If Republicans demand to make changes to a bill then they should vote for it or lose it
By John Amato Sunday Feb 15, 2009 9:18am
A big topic on the liberal blogs has been that Republicans who took a hatchet to the stimulus bill didn't even vote for it.
I explained yesterday how the people who crafted the crappy Senate compromise bill were, to a significant degree, Republicans. Republicans who won't even vote for the bill. But I forgot to credit the guy who really put the stupid in this bill: Johnny Isakson.
On ABC's THIS WEEK, Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters make a great point that many in the press have missed or refuse to talk about, but which bloggers have not.
SCHUMER: So let me just say this.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHUMER: We had a lot of people who said, "Take this out, take
that out."WATERS: That's right.
SCHUMER: Most of those things were taken out, and they still
voted against the bill.(CROSSTALK)
KING: ... so much is missing, and that's the reality.
WATERS: We took the amendments from those three Republicans who
were willing to step up to the bat.KING: In the House, no one was allowed to take -- no Republican
was allowed to take part in the process.(CROSSTALK)
KING: Not one Republican was allowed to take part in the process
in the House.WATERS: That's -- that is not -- that is not the truth.
KING: It is the truth.
WATERS: As a matter of fact, we should focus on, when you had
the opportunity to participate, why not do what those three moderate
Republicans did? Step up to the plate; offer your amendments. You
know, we took all of their amendments.Do you know we reduced the neighborhood stabilization program by
a couple of billion dollars? We reduced Head Start, Early Start,
school construction. We took the amendments. And so all those who...KING: The fact is...
SCHUMER: And one other thing...
KING: ... not one Republican was allowed at the table in the
House of Representatives when the bill was...(CROSSTALK)
KING: I'm talking about the House.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHUMER: Let's just look at the Senate. The two biggest
amendment that we accepted were Republican amendments, $70 billion --
you disagreed with it -- Senator Grassley, AMT, $38 billion, housing
relief, Senator Isakson. They still voted against the bill.STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring Senator Graham back into this now.
SCHUMER: We don't know what more to do in terms of
bipartisanship.(CROSSTALK)
SCHUMER: Well, how about the Senate?
GRAHAM: If I may say, if this is going to be bipartisanship, the
country's screwed. I know bipartisanship when I see it. I've
participated in it. I've gone back home and gotten primary opponents
because I wanted to be bipartisanship.
If Republican Senators have an amendment added to a bill and then vote against the bill, that amendment should be pulled. Why should a conservative effort to water down legislation get passed and then not get the backing of the author? Goober Graham as usual performs his hyperventilating act while Democratic politicians still do a pretty poor job of explaining their positions. And not a single economist showed up on THIS WEEK...
Login or Register to post comments.
But to be fair it is not against the rules to do what they did. They are using political tactics to get their way. What do you expect? What did the Administration and the Democratic Senators expect?
Being naive is not a valid reason to cry foul.
How many times are they going to fall for it before they learn their lesson?
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
I have posted a number of economists and investor's takes on this crisis, one thing is clear the government is clueless and not even listening, they are repeating the mistakes of the past. To catch a criminal you need to think like one.
Martin Armstrong is the former chairman of Princeton Economics International Ltd. He was indicted in 1999 on charges of bilking Japanese investors, he spent 7 years jailed for contempt of court before finally pleading guilty in 2007, and is now serving a 5 year sentence for conspiracy to commit fraud.
Do not let his criminality deter you from hearing what he says, the man is far from stupid, he presents a detailed perspective on our current situation not found in the mainstream media. Sometimes the best solutions come from those who took advantage of the system. Not unlike network security firms who hire notorious crackers who infiltrated and broke there networks often are the best security experts. His understanding of the great depression is far better than Bernanke's.
You can read his entire commentary here, no date is given but you can tell it was written probably in December of 2008. Very informative and educational, don’t let the length deter you from reading there are a number of peoples posts at the bottom that make it look longer than it is. At the bottom in his summary he specifies 6 solutions to the economic problem.
Armstrong Economics
The Coming Great Depression
Why Government Is Powerless
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2009/01/...
Depression Era Unemployment Statistics here
Year - Population - Labor Force - Unemployed - Percentage of Labor Force
1929 88,010,000 49,440,000 1,550,000 3.14
1930 89,550,000 50,080,000 4,340,000 8.67
1931 90,710,000 50,680,000 8,020,000 15.82
1932 91,810,000 51,250,000 12,060,000 23.53
1933 92,950,000 51,840,000 12,830,000 24.75
1934 94,190,000 52,490,000 11,340,000 21.60
1935 95,460,000 53,140,000 10,610,000 19.97
1936 96,700,000 53,740,000 9,030,000 16.80
1937 97,870,000 54,320,000 7,700,000 14.18
1938 99,120,000 54,950,000 10,390,000 18.91
1939 100,360,000 55,600,000 9,480,000 17.05
1940 101,560,000 56,180,000 8,120,000 14.45
1941 102,700,000 57,530,000 5,560,000 9.66
While the numbers are slightly different they are in respectively accurate year by year, the drop from 1933 to 1935 is only roughly 20% improvement and a 30% improvement at best to up to 1940.
Sorry, these numbers need to be interpreted. My understanding now is that they DO NOT count RFC (1932-35) or the larger numbers WPA (1935-1943) people among the 'employed'. WPA employment was called work relief.
I am searching for a chart. My understanding is that by 1940 the effective unemployment rate was 10%
Here is a graph of WPA employment at its height in 1938 at ca three million people.
