US Politics - From barbarism to decadence

[Shryke]

NPR received a bomb threat Monday, five days after its decision to fire news analyst Juan Williams sparked a hugely negative reaction.

Sources at the news organization said the threat was received via U.S. mail and was immediately turned over to local police and the FBI. The organization did not publicly disclose the threat or release details, on the advice of law enforcement officials.

The letter didn't reference the Williams firing specifically, but people at NPR, who spoke about it on the condition of anonymity, said the timing and tone suggested it was sent after Williams's widely publicized termination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/26/AR2010102604909.html?hpid=topnews

[Guest Other-in-Law]

I didn't see the HBO series but one VP compared the position, not favorably, to a bucket of piss. I'm thinking it was LBJ, but it could have been a couple of centuries sooner.

Just a couple of decades earlier. It LBJ's fellow Texan John Nance Garner.

[TerraPrime]

I think I want Paul to win just as a political junkie. I think he will be too entertaining of a figure not to want around. And far less insane than O'Donnell.*

*Citation needed.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

*Citation needed.

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

[TerraPrime]

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

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

One is at least a reasoned opinion, even if you disagree with it. The other is about Harry Potter.

[Swordfish]

Well, the original projections were about $700 billion as defined by the amount of troubled assets they were buying. This was made before the election.

I'm not sure you understand what TARP is. We didn't buy any troubled assets.

And now...

Treasury says $50 billion, but some are skeptical

Why do you say that it was never going to cost us much? When it initially happened, a huge part of its unpopularity was the sheer size of the dollars involved. Now some politicians at the time tried to say it may not cost that much because it had the potential to get money paid back, but I don't remember too many people taking that claim very seriously. So why do you say it's silly to suggest that there's been good oversight? Because of your claim that it was never going to cost that much in the first place? I don't know if you knew that it was never going to cost much, but I would be my right arm that the vast majority of Americans thought that it was going to cost a huge amount of money. Like $700 billion huge.

Again, I'd like to see a link for this. i don't recall any ever believing that NONE of the TARP money was going to be paid back.

By the way, the data that you dismissed because it was from Rolling Stone was actually date from Moody's that just happened to be referenced in a Rolling Stone article. So if you're going to dismiss it, you should argue that Moody's top economist Mark Zandi is the unreliable source, not Rolling Stone).

I didn't dismiss the data. i didn't even really look at the data, i dismissed the silly notion that only democratic oversight prevented it from costing us $700 billion.

Because that's purely partisan reconstruction of history.

I honestly do not remember a lot of this. I am not saying that no one anywhere took this track, but what I remember around the time of TARP was panic about the economy, some blame thrown at Wall Street and Republicans in general, but not criticism of TARP. I don't remember Democrats before the election blaming the Republicans for enacting TARP. I just remember them blaming them for creating the conditions that made TARP necessary. So again, my point is that the average voter is hates TARP (wrongly, in my opinion, it was one of the few things Bush did that I liked), and wants to blame the wrong party for it.

Huh? Again. I thought we were talking about bailouts in general. You're moving the goalpost.

Either way, for the third time, democrats not only provided HUGE support for TARP (and the rest of the bailouts) but also fanned the flames of 'big bizness doesn't deserve your hard earned tax dollars because they are teh evil'.

Are you really having trouble understanding the issue there, and why it's coming back to haunt them now?

This part I do remember. The criticism of private jet flying CEO's coming to DC to ask for bailout money. So it's a bit disingenuous to try to score political points by attacking the auto execs and then bail them out (though Obama did remove the CEO of GM).

Exactly. And now those chickens are coming home to roost.

What is complicated or unfair about that?

They played a major role in poisoning the well, and now you're complaining because they are also getting sick from drinking out of it.

[alguien]

I didn't dismiss the data. i didn't even really look at the data, i dismissed the silly notion that only democratic oversight prevented it from costing us $700 billion.

Because that's purely partisan reconstruction of history.

And my irony meter just exploded.

[awesome possum]

Because that's purely partisan reconstruction of history.

As opposed to Republicans trying to pin the entire economic problems on the head of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Dems? Or is that the purely partisan reconstruction of history that's OK in your books?

You know, when trying to point out how hackish some people are, you should try to avoid looking like a hack yourself.

[Shryke]

This curb stomp story is just hilarious in how deep a hole these guys are trying to dig.

The Rand Paul Campaign Official has apparently been listening to Dick Cheney too much:

"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt said. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."

