‘Moderate’ Senate Democrats to formally announce formation of Blue Dog-style coalition.
‘Moderate’ Senate Democrats to formally announce formation of Blue Dog-style coalition.
Roll Call reports that a group of 15-20 “moderate” Senate Democrats — boosted by their success in “paring down the more than $900 billion economic stimulus bill to $787 billion” — plans to “formally announce next week that it is aligning as a loose coalition or working group focused on deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility”:
Led by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), members said early press reports of their meetings were mischaracterized as an opposition group to President Barack Obama’s agenda and budget. But they acknowledge that they are seeking to restrain the influence of party liberals in the White House and on Capitol Hill. [...]
[Nebraska Sen. Ben] Nelson said the moderate bloc is modeled after the Blue Dogs, but that the realities of the Senate prevent them from being as organized or unified as the House group, which regularly wins concessions from House Democratic leaders.
But as one anonymous Democratic senator told Roll Call, “Once you decide to be part of a bloc that is completely dislocated from the main [Democratic] caucus interests, you’ve not only separated yourself, you’ve also burned a lot of bridges.” Politico previously explained the possible implications of such a group, writing, “If the moderate Democrats in the Senate are willing to work with moderate Republicans…they will negate the White House’s ability to portray opposition…as partisan obstructionism.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Moderate Senate Democrats to formally announce formation of Blue Dog-style coalition.
– - Ok, what’s the over/under on how many obstacles Obama must overcome in what is rapidly becoming the most difficult job in the history of modern civilization?
March 12th, 2009 at 10:37 am“Blue-Dog” Democrats = Rethuglic party lite.
DINOS.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:37 amLed by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind….
– - Payback by Bayh for no VP slot, or Obama knew what he was doing all along?
March 12th, 2009 at 10:38 amWhen cooperation should be paramount in successfully steering us through this horrible time, we have a splinter group organizing opposition from within. It’s not enough to be able to exploit the disarray and incoherence of the republican party, no, democrats use this opportunity for selfish purposes. They say they have high-minded goals, but their timing and methods belie that.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:39 am“Moderate Senate Democrats”????????
Fcuk that, TP. Seriously, fcuk moderate.
Call this lot the Corporate Sell-out Caucus, the Wingnut-lite Caucus, the Lieberman Groupies, something at least mildly perjorative. But not “moderate”, hell no.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:41 amI propose we call them D-bag Democrats. Whiny, ever safe and tentative centrist hacks.
Bayh is the worst.
-GSD
March 12th, 2009 at 10:42 amThis just wouldn’t wait until the economic crisis had been stabilized? By them taking money out of the last stimulus they helped necessitate another stimulus package being needed. Apparently they don’t listen to economists just like Republicans don’t.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:46 amScum.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:48 amI was going to offer that they should get a job working for their corporate buddies but then I remembered they already have one.
[Nebraska Sen. Ben] Nelson said the moderate bloc is modeled after the Blue Dogs, but that the realities of the Senate prevent them from being as organized or unified as the House group, which regularly wins concessions from House Democratic leaders.
*sigh* Another unauthorized dem “group.”
‘G-r-o-u-p,’ or to put it another way: r-u GOP?
March 12th, 2009 at 10:49 amThe Blue Corpora-Crats come forward. Watch this group closely. When they join with Repugnicants, they have a majority, albeit not filibuster proof.
The Bayh household made millions from WellPoint stock options the last five years. Susan Bayh sits next to William H.T. Bush on the WellPoint board. Evan is sponsored by The Carlyle Group and sovereign wealth funds.
This development bears monitoring.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:51 amPHUQ EM!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:51 amLet’s hope that they support the President’s policy on Health Care.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:52 ammarie, I could not agree with you more. we need to remember how many times democrats stabbed Clinton in the back. I really don’t know who they think they are pandering to.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:53 am“formally announce next week that it is aligning as a loose coalition or working group focused on deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility”
Erm…isn’t deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility a good thing? Certainly, when it was Bush and the R’s running huge deficits deficits were bad…I would think most Americans would want fiscal responsibility. I suspect this group will be politically popular.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:54 amTheir time is over! We will remember this at the voting booths! Fools, fools, fools!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:56 amMaybe it’s not obstructionism. Maybe it’s legitimate concern over massive spending.
– Evan Bayh.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:56 amLast I checked the Bayh’s grossed over $1.5 million from WellPoint stock options. Susan’s stock record can be viewed at:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=bayh+susan&match=&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany
March 12th, 2009 at 10:57 amgood! then we know who the other enemy is
March 12th, 2009 at 10:59 amPersonally, a bit of moderation is a very good thing. And it is not inconsistent with Obama’s stated desire to take up deficit reduction as a longer-term objective in his administration.
I would hope and trust that the blue-dogs will continue to share the same priorities and philosophy of the Democrats. That is what is most important.
I frankly don’t see these blue-dogs falling into the republican camp. After all, the republicans have no ideas . . . only their singular hackneyed “tax cut” mantra. They will continue to twist in the wind and be isolated from the political process.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:01 amMarie, I agree these Blue Dog D*%KS are being very selfish and their timing is absolutely horrific.Now Obama has to jump over another hurdle because of these morons and their self serving (not serving the people)ways.Who needs re-pukes when we have these MAROONS, is Flush Limpballs buying these guys off?I say keep them out of the dem caucus and but they really can`t because some of their votes on some issues will be needed.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:01 amMy first reaction to this news was almost as negative as some of the posts above…. OTOH, this could be the first step to building an effective bridge to the remaining moderate Republicans in the Congress, making the whackaloon remainder of that party unable to block legislation, and therefore irrelevant. It’s a tough call: push for a fully-progressive agenda that will have to be wrestled through the Congress (and parts of which will undoubtedly fall by the wayside), or accept modifications up front in order to simplify the process of getting through the legislature and into practice.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:02 amKeltoi. Of course, it’s popular. Because most people understand that you should spend less than you make. Republicans failed by spending too much money. We are in debt. For Democrats to propose even more debt to spend even more money, only sounds like tripling down on a bad idea. Most people understand it intuitively: We ran into trouble by borrowing too much, so we could spend money we did not have. It doesn’t make sense to now, borrow substantially more to increase spending money that we still don’t have.