That would have made the effective percentage of unemployed in '35 about 14.5% and in '38 about 13.5%.
The WPA had a very significant effect. In the election of 1937 FDR pledged to balance the budget which he did. This caused the unemployment numbers to spike up again and he responded with another increase in WPA funding.
I think that does make his point on that topic. If you read the greater context of his commentary he saying pretty much the same thing a host of others I have mentioned are saying about this stimulus. FDR made the depression worse, it was government intervention that brought agony to the people. Peter Schiff does a good job of explaining that here.
Peter Schiff's predictions for 2009 through 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiIYkFXUhHs&fe...
You are quoting the wingnuts when you say FDR made the depression worse. You can try that on another blog and maybe get a bunch of cheers. Here mostly you will get jeers.
Peter Schiff is an arch capitalist. I listen to him for his insight but his political interpretation I throw out the window.
James Galbraith here
last November here
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/peter-sc...
That's the problem with having political blinders, it's so easy to become so full of what is right you lose focus on what is true. The truth is both parties have lead this nation to the precipice of disaster and the sooner people wake up to that and quit worrying about whose side is more correct the sooner we can find a real solution to our situation. I could sit here all day and punch holes in each party’s balloon but that isn’t productive.
If politics is going to change, then both parties are going to need to cut the bull shit bickering and get on with making a concerted effort to get through this properly. Both Democrats and Republicans are driving this country to the edge of a cliff, they both have it wrong and that is what people like Schiff , Rogers, Faber, and the many of other economists I’ve referenced are trying to tell this country.
I saw Robert Kiyosaki speak before this crisis unfolded in LA in 2005, someone in the audience asked him which party was fiscally more responsible; he laughed and said “none of them”. The purpose of the seminar was to get people to educate themselves, increase their financial education on how to invest and start their own businesses and to be aware of a coming crash he called “inevitable”. You see the rich and savvy have been preparing themselves for this moment, they weren’t caught off guard.
There is going to be a Peter Schiff was Right Part II, Part III and on and on until people start to listen to what people like him are saying. People here can jeer me until they are blue in the face and still they are driving towards the cliff. Listen to the video link and what Schiff has been saying. Look at the C&L link I posted above and see just how wrong his pundits were.
Paul Krugman Schools George Will On The Great Depression
As always Krugman says nothing of detail in his comments; he simply recites the broadest well known bullet points for that period of history anyone remotely familiar already knows. None of the panel sitting around him obviously knew enough to engage him. Here is what he says:
Clearly they are limited for time because of the shows airtime however the oversimplification is mind numbing. No mention of what the root of the problem was, instead he mentions the consequences in slumping consumer demand and the resulting subsequent events. He just glazes over two presidents, throws dirt on advisers that arguably convinced him to balance the budget and into WWII as the answer.
Now compare what Krugman is saying Schiff (since I'm talking about Schiff here quite a bit tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiIYkFXUhHs
Before you scream this is another Republican lie Schiff’s references for these points are corroborated in “Rothbard, Murray N. America’s Great Depression. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000.” The entire writing is available in PDF here, what he says is true, this is worth reading. http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp
A few important things to note Schiff throws both the Republican and Democrat under the bus for their blunders; there is little partisanship in points. You see the same from other people I reference as well.
In the video Schiff addresses the cause for the depression as he does today and then explains why were repeating the same mistakes but only worse. The big differences between then and now are:
Given all that is different today as I just detailed why on earth would we make the same Keynesian mistake we did in the 1930's?
Who said this?
It was written more than 40 years ago in reference to 1920s America. The writer was a young economist by the name of Alan Greenspan. (The article was “Gold and Economic Freedom,” The Objectivist, 1966, reprinted in Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, New York: Penguin, 1987.)
You think Greenspan would have took his own advice.
It’s the wrong debate VegasRage.
I said I’m not entering the FDR debate, and I won’t. I will say that I think Wilson’s monetary policies 20 years earlier had a greater negative impact than even Hoover in the lead-up to the ’29 crash. But you and others have accurately noted that the Depression did not kick off with the lopsided-leverage-bust in the late 20s. That crash was a precursor to the later monetary deflation which was the Great Depression.
In my opinion, Wilson either instigated, or allowed, a policy of fiat control much like Reaganomics trickle-down garbage set the stage for our current monetary fiasco.
Also, I’m not against fiat currency standards when they are valuated reasonably against known assets.
There is no more reason to base currency against Gold than there is to base it against shells and beads or big rocks on a beach. I don’t think that’s our problem.
No the debate shouldn’t be what happened 100 years ago, it should be what do we do now? (Interestingly, this WAS FDRs problem in 1932 – what now? Not the same circumstances, just the same question.)
If you are correct in letting the market adjust itself (I reserve judgment on that), then have not the lending institutions which own a major chunk of the debt already failed? Are they not toast? Should we allow the remaining Banks buy them out at 2 cents on the dollar so that a great Banking monopoly can be created and thereby perpetuate this cycle of false fiat control, or should we step in and say enough?
Personally, I think the US currency should belong to the US Citizens. Its value should be closely related to the productivity and assets of those Citizens. The current valuation methodologies inevitably lead to these boom/bust cycles (now called bubbles) in the greedy effort to manipulate the valuations for profit.
In the long run, this form of fiat control and evaluation is meaningless anyway. It’s like the accumulation of numbers on a spreadsheet that reflects nothing. Really – nothing. Money is not wealth. Money is not real assets. It is only a mechanism for the transfer of wealth and assets. It may sound cliché, but money (currency in this case) isn’t everything. It’s what is done with that money in the form of transfers that makes economies – not the money itself.
