’Politics’ category

Krugman on Sachs

July 17th, 2009
674. 

So Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Chase all reported multi-billion dollar profits during the second quarter this week. The NY Times’ Paul Krugman weighed in on Sachs:

First, it tells us that Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.

Second, it shows that Wall Street’s bad habits — above all, the system of compensation that helped cause the financial crisis — have not gone away.

Third, it shows that by rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely.

The rest of his column is a must read.

Tags: , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Say “Thanks!” Alaska

July 7th, 2009
659. 

I think Palin did us all a favor by quitting and effectively giving up on a national political career:

I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out.

(via ABCnews.com)

Tags: ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Palin Resignation

July 6th, 2009
653. 

I’ve been critical of Palin in the past, so I wanted to write something about her recent (surprise) resignation. However, I came across a pretty darn good post of the subject on, of all places, a conservative blog: Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air. Ed Morrissey nails pretty much everything on the Palin resignation.

The nonsensical lame duck excuse:

Bear in mind that the election isn’t next month but about 16 months from now, in November 2010. Using this logic, Palin should never have run for the first term unless she was willing to run for the second, and not run for either if she wasn’t willing (or legally able) to run for a third. Politicians don’t enter lame-duck status until their successor has already been elected and they’re running out the rest of the term. And all politicians become lame ducks at some point — and none of them quit just to avoid it.

And the miscellaneous other reasons:

I’ve seen a myriad of excuses on Twitter and e-mail for this bizarre resignation: her legal bills are too high, she’s putting her family first, she doesn’t want to distract Alaskans because of cheap-shot ethics complaints that are distracting everyone. None of those make any sense. If the spotlight was too much, then she shouldn’t have run for office in the first place. If she’s quitting because people are taking potshots at her, then she’s not the kind of political fighter we thought she was. The legal bills might be a rational reason, but thoroughly insufficient for betraying the people who put her in charge of Alaska — and her memoirs would have paid for her legal bills many times over, had she completed her term.

The funny thing is, she says these things in one breath, then hints toward running for President in another. She can’t handle being the governor of Alaska? No way she can handle being president. What she sees is just the tip of the iceberg. And what did she expect as a governor of small-time state thrust into the limelight as a major VP candidate? No one was going to pay attention to her? Ask questions about her background? Make charges (bogus or not)? Give me a break. I just can’t see any way she lives down this move if she is expecting to continue running for public office, much less the White House.

Pit bull? Nah. Quitter is all she’ll live up to from here on out. See you on Fox News, Sarah! (Just what we need — another wacky talking head. Her and Glenn Beck would make a great team.)

Tags: ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Cheney's AEI speech

May 22nd, 2009
630. 

Cheneys speech contained omissions, misstatements – Yahoo News.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s defense Thursday of the Bush administration‘s policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.

Surprised? Didn’t think so…  read the article for the many examples.

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Can they really be this dumb?

March 11th, 2009
557. 

I can’t help but think the current Republican Party really is Beavis and Butthead, as Krugman stated a week or so ago. The more I read about their take on the current economy and other issues, I consistently come to the conclusion they are either really dumb, clueless people OR they are just playing dumb to act as a counter to Obama’s proposals. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt and go with the second option, but either way it’s a no win situation for the United States.

On the economy…

Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking member of the Banking Committee on insolvent banks:

“Close them down, get them out of business. If they’re dead, they ought to be buried,” he said. “We bury the small banks; we’ve got to bury some big ones and send a strong message to the market. And I believe that people will start investing [again] in banks.”

And related, the Johns (McCain and Boehner) have both been echoing the ‘let them fail’ mantra and speaking out against nationalization. Do these fellows not know about the FDIC? The FDIC taking over banks (which they have to do, since they guarantee deposits — as well as all the other guarantess that have come through the bailouts, TARP, etc.) and putting them in receivership IS effectively nationalization.

Luckily Krugman is out in the media, putting the story straight:

On Shuster today, Krugman very calmly explained that if what they mean by “letting them fail” is that we put them into receivership, then they’re right. After all that’s what the FDIC is doing about twice a week now with banks all over the country. If it makes these bozos feel better to call it “letting them fail” rather than “nationalization” that’s fine with me. Maybe that’s a good way to phrase it. Unfortunately, it’s pretty obvious that they don’t understand it that way. They think these banks can go “bankrupt,” just close the doors and stop operating like the corner hardware store. Apparently they don’t understand that the government has to take over banks that are deemed to have failed.

And on “spending restraint” — Boehner and the Repub’s latest brilliant idea — Krugman effectively dismisses that

First, the Boehner quote:

“It’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it.”

And Krugman:

What’s insane about Boehner’s remark? He’s talking about the current economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we faced a shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this, when they think about it — we’re in a world desperately short of demand. If you consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create jobs and raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt — and that’s just as true if you’re “the government” as if you’re my neighbor.

Plus, who is “the government”? It’s basically us, you know — the government spends money providing services to the public. Demanding that the government tighten its belt means demanding that we, the taxpayers, get less of those services. Why is this a good thing, even aside from the state of the economy?

