fine print:+ne -tw) party system.

We don't need 'investor confidence'... we need the economy to actually function. The lack of transparency benefits certain parties that are then using that power position for the next round of financial mismanagement. The gamers think, even after they have failed miserably, that they are the cleverest cats in the world and can't fail. Unfortunately, they realized with the bailout scenario... they don't need to change up their game because the rules about losing have been fundamentally changed.

Obama is playing along, he appointed the man he was told to... one thoroughly onboard with the screw America program. Everything I've seen out of Obama he seems just as paid off as Bush was, in my opinion.

There is no good reason to withhold what is going on at AIG from the public. Other than allowing a bundle of banks to 'pay off their government loans early' so they can 'be profitable' so they can GIVE MASSIVE BONUSES TO THEMSELVES AGAIN. And sure they'll take compensation as stock, who wouldn't when its at a high probability the lowest price it will be this decade (assuming anything other than the disaster scenario, which even my doom and gloom considers unlikely). I'd insist instead of 75/25 split, gimme my bonus at 100/0 and claim I'm doing an incredible favor for the American public.

Without the 'AIG shell game' you see a more distributed 'down-nessity' in the financial sector, which yes, I admit probably leads to less gangbuster 'investors' and a slow down in the stock buildup of this year. However, in my opinion we need a stock rally a lot less than an economy earning its way out of recession (i.e. RECOVERY). Give me my damn employment numbers already and then you'll see the stocks shoot up naturally.

I'm tired of the appearance of health in a company being more important than the fact. We are media spinning ourselves into the grave, bah fuck it all... I can break out the shorts if I have to.

yeah

God my short term short, that turned into a long term short is betting on this as well. Unfortunately I just dont see how we can avoid it.

That why the stock market is rising despite all indication it should suck... Contra-Flasch theorem!!!

We need that short to keep us all alive man!

HA! Im the reason for the rally please send your checks to the Aiden Flaschen College fund :)

Seems like you need a poll like this every six months.

In other news, the Director of the OMB is a player.

If Peter Orszag Is So Smart, What Will He Do Now? - NYTimes.com

the 60 minutes pieces on the election were real interesting tonight.

I dont know a ton but if Reid said what I think he said I dont see how he doesnt resign.

Republicans are calling for him to resign over the statement. The same Republicans who support guys who pass around songs called "Barack the Magic Negro" (almost elected one as head of the RNC). Such is politics these days.

It's interesting what he said though and outside of the moronic use of the word negro (which happens to be on the census?), I'm sure what he said has been said by people behind the scenes all of last year. It did benefit Obama that he was half-white and that he was such an eloquent speaker. It's also why you never see him get real angry in his speeches as he doesn't want to get labeled under the "angry black man" stereotype. Really stupid for a Senator to say around anyone like that but what he said is the truth.

The anger is over the fact that a Republican makes those exact same statements and the Dems crucify him/her. But Reid makes them and the Dems go "eh, he apologized, no biggie".

Not that both sides aren't hypocritical on stuff like this all the time.

For purely partisan reasons the GOP should go out of its way to make sure Reid doesn't resign.

Seriously. I can't imagine a more ineffective or less charasmatic leader than Harry Reid. People say that he is an arm-twister and player behind the scenes, but I wouldn't be sad to see him go, at all.

I haven't hid my hatred for Reid. I want him to get his ass kicked in 2010.

Yeah I understand. That's how politics is though. I do think the Trent Lott situation is much different.

I'm trying to think where I have seen the prediction for this (I could dig up the thread from early last year, if you want). It seems like some have argued for years that whether the Feds spend a lot of taxpayer's monies or little, they have had small effects.

The Joplin Globe - Online Edition

Watching the debate, and the only one who makes any sense at all is Kennedy.

From the very conservative American Enterprise Institute:


It wasn't employment focused enough, but the stimulus did what was expected, boost GDP short term.

I just can't believe that considers how thoroughly crushed he was on health care. Old Man Pelosi (I think I'm just going to start calling her that) keeps ramming stuff through the House and, admittedly, she has an easier job. But Reid's missteps in health care are horrible, with or without the backing of the President. First, he doesn't do anything to with Baucus for the finance committee debacle. Then he promises a public option before having the votes. He lets Lieberman keep his chair for all of his shenanigans. And then gets bent over the negotiation table by a pair of podunk 2-term Senators with no real power or committee status (Lincoln, Nelson). I mean, geez- if you can't even get your own party to go along for procedural votes, what good are you? I can't wait to see the arm-twisting he does to "help" climate change legislation.

I think this dies down quickly because the GOP realizes that he is more useful to them where he is for now and losing on election day.

SI