As you might guess, I’m not a big fan of the Fed – and our currency is in trouble. It has been steadily declining against real assets for decades. Although there seems to be more of it in the hands of fewer and fewer people, the relative strength indexes of our currency are fooey. Bad inflation will also inevitably follow this continuing crisis if something doesn’t change.
So what now? That’s the debate. That’s the question. That’s what I want to hear the economists having substantive interactions about instead of whether we should spend $30B or $70B to rebuild a bridge in Wisconsin. That bridge will do little or nothing to get us out of this money problem.
BTW – that bridge in Wisconsin does need to be rebuilt – along with our communications/transportation/energy infrastructure and other endeavors like health-care and education. That’s called investment – and it’s a good thing.
on gold though I differ in thought. People I think misunderstand those of us in favor of gold. It's not the metal that counts, after all money is just an idea. If something else did what gold did, then by all means use it.
No one is suggesting we all start lugging around metal coins again, however gold and silver are real money, proof is gold is listed as a reserve asset on every central banks financials. Gold is hard to get out of the ground making it rare and valuable; it is malleable allowing it to be easily segmented into equal amounts again and again. It has few industrial uses, gold is held for keeping. Gold is natural store of value; it has intrinsic value and is no mans liability unlike our current dollar which is literally a debt to the people. We must pay interest in every dollar printed into circulation, therefore the fiat dollar itself is designed to slowly rob of us of our wealth. Because the dollar is losing value if it’s not moving, its very nature inhibits savings and good fiscal habits.
Gold does two things 1) it serves as a baseline for our money and helps maintain value; the corruption of fiat currency only has obscured the difference between price and value. The only way to know what something is worth now is to compare the prices between different asset classes. For example when the Dow was at its peak of 14,000 in 2007 it looked like an all time high in terms of dollars but only in terms of dollars! If you took one share of the Dow and compared it against other asset classes you could see it had fallen in terms of value.
Since 1999 the Dow has been crashing when compared against the other asset classes such as Oil, industrial metals, agricultures, Gold, and commodities. Take oil in 1999 you could sell one share of the Dow and buy 800 barrels of oil, the Dow has fallen almost 90% measured against oil since then, before the recent free fall you could sell one share and buy roughly 100 barrels of oil. The dollar itself is a debt to the US tax payer we pay interest on, only 38 years ago the dollar had intrinsic value under the gold standard. Why should we pay interest on the very currency we use? Michael Maloney (an advisor to Robert Kiyosaki) explains this in his book Guide to Investing in Gold to Silver” it is much more than the title suggests, it is more of a play book of what to expect in an economic crash.
2) Gold regulates interest rates; we would never have seen such reckless lending under a gold standard system. With the baseline of Gold bubbles are much easier to identify sooner. To those who say there isn’t enough gold in the world to return to it, that is not true. Again money is just and idea, the FED currently has 8,000 tons on the books at $45 dollars an ounce, today’s face value is closer $940 an ounce, they could revalue gold to whatever was required to back our current monetary base. That would legitimize our dollar and give the US a badly needed asset.
Lastly there is the history of dismal fiat failures. Over 3800 fiat currencies in history have come and gone, not one has survived, with a success track record of zero how will it be different this time? As Michael Maloney said "History gives this probability of zero. Each time we sailed toward economic doom the greatest financial minds in the world were at the helm. Do you really think we should continue letting them steer the ship?"
For 200 years in this country alone gold worked, only in the last 38 years we left it and in that time we have virtually destroyed the dollar and all the worlds currency because they pegged to our dollar because it was backed by gold. We detached them when Nixon detached us.
schiff has problems with political vs. economic fact.
you see this is what I'm talking about so many posters on C&L make little statements, little assertions and back them with nothing. I have posted what have said with detailed specifics in their message.
All you have to do is listen to what they are saying, I have no problem with people taking any of my points to task or theirs but you have to be able to explain why they are full crap. If you can't do that then you really don't have an argument.
Please take Schiff's statements here to task
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiIYkFXUhHs&fe...
for a year. FDR resumed spending and trhe economy was improving thereafter. the repugliKKKans hated that concept and it's success in building a middle-class and empowering so many. They have been at war against this ever since.
"The unemployment rate at the end of 1930 was only about 8.9% - similar to the 1975 recession. Things were very slow back then. Even housing was not moving and people took whatever offers came their way. It was the Dust Bowl that began in 1934 that sent the unemployment rising after the 1932 low in the stock market."
Armstrong says that unemployment wasn't REALLY bad until the Dust Bowl started in 1934, but...
Don't AAA's figures clearly show that unemployment rose rapidly and continually from 1929 to 1932, peaked in 1933 and then declined from 1933 to 1937? Well, obviously they do.
In fact, in direct contradiction to Armstrong and contrary to reason, unemployment DECLINED during the Dust Bowl. We know that the Dust Bowl was a disaster and affected millions, so why doesn't it show up in the unemployment figures? Maybe it's because the WPA and the New Deal were working? Maybe instead of dropping the unemployment rate 20%, the WPA helped prevent it from RISING 50%?
Armstrong's argument is that the massive Keynesian deficit spending of the WPA and the New Deal failed to end the Great Depression, so therefore Obama shouldn't follow Roosevelt's model. So what did end the Great Depression? The war. Why? Because to finance the war, the federal government began a FAR, FAR, MORE MASSIVE program of Keynesian deficit spending. Maybe Armstrong's REAL argument should be that Roosevelt didn't go far enough with the WPA and that Obama's stimulus should be far more bold than it is.