These moderates are doing the Democratic party a favor.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:03 amKeltoi, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility IS a good thing, as Bill Clinton demonstrated a decade ago.
The question is whether our current economic situation is the best time to focus on deficit reduction. With the economy grinding to a halt, and government the only reliable source of spending out there, reducing the deficit needs to be put on the back burner. Once the economy regains it footing, deficit reduction should be pursued vigorously. But it’s the wrong time to focus on it now.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:05 amThanks for your concern, b-cup.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:06 amThe first TARP came without the obviously necessary restrictions and mandates (using gov’t funds to lend to overseas corporations rather than American?) so TARP2 is now necessary.
The first stimulus was insufficient according to most respected economists, so now we’re looking at Stim2.
Just what do they anticipate gaining by such posturing at this time other than the wrath of the (growing) Democratic Party members? Word to Bayh: Sit down and shut up!
PEACE
March 12th, 2009 at 11:06 amRE Garrett Says:
My first reaction to this news was almost as negative as some of the posts above…. OTOH, this could be the first step to building an effective bridge to the remaining moderate Republicans in the Congress
Assumes bullshit not in evidence.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:08 amThere is no such thing as a “moderate” Republican.
Keltoi, to get out of this mess the SHRUB and his cronies created Wash has to spend money or this country keeps spinning further and further into the black hole and we will never get out.Listen to any level headed economist like Stiglitz and even Krugman they say the same thing and they still think the stimulus is to small.As much as I don`t want it,as much as we don`t like it Gov`t spending is the only way out,Bush`s tax cuts don`t expire for a couple more years and Obama or congress is not going to raise taxes until then so a spending they will go.I say phuck the bankers and give us the tax payers some dough so because we are the consumers and we love to consume,I prefer American made but it`s hard to find when our country is one of the largest importers in the world.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:10 am_____
Badmoodman Says:
Led by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind….
- – Payback by Bayh for no VP slot, or Obama knew what he was doing all along?
March 12th, 2009 at 10:38 am
______
You take that back. Dems don’t work like that; Fred said so. ;)
March 12th, 2009 at 11:13 amThis is true bipartisanship that everyone is always cheering for. It’s a genuine bipartisan effort for those in Congress that are concerned about debt.
On a personal level, if you spend more than you make, it’s bad for you in the long run.
Why wouldn’t it be bad for us as a country, in the long run?
Republicans have proven they can spend too much. Democrats are in jeopardy of looking even more irresponsible.
These moderates are trying to prevent that from happening.
There is economic pain now, that Demcrats can blame on Republicans. If we keep spending money we don’t have, that blame will eventually start to shift.
The economy will eventually recover. It will recover quicker if we stop spending money we don’t have.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:13 amI knew I would eventually find something I agree with Matt on.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:14 amOrdinarily yes, both are VERY good things. However it appears that these DINOs are using it as code to oppose the Keynesian approach to solving this crisis.
During the previous administration it was as though the Rs were simply lined up to loot the treasury for their political buddies. Lower taxes on the wealthy (temporarily *wink*), sweetheart deals to contractors and more pork than a sausage, bacon, ham and cheese sandwhich (which are delicious btw).
There is an agenda right now and mission number #1 is to help the economy reach an equilibrium point that is sustainable. It’s fair to debate the best way to go about it, but it’s just as fair to point out that many economists agree that if we only half step our response out of compromise, we may find ourselves in a worse situation than if we do nothing.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:15 amralph the wonder llama Says:
With the economy grinding to a halt, and government the only reliable source of spending out there, reducing the deficit needs to be put on the back burner. Once the economy regains it footing, deficit reduction should be pursued vigorously. But it’s the wrong time to focus on it now.
Well, have no fear, Ralph, based on the Stimulus, TARP, the Omnibus Bill just passed, reducing the deficit is so far on the back burner you need a telescope to even see the burner. We can only tell deficit reduction exists by measuring the wobble on the flames of that burner, kinda like finding Earth-like planets. I don’t know if anyone knows how much we will be adding to the debt for as far as the eye can see, but it will be north of $500 billion a year for all of Obama’s first term, I predict. Having a group of Dems who put on the brakes will NOT stop the deficit spending, but perhaps it will slow it down.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:17 amThat’s it, b-cup; you keep pretending that we’re in relatively normal economic times.
I’m sure that will work out fine.
Thanks for your concern.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:17 amSo, Keltoi, do you think we should be pursuing deficit reduction in the current economic climate?
March 12th, 2009 at 11:18 amYes in essense this is true, but what you aren’t considering is that if everyone does this in a weak economy it makes it CONSIDERABLY weaker. We need someone to stimulate the economy, get peopole back to work and return a modicum of confidence in the economy.
Every rational person is cutting back expenses right now, the payor of last resort is the government. If we decide to cut spending NOW of all times, it’ll likely send the economy into a death spiral.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:22 amHoover and the republicans tried to reduce the deficit and balance the budget after the stock market crash. We all know how that turned out.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:22 amanytime. you know that’s my thing.
So, on a personal level, how would spending money, just to spend money, get you back to economic equilibrium?
What is so magical about spending money you don’t have, that is great for the economy. Even if it had some short-term positive effect, aren’t you just kicking the can farther down the road?
March 12th, 2009 at 11:23 amWhat I fear, Keltoi, is that prominent economists like Stiglitz and Krugman are correct, and the stimulus is too small to be effective, but that deficit hawks like these Blue Dog Dems will push misplaced priorities and prevent a full recovery from happening as quickly as possible.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:23 amYeah, I disagree with pretty much your entire point, but that is some pretty awesome imagery. Well written sir!
