Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 09:00 AM
Number of posts: 2,269
Number of posts: 2,269
It does serve a valuable purpose, that of allocating funds between borrowers and lenders, but it's been corrupted to the point that it's a casino for the uber-rich and hedge managers.
We need to Glass-Steagall the stock market to separate the two.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Mon Mar 11, 2013, 11:23 AM (0 replies)
I don't know, but at this rate, we may find out
President Obama stepped up efforts this week to cut Social Security benefits and lower payments for disabled veterans and their survivors. Obama doesn’t say so directly. Instead, the White House talks in lofty terms about a “grand bargain” with Republicans in Congress. They use inside-the-Beltway jargon to talk about something they call a chained CPI. In plain English, it would change how inflation is measured in a way purposely calculated to cut annual cost-of-living adjustments for retirees and veterans. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday called it “a bad bargain” and a “horrendous” idea. In television interviews, he explained how the president’s proposal would really work and how it would hurt retirees, widows, orphans, disabled veterans and their survivors.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Mar 8, 2013, 06:03 PM (2 replies)
Did the Republicans get p'wnd in a game of 3-dimensional chess with President Obama? Or were the Republicans able to double speak their way to yet another victory?
A really great discussion from earlier today.
Transcripts from UP With Chris Hayes
CH: Republicans seem to be failing politically but seem to be succeeding in achieving their actual ideological goals and setting the terms of the debate in washington.
The lone few voices of sanity have been the members of the progressive congressional caucus, who call for cancelling the sequester focusing on job creation, instead. They, however, remain marginalized thanks to the GOP's success in getting everyone to focus on the deficit. Many Republicans are calling that a victory. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS): "This will be the first significant tea party victory in that we got what we set out to do in changing Washington."
I think what's fascinating about this is the way the sequester is being spun. At the beginning, Republicans said the sequester is a bad thing and it's obama's fault hence the failed Obamaquester. But by the end of it, they said 'It's actually a good thing. This is what we wanted.' You saw a lot of honesty, I felt, from members of the tea party caucus. There's a whole bunch of quotes this week that said, 'Look, this is what we wanted.' Paul ryan, of course, said this back in 2011.
Do you, Mattie (Duppler, Director of Budget & Regulatory Policy for Grover Norquist) view this as a success for fellow travelers in the austerity camp?
MD: Absolutely. I think you are right in terms of republicans winning this debate.
Jared Bernstein (Chief Economist and Economic Adviser VP Joe Bidden): There's another person who's been talking sanely about this in terms of the jobs deficit, which I believe is the most immediate deficit we face, and that's Ben Bernanke. And so, it is a very bad outcome, one that both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to, that we're stuck in hair-on-fire deficit obsession, which I believe is a medium or long-term constraint, not an immediate one.
David Sirota (liberal commentator, author, and radio host): It's important what you said about democrats. Bill clinton is the guy who touted surpluses. Talking about surpluses and deficits as opposed to jobs and the economy is, essentially, the box our politics are now in. Dick cheney was the guy who said deficits don't matter.
MD: To that point, deficits don't matter. If you are a conservative, you are looking at the size of government, you don't necessarily care about how much the government is not taking in in taxes, you care about how much they are overspending.
CH: Thank you for saying that. Thank you for being honest. It's true. Conservatives don't care about the deficit.
MD: "Deficits" is a rhetorical device, it's not actually the product we are focusing on.
CD: That is 1000% true!
JD: I know they thought that, I didn't think they said that! But don't you use the deficit as a cudgle to reduce the size of government? Isn't that the idea?
MD: But it's not a cudgle; 'deficit' relates to people, it's a narrative that people understand.
CH: I don't think the deficit does relate to people, A, and B, I totally agree with (MD). The only way to make sense of the Republican position is to ignore when they say they care about the deficit, because they don't care about the deficit. The people who are committed to reducing the size of government...
JD: They don't care about reducing the size of government, either! George Bush was not someone who cared about the size of government.
MD: That's correct, but is he the token Republican?
CH: He's not a token, he lead the party for 8 years! You don't get to call him a token!
CH: Here's what I think is so fascinating about the sequester. My pet theory is...I used to be really convinced that the Republican party wanted to go after social security and medicare, but based on their behavior in the last year, I'm increasingly convinced they don't want to make cuts to social security and medicare. They certainly don't want to make cuts to current beneficiaries, and the reason is, that's their base, A. B. Poll Republicans about cuts to medicare and social security...
JD: Tea Party!
CH: Tea Party! People self-identified Tea Party. Wildly unpopular. And if they really wanted cuts to social security and medicare, if that's what they were really focused on, they could have had them by now, because it has been extended to them time, and time, and time again. I want to show the President complaining about the fact that he has tried to give them this and they won't take 'Yes' for an answer.
President Obama: I've put forward a plan that calls for serious spending cuts, serious entitlement reforms, goes right at the problem that is at the heart of a long-term deficit problem. I've offered negotiations around that kind of balanced approach.