"She's a professional at what she does," Profitt added, "and I think when all the facts come out, I think people will see that she was the one that initiated the whole thing."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/kentucky-stomper-wants-an-apology-from-woman-he-assaulted.php?ref=fpa

But hey, Rand Paul still loves him: http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/10/full-page-ad-in-herald-leader-today.html

Rand Paul took out a full page ad on the back page of the Herald Leader today.

Guess who's endorsement they tout at the bottom of the page from Bourbon County:

Tim Profitt, the Curbstomper.

On the bright side, he's apparently been charged with fourth degree misdemeanor assault.

[Ckrisz]

Let's start off with this column by Martin Wolf, my favorite FT guy:

Why U.S. voters are suing Dr. Obama

An ambulance stops by the roadside to help a man suffering from a heart attack. After desperate measures, the patient survives. Brought into hospital, he then makes a protracted and partial recovery. Then, two years later, far from feeling grateful, he sues the paramedics and doctors. If it were not for their interference, he insists, he would be as good as new. As for the heart attack, it was a minor event. He would have been far better off if he had been left alone.

That is the situation in which Dr Barack Obama finds himself. A large part of the American public has long since forgotten the gravity of the financial heart attack that hit the US in the autumn of 2008. The Republicans have convinced many voters that the intervention by the Democrats, not the catastrophe George W.Bush bequeathed, explains the malaise. It is a propaganda coup.

Does President Obama deserve blame for this outcome? No and yes. No, because his treatment was right, in principle; yes, because it was too cautious, in practice ..

[Old Nan]

Since when do people refer to the commander in chief as "Dr. Barack Obama" (or, as in this case, 'Durrrr' Obama)?

[Shryke]

The former Rand Paul volunteer who stomped on the head of a prone MoveOn activist tells a local CBS affiliate he would've never put his foot on the victim at all if it wasn't for his bad back.

According to WKYT, "[Tim] Profitt explained that he used his foot to try and keep her down because he can't bend over because of back problems. He also says police were alerted to watch her before Paul arrived because people in the crown recognized her as someone who may try and pull a stunt."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/kentucky-stomper-i-stomped-because-of-back-pain.php?ref=fpa

[alguien]

Just found out that my 63-year old mother is going to the Rally to Restore Sanity.

How is it that my mom is somehow more hip than I am?

Also, for those sick of the Juan Williams controversy, Jon Stewart did a pretty good send up of it on Monday's show:

Link here.

Favorite parts were, "Yes, it was a direct violation of NPR's 'Never Say Anything Interesting' policy" and the Team Black and Team Muslim interviews.

OH, and this gem: "But Jon, if they're not gonna make the distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent fearful white people and racists?"

[Altherion]

People don't think that TARP or the ARRA were necessary. The reason people don't think that is because they were largely successful.

No. The reason people don't think the giveaways were necessary is that things are pretty bad right now and the only argument for their necessity is essentially "Without them, things would have been a whole lot worse". Such arguments can be amusing, but they're ultimately pointless because it's not possible to predict an alternate time line of something as complicated as the US economy. What we do know for certain is that we paid some companies a ridiculously large amount of money (it's hard to ascertain how much exactly) and these nearly destitute companies then promptly gave their employees bonuses of 2 to 20+ times the median salary. Maybe the financial system really would have collapsed without the giveaways, but what actually happened does not exactly inspire confidence...

[BloodRider]

Favorite parts were, "Yes, it was a direct violation of NPR's 'Never Say Anything Interesting' policy" and the Team Black and Team Muslim interviews.

A folksy Minnesota man sang to me about canned beans.

So that was a great deal of fun.

[Altherion]

OH, and this gem: "But Jon, if they're not gonna make the distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent fearful white people and racists?"

I think the funniest part was one of the Fox News guys saying "Is NPR an agent, somehow, of a jihadist inquisition?"

[BloodRider]

Did we need proof that the Tea Party and the Republicans are not much more than shit stirring hypocrites and their followers are complete dupes?

Ok - here ya go.

[Swordfish]

And my irony meter just exploded.

No doubt a result of the vacuum created when the needle on your reading comprehension meter made it's sudden downward spike.

Well, please enlighten me as to what TARP is then.