=D
March 12th, 2009 at 11:24 amHaving a group of Dems who put on the brakes will NOT stop the deficit spending, but perhaps it will slow it down.
Joseph Stiglitz said today that the stimulus so far is too small – see Thinkfast. So to “slow it down” seems like the opposite of the right thing to be doing.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:24 am>only sounds like tripling down on a bad idea.
riiight..because the government spending money by paying a blackwater mercenary 100 times as much as they would pay a soldier to do the same job is exactly the same thing as the government spending money to pay 100 americans to do jobs and he productive here in the usa, right?
should we try and distinguish between good spending and wasteful spending? or are you going to try and keep ignoring the enormously wasteful and pointless iraq war as a perfect example of what government spends its money on when we let the idiots who you support run the show?..
March 12th, 2009 at 11:25 amb-cup, I’m not going to try to explain the principles of increased government spending as economic stimulus to you, since you seem intent on treating macroeconomics as if it were household finance, and because your sly tricks of disingenuous debate, which have been enumerated before, render such an effort pointless.
But thanks for your concern.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:27 amfools.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:28 amPresident Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.
“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.
The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=4D759946CCD8F5E6D5CE7FB577D056EB?diaryId=12156
March 12th, 2009 at 11:29 amIt may be inaccurate to describe Hoover as failing to try to address the economic problems after 1929:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5995.html
March 12th, 2009 at 11:29 amThis is also from the link:
I think the idea of spending money to solve economic problems needs to be re-investigated.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:32 amPolitico previously explained the possible implications of such a group, writing, “If the moderate Democrats in the Senate are willing to work with moderate Republicans…they will negate the White House’s ability to portray opposition…as partisan obstructionism.”
I don’t like this. This could be a serious problem. At this rate we may end up having a civil war among the Democrats like Republicans do. Obama has the GOP right where he wants them but by forming this group the Democrats could ruin all that and end up shooting themselves in the foot just as the GOP has.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:33 amhow would spending money, just to spend money, get you back to economic equilibrium
1) WTF is “economic equilibrium”?
2) The government, when it spends money, will be employing people that will otherwise be out of work. So the idea is not “just to spend money”, it is to pick up some of the slack in the economy.
As I see it, it sure as heck isn’t kicking the can down the road. It is kicking your copy of Atlas Shrugged down a newly built road. And then donating it to the workmen building the road for use in the portaloo.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:33 am“Moderates” are extremists in their own right.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:36 amThe Democratic Party is now so broad that it’s functioning like two parties.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/
March 12th, 2009 at 11:38 amMarch 12th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Chocolate Jesus. I agree with you characterization of wasteful spending under Bush. That was a mistake.
Now, it’s the Democrats turn. They just signed a nearly trillion dollar package that most of them admit to not reading.
And now some moderates are concerned that the budget spending is too much. They are probably right.
If you want to argue that Democrats know how to go into debt the right way. More power to you.
But, it is still massive debt. The Republicans screwed up by spending too much money and taking on too much debt. Many Democrats have decided to double down.
The blue dogs are a voice of reason.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:41 amI’d like to know who is pulling their strings. They’re too dumb to think of this on their own. Idiots!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:42 amYou always make sure to choose the most trusted and respectable sources for your links, don’t you, b-cup?
Anyway, it’s good to know that the economic conditions of 1921 are exactly the same as the ones we face today. That’s a load off.
(Of course, the tax-cutting recovery of 1922 was followed by a Great Depression seven years later, but I’m sure that was just a coincidence. Like the Bush tax-cut-fueled “recovery” of 2002 was followed six years later by another economic meltdown… just another coincidence.)
March 12th, 2009 at 11:43 amBackup,
You’ll have to do better than a Thomas Woods cut and paste. For every point on their I can produce a counterpoint from my dog-eared copy of Zinn.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:44 amThey also did this to Bill Clinton in 1993. How’d that work out?
March 12th, 2009 at 11:45 amWow, just what we need at this time in our history. Not only will President Obama have to battle the GOP but also a faction of his party. It’s time to start organizing to get rid of these Blue Dogs. Bayh is up for re-election in 2010. Hopefully the DNC will be looking for someone to run against him in the primary.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:47 am> Now, it’s the Democrats turn.
> They just signed a nearly
> trillion dollar package that
> most of them admit to not reading.
Not reading bills is nothing new. Nobody read the patriot act either, which was arguably much more of a danger to our freedom by essentially trying to eliminate many of the constitutional safeguards to our liberties by trying to perpetuate the idea of a pepetual neverending emergency…
not sure what we can do to make congressmen read bills..
i congratulate you on admitting many of republicans spending priorities are a mistake, but now you have to realize that those mistakes have consequences, and those consequences are that their ideas dont take center stage anymore…and also, that those mistakes mean that for the forseeable future no one is going to take them seriously when they say “government spending is bad”….because of thier own past excesses, no one is going to beleive them..period..what they really mean to say is “government spending we dont like is bad”..
March 12th, 2009 at 11:52 amRalph @ 56
Nice work.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:53 am>I’d like to know who is pulling their strings.
Corporate interests who know the GOP is a sinking ship and are looking for safer harbors…
March 12th, 2009 at 11:54 amDear Dr. Krugman:
I know you said that the stimulus package is too small, that we need more government spending to recover from this economic downturn, but, it turns out you’re wrong.
See, there’s this anonymous poster on this blog I frequent — now, he’s got a bit of a dodgy reputation, but don’t let that throw you. I’m sure he’s being upfront about this. Anyway, he posted a link today from a website that says that cutting taxes is the way to go.
Yeah, I know, George Bush tried that and look where it got us. But that’s where you’re wrong. See, apparently Warren G. Harding cut taxes in 1922, and got us out of a recession then. So it works! This one poster made a very convincing case, especially since it was supported by this one website.