CH: And he's gotten nowhere.
CH: ...Republicans came to stop worrying and loving the defense cuts.
MD: Exactly. And you're talking about Republicans winning--as a small government, libertarian-type--this is a great win. This is extraordinarily promising for someone like me, who sees Republicans as being consistent on this message...
JD: Don't get too excited because I don't see a ton of defense cuts coming.
CH: From the perspective of the fact that we still have 8% unemployment: what's so perverse about the way the budget politics have played out is there is a broad consensus that we need a short-term counter cyclical fiscal policy--which is run deficits in the short-term for jobs--but that our deficit problems are genuinely mid-to long-term. What happened is the absolute reverse. Nothing has happened in any of these deals to do anything about the mid-to long-term -- (the affordable care act will do a lot to that) -- it's all been about short-term contraction. So what we've gotten is austerity in the midst of a jobs crisis. It's a perverse out come.
Stephanie Kelton (Modern Money Theory economist at UMKC): Because, by and large, the republicans have convinced everybody that we have this long-term deficit problem, they are able to sell this austerity in the short-term because--'My God, if it's coming, we might as well act now!' And that's how you get people to support the awful economic policies that just make the conditions worse.
DS: If Barack Obama wanted a grand bargain, and I think he does, then perhaps he's a poor negotiator. In other words, if we're in a Washington where a republican doesn't want to look like they're making a deal with barack obama, then if barack obama ultimately wants a grand bargain in this middle, then he would take a position that is far to the progressive left with the bully pulpit so that republicans could politically show they forced him to a middle. And that's not what he has done.
CH: That's interesting.
WTH (me): That IS indeed interesting!
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:27 AM (7 replies)
3 segments, 2 30-second commercial breaks. MUST SEE for all who don't choose to stick their head in the sand and those who do.
@ 8:45 of segment 3 discusses the 2 TARP votes. That, and Obama's decision to bring in Clinton's financial advisers (the Rubinites), mark the moment Obama jumped the shark IMO. Yep, before he was even inaugurated.
4 More Years!!
I can't wait to see how Elizabeth Warren votes on Lew!!! Will she be a good soldier now and fall in line? It will be fascinating to see!
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:45 PM (0 replies)
Jack Lew, the President's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, supported the creation of NAFTA and the deregulation of banks, and has supported similar strategies ever since, without apology or admission of error.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:59 PM (15 replies)
I support all gun bans, and stricter regulations and laws. In addition to banning assault rifles, and high velocity and frangible bullets, large clips, and all drums, I'd like to see registered guns be checked for rate of fire periodically, like all of us have to do when the DMV sends us a notice to have our car's emissions tested. If a gun's rate of fire doesn't pass spec, the gun must be permanently modified or turned in. Guns with smaller clips and lower rates of fire would be a big improvement.
What do y'all think?
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:27 AM (7 replies)
Many, many, many mentally ill are gainfully employed. Here's where it gets tricky. On the one hand, folks are asking for background checks that include MI. On the other hand, this information is going to be stored in a database. Information in databases are never confidential, and when there's a buck to be made, this information can be sold. My concern is that this information will be sold to HR departments, head hunters, and the like.
Hopefully, we won't let a knee-jerk reaction leave others who deserve protection exposed.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:46 AM (2 replies)
As the rules stand now, Obama's SC nominees will get Bork'd. There's no way the Rs will let the SC turn more liberal, more female, and less white.
So, is it worth weakening or killing the filibuster to change the face and heart of the SC?
Hells to the YES it is!!
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:38 PM (15 replies)
...and "co-host" John Nichols isn't setting him straight!
Ed's saying that he disagrees with Harry Reid and that Reid should not change the filibuster rules: leave them as they are. OK, that's his opinion, it's just one that I disagree with. But the problem with his argument is that he thinks it's based on facts, when in fact, he's merely regurgitating conventional wisdom about the history of the filibuster. This shit is so readily available, you just have to be intellectually lazy not to research it.
1. Schultz: The filibuster was specifically designed to protect the voice of the minority.
FALSE: Political scientist Sarah Binder writes that the filibuster was a "happy accident" that wasn't even discovered for years:
"In 1805, Aaron Burr has just killed Alexander Hamilton. He comes back to the Senate and gives his farewell address. Burr basically says that you are a great body. You are conscientious and wise, you do not give in to the whims of passion. But your rules are a mess. And he goes through the rulebook pointing out duplicates and things that are unclear."
2. Schultz: It's worked this way for generations, don't change it now.
FALSE: It's been change several times over the years, but most recently, and most germane to today's debate, it was changed in 2003 when the "phantom filibuster" was introduced. Many believe that this is a rule change that Reid is considering. Ed says, no, leave it as it's been for "generations."
As for his opinion, he believes that Americans have it all figured out and that the Republicans will fall off the face of the earth in the next two election cycles. So "Democratic" of him: Expect the best case scenario and live to regret not striking when you had the chance.
What happened to the tough guy?
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:53 PM (29 replies)