Just as an afterthought, all that unnecessary infrastructure built during the New Deal quickly became useful during the War. Dams are just one example. The BPA and the TVA built dams that provided far more power than we needed. When the war came, all that extra electricity was used to make the aluminum for the tens of thousands of planes that were key to winning the War. The huge amounts of electricity needed to refine uranium at Oak Ridge and Hanford were also provided by TVA and BPA. The real value of infrastructure is not the jobs necessary to build it, but infrastructure's long term effects: the new neighborhoods, the new schools and businesses that result from better roads, mass transit, flood control, etc. Without the New Deal infrastructure in place, we would not have mobilized nearly so fast for WW2, nor would our economy have recovered so fast.
in front of all of America. Seriously, that is all the D's needed to say to sell this stimulus and make the R's look like idiots for ignoring it.
Get up and say "We're STILL using phone lines and powerlines, and hydroelectric dams, and roads and highways, built during the 1930's as a response to the great depression. Don't we want our great grandchildren to be able to say the same thing about US?"
Money, stimulus passes without being watered down by Republican's...
You said it better, and you are right that it SHOULD have been an easy sell.
I am all for this stimulus if someone can cogently explain how and why it should to work. To date none have, not even Krugman who has gotten waved around C&L as a poster child in support of it. In fact Krugman has been the most vague of all, Nouriel Roubini has done a better job than Krugman in providing details but he too has been unable to explain why adding debt to debt is a solution.
Their lies the big difference between then and now, we held the debt of nations in the great depression, we were the largest creditor and had a 40% gold exchange standard to control interest rates and spending today we are the largest debtor nation. If you read Armstrong's paper in it's entirety you will see the bulk of his message goes to our national debt.
Peter Schiff makes a similar argument here and takes Bernanke to task:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiIYkFXUhHs&fe...
I think everyone wants this Obama’s plan to work, I can't imagine anyone wanting to live through a depression, even the Republicans can't be that stupid just to score political points (F**K at least I hope not). I want it to work but I can’t rely on baseless hope. A solid foundation for this approach has yet to be explained. What we have gotten is stuff like; “It’s not enough to do the job”, or “if we put the money in the right places it will help our economy but we need more.”
There is no attempt to explain how or why we need to spend this money, how exactly it is going to help the economy in the long run, or where the money is going to come from. More disturbing there is scant consideration for the huge can of worms all this debt is opening on us, only that we should be able to pay down the debt over time without consideration what we are paying now on our current debt load. As of 2005 our interest payments alone topped a $114 billion, or broken down $310 million a day, that is more than a dollar a day for every man, woman, and child in this country.
If we fail, we all fail. It behooves this nation, all of this nation to ride and test our government’s economic approach to get this right. The Democrats expect challenges from the Republicans; they don’t expect it as much coming from their staunch supporters. That is why it is important we don’t just sit back and let them lead, they need to know we are holding them accountable. If we just take solace in knowing our party won and get behind the plan without educating ourselves and keeping a guardedly optimistic eye on our leadership, then we are just sticking our head in the sand as badly as Bushes core methane inhaling fans.
Here are all of Paul Krugman’s NY Times commentary pieces, I read them religiously looking for details and he simply provides none. He only states his opinion without providing any data to back his assertions.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editori...
Here are all of Nouriel Roubini’s commentaries while more detailed than Krugman’s he still fails to explain how or why the stimulus is even a good idea. How we are going to pay for this massive expansion of foreign debt, instead it is always a foot note to be worried about later. I get his Newsletter’s and read them all.
http://www.rgemonitor.com/
We need to hold all of Washington accountable all of our future depends on it.
Whether you call this a Spending Bill, a Stimulus Bill, a retro-FDR New Deal, or an economic charade doesn’t matter.
The majority of the spending that I’ve seen in this bill is nothing more than what the government SHOULD HAVE been doing for the last 30 years – only not enough.
It’s not enough if 60% of our budget is spent on “Defense”. It’s not enough that infrastructure (which has been almost stagnant since the 60’s) is cut out. It’s not enough if education get’s the ax. You know - the things the government should have been spending on the last 30 years.
And it’s not enough to jump-start this economy.
What will?
Perhaps a better ENERGY infrastructure that relies less on foreign supplies and more on technological innovation (Wind, Solar, and EFFICIENCY).
Perhaps a better tax structure that more fairly balances the growing gap between the wealthy and the destitute.
Perhaps a Single-Payer Health-Care System that reverses the trend toward bankruptcy for health.
Perhaps a play to STOP paying for IRA (g or n – take your pick) and our failed ME excursions.
I don’t care to join the debate on whether or not WPA and the New Deal hurt or helped us though the 1930’s. (BTW – of course it did). The New Deal in its past form will not apply to today’s situation, because things ARE different.
We no longer own debt, we are a debtor nation. We no longer manufacture textiles and cars like we did, and we don’t need any more damn Dams.
But, we DO need a NEW New Deal for sure. A new way of thinking about Energy, Economics, and Growth is definitely in order. Not to sustain growth as it has been, nor to turn the clocks back to the early 20th Century, but to move ahead into the 21st Century.
Read the Galbraith piece here. He talks about the relationship of the 'Stimulus' ($767 billion) and the 'Bailout', $10 trillion committed, $3.8 trillion spent (CNN scorecard here).
The 'Stimulus' which a chorus of people say is too small is a small fraction of the 'Bailout'. Much of it are projects that have been begging for years because the congress was busy enriching the war profiteers. You are right that adding debt to debt is not desirable. The distinction that I make is the debt proposed here is acceptable, the previous debt is not. Not a lot we can do about it except prosecute the massive fraud of the war profiteers (NYT here).