I’m sure if you think about it for a minute, you’ll see he is right.
Thanks for listening.
Signed,
March 12th, 2009 at 11:54 amralph the wonder llama
How bout this one:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html
If the spending programs worked, why did the Depression last until 1941?
March 12th, 2009 at 11:56 amralph. I’m not suggesting cutting taxes. I am suggesting that we should spend less than we take in.
The Harding link is only an attempt to discredit the idea that debt spending is the answer to recovery.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:58 amdeebaser Says:
“Backup,
You’ll have to do better than a Thomas Woods cut and paste. For every point on their I can produce a counterpoint from my dog-eared copy of Zinn.”
Thomas Woods was a member of “The League of the South”, a secessionist group formed in 1994. Sounds like a genus to me!
March 12th, 2009 at 12:01 pmBackup @ 65 I’m not suggesting cutting taxes. I am suggesting that we should spend less than we take in.
That, my learned friend, is Hoover policy to a T.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:03 pmKeltoi Says:
“I suspect this group will be politically popular.”
backup Says:
“These moderates are doing the Democratic party a favor.”
Proud Says:
“This new coalition, that is change I can believe in.”
’nuff said.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:03 pmKrugman is like this guy, Peter Schiff: like the hands of a broken clock, right twice a day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbvL4u-MrVM
Krugman got a nobel prize, but then again, so did Al Gore.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:03 pmIt didn’t last until 1941. The is a right-wing myth, which is not supported by the actual numbers. As you can see from this chart, the bottom of the Great depression occurred in 1933, shortly after FDR became president. There was actually dramatic growth from then until 1937. After the 1937-38 downturn, the economy resumed its rapid growth and had fully recovered by the end of 1939.
http://www.ezimages.net/upload/5MIN/depressingdetails.gif
March 12th, 2009 at 12:05 pmYes, and well done on that score.
/sarc off
March 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pmExcellent point, shoeless. And in fact, the downturn in 1937-38 is widely attributed to Roosevelt’s decision to listen to advisors who were telling him to do exactly as b-cup suggests; rein in spending.
But I guess b-cup is shifting his argument into high gear; it’s time to discredit the Nobel Prize in Economics. His trollish roots are showing.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:10 pmbackup Says:
Krugman is like this guy, Peter Schiff: like the hands of a broken clock, right twice
a day:
____________
Gee, I could have sworn you were touting Schieff the other day, dingbat.
____________
Krugman got a nobel prize, but then again, so did Al Gore.
____________
Like your opinion of either man matters in the least. You are such a pretentious twit. BTW… love the bow tie. It’s so… so… “you”…
March 12th, 2009 at 12:10 pmshoeless. I checked your link. I understand the motivation for capitalists to characterize the recovery as not happening until 1941. I need to research it some more. If your chart is accurate, it only looks like a minor recession in a longer recovery.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:14 pmThis is the scariest thing I have ever heard!!! These are not Democrats!!! They are Republicans…they are in the pocket of big business, they hate unions, and don’t care about the middle class of America; they aren’t fit to hold the door open for Pres. Obama, they are OBSTRUCTIONISTS of the worst kind!!! WE can all kiss any notion of single-payer health care goodbye!! As for Evan Bayh…it becomes more clear why the President decided against him for VP!!
March 12th, 2009 at 12:17 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
So, Keltoi, do you think we should be pursuing deficit reduction in the current economic climate?
Can I pull a Megan McCain and like, claim to totally not know?
From an economic standpoint, the country is like an office worker on the 90th floor of Trade Center Tower 1 on 911. Flames are engulfing the room you are in and the window is your only option. Blame Bush for it if you want, it doesn’t matter anymore.
Obama’s choice is deficit spending. The far left of the Dems is with him. The Rs are against him. And there are apparently 15-20 Democratic Senators who aren’t sure. I relate to them, a bunch.
I always think governing from the center is best, both from a policy standpoint and a political standpoint. No one, not Megan McCain nor even the Great Paul Krugman know what will happen if we spend 2-3 trillion of pure deficit money on stimulus. He can tell you it is best, but it is a hell of a risk, and if he turns out wrong, I think he and his family will still wind up doing pretty well regardless.
Hipporcates said, first, do no harm. Doing nothing? Not an option. Going hog wild on stimulus spending? Assuming that since it is Dems in charge there won’t be any corruption, pork or sweetheart deals for political cronies? Not a realistic option, IMO. A middle way between those two extremes seems reasonable, or at least it seems reasonable to take a good, long, hard look at it. It took FDR years to enact the New Deal. Lets take some time to analyze the deficit spending we have already done; we can always go deeper in debt later.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:21 pmArchie B obviously has a problem with detecting sarcasm.
Angry, stupid people often exhibit this limitation.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:21 pmArchie B Says:
Isn’t this the same asshat you far left whackos have had up on a pedestal for months?
___________
Any way you care to parse it, Arch… Krugman is light years away from you in terms of intelligence. Really, try to make a valid point, Just Once.
___________
Have you guys been watching Fox News since you threw Cramer under the bus and backed over him?
___________
“Since YOU threw Cramer under the bus”??? This is silly beyond words. I’m not even sure what it’s supposed to mean. As far as Cramer’s bona fides go… how’s yer Bear Sterns stock doing?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:24 pmLook, Keltoi, I understand your position and have some respect for it I just think, based on my reading and my imperfect understanding of economics, that your caution is dangerous. I trust those economists (and there are a lot of them) that say that this stimulus is too small and being implemented too slowly.
Yes, my political leanings make this a reasonable position for me to adopt. Yet if these economists are correct, and the stimulus is too small and happening too slowly, that is the fault of the cautious middle. It is the result of compromises necessary to enlist the support of tentative legislators who see danger in bold action. Maybe this is the real legacy of Bush’s impetuous rush to war in Iraq; it discredited bold action just when it is most needed.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pmI agree. It’s not just right wingers that are concerned, these are Democrats. There is an effort to chalk it up to mindless obstructionism, but that’s only because the administration and it’s supporters don’t want to deal with the opposition.