Start here and let me know if you have any questions:

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

Perhaps this will help you get started:

As of February 9, 2009, $388 billion had been allotted, and $296 billion spent, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Among the money committed, includes:[36]

* $250 billion to purchase bank equity shares through the Capital Purchase Program ($195 billion spent);

* $40 billion to purchase preferred shares of American International Group (AIG), then among the top 10 US companies, through the program for Systemically Significant Failing Institutions ($40 billion spent);

* $20 billion to back any losses that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York might incur under the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (none spent);

* $40 billion in stock purchases of Citigroup and Bank of America ($20 billion each) through the Targeted Investment Program ($40 billion spent)

* $12.5 billion in loan guarantees for Citigroup ($5 billion) and Bank of America ($7.5 billion) through the Asset Guarantee Program (none spent);

* $25 billion in loans to automakers and their financing arms through the Automotive Industry Financing Program ($21 billion spent)

The Congressional Budget Office released a report in January 2009 reviewing the transactions enacted through the TARP. The CBO found that through December 31, 2008, transactions under the TARP totaled $247 billion. According to the CBO's report, the Treasury had purchased $178 billion in shares of preferred stock and warrants from 214 U.S. financial institutions through its Capital Purchase Program (CPP). This included the purchase of $40 billion of preferred stock in AIG, $25 billion of preferred stock in Citigroup, and $15 billion of preferred stock in Bank of America. The Treasury also agreed to lend $18.4 billion to General Motors and Chrysler. The Treasury, along with the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, has also agreed to guarantee a $306 billion portfolio of assets owned by Citigroup.[7]

The CBO also estimated the subsidy cost for transactions under TARP. The subsidy cost is defined as, broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions, where the assets in question were valued using procedures similar to those specified in the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), but adjusting for market risk as specified in the EESA.[7] The CBO estimated that the subsidy cost of the $247 billion in transactions before December 31, 2008 amounts to $64 billion. An updated analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates a budgetary impact of $80 billion for all TARP spending as of 02/3/09.[36]

You love to pick arguments over semantics. I don't know that the issue was that nobody in the know thought no money would be paid back. The point is that a huge part of its unpopularity was that when it was announced it was announced with a $700 billion price tag. The reason people were pissed off/scared was because they heard that number and were told it was going to be at great cost to the US tax payer.

It's not an argument over semantics. Before nay checks were issued it was already almost a foregone conclusion that the cost was going to be relatively low in the end.

So crediting the low cost to democratic oversight shows a complete lack of understanding about what happened with TARP.

You accuse me of moving the goal posts, but here you're trying to dodge my accusation of how you dismissed the Moody's data by responding to this new argument. Again, I'm accusing you of doing the "la la la, I can't hear you" to the data from Moody's I presented in our last argument that you claimed was illegitemate because it came from Rolling Stone. .

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. I dismissed the article you posted from rolling stone as hackery based primarily on the notion that they were trying to give credit to the dems for recouping the TARP money. I didn't even mention any of the moodys data, because as I said, i didn't really pay much attention to it after reading the first part of the article and realizing what type of propaganda it was.

As far as purely partisan reconstructions of history, I'll ask again, why? Explain why do you think the Dems who currently run the treasury deserve no credit for the cost of TARP coming down? You can say it's silly if you like, but you should accompany that with an explanation rather than just calling it a name. Is your explanation that no one ever thought TARP was going to be expensive? If so, I think you are using an unbelievable partisan reconstruction of history.

How is that partisan? Again, if there was widespread expectation as you claim that it was going to be extremely costly, then provide me some information that backs up that assertion. Because that isn't the way i remember it. Either way, the bill was overwhelmingly supported by democrats, so i don't see how pointing out that it was successful is somehow partisan. That makes zero sense at all.

You seem to be conflating public perception of the bill with actual projections from people who were qualified at the time to know what to expect.

The Dems appear to have done a good job of making the bailouts work. The disconnect between us here is that I do not recall the Dems railing against the bailouts.

Huh? They didn't rail against the bailouts. They overwhelmingly supported them. That's the whole point. Given their high level of support for them, which you seem to acknowledge, and their villainization of those who received the money, it's incomprehensible to me that anyone would now complain about the perception you seem to be railing against.

I only recall them (really more the media than the Dems) attacking the notion of the rich auto CEO's flying down to ask for a bailout. And again, Obama replaced the CEO of GM. The Dems weren't against TARP, as you say,

I can't tell here if you are acknowledging that I have said the dems were not against TARP, or implying that I said the democrats WERE against TARP, but just to clarify, the democrats overwhelmingly supported TARP, as they did with all the bailouts.

But they played a huge role in creating an environment in which the bailouts were going to be viewed as unpopular because they were handouts to the evil greedy rich.

They helped create the monster, and now you are complaining that it is glaring and growling at them.

[alguien]

No doubt a result of the vacuum created when the needle on your reading comprehension meter made it's sudden downward spike.

No, I'm fairly certain it was when you refused to examine data, then went on to accuse the source of partisan bias.

Perhaps you should examine what color you are, kettle.