The bailout is a complete travesty. It enriches the fraudsters. We should be prosecuting and disgorging them too.
I think you are one of the most conventional thinkers I have read in some time. You decide if that is a compliment or a dis.
it was unconventional practices that lead us into this mess. A return to the basics is the prescription. The market is giving us our medicine now and instead of taking it we're trying to do everything in our power to not take it.
Funny parents try to teach their kids that sometimes the answer is no, yet most adults won't accept it any better than kids. The answer is now no, but this country will fight it to the bitter end. The answer will still be no in the end and all fighting it will only make it worse. The medicine is coming regardless if anyone here wants to believe it or not.
Think about that
Now look at the FED's chart
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?s[1][id]=AMBNS
You may find pearls of wisdom in a den of thieves but you must be extremely wary.
You say this fellow PLEAD GUILTY to conspiracy to commit fraud. In a court of law that would be used impeach his testimony about ANYTHING.
As I point out above I now believe the numbers in my table which roughly conform to his DO NOT include the WPA employment, the very thing he and by your citing him, you are trying to argue against.
If he acts intentionally to deceive, it is by definition: FRAUD.
If it is not intentional it is incompetence. Take your pick.
I am still trying to document via more robust research a table on the numbers with and without WPA employment.
I recommend independent research when you come upon a source who has plead guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud.
VR: kudos on the correct use of the term 'cracker.'
that our infrastructure needs rebuilding badly. Even if it doesn't have a dream impact on our economy we still have a newly rebuilt, safer and more dependable infrastructure. No better time than the present to get it done! If your priority is reducing debt let me pull you out of you widdle box for a minute. Here's the answer to that. Abundance! Yes, abundance. Free energy, hydroponically grown food and much, much more. With abundance we solve most of our problems. Of course you need to put on your thinking cap to make this possible. You also need to climb out of your little box of conventional thinking to see what is possible, but it all is.
There is a simpler method. Treat them like the immature crybabies they are.
Since the Republicans are so principled and so against this terrible 'waste' and 'generational theft', the bill should have been written so whatever member of Congress voted against the bill, their state would get nothing, nada, zip. Think of how Rush would approve! Think of all the money they would save!
Then let us see how the voters of those states like it -- and how long those turncoat Blue Dogs and crybaby Republicans remain in office.
My opinion is still that every fricking state whose elected representatives played the stupid little foot stamping game instigated by Rush Limbaugh and supported so vocally by the Boner Bunch who admit that they didn't even READ the final bill but voted no simply because it was a "Democrat" bill... should simply be denied any of the money involved. Period, end of fricking discussion.
that would make all of their Governers happy. Oh wait!
They are debating over peanuts, they both want to erroneously throw money at the problem. The neo-cons are just pissed because it's not their stimulus package, they whine over $30 billion out of an $780 billion blunder. This is just a political move on the Republican's part to have a platform in 2012.
Throwing money at the problem though isn't the solution, foreign debt is the problem, living beyond our means for 30 plus years is the problem. When you are in the hole you don't fix it by digging a bigger hole to fill the smaller hole with. You tighten the belt, spend less, pay down the bills, and start saving.
we need to be SAVING what little value we have left instead of throwing it at international banks that would love to see america revert to some form of debtors prison ridden feudal system with them being the wealthy land owners with all the hard assets.
theyre just creating new bubbles
Man, weren't you "logic-ed" out of this discussion days ago?
I'm still waiting for anything that remotely resembles logic defending the stimulus to show up to the party.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/if-repub...
You are free to try, I encourage it. Please, please prove me wrong, I really would love to wake up from this fiscal nightmare now.
All of this political quackery is silly. No, this STIM bill will not help our economy. Nor will the Bank Bailouts. This is not FDR’s America and this is not 1932.
It’s worse than that.
We are in a global economic crisis and the traditional “tools” of monetary expansion/contraction no longer apply. All of the economic idiots are trying to coerce a solution to this crisis that simply puts us back into the same sinking boat. It won’t work.
What’s the problem? It’s the DEBT, stupid. Not just our GDP/GNP and the Fed’s supply, but everyday Mom & Pop’s spending inability. No one – not the Banks, not the Insurance Co’s, not the Fed has the money to pay off their debt. Spending more to ease the debt problem is silly. That obviously creates more debt which must be repaid, and that type of thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Yes, the Banks set off this situation when the ridiculous Default Swaps stopped being swapped and started being cashed. But the problem was 25 years in the making – and it started with the BANKS (again).
Americans owe more in debt than can possibly be repaid. It can’t be repaid because of the criminal interest that is required just to sustain the debt. Funny thing is, we think these rates and fees we’re paying on the debt is just par for the course. It’s not. We are paying nearly 30% in interest and fees associated with this debt. These rates are the highest in world history. Prior to 1980, these rates were criminal. They were the in the realm of loan-sharks and back-alley thugs. Only now are they corporate business as usual. Only now do we accept it as normal.
Think about it for a minute. What’s wrong with a Bank charging 2-3% interest over the course of years for the luxury of loaning us money for the Flat-Screen Plasma TV. Nothing really. You should probably save a little and pay cash, but that’s your choice. There used to be a cap of 10% interest on these short-term loans, and then the Banks cheated a little by applying made-up fees and penalties for the transactions. With that cheating perhaps they got their money back at up to 12-13%. Some cried foul at those rates– many more just paid. And paid. And Paid.