Again, this is what the leaders of a powerful, if minority, party think. Can this country be saved?

Amen, Krugman.

Then to pile on, my favorite quote on the Repub’s economic “theories”:

I think it’s actually quite clear that these self-professed guardians of the free market and the capitalist system know less about economics than the average high school sophomore. And that is profoundly disturbing.

Then we move on to health care non-sense:

Seriously? Being healthy, fighting disease and sickness, etc. is a want or a privelage in our modern society? That is utterly ridiculous. I am fine if you don’t agree with nationalized healthcare (even though virtually every other industrialized country provides it to their citizens), but to swing so far in the opposite direction? I mean, owning a really fancy car or a mansion or even buying really expensive shoes can be classified as a want or privelage… but health care? Come on. They can’t be serious!?

And finally, the whole “I hope Obama fails” meme going through the Repubs. How is this not treason? Actively hoping and campaigning that the leader of your country fails?  In essence that your country fails? The Repubs called out the Dems for far less than that during the Bush years… and yet, they get away with this in the media. It’s purely strategic politics and selfish. Especially in times like this… but, I guess when all you have are really bad ideas, it’s all you have left.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Krugman on the Return of Depression Economics

March 4th, 2009
554. 

Today on Krugman’s blog:

I was alerted to this Media Matters post, revealing that people still don’t get why the current slump is different from the early 1980s, and why fiscal policy is necessary this time. Yes, I know, it’s Joe Scarborough; but still …

Anyway, it’s the zero lower bound, stupid. And here’s the picture to make the point:

rode

It reminds me of his post from a few days ago where he pointed to another Media Matters article that detailed how ABC News was reporting on income tax wrong… shouldn’t these “news” organizations hire people who actually understand what they are covering?

Tags: , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Republican Fiscal Responsibility

February 24th, 2009
542. 

Crooks and Liars has an excellent post on the myth of Republican fiscal responsibility, highlighted by this chart:
debtgnp_80ba7
  Other key points from the post:

  • Republican hero Ronald Reagan presided over a doubling of the national debt and by the time he left office, his administration equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of U.S. history. Oh yeah, he also raised taxes twice, which most folks like to forget, since it doesn’t fit his “legacy.”
  • Even before the passage of the Wall Street bailout, Dubya’s administration added $4 trillion to the national debt. A 71% jump.

And as an FYI, the current national debt as of today is almost $11 trillion.

[Obama's Summit and the Myth of Republican Fiscal Responsibility | Crooks and Liars]

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

It's automatic!

February 19th, 2009
523. 

CLINTON: [T]here’s 100 economic studies which show that you get a better return in terms of economic growth on extending unemployment benefits or investing money in energy conservation jobs to improve buildings than you do giving people in my income group a tax cut. But it doesn’t stop them. Those guys are on automatic. You punch a button and they give the answer they give you.

[via Think Progress » Clinton hits GOP for automatically opposing Obama’s agenda.]

This quote makes me think of this site:

http://gopproblemsolver.com/

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Cost of the Stimulus

February 2nd, 2009
510. 

Personally, I am getting really sick of the negative commentary about Obama’s stimulus package. From calling it socialism or too expensive or talking about Keynesian economics as if only young children actually believe it… it’s all ridiculous. And it seems that most can’t really refute the numbers or economic models – they just fall back to the usual ‘tax cuts’ platform. You know the strategy Reagan and Bush used to pretty much destroy the middle class to the benefit of the top 1% of earners?

Dean Baker and Paul Krugman have thankfully started calling out these folks… starting with the Washington Post, who have categorized the stimulus as “staggering” and “breathtaking in size and scope.”

Baker was the first to comment on the Post:

It might be helpful to tell readers that the collapse of the housing industry has lead to a $450 billion falloff in the pace of annual residential construction, the loss of $8 trillion in housing wealth will reduce annual consumption by around $450 billion, with the loss of $8 trillion in stock wealth leading to a further decline in annual consumption of $250 billion. In addition, the collapse of the non-residential real estate bubble will likely reduce annual demand by another $200 billion. This gives us a total decline in annual demand of around $1350 billion or $2,700 billion over two years.

Next to a demand loss of $2,700 billion, an $825 billion stimulus package seems rather small. The Post might try to look for reporters who are better at arithmetic and more sure in their footing.

Krugman added to the discussion, comparing the “staggering” cost of the stimulus to Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, which will cost about $2 trillion over the course of a decade. Noting that the tax cut lacked “anything like the economic rationale for the stimulus.”

Krugman also pointed out that:

Dean (Baker) is quite right to point out that reasonable estimates of the shortfall in private demand are on the order of three times the $800 billion package. (Jan Hatzius at Goldman, using different methods, arrives at more or less the same number.)

Tags: , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Run DC

January 19th, 2009
503. 

Combine one of hip hop’s groundbreaking acts with a groundbreaking politician and you get this:

3210291738_523b59e565

[Hat Tip: Boing Boing]

Tags: , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link