Quote :

"Pretty hard to tell. It's very likely that in the short term the job losses would be worse as Citi, ML, Wachovia, AIG, GM, Chrysler and many companies associated with them went bankrupt and had to lay off many many people. Some consumers would simply pay off debts with the money given them by the Fed, others would spend it into the economy. But with the removed uncertainty, its likely we would be on a clear road to recovery by now instead of this economic purgatory we're in."

point taken, but don't confuse the stimulus with TARP


[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 9:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 9:45:07 PM

I don't really distinguish between the two as the ultimate goal is to save Wall Street and Detroit Union interests which is a wholly undemocratic way to hand out money.

1/12/2010 9:56:09 PM

epic daily show segment last night.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-11-2010/fright-club

embed, anyone?

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'<a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-11-2010/fright-club'>Fright Club<a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>http://www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:261326' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes'>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/health'>Health Care Crisis</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

1/12/2010 10:47:29 PM

Captain Obvious Learns the Limits of Cool
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: January 9, 2010

Quote :

"Our president came down from the mountaintop. He had applied the freshness of his independent thought to the critical matters at hand. He had convened his seminar, reviewed the reviews, analyzed the intelligence every which way, thought anew about everything, and lo and behold, he finally emerged to tell us some stuff we already knew. We are under attack. There is evil in the world. Yemen is a dangerous place that breeds people who want to kill us. Al Qaeda is determined to attack inside the United States. Al Qaeda is casting a wide recruiting net for vulnerable young men. Aspirational terrorists eventually become operational terrorists. Our airports are not safe. Metal detectors can't detect nonmetal explosives sewn into underwear. Our incomplete no-fly lists are more like 'Welcome aboard' lists. We still can't connect the dots, even when the dots are flying at us like 3-D asteroids. The sun rises in the east. Two plus two equals four. 'We must do better,' Captain Obvious said Thursday at the White House, 'in keeping dangerous people off airplanes while still facilitating air travel.' John Brennan, the deputy national security adviser, was equally illuminating. 'The intelligence,' he informed us, 'fell through the cracks.' He also offered this: 'Al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.' That rings a bell. The president and his intelligence officials stressed that these were not the same mistakes made before 9/11. 'Rather than a failure to collect or share intelligence,' President Obama said, 'this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had.' Wow. That makes me feel that all those billions spent on upgrading the intelligence system were well spent. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father personally delivered a neon warning to our embassy in Nigeria, and a State Department employee quickly dropped the ball by misspelling the aspiring terrorist's name, leading to the false assumption that he did not have a valid U.S. visa. Border security officials figured out while he was in the air that the young man had extremist links, but inexplicably decided to wait until he landed to question him, failing to notify the pilot of his plane. After all, what harm could a foreign extremist bring to a plane over American soil. So it wasn't bureaucratic turf wars that caused the intelligence to fall through the cracks this time. The C.I.A. and counterterrorism agencies weren't hoarding information and refusing to pool tips. They were just out to lunch. And this is supposed to be progress? I'd rather they were hoarding. It would be more reassuring to think our intelligence analysts actually knew what was going on but were hampered by power grabs than to think they were cooperative but clueless. Even though Russ Feingold, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been pointing out since 2002 that we need to focus on Yemen — 'It's the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden and the place where Al Qaeda blew up the U.S.S. Cole and we lost 17 people,' he impatiently notes — the president said that the intelligence community was caught off guard by the attack planned by the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, even though 'we knew that they sought to strike the United States, and that they were recruiting operatives to do so.' Senator Feingold told me that 'this is obviously an international network and we have to start thinking about it that way rather than as a country-by-country eradication process.' Unlike the Republicans, who have yet to take responsibility for a single disastrous thing they did, President Obama said 'ultimately the buck stops with me.' But when he failed to immediately step up to the microphones in Hawaii after the Christmas terror and thank the passengers for bravely foiling the plot that his intelligence community had failed to see, President Cool reached the limits of cool. No Drama Obama is reticent about displays of emotion. The Spock in him needs to exert mental and emotional control. That is why he stubbornly insists on staying aloof and setting his own deliberate pace for responding — whether it's in a debate or after a debacle. But it's not O.K. to be cool about national security when Americans are scared. Our professorial president is no feckless W., biking through Katrina. He is no doubt on top of the crisis in terms of studying it top to bottom. But his inner certainty creates an outer disconnect. He's so sure of himself and his actions that he fails to see that he misses the moment to be president — to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders, who reassures and instructs the public at traumatic moments. He's more like the aloof father who's turned the Situation Room into a Seminar Room."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10dowd.html

Wow.