Now these Banks can charge 29%. They can charge fees for being over your imaginary “credit-limit” which they routinely fluctuate so you will be. They charge for late payments as they change your payment schedule on short notice. They make up rules so you can’t pay them back in full, you just keep paying them. And paying them. And Paying them.
We keep paying until all the discretionary money we have left must go to paying them. Along with our Federal State Local Taxes, our Licenses and Property Taxes, our Mortgage debt, our Credit Debt, our Insurances debt - Guess what? We can’t pay no more.
They broke us. We can no longer afford to pay the debt structures as well as the non-discretionary expenditures. There’s no more money left. The downward spiral is upon us.
This money for the interest/fees/penalties on this debt was illusionary to begin with. It wasn’t earned, it represented no real asset, and it benefited nothing sans the Banks. It ended up hurting the rest of us.
Mom & Pop’s demise, at the micro-economic scale, isn’t at all removed from the macro. The same practices, the same predatory lending, the same criminal behavior has been applied to corporations and countries alike. All are paying the price.
A few months back, when the rumors of AIG being in trouble started to surface and talk of bailing them out because “they were too big to fail” was becoming meme, I thought “Good!” If they are too big to fail, then let’s bail-them out, buy them up, split them apart like we did with the rail-roads and Ma-Bell – and we’ll all be better off for the exercise.
But that’s not what happened.
Instead we gave them money. WE GAVE THEM MONEY! Money to continue doing what they’ve been doing. Nothing changed. Bad move.
The Banks are not that powerful a lobby if we have to give them money. That’s an illusion. If they fail when we don’t – THEY WEREN’T THAT POWERFUL TO BEGIN WITH. In other words, we have the power to be in control. We still can…
To me the solution to this debt problem isn’t that hard. Bail them out, buy them up, split them apart, and restructure the outstanding debt into reasonable and responsible pools – where they CAN be repaid.
Why not?
While we’re at it, the insurance companies are doing the same thing. They’re next…
someone reads what you are saying, my success rate is small.
Don't confuse the lack of response with a lack of interest. You are being heard.
You are not being clear.
Seems to me they are a very powerful lobby. We are GIVING them vast amounts of money to pay off their swaps at face value. We are paying off gamblers instead of letting the banks go bankrupt.
The banks are resisting the required mark to market accounting, ie valuing their troubled assets at market (difficult to determine since no one is buying except the Fed) rather than historical values, ie what they paid. We are letting them get away with.
This is inflating our outlay by an enormous amount.
Bail them out? We are. Buy them up? We are, we have given Citi and BoA MORE than their market cap. The problem is we ARE NOT taking control, we are giving them money but not getting anything for it, as in NATIONALIZATION.
By outstanding debt? Do you mean the mortgages likely to go bust? I agree with you there but that isn't the problem now. It will be.
The problem now is probably in large part synthetic CDOs that were fraudulently rated AAA but are junk. Merrill just sold billions at between 5¢ and 20¢ on the dollar. That is how far the rating was off.
The problem is the government doesn't know what is on the bank's books because they have not audited the bank's books.
That is a VERY powerful lobby at work
That is why not.
AIG is the largest insurance company. We own them at more than 100% market cap yet we treat them as an ongoing private concern.
This is Government by the corporations, for the corporations… and their buddies.
Crony Capitalism
You’re right – I’m not being clear. Let me be perfectly clear about this (h/t Obama…)
Bail them out…We Did. Yup. We paid more than they are worth, and we frigg’n OWN them. Yet they retained their management and solidified their existing processes. To wit, they RAISED interest rates almost across the board and gave themselves bonuses. To be clear, let the US backing sustain them through an almost certain Chapter 11, so the process of dissolution can be controlled.
Buy them out. We did. Yup. But, as you say, they retained autonomy, continue to do business as if they were a private entity, and resist any oversight and auditing responsibility. Buy them out? Ok – send the FBI into every one of their offices. Lock the computers and cabinets, and start the process of breaking the SOBs apart.
Break them apart. We’ve not. Now this is the restructuring we need to do. If other Banks resist this, they get nothing, they close, and their assets go to the highest bidder in a Ghost Auction (ghost auction because no one is bidding).
I think we really can restructure the ridiculous and criminal debt owned by the failed banks into something that is manageable. Cap the Interest, remove the early-repayment structures, forgive the past fees and penalties in favor of moving those payments into the economy – and be done with it. If the Banks don’t like it, fine! They get nothing and lose everything. In the mean time, the Treasury gets at least some of the debt repayment and the economy gets the rest.
Is this Nationalizing the Banking Industry? Damn right it is. But they’re too big to fail, right?
As I mentioned earlier, this is similar to what we did to the rail-roads and the oil monopolies. They screwed everyone, hurt everyone including themselves, and we stepped in and corrected it. We can do it again.
…
And I didn’t mean to sound contradictory when I said they’re not THAT big of a Lobby. What I meant was that they can no longer sustain the clout and credit of their lobby when they are GONE. We can make these moves only because they no longer have the economic and political power to stop it – IF we pursue this course of actions.
We seem to be in agreement that the US taxpayer present and future is being fleeced.
I agree. Both my Senators voted for it. To be fare, one of my Senators help gut it to get it to pass. Arlen.
Quoting myself
Was reading this article on partisanship over the "stimulus" bill on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7889741.stm
Well, seems many people pretty much figured that would happen. Even C&L wrote an article on Obama not getting his hand bitten off by the repubs. Also it's not like it's a big secret that ever since at least st. ronnie (possibly earlier as I wasn't around), bipartisanship means the repubs get what they want and everyone else bends over and no lube is used.