It is not obstructionism. It’s an effort by some that think there is jeopardy in overspending.
It’s a legitimate concern. Concern that could be overcome by the administration making a solid case for the spending. If the case is reasonable, the objections will go away. Until that happens, it probably makes sense to slow down.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pmHmmm…
Krugman- Princton professor, Noble prize winner
Archie- recidivist moron, probably high school dropout
March 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pmCome on, ralph.
Don’t you see the parallels with the rush to war in Iraq. We didn’t have any time. We all had to be on board. To delay was to invite tragedy. And opposition was unpatriotic.
This is a tool used by those in power that don’t want their ideas questioned. If we would have asked more questions in the run up to war, maybe we would have avoided the mistakes.
If we allow the questions today, maybe we could avoid making additionally costly mistakes in the future.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:36 pmAfter reading this thread, the one thing that still burns me up is the ‘careful analysis’ of the Democratic party by ‘moderates.’ It’s known and said on here thousands of times, there was no fiscal responsibility when the Republican Party was in power the last 8 years. We are now in a recession where our economy is going off a cliff, to paraphrase Buffet, and immediate action is continued to be needed.
Where was this ‘careful analysis’ for the last eight years? I’d like to know why these so-called moderates feel it important to slow down the process of stimulus for the sake of values (fiscal responsibility, deficit reduction) WE ALL AGREE ON in regular financial times. These are not regular financial times.
The reason the President’s ratings are so high is because it is apparent he putting every ounce of energy into solving this unique and urgent problem. He should never get a carte blanche, but to trot out these conservative memes at this time really just looks like obstructionism and political self-aggrandizing.
Backup and others in the ‘moderate’ concern camp are misguided to say the least, played like a rube from politicians with the privelege to not have this difficult tasks on their shoulders.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:37 pmAnyone notice that it’s generally someone who has no argument left (read: troll) who has to resort to disparaging the Nobel Prize, as if scoffing at the very idea of such a prize carried some intellectual weight?
I’m sure b-cup is proud of the fact that Archie has employed the exact same rhetorical device that b-cup resorted to earlier in this thread.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:37 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
Look, Keltoi, I understand your position and have some respect for it I just think, based on my reading and my imperfect understanding of economics, that your caution is dangerous. I trust those economists (and there are a lot of them) that say that this stimulus is too small and being implemented too slowly.
It is possible they are right. The situation is dire, with no clear way out.
Yes, my political leanings make this a reasonable position for me to adopt. Yet if these economists are correct, and the stimulus is too small and happening too slowly, that is the fault of the cautious middle.
But IF they are wrong, then their policies are going to do catastrophic harm to the long term future of our economy.
It is the result of compromises necessary to enlist the support of tentative legislators who see danger in bold action. Maybe this is the real legacy of Bush’s impetuous rush to war in Iraq; it discredited bold action just when it is most needed.
Wow…a Tip of my Hat to you, sir. I have been on this site for 4 years now and thought I had heard every conceivable flavor of Bush criticism imaginable. The idea that he has inspired moderation in our politics and that is a bad thing though is completely novel. Well played.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:38 pmRespectfully, Backup:
how do you draw parallels from the money wasted (and even lost) to contractors and a botched war to money that goes directly to domestic organizations that will create jobs, community, and decrease our reliance on foreign resources? how are you able to make the mental leap that the billions that are just gone from Iraq will do the same with these stimulus expenditures- months into their enactment?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pmCome on yourself, troll.
The primary difference between the rush to war and the urgency touted to day is that the urgency in the rush to war was generated by the administration and PNAC with a stated agenda.
Today, urgency is pushed by independent economists who have presumably no stake in the outcome, other than their professional reputations and a healthy economy.
Your argument could be extended to read that urgency is NEVER warranted, because one could always compare it to Bush’s Rush to war.
Why don’t you and Archie go and consult on strategy?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:41 pmStock holdings influence health care reform?
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/13/mccaughey-biotech/
Watch out for the Bayh family then:
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/03/bayh-household-finance-update.html
March 12th, 2009 at 12:46 pmThanks for your kind words, although I fear I cannot accept them.
You see, I wasn’t portraying “moderation in our politics” as a bad thing, by any stretch of the imagination.
I was suggesting that, in cases where bold action is required (and certainly you must agree that there are such times in the life of a nation?) the misuse of bold action when it is not warranted may have the effect of making our leaders more reluctant to take it when the situation DOES warrant it.
But your interpretation was quite creative and even flattering. So I thank you.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:46 pmRealness. I’ve got to go to work, but let me say this:
Republicans spent too much money. The wasteful spending that you talk about, I agree with it.
If you want to talk about the past spending, I’ll I can do is agree.
The question becomes what do we do in the future? Republicans have screwed it up, and the electorate has fired them and replaced them with Democrats.
Trying to quell opposition by making it unpatriotic, I believe is a mistake. I think you would get better decisions if our leadership was forced to answer the objections.
Republicans don’t get a pass. The jacked it up. They’re gone because of it. I don’t think Democrats would want to repeat that.
The spending plans may be necessary. But, let those with the questions, (ie blue dogs) have them answered.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Anyone notice that it’s generally someone who has no argument left (read: troll) who has to resort to disparaging the Nobel Prize, as if scoffing at the very idea of such a prize carried some intellectual weight?
____________
I’d say this is some sort of variation on the old “If you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger” ply, ralph, proof that archie has no real point to make.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pmbackup Says:
Trying to quell opposition by making it unpatriotic, I believe is a mistake.
__________
Funny that… b-cup using the word “unpatriotic” here.
No one else on this thread has claimed that, or used that word, and it’s not in the article anywhere either, unless I missed it.