I keep it cool.

1/13/2010 4:23:37 AM

Wow is right.


I am now dumber for reading that article

It seems the writer wanted the president to have stood on the podium and cried about how scary terrorist are or given a saber-rattling speech full of impotent threats on how we are going to "root out evil."

no thanks,

1/13/2010 8:55:31 AM

^
I don't know if the goal is to have Obama cry about terrorism. But it would be a bit reassuring if he got up there every so often and scared the crap out of would-be terrorists with some unscholarly trash-talking.

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says he has not succeeded in bringing the country together, acknowledging an atmosphere of divisiveness that has washed away the lofty national feeling surrounding his inauguration a year ago. "That's what's been lost this year ... that whole sense of changing how Washington works," Obama said in an interview with People magazine. The president said his second-year agenda will be refocused on uniting the country around common values, "whether we're Democrats or Republicans." Obama said people have "every right to feel deflated, because the economy was far worse than any of us expected." But he insisted that his government's economic steps in 2009 are paying off and that people should have confidence in this new year."

Are voters feeling deflated only because of the economy...or also at the feckless results of Obama's socialist approach to stimulating the private sector?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_unity

1/13/2010 10:11:16 AM

Quote :

"I don't know if the goal is to have Obama cry about terrorism. But it would be a bit reassuring if he got up there every so often and scared the crap out of would-be terrorists with some unscholarly trash-talking."

Scare the terrorists? Really? SCARE the terrorists with TRASH TALKING.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

1/13/2010 10:15:48 AM

another 700B for the wars now.

700B for haiti coming?

700B for another stimulus?

700B for roads?

who knows, he is awesome. Game changer indeed.

1/13/2010 10:25:28 AM

^^^^

Quote :

"I am now dumber for reading that article"

I doubt the column had anything to do with it.

1/13/2010 3:17:56 PM

^^^^^ yeah, it's pretty dumb, even by hooksaw standards

Quote :

" Here's another reason why your government isn't working to its optimum capacity: antiquated computer technology. That's what Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget at the White House, says. In conjunction with the opening of a summit meeting between President Obama and business CEOs, Orszag complained that federal workers own better computers for their personal use than the ones the government equips them with during their work days. "Twenty years ago, people who came to work in the federal government had better technology at work than at home," Orszag, said in a statement. "Now that’s no longer the case. "

- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/15/tech/main6099835.shtml

It's a good thing we finally have at least marginally competent people working in the gov. Hopefully they know to take a look at their services/backend side too to help streamline communication.

1/15/2010 3:03:15 PM

^That's good to point out moron, but why in this thread?

[Edited on January 15, 2010 at 3:22 PM. Reason : oh is he part of the Admin? nm then]

1/15/2010 3:22:11 PM

TerdFerguson and moron, do you doofuses even know who Maureen Dowd is? I'll give you a hint: she's no conservative.

[Edited on January 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM. Reason : PS: ]

1/15/2010 3:58:45 PM

i count another trillion in liberal spending on hati now. we need to end taxation.

1/15/2010 4:00:30 PM

the problem is that in the Obama Credibility Thread you that article is attacking Obama's demeanor after a terrorist attack. It doesn't even attack the content of the speech just the emotional/mental display during the speech? It seems minor. Its the petty garbage that fills the media between real stories and Maureen Dowd is obviously a master.

Im just sayin . . . .



There are plenty of issues that hurt his credibility much more: Spending, healthcare, blah blah blah

1/15/2010 7:17:37 PM

^ Fair enough.

1/15/2010 7:20:47 PM

Quote :

"TerdFerguson and moron, do you doofuses even know who Maureen Dowd is? I'll give you a hint: she's no conservative. "

Of course i know who she is, but why does it matter if she’s not a conservative or otherwise? A dumb statement is a dumb statement.