So how is it possible, that Obama being supposedly smarter than the chimp didn't see that coming. My personal theory is he did and that was the intended purpose. Not to make the repubs look bad, hell they won the stimulus battle as they got to water down an already ineffective bill to where it will be mostly pointless and added a bunch of tax cuts and they still didn't vote for it. Seems to me the end game for dems was to do just that, why else did they decide not to fight the repubs. The repubs had lower majorities during the chimp years and yet they got everything they wanted but dems with larger majorities can't get anything done, yeah right. Can we finally get a movement started to dump ALL the crooks in congress out?
ANd they whine about being shut out of the process??? That's exactly what they did for six years.
VegasRage, Mr. Armstrong's analysis ignores what most people ignore about the New Deal, namely that FDR throttled back on his own programs in 1937 by increasing taxes and attempting to balance the budget. Check Paul Krugman's analysis. I've always thought the New Deal petered out in the late 30's but never knew that FDR himself caused the flameout with his own policies.
Republicans do not want input in the stimulus bill... they want to write it.
You definitely hit the nail on the head. They can't believe they are no longer The Ruling Party of the present administration . . . they believe the bill should be written totally by them for the Dems to approve! How long will it take for them to come into reality?
Until the Democrats grow a pair and make them.
John Amato, thank you!
Here's the 'money quote' IMHO:
I thought it was 'just me', and although it's true that like most people I tend to share my leisure time and Saturday evenings with people who generally share my views, over wine and a nice dinner last night there were some real revelations in the group of friends. Some are committed Dems, others of us have been 'moderates' in the past in a state with a history of cross-party voting.
Yeah, we're a white collar group and we were drinking wine instead of beer last night, but the intensity of the emotions, the utter contempt of the GOP these past two weeks, the fact that those of us who have cast votes for Republicans in the past were aghast at the absolute **stupidity** of the GOP the past two weeks was really notable in our conversations last night.
I'd thought it was just me, so it was nice to be among others -- some of them also former 'crossover voters' who are just incredulous at the stupidity we watched in the GOP last week.
I think that Schumer's nailing it.
Several of us thought that Obama played this brilliantly, in the sense that we've now seen -- beyond any shred of doubt -- how completely, utterly, absolutely used-up, outdated, and irrelevant the GOP is as a political party.
We all happen to reside in Jay Inslee's CD in Western Washington, where there are a lot of high tech people losing jobs. My email just last week had 4 messages from people saying they were looking for work -- and these are people who program C++, C#, and have the education and experience that government and business said they wanted!
And then the GOP talks about economic policies from the 1920s, and acts like it's Ozzie and Harriett era family time with white picket fences and two kids, and mom doesn't have to work.
I don't comment at C&L very often, but I really had to 'let fly' for this particular video.
I'm not Chuck Schumer's biggest fan, and he's partisan as hell. But he's also interested in r-e-s-u-l-t-s when all is said and done. He's not so stupid that he'll cut his nose off to spite his face.
Last week, the GOP cut their noses off to spite their faces.
The people discussing current events over wine last night are paying attention to politics like they never have before, and 5 of us don't even own/watch teevee -- but we use Internet and GPS all the time. The amount of political information exchanged in that group was incredible.
The contempt for the GOP was like nothing that I have ever seen.
Every one of us knew that Jay Inslee's been working his butt off in the House to move clean energy forward, and I think the next time Jay runs, he's going to have a lot more of us actually willing to get out and knock on doors on his behalf because we're finally paying a lot more attention, and we're just horrified at the fact that our Congressman is busting his ass to get things done and the lame-ass GOP couldn't cough up even one single House vote to move toward a green economy.
Okay, rant over for the moment.
But I hope that Schumer's comment is the meme for the next three months.
Because to see that 3 Senators had that much control over a national bill that's taken 30 years to get passed really says a lot about how corrupt the GOP is, and how screwed up politics are in this nation.
If Republicans won't even vote for a bill they watered down the Democrats should put a halt to the voting, shape the bill exactly the way they wanted it in the first place and then RAM IT DOWN the Republicans throat.
If the bill is going to fail it should AT LEAST BE on our terms entirely.
No guts no glory -
Now if it fails you'll have Republicans telling half truths which is their MO anyhow.
If it should succeed without Republicans shaping and voting for it then the Democrats should get ALL THE CREDIT.
Or not.
All the risks - all the rewards.
Sometimes, when the chips are down, you just have to go all in and hope for the best. I do believe a stimulus bill that gets people working again is absolutely what needs to happen. Is there some pork? Yes, but ask any teacher what he or she thinks about the No Child Left Behind piece of garbage. CUT funding for under performing schools. I mean, seriously? That is how bankrupt this political ideology has become.
-- Steals Billions? And Charlie Rangel (D-NY) could return the $2,300 he got from Stanford last year... before he winds up in prison himself (on unrelated corruption charges). So could John Cornyn (R-TX), Phil Gramm (R-TX), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Max Baucus (D-MT), Tom DeLay (R-TX), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and plenty of other legislators and upholders of public decency from both sides of the aisle.
[ http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/02/c... ]
Can't the provisions taken out of the Stimulus Bill by Republicans who eventually voted against it be replaced with a Presidential signing statement? As I recall, George W. did something like this quite often.
That fake moderate idiot's idea of both sides coming together is a Republican administration ramming its priorities down the throats of a complacent Congress, with no oversight and no accountability.
You nailed it.
But watch the MSM call Graham a 'moderate'.
Now they use the line, I know we did it but it wasn't right. I think they learned their lesson. NOT!!! Give Graham another majority and White House and he'd do it all over again.