Planting another false narrative?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pmThese are the people who think science is a fraud and who slept through civics class. Also, they will never get over the Noble Prize being denied to a B movie actor who got upstaged by a chimp and bragged that he dissolved the Soviet Union.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:58 pmWhat hilarious, TRoS, is that ol’ Archie is completely oblivious and just charges on headlong with the same tactic, thinking he’s doing something other than making himself look foolish.
I do love the trolls. They’re so entertaining, aren’t they?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:58 pmGood catch, TRoS. That b-cup is a slippery one, but you’re on him like white on rice.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:59 pmArchie B Says:
You must be a proud owner of the “Book of Olbyloon Diversions.” That’s rule no. 1.
__________
Saaaay… aren’t you the twit who tried blaming Obama for releasing that Taliban leader from Gitmo when he was actually released by BotchCo?
Want me to go find that exchange, do a little cut-n-paste?
What’s an Olbyloon? Please define this clearly, so we have some chance to understand what you’re muttering about.
And if he even looks like he’s thinking of opening that filthy trenchcoat, tas him, boys… immediately.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:00 pmin response to backup,
what I would argue is that there is a consistent push to frame those who are for urgent spending now in a negative light- as unpatriotic Democrats who are just concerned with their own political careers, getting earmarks, appeasing special interests, and that this is a conservative meme that has worked effectively. This ’spending for spending’s sake’ is ridiculous, but one I hear all the time coming from the right.
with so much at stake now, with historical proof, economists’ support, we are needing to spend money, and for conservatives and these so-called moderates to attack that forced decision is nothing more than opportunism.
Questions should always be asked, but I think it’s disingenuous to say that there will only be questions, but more a great deal of obstructionism- maybe from people with good intentions, but a simplistic view of the present situation.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:00 pm????
When has TRoS ever been prone to using caps lock?
TRoS, did you have a spell recently and I missed it?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:00 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
I do love the trolls. They’re so entertaining, aren’t they?
__________
What’s really impressive here is archie’s insistence on continuing to play w/out donning the proper protective head gear… kinda like an old-time hockey goalie before face mask became de rigeur for the position.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pmBut it was OK for Bush to release terrorists?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pmYou aren’t going to answer that one, are you Archie?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:06 pmArchie B Says:
Nice lie. I was criticizing the messiah for wanting to close gitmo which would lead to the release of more terrorists.
____________
From the Steele/Assault Weapons Ban thread…
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/10/steele-assault-weapons/#comments
Archie B Says:
WASHINGTON – The Taliban’s new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration’s efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.
Thanks a bunch, obama! Take our guns and set the terrorists free. Perfect!
March 11th, 2009 at 1:41 am
______________
Uh… Archie??? BotchCo set that one free… not Obama…
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20090311/ ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ guantanamo_detainee_taliban
WASHINGTON – The Taliban’s new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration’s efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.
Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, formerly Guantanamo prisoner No. 008, was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007.
______________
“… RELEASED… in DECEMBER 2007…”
Geez, Archie… seeing how much you can hurt yourself w/ “simple facts”… I’d hate to see what you’d do to yourself w/ a real weapon…
March 11th, 2009 at 1:55 am
Uh… what was that, Archie? “Nice lie”?
You’re not very good at this, are you?
Stick to silly, meaningless hyperbole, arch. I know… I know… you come across as shrill, hysterical drama queen after a while, but when there are simply NO FACTS in your comments, it’s much harder to actually embarrass you w/ your own words.
Every time ya try arguing on the facts, ya git yer cheney handed to you on a platter, like right now.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pmSo you’re saying Archie is the Gump Worsley of TP???
March 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pmHey TRoS — should we say something, or just sit here and watch for when the light bulb finally goes off?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:12 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
So you’re saying Archie is the Gump Worsley of TP???
___________
If Gump was one of those toothless characters whose face had become a mass of scar tissue and stitching after 20 years of stopping pucks w/ it… yes… I am.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pmRealness. you have a point. It sounds like another legitimate way to look at it.
It makes sense to me if you were talking about Republicans. But, I find it hard to believe that Democrats (blue dogs) have that much to gain.
I think that theirs is legitimate opposition. It is more plausible that Republicans are doing it for political reasons. I don’t see how blue dogs win by opposing a very popular President in difficult economic times.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Archie B Says:
The Republic of Stupidity Says:
Hey, you fixed your cap lock key! Or, did you break it?
????
When has TRoS ever been prone to using caps lock?
TRoS, did you have a spell recently and I missed it?
_____________
Hey TRoS — should we say something, or just sit here and watch for when the light bulb finally goes off?
______________
Whoa… now I’m gittin’ confused… who am I?
Mebbe Li’l archie is right… mebbe I am a double secret agent or sumpin…
March 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pmArchie can’t tell the difference between RHF and TRoS.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pmArchie B Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
The Republic of Stupidity Says:
Same loon.
____________
Tee hee… yer right, ralphie. This is funny.
Let’s just wait for the little light to go on… like it ever will.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pmArchie has this charming habit of pwning himself on these threads. He’s really gaining quite a following for it.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pmArchie B Says:
Both hate.
__________
Really, archie? Is this another case of “since I can’t beat the message, I’ll attack the messenger”? All I did was point how how confused you got yourself… you did try to claim Obama was responsible for releasing that Taliban commander.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say I’m getting on yer nerves, li’l feller..
March 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pmA
One minute they’re the same and then they’re “both”. You are dead from the neck up Archie B.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:27 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Archie has this charming habit of pwning himself on these threads. He’s really gaining quite a following for it.
__________
TP’s very own Ernest P. Worrell… “Hey… Vern… watch this…”
March 12th, 2009 at 1:27 pmShayne Says:
One minute they’re the same and then they’re “both”. You are dead from the neck up Archie B.
__________
Teehee… is somebody keeping track of these?