Of course though, it’s not surprising that in your black and white world, this wouldn’t make sense to you.

1/15/2010 7:22:45 PM

Quote :

"TerdFerguson and moron, do you doofuses even know who Maureen Dowd is? I'll give you a hint: she's no conservative. "

Of course i know who she is, but why does it matter if she’s not a conservative or otherwise? A dumb statement is a dumb statement.

Of course though, it’s not surprising that in your black and white world, this wouldn’t make sense to you.

1/15/2010 7:22:45 PM

^ The column is not dumb--it's dead-on.

1/15/2010 7:30:47 PM

^ that’s what a dumb person would say.

1/16/2010 1:47:16 AM

Wow.

1/16/2010 3:46:31 AM

Quote :

"Showing little sympathy for critics of his proposed fee on big financial institutions, President Barack Obama vowed to recover all the cash taxpayers spent on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, saying he won't let Wall Street "take the money and run." In his weekly radio address Saturday, Mr. Obama said the large banks that are gearing up to dole out billions in bonuses can afford to pay his planned "financial crisis responsibility fee," which is designed to generate $90 billion over 10 years."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959804575006550254834626.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

1/16/2010 11:54:30 AM

^
From the same article...

Quote :

"Many banks would be hit by the fee, even though they have already repaid their TARP funds. But Mr. Obama said the criticism ignores the fact that the entire financial sector benefited not only from the bailout, but from government aid to American International Group Inc. and homeowners, and the Federal Reserve's emergency measures. "

So banks that didn't even want TARP money, and were forced to take it...have now paid it back and are getting hit with a new fee/tax for 10 years and probably more.

Didn't everyone benefit from the great TARP bailout program? Why isn't Obama raising "Fees" on every taxpayer? After all, we all benefited...right?

Early on, Obama admitted that both the private and gov't sectors were responsible for the economic recession. Obama has found a way to punish the financial sector for their alleged part. But what is he doing to make the federal gov't pay for their part of the problem (Fannie, Freddie, Barney et al)?

[Edited on January 16, 2010 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2010 8:38:34 PM

^he lifted the cap and opened the checkbook. Thats what he did.

1/16/2010 9:03:06 PM

Quote :

"Republicans are particularly critical of Obama's efforts in general and on big domestic and foreign issues. Just 20 percent of Republicans approve of his overall job performance, compared with 87 percent of Democrats. That partisan gap is bigger than any that Presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan ever faced among the general public. It's about on par with divergent ratings of George W. Bush across his second term. But Obama continues to benefit from GOP weak points. Three-quarters of all adults lack confidence in the Republicans in Congress to make good decisions for the future, and when it comes to assigning blame for the nation's economic woes, about twice as many fault the George W. Bush administration as do Obama’s."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010011602828.html?hpid=topnews

[Edited on January 17, 2010 at 12:44 AM. Reason : ]

1/17/2010 12:44:32 AM

When the current administration and the major media outlets assign GWB blame for all crises to date, I would say those numbers are valid.

1/17/2010 1:25:44 AM

the media did it!

1/17/2010 10:59:45 AM

^^^ Since you forgot to post the headline:

Poll shows growing disappointment, polarization over Obama's performance
Sunday, January 17, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010011602828.html

(And I cleaned up the link for you.)

1/17/2010 5:58:18 PM

Quote :

" Growing Support for Smaller Government Posted by David Boaz A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that respondents favor “smaller government with fewer services” over “larger government with more services” by 58 to 38 percent. Reporter Dan Balz notes: The poll also shows how much ground Obama has lost during his first year of trying to convince the public that more government is the answer to the country’s problems. By 58 percent to 38 percent, Americans said they prefer smaller government and fewer services to larger government with more services. Since he won the Democratic nomination in June 2008, the margin between those favoring smaller over larger government has moved in Post-ABC polls from five points to 20 points."

Hmmmm... I'm guessing Obama would be in that lower 38% who want larger government.


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/17/growing-support-for-smaller-government/

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2010 2:09:06 PM

^when hasnt that been the case?

1/19/2010 10:10:53 PM

^
November 2008

1/19/2010 10:55:39 PM

^ ORLY?

40. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)?