These A holes in the Republican party do not get it , they lost , they were rejected ,not to mention they are the ones responsible for destroying the economy in the first place ! For Obama and the Dems to compromise with the Republicans on anything is to short change the country and the American people and is no less than making deals with the devil . I'm sorry I don't know who to give credit for it but someone I read recently wrote "the Republicans are the arsonists standing in the middle of the road trying to block the fire truck and should just be run over ". AMEN to that !
I mean, when all the intellectual value is working hard for the other side, it must be hard not to look completely ignorant, stupid, selfish, vacuous, ect. Come on guys... Pretend to be working with us, only to not vote for it in the end. Do you really think we're that stupid?
decided to order pizza. The Republicans would argue and argue over the toppings, and the Democrats would keep making concessions. Then when it was delivered, the Republicans would refuse to pay as they didn't get every topping they wanted. Then they'd eat the pizza, belch, and complain about the rude Democrats.
Somebody tell me when Lindsey Graham participated in bipartisanship? He was elected to the House in 1994 and the Senate in 2002 to present. During his House years he helped try and derail and impeach Clinton. During his Senate years he was a yes man for Bush. He just needs to shut up about bipartisanship. Some one get him a box of kleenex.
They have been practicing for over 20 years.. Look at the way they treated Clinton for his 8 year term..
Look how they rejected the democrats from any of their policies in the past 8 years... Look how they have purged them from the courts and judicial positions in our government.. Look how they would not even get the democrats a room to have their meeting in...
This is the only policy Republicans know or do which has worked in the past; no matter how much it destroys our democracy , laws , country , divides our citizens and destroys our economy.
Has anyone found any data connecting Bush Sr. and his Carlyle Group to citi bank and other financial institutions and deals which are being bailed out...
But one thing I never cared for Schumer and especially after he not only induced Mukasey for the attorney general but he and Feinstein voted so Mukasey could go to the floor for a full vote..
So a lot of the protection for Bush was aided by him and Feinstein's actions...
the last 8 years! Many of them have never been in the minority, and they are not used to being irrelevant. Their feelings get hurt so easily...........
Well suck it up and get used to it my friends. Obama made the overture, and you turned your back on him. You won't get a second chance. Republics will quickly find that there are options besides 'tax cuts'.
You LOST guys. Get over it, and get out of the way. You're either part of the solution or you ARE THE PROBLEM!
or anywhere else, I'm willing to bet)
Pooor wittle Wesley. Throwing a hissy fit.Saying he knows bipartisanship. Not only is he a hypocrite. He's a fuckin liar as well.
in my long liberal democratic life, I can't for the life of me understand why someone like Schumer would be against nationalization of the banks when in fact that is where we are going to end up anyway. Here's a little some thing to think about that a friend passed along. Oh! Now I get it. Schumer is the senator from New York and that's where his friends on Wall Street are. Makes sense.
Sex and corrupt politics in DC is nothing new. For example, during the Civil War there were 450 brothels in the capital. Part of the mythology of Washington, however, is what might be called the Jim Lehrer Illusion, which is to say that all people in DC do is sit around and rationally debate policy alternatives. In fact, Washington politics is also heavily driven by cowardice, bribery, blackmail, deceit, fear, loyalty to old buddies and even older bodies, cooptation, sex, and just plain crime. Journalists who pretend otherwise either don’t understand what is going on or are covering for someone.
The public often misunderstands the importance of Washington scandals, assuming them to be a simple dalliance, individual failing, or private offense. What makes both sex and crime in DC different, at least when those in power are involved, is that there is far more opportunity for blackmail and far more skill at covering things up.
The blackmail may be used by members of one branch of government against those of another, by lobbyists against members of Congress, by the police against whomever they wish, and by foreign powers. For example, one way to keep a congress member bought is for a lobbyist to provide him with high class prostitutes. And it is noteworthy that both the Israelis and Boris Yeltsin apparently knew about Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky before the American public did.
Do they cover it up or do we find out? You are arguing a false point. We find out more shit than we ever did and with the internet the Larry Craig's, David Vitter's, Elliot Spitzer's, Rod Blagaovitch's, etc. we know.
The gay Keebler elves are callin. Please STFU and go fuck your stuffed elf!
Waaaaah! I had primary opponents...
"And because I'm such a major tool, I can't handle primary opponents. It's so freaking hard to take a principled stance and present an honest logical choice for voters. I'm so afraid of the uber-right nazis in South Carolina that I just can't be bipartisan. I mean, I'd like to be a decent guy, I just can't..."
...that putz Graham is still around! He needs to go the way of ted stevens, tom delay, larry craig, rick santorum, and the REST of the vile scum that represent the worst of that party. (and when you're the worst of the repug party, that's pretty goddamn low)
It seems this ass bag Peter King forgot how him and his party treated the Dems over the last eight years. The Dems were shunned and shut out from every bill making process under the repubs rule. I don’t need to be lectured about inclusion in the process from a defunked party whose only goals are to play political games while we sank further into the huge hole they created. These ass clowns repubs have not earned the right to even be at the table. Payback is a bitch
Let's just summarize the video:
Chuck Schumer: SENSE, LOGIC, SENSE.
Maxine Waters: LOGIC, SENSE, LOGIC.
Peter King: BITCH, BITCH, BITCH, *sob* WAAAAAHHHHHH!
Lindsey Graham: WHINE, WHINE, WHINE, *whimper* WAAAAAHHHHH!
Get used to it children. The adults are back.
Login or Register to post comments.