They’re hilarious… “A TP Treasuery of Archieisms”
He’s as good as Yogi Berra… “Trolling is 90% mental, and the other half is all physical”.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pmSome Democrats saw all that money the Republicans were getting from the corporations and began to lust after it. They got together and schemed up the “Blue Dogs” and called themselves “moderates”. Now, being “moderates” they can take those corporate bribes just like the Republicans do and still remain “Democrats”. In reality they’re just a bunch of phony MFKrs who are now filthy rich.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:30 pmug, my response got lost somehow-
basically in summary-
the last eight years (arguably longer) we’ve heard “we have a mandate! you guys lost! We won!” and that was the fact.
now with a majority of Congress Democrat (and NOT Blue Dog) and President Obama WINNING the election, we get cries for caution and inclusiveness within months. They were all democratically elected. The Blue Dogs can do what they want (for arguable motivations), but the majority has spoken, and we’ll have to see what they do. Their effectiveness will be diluted by these political plays at this time, and the urgency cannot be understated.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pmArchie, is ignorance truly blissful, or is it frightening?
‘Cause you seem pretty unnerved most of the time. I’m guessing it’s not as blissful as people always say.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pmArchie B Says:
You sound very experienced.
___________
Ewwww… that hurts… arrrgh… ouchie ouch ouch… ya got me, slim… it’s gittin’ kinda… fuzzy… ***cough… cough***… the… room… is gittin’ dark…
Ooops… somebody turned out the lights… imagine that… all better, just like that. Heh… seriously… that’s gonna leave a mark.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pmWow! In eight years Bush only caved to the Democrats once, and this was the issue on which he chose to cave! Amazing!
March 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pmalso-
The Blue Dogs are shoring up their power to be ‘moderate’ which is more right of center in international standards. They have a purple constituency. I will say that they probably vote better on social policy than any GOP, and for that I’m glad. It can be seen as a matter of incrementalism, but I also think there are valid points of possible money and power plays adding to this, and that’s what makes them more GOPish.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pmRealness Says:
ug, my response got lost somehow-
___________
Dear Realness,
Ya gotta look out for b-cup… he’s a slippery one. You can nail him dead to the wall w/ his own words, and he’ll just keep pretending it never happened.
The freakin’ bow tie/smoking jacket outfit he’s so fond of is a dead give away… that creepy George Will-cum-hugh Hefner persona is sumpin’ else.
I suggest you offer him some watermelon sometime and stand back…
Your friend, “The Lord of the Flies”
March 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pmSo, first it was Obama who released the terrorists, and now it was the Democrats who forced Bush to release the terrorists. I guess if we continue this long enough will become Bill Clinton’s fault.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:40 pmshoeless Says:
I guess if we continue this long enough will become Bill Clinton’s fault.
_______________
You’re late… we’ve already worked back thru Cater, Johnson, and Kennedy…
It’s now “All Truman’s Fault™”…
March 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pmI’m sure Thomas Jefferson released some terrorists after the little scrape with the pirates in Tripoli, and he was a Democrat. I say we blame it on Jefferson.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pmyeah, at least i get some ideas bounced off someone, which other people can read and make their own decisions. I just don’t want my IQ sucked by engaging with Archie or Watchdog, even though I still do it :) That d-bag Swordsbane really gets me going, too…
March 12th, 2009 at 1:45 pm>No, it was stupid of Bush to cave
> to the democrats.
Ah yes, admitting that the american government cant detain people indefinitely without charges or a trial is “caving to the democrats”..har..im sure you think that any american president should be able to hold any american citizen indefinitely without trial either, huh?
and dont get started about this “war on terror” carp…there has been no declaration of war by the united states congress…so this idea that “we’re at war” is ridiculous..the AUMF wasnt a declaration of war, and even if it was an attempt to be one, it was unconstitionally vauge and overbroad..
March 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pmRealness Says:
yeah, at least i get some ideas bounced off someone, which other people can read and make their own decisions.
__________
Yer comments are thoughtful and articulate. Just a little observation on my part. I’ve gone head to head w/ b-cup many a time, and he’s a nasty one. He’s a cut above yer average bone-headed troll… I constantly detect a… more serious… intent behind his words. He’s more insidious.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:49 pmshoeless Says:
I’m sure Thomas Jefferson released some terrorists after the little scrape with the pirates in Tripoli, and he was a Democrat. I say we blame it on Jefferson.
____________
I’m down for that. G-damned f-in’ two dollar bill…
March 12th, 2009 at 1:51 pmI’m fascinated by this assertion. Tell us Archie, what did the Democrats do to Bush to make him cave and release the terrorists? Did they threaten him with a pretzel? Did they knock him off his Segway? Did they make fun of his tap dancing? Did they kidnap Barney?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pmTRoS and Ralph, you are truly the Karl Malone-John Stockton of Troll bating…but you are currently playing a JV team….
March 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pm> They ARE ruthless murders aka terrorists
> caught on the battle field with guns
> are bombs engaged in war activity.
Uhm…genius..according to whose word? The same people who told us they knew where saddams WMD’s were?
March 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pmSadly, Keltoi, I think you’re right. JV team is the best Troll Central can do these days, it seems.
b-cup does his best to provide some competition, but he’s only one troll.
What he needs is for you to stop being so reasonable and start trolling, dammit!
March 12th, 2009 at 2:33 pmYes. According to the same people who released the ruthless murders aka terrorists!
March 12th, 2009 at 2:54 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
Sadly, Keltoi, I think you’re right. JV team is the best Troll Central can do these days, it seems.
b-cup does his best to provide some competition, but he’s only one troll.
What he needs is for you to stop being so reasonable and start trolling, dammit!
And get Posterized? Not likely.