             Smaller govt.    Larger govt.      No
             fewer services   more services   opinion
1/15/10           58              38             4
6/21/09           54              41             4
1/16/09           53              43             4
6/15/08           50              45             5
11/1/07           50              44             5
6/20/04           50              46             4
11/4/02 LV        61              34             5
11/3/02 LV        60              34             5
11/2/02 LV        62              34             3
7/15/02           53              42             6
1/27/02           54              41             5
10/9/00 RV        58              32            10
10/1/00 RV        58              33             9
7/23/00           59              34             7
7/23/00 RV        61              32             7
4/2/00            56              38             7
8/16/98           59              35             6
8/5/96            63              32             5
7/8/92            55              38             7

4. How much confidence do you have in [ITEM] to make the right decisions for the country's future - a great deal of confidence, a good amount, just some or none at all?


b. The Republicans in Congress

          -Grt deal/Good amt-   ---- Some/None ----   
                 Great   Good         Just    None      No
           NET   deal    amt    NET   some   at all   opinion
1/15/10    24      6      18    75     47      28        1
10/18/09   19      4      15    79     46      33        2
8/17/09    21      4      16    78     45      33        1
4/24/09    21      4      16    78     50      28        2
1/16/09    29      8      21    69     49      21        2

c. The Democrats in Congress

          -Grt deal/Good amt-   ---- Some/None ----   
                 Great   Good         Just    None      No
           NET   deal    amt    NET   some   at all   opinion
1/15/10    32     11      21    68     33      35        1
10/18/09   34     12      23    64     37      27        2
8/17/09    35     14      21    63     35      29        1
4/24/09    36     12      24    63     38      25        1
1/16/09    43     15      28    56     37      19        2

1/19/2010 11:03:36 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/19/obama-calls-brown-congratulate-senate-election-victory/
Obama Calls Brown to Congratulate Him on Senate Election Victory

1/19/2010 11:18:07 PM

Maybe Obama will get lucky and a couple SC Justices will kick the bucket; that's the only positive result I can see coming from his presidency now.

1/20/2010 2:16:01 AM

Yes, let's get some more justices in the Supreme Court that are willing to completely ignore the constitution.

1/20/2010 8:41:27 AM

His only accomplishment in his first year is to win the Nobel Peace Price for doing nothing.....

1/20/2010 9:36:08 PM

^^^ ha you're writing off the presidency after the 1st year of the first term?

1/20/2010 9:38:32 PM

Quote :

"^ ORLY?"

Well when Obama took office 43% wanted larger gov't. But after a year of Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc.. the number of Americans wanting bigger gov't falls to 38%. I find that interesting.

And your other poll tells me that people are losing confidence in Obama.

Quote :

"ha you're writing off the presidency after the 1st year of the first term?"

After the '94 GOP take-over, Clinton's initiatives were pretty much doomed. This of course gave him plenty of time for other activities. If Obama wants to stay in the White House, he's going to have to learn to play nice with repubs.

1/20/2010 10:56:00 PM

TSA nominee withdraws his bid, blames politics
January 21, 2010

Quote :

"[Erroll] Southers also had faced questions over an event years ago, when he had ordered criminal background checks on the boyfriend of his estranged wife. He acknowledged in a letter to senators that it was wrong, saying that he regretted the incident. He had been censured by his FBI superiors for the action 20 years ago. 'Americans deserve a leader at TSA with integrity and with an unwavering commitment to putting security ahead of politics,' [Sen. Jim] DeMint [R] said in a statement Wednesday. He said the White House had never responded to requests for more information about Southers' testimony during his committee confirmation hearing about the background checks. 'And Mr. Southers was never forthcoming about his intentions to give union bosses veto power over security decisions at our airports,' DeMint said."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tsa21-2010jan21,0,7965576.story

1/21/2010 4:21:26 AM

Quote :

