If the prompter truly were on strike, Obama would disappear from public view until its demands were met. Tell it to join the SEIU and then it can get anything it wants from this Administration.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 20.03.2009 @ 12:17
I guess it comes down to the president's rush to have the stimulus bill approved and whether he has been truthful about his ignorance of the bonus component. When you write "but the AIG bonuses matter (as well as the far more serious lapse regarding AIG paying counterparties in full) appears to have been mishandled as a result of a combination of Timothy Geithner’s incompetence and miscommunication between the Treasury and the Oval Office" I think you pretty well sum it up as far as the first part of the equation.
I imagine Sen. Dodd's statement about the bonus language either has put the lie to the president's earlier claims of ignorance or show the senator to be a liar. I don't know which will prove out.
The best advice for Republicans is to let the Democrats continue to melt down. From what I've seen, the GOP reps and senators have acted properly and just should point out this crap should have not been rushed. I imagine the Dems will try to bring the show trial to a close now that the public has started to get an inkling that this wasn't some great big corporate conspiracy but government incompetence--on the part of the majority party.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 19.03.2009 @ 11:12
The bonuses make me angry on two levels. The first is the obvious one. They shouldn't have happened. The second is a political one, in that it exposes how utterly reckless the Obama Administration has been in forking over these bailouts with fews strings attached. I believe this president had his "Iraq/Katrina" combo in the first month of his Administration.
As noted above, the Bush Administration started down this road. Yet it was on its way out. So that gives no one a pass who has expanded this psychotic policy.
The Frank hearing will be a study in cognitive dissonance, true enough, but perhaps enough crap will splatter so that the guilty will be smeared with shit on both sides of the table.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 17.03.2009 @ 10:49
While Herbert is a columnist, this does highlight a problem with contemporary journalism. Columnists and reporters regularly either cover or comment on subjects about which they know little or nothing.
In a previous youthful incarnation, I was a reporter and eventually a manager for a major publisher. At that time, which was not really all that long ago, even the smaller dailies had semblances of bureaus and all had beat reporters. Those have disappeared.
I don't dispute the motive you attributed to Herbert. I agree that if his goal is to promote Jesse Jackson, Jr., that also is fine. Where I find the problem, even though he writes opinion, is when he misrepresents (perhaps unintentionally, which makes it evenw worse in a way) basic facts.
Like it or not, we are a media-driven society. People assume what they read and hear to be an accurate summary of facts. While even desks and beat reporters got things wrong, at least there was a possiblity the editors would catch it. That is the past. We can bitch all we want about how the American people have been dumbed down, but unless they have access to accurate information we can't totally fault them. Yes, they would do independent research in a perfect world but they no longer have the time.
Herbert's readers probably were convinced the Chicago area needs a third airport and this all well and good. I wish your letter would be published, or another like it to illuminate them, but it won't be. That's where the bad motive lies.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 16.03.2009 @ 09:47
I'm not sanguine at all that the American character and/or exceptionalism will not be altered. We have several confluences here: Sixties radicals who have shaped elite discussion of the United States for almost 50 years now; an economic panic and a president who uses fearmongering to try to make America look more like the U.S. the aforementioned opinion leaders would like to see; and people who have been cowed by society into silence and evnetual acceptance.
I literally was shushed by a nephew recently when I badmouthed the latest spending orgy. He told me I wasn't supposed to say bad things about Obama. That's where we are, folks.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 12.03.2009 @ 09:42
Third graders would suffice in lieu of the Obama economic illiterates, Chuck. Even they know to eat their main meal before pie.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 11.03.2009 @ 11:24
First things first. Law school exams are cumbersome suckers that don't give extra credit for doing more than one thing. They want the central hypothetical answered, and depending on how well it is done the grade will run the gamut from "F" to "A." If you throw in extraneous matters, you are looking at a lower grade.
And so it is with Obama. Buffett's pointed remarks were based precisely on the premise above and the one you mentioned. When the economy is collapsing because of the credit crunch, that is where the focus should be; there are no extra points for taking on something else. Yet we have extraneous bullshit dumping out of the White House unrelated to the banking crisis. This is a prescription for absolute disaster. And as someone who has been at the feet of some of the best constitutional law professors, I will be kind and tell you that economics are not, well, much on their radar. I'm afraid that problem is manifest with Obama. He was largely elected on his Iraq War stance. It shows. McCain admitted he didn't understand much about the economy. Obama has shown it.
When you write:
This begs the obvious question; why did the Obama Administration choose to try and pass the stimulus bill before solving the banking crisis...
I think you know the answer is apparent. This is not about solving the problem. It is, in every sense, about an ideology that seeks at a minimum to make the United States economy either a mixed one or more socialist in nature. Geitner has said as much although he couched it as "changed capitalism."
Shortly after Obama started to suggest these approaches, I and several others suggested that they be opposed and you said that was rooting for failure. I'll leave the latter aside. I know you are a thoughtful guy. It wasn't what we "wanted." It was an acknowledgement that such policies have failed everywhere they have been tried and aren't for the purposes cited. You seem to admit as much now.
My biggest fear now is that if public support for Obama plummets and he starts to look like a one-termer (and I strongly suspect this could be the case), he will work feverishly to implement even social engineering. Will his own party stand up to him if that is the case? Based on the evidence so far, there is precious little reason to expect so.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 11.03.2009 @ 09:38
"Apparently the Democrats showed they wanted Bush to fail in Iraq by giving him every single soldier or marine he asked for, every single dollar, every single weapon."
I didn't catch that vibe until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the war was lost. Then again, he is nowhere near as important figure as a radio personalty who states the obvious about long-discredited economic policies.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 9.03.2009 @ 14:30
Your intellectual honesty here is to be commended. I also want him to fail. But that's moot....
This isn't so much what we want as what will happen. The bottom line is that these type policies have failed everywhere they have been tried. Every day the market casts its verdict on the Obama Administration. It isn't pretty but it is honest because it is completely neutral.
I have concluded that Mr. Obama, who was elected largely due to his opposition to the Iraq War, doesn't have much of a grasp of economics. I wish that weren't the case but it certainly is what we face.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 9.03.2009 @ 10:59
Chuck: This may manifest in adults but most younger people embrace politics for no reason other than peer pressure. That is why many on the Right see liberals (wrongly, in the case of adults) as purely infantile emos. I'm sure the Left bases much of its incorrect view of the Right on what it sees in younger conservatives as well.
I don't disagree with you basic premise, but believe it does not explain how younger people come to their views, which is in fact infantile.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 27.02.2009 @ 09:59