Honestly, I read your slams on the erstwhile Capn Mantastic…at times I think you are a bit harsh, assume the worst motives….I dunno, as a rule I don’t defend or even comment on other Trolls, but saying TRoS and rhf are the same person??? Alert Rod Serling, someone.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:04 pmThe Democrats wouldn’t allow Bush to prosecute the murderous terrorists, so he just released them
March 12th, 2009 at 3:28 pmKeltoi, I can see where you’d think my slams are a bit harsh, but I’ve gone through several threads with b-cup, and it took me a long time to get wise to his games, which are well disguised. For a long time I thought of him much like I think of you; a well-meaning, intelligent conservative willing to debate. It took a lot of convincing to get me to see otherwise, but now I see his little tricks in every thread.
Maybe I do suspect motives that sometimes aren’t there, maybe he just falls back on bad habits when he feels like he’s losing the debate, but I’ve learned that with b-cup it’s best to assume that he’s playing a game.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pmI don’t like to brag, but I saw through backedup almost immediately. The same with Tracist. With both of them, some people tried to tell me they were OK at first, but I can smell a wingnut from a mile away.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:53 pmSpeaking of wingnuts, Archie isn’t going to tell us how the Democrats forced Bush to release the terrorists, but maybe he will tell us which Democrats made Bush cave.
Got any names Archie?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:57 pmWE HAVE GOT TO GET RID OF THESE “BLUE DOG” DEMS. THEY WILL, WITH THE FEW REPUBLICANS LEFT IN CONGRESS, DESTROY PRESIDENT OBAMA’S AGENDA.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:58 pmshoeless, I give you credit for seeing through b-cup immediately.
As for Tracist… that I don’t find as impressive. He seems pretty transparently trollish to me. Although that might be hindsight talking.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pmChimpanzees could do better than this gaggle of naysayers who are strangling our country. Rather, I should say the gaggle is taking down the country just as surely as a gaggle brought down the airplane.
I think I heard geese are not known for being intelligent. With that I rest my case.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:33 pmThanks ralph, but I lied. I do like to brag.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:43 pmThis has been a problem in Congress for a long time. People used to say that Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years, but probably one third of them were southern blue dogs who were very conservative. So, progressives have never been in control of Congress. We still have a ways to go before that day comes.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:46 pmSince ‘winning’ a seat in Congress is more of an auction than an election, why should anyone be surprised when they vote for the money that funds their campaigns and buys their seat? It is becoming increasingly obvious that about 90% of the elected members of Congress are more concerned with buying their nice cushy job than anything the people who actually cast the vote to put them there.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:27 pmThese conservative Democrats will triangulate with Senate Republicans and against this (policywise) center left nation http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/halpin-teixeria-progressive-study/). We have a lot of work to do in 2010.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:07 pmhttp://www.euronext.com/editorial/wide/editorial-43618-EN.html
The following two revenue share schemes are in place for Liffe CDS contracts:
CDS Reporting Scheme rewards those registered Members who submit CDS transactions to Bclear
CDS Clearing Scheme rewards those registered Clearing Members who clear CDS contracts
Both schemes allocate a total of 20% of net revenues derived from Liffe CDS contracts.
Please refer to London Notice No.3098 for further information.
Approved registered members on these schemes:
Banca IMI SPA
March 12th, 2009 at 10:06 pmBanco Santander S.A.
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG
BGC Brokers LP
Calyon SA
Citigroup Markets Ltd
Credit Suisse Securities Europe Ltd Deutsche Bank AG
Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank
Dresdner Bank AG
GFI Securities Limited
Goldman Sachs International
HSBC Bank PLC
ICAP Securities Ltd
J P Morgan Securities Limited
Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg
Liquid Capital Securities
Merrill Lynch International
MF Global UK Limited
Natixis
Newedge Group SA
Nomura International PLC
Rabobank International
Royal Bank of Canada Europe Limited
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (publ)
Société Générale
The Royal Bank of Scotland
Tradition Securities And Futures
Tullet Prebon (Securities) Limited
UBS Clearing & Execution Services Limited
UBS Limited
(Do you notice the presence of SOME OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE RECEIVED MEDIA ATTENTION FOR THEIR PART IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC $$$#**&! sorry, was I shouting, again?…uncletumbleweed)and are these CDS contracts the mortgages (and deeds) to American homes? sold to “anonymity guaranteed” buyers?
Is Citi in a good financial position because this trading began on 3/9/09, with the blessing of the NYSE? the dysfunctional SEC and CFTC? while the White House makes wisecracks about Rush whatever-his-name-is to distract America? Just like Slick Willie did with his scandal while the FMA of 1999 and the CFMA of 2000 were being passed? When the media gets sidetracked by something really stupid…start reading… something is going on!
The so-called moderate Democrats are really Republicans in Democrat clothes. Their true colors start to show when issues important to the the middle class began to emerge, health care, education, and unions. We had this occur in Texas and the results are disasterous. We have poor education, health care for all(Hightest state of uninsured), wages and benefits are low due to the anti-labor climate(Texas is a right to work “for less” state), and The Citizens Against Law Suit Abuse(insuranced companies) with the Republicans passed very low caps on claims. Great for the insurance industry, screwed the public. Highest home owners insurance rates in the country. All Dems need to help raise enough money to defeat these BLUE DOGS when their terms are up. By using money from all over the nation we can defeat them in each individual election. We have had eight years of deregulation and letting corporate run amok over the people. We can never let it happen again. Look at the conditions of the middle class worker in Texas, we can’t afford to return to the Bush era by letting these guys join with the obstructionist Republicans in the senate.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:35 pmWell, they haven’t done anything yet so I’m going to hold judgment until then. It’s getting close to the 2010 elections so the corporate ass kissing should be ramping up very soon. Then we’ll take a look see at where we are.
It is curious that they would be talking about deficit reduction when revenues have to be falling. They may be trying to change the tax and spend label that Repugs use to describe them. They may have jumped the gun though since most economists say that some deficit spending will be needed.
Well, if they derail Obama and his plans with the popular support he has they may not be around long.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:36 am