"Paul Krugman’s announcement that he is near to “giving up” on President Barack Obama is fueling a new round of liberal revolt. Like many influential voices on the left, The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist has not been shy to voice his disapproval with some of the president’s specific policy initiatives over the past year. But in the wake of a devastating surprise loss in the Massachusetts Senate special election, and with prospects of health care reform growing dimmer by the hour, Krugman and others liberals are charging Obama with failing to lead. In a post on his blog Wednesday night titled “He Wasn’t the One We’ve Been Waiting For,” Krugman eviscerated Obama for, in the columnist’s view, not stepping up during a crucial moment in his presidency. “Progressives are desperately in need of leadership; more specifically, House Democrats need to be told to pass the Senate bill, which isn’t what they wanted but is vastly better than nothing. And what we get from the great progressive hope, the man who was offering hope and change, is this,” Krugman wrote, directing readers to Obama’s comments in an interview with ABC News on Wednesday seemingly advocating a scaled back health bill. “Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership,” Krugman continued. “But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31785.html#ixzz0dGPNQg47

1/21/2010 11:08:19 AM

[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 9:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2010 9:41:04 PM

^^ so is Obama too conservative, as Krugman is implying, or too liberal, as the right is implying?

1/21/2010 11:10:08 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104935.html?hpid=topnews
Obama's 'Volcker Rule' shifts power away from Geithner


Seems like a good thing to me. I’ve never trusted Geithner or Rahm Emanuel when it comes to wallstreet.

1/22/2010 12:09:06 AM

So... Obama's going to continue the policy of indefinite detention without trial. Way to be different from dubya

1/22/2010 6:24:47 PM

I'm fond of his recent bent towards demagoguery and demonizing "wall street" again. The little political ploy about fining banks and changing the rules was largely responsible for the worst week on the Dow since March of 09.

1/22/2010 6:29:49 PM

and?

1/22/2010 6:42:00 PM

and his political rhetoric may derail the slow financial comeback of the markets overall and is doing tremendous damage to the shaky financial sector in particular.

It might be a good move politically, but it's a shit move for the country's economic health.

1/22/2010 6:45:38 PM

so, now he's going to start working on a jobs bill for infrastructure projects.

wait, what was the stimulus bill supposed to be again? I forget.



Oh, and even better, he wants to do stuff for banks so that they won't take crazy risks and we won't have to worry about bailing them out again... WHY DON'T WE JUST TELL THEM WE WON'T EVER FUCKING BAIL THEM OUT, THEN THEY'LL KNOW THEY CAN'T TAKE CRAZY FUCKING RISKS!!! Problem solved, and without spending trillions of dollars. What a crazy fucking idea!

Oh, and the banks are "too big to fail," right? So your treasury secretary did what exactly? Helped them with MERGERS? what. the. fuck.

1/22/2010 7:02:22 PM

Hey man, things would be 10 times worse if we hadn't.... oh fuck it, who am I kidding.

1/22/2010 7:05:43 PM

Quote :

"and his political rhetoric may derail the slow financial comeback of the markets overall and is doing tremendous damage to the shaky financial sector in particular. It might be a good move politically, but it's a shit move for the country's economic health."

Wow, what a stupid thing to say.

If the stock market is going to dip because people would rather banks over-leverage themselves to make things as unstable as they were before, then so be it.

The conservative is all about breaking some eggs, except when it comes to bashing the democrats.

You realize that if we let the banks and car companies fail like the right always claims is the best things, things would have been MUCH worse? But you're going to whine about a dip in the stock market that has been rising overall recently?

1/22/2010 8:00:30 PM

No the stock market took a dip because of thinly veiled threats to fine and impose additional penalties on them for no particularly good reasons. Continuing to harp on how much money they were paid, screaming about the size of bonuses when these companies are remarkably profitable, and making them pay back money with interest that some of them didn't even want to take to begin with, etc.

Obama has not been reform minded about banks or the financial system overall, he has been downright adversarial.

Oh, and yes, things likely would have been more painful in the short term, but probably healthier in the long term. Do you really think the federal government having a controlling interest in an automobile manufacturer will be healthy for the US auto industry as a whole? Is setting the precedent of private profit, public risk healthy for the banking and investment industry? Do you really think that after the fact scolding and threats will do anything to change behavior? I don't think it's very likely that he's going to go busting up the megabanks that he just helped to create. It's all just ridiculously hypocritical and done solely to create some ass-backwards populist image that he can use while he stumps for his Democratic friends in congress this November.

[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 8:43 PM. Reason : adsas]

1/22/2010 8:38:21 PM