SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: i-node4/29/2012 1:34:04 AM
   of 807554
 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: puborectalis who wrote (653139)4/29/2012 1:53:25 AM
From: Tenchusatsu
5 Recommendations   of 807554
 
Pubo, > As much as $60 billion in U.S. funds has been lost to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade through lax oversight of contractors

Since the wars cost $1.3 trillion over the past decade, that means "as much as" 4.6% was lost to waste and fraud.

Or if you want to use the stupid libtard figure of $3 trillion, that means only 2% was lost to waste and fraud.

Tell me again why that's newsworthy?

Tenchusatsu

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Wayners who wrote (653126)4/29/2012 1:55:09 AM
From: Tenchusatsu
5 Recommendations   of 807554
 
Wayners, > Name one word mispelled.

Notice how the "doctor" never answers your questions when he knows he's beaten.

Tenchustsu

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: i-node who wrote (653141)4/29/2012 2:10:49 AM
From: Big Black Swan
   of 807554
 
The Bush administration bailed out a huge swath of financial firms under TARP. By your logic, why weren't they allowed to go bankrupt instead? Let the market work in the normal way and avoid moral hazard.

I agree the previous admin was better. But personally I hardly find them "beyond reproach". They're the ones that shoveled the first trillion into the beast. The following one just continued shoveling.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: i-node who wrote (653137)4/29/2012 2:48:48 AM
From: Jim McMannis
   of 807554
 
RE:"taxpayers or investors."

Neither did well unless you're talking about stock owned by the union.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Big Black Swan who wrote (653146)4/29/2012 2:50:14 AM
From: i-node
2 Recommendations   of 807554
 
>> The Bush administration bailed out a huge swath of financial firms under TARP. By your logic, why weren't they allowed to go bankrupt instead? Let the market work in the normal way and avoid moral hazard.

I opposed TARP at the time, but in retrospect, it was essential and was not in any way corrupt. TARP, more than any other government action, was responsible for keeping the economy afloat and Barack Obama should thank his lucky stars the Bush Administration had the good sense to do it. It was, by any measure, the right thing to have done, no matter how much some of us thought otherwise at the time.

Without TARP you would have had an absolute financial collapse that would have made the financial crisis look like a blip. And TARP, ultimately, will cost the taxpayers relatively little money, certainly compared with the absolute waste of the Obama stimulus bill (for which we got nothing of value at all).

As a general rule, I don't believe the government ought to be meddling in the financial affairs of business. But even Milton Friedman would, IMO, have supported TARP (just as he supported the actions of FDR in the 30s). There are times when government can intervene and do something that no one else can.

This was not the case with GM. Had GM been allowed to "fail" (which simply means it would have gone through a Chapter 11 process without the corrupt interference of the administration) it would have come out the other side stronger. And the unions, which caused GM's problems in the first place, would have been neutered or at least beaten down. The Obama process empowered them.

>> They're the ones that shoveled the first trillion into the beast.

That is not an accurate characterization of what happened. TARP was principally loans that have been repaid in substantial part and are likely to very close to fully repaid. This is in no way similar to the "shoveling" that has happened since, which has consisted of money being flushed down the drain, mostly in the form of disguised political payoffs. Furthermore, TARP did not create a systemic exposure for the taxpayer the way subsequent legislation did.

Don't get me wrong: there can be legitimate debate about whether TARP was the right thing to have done; however, it was not a corrupt, politically driven process as we've seen in the last three years -- TARP was handled in a rational, analytical manner for the most part IMO. I think years from now people will recognize that it didn't feed the monster the way the subsequent legislation did; in effect, it amounted to loans to get through the cash flow crisis that simply couldn't have happened through private money.

In the crisis that happened during the Clinton years (the collapse of the hedge fund -- can't remember the name of it) large banks were called on to come up with something like 6 billion over the course of a weekend and they managed to do it. There is simply no way they could have come up with the kind of money necessary to hold it together.

As I said, I opposed it at the time, but in retrospect it was maybe one of the most impressive actions I've seen our government carry out. It didn't solve the problem, of course -- the real problems lie ahead, but at least it gave the country an opportunity to get its shit together. Unfortunately, the current nonexistent leadership has failed miserably to respond, and we're in a much more serious crisis now than we were three years ago.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (4)


To: Jim McMannis who wrote (653147)4/29/2012 2:51:03 AM
From: i-node
   of 807554
 
>> Neither did well unless you're talking about stock owned by the union.



I agree. But investors would have been better off without the government interference.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (4)


To: i-node who wrote (653149)4/29/2012 2:58:56 AM
From: Jim McMannis
   of 807554
 
BK is BK but at least they could have hit the reset button.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: i-node who wrote (653141)4/29/2012 5:26:22 AM
From: puborectalis
   of 807554
 
blind rage

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: i-node who wrote (653148)4/29/2012 5:30:30 AM
From: puborectalis
   of 807554
 
Mitt Romney and flip-flop fatigue
By Greg Sargent wash post

A couple months ago, during the GOP primary, I speculated that Mitt Romney was benefitting from a phenomenon you might call “flip-flop fatigue.” The crush of equivocations, reversals and rhetorical contortions had gotten so relentless and ubiquitous that people had grown too exhausted to bother tracking or objecting to them anymore.

In the context of the general election, this has only grown more pronounced. If anyone thought conservatives, or neutral commentators, would hold Romney to the positions he professed to hold during the primary — and wouldn’t let him pivot towards middle in the general election — the early signs are that he will be granted all the maneuvering room he’ll need.

In the last few days, Romney has signaled that he is Etch-A-Sketching away his previous positions on immigration and on student loans. Romney has now hinted that he’s open to supporting Marco Rubio’s DREAM Act. If Romney embraces Rubio’s approach, as seems likely, will he pay any price from the right? Romney’s own immigration adviser, Kris Kobach, has said any such measure would also have to include self-deportation to be acceptable to conservative hard-liners. But now Kobach is already signaling that he thinks he and Rubio can coexist comfortably in Romney’s universe.

Meanwhile, during the primary, Romney repeatedly drew a hard line against government help with student debt. But as soon as Obama launched a campaign to extend low interest rates on federally funded student loans, and signaled that he’d make it central in the presidental race, Romney supported Obama’s position. Will conservatives who previously opposed the Obama student loan measure revolt? Well, House Republicans are already finessing the issue by signaling that there may not be any significant differences between them and Romney on the issue, after all.

Putting aside the reaction from conservatives, who have their own reasons for letting Romney’s pivoting skate, both of these turnarounds are being widely covered in the press as mere process stories, as if they’re as inevitable and unremarkable as a campaign staffing up in advance of the general.

Call it flip-flop fatigue in reverse. First Romney flip-flopped to the right, away from previously held positions, in order to get through the primary. While some of his rivals objected, many commentators treated it as business as usual, as stuff Romney just had to say to appeal to the right wing base. And now, precisely because commentators previously decided he didn’t mean any of the stuff he said to get through the primary, few if any are holding him accountable for those positions now in any meaningful way, and he’s paying little price in the way of pundit scorn for flip-flopping right back to the center again. It was all part of the game before, and it’s all part of the game once again.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.