My old work here.

Digby updates.

I have nothing new to say on the subject. I'm sure y'all do.

Open Thread.

Both Ezra Klein and Felix Salmon defend S&P from criticisms. Salmon's defense is very telling:

S&P is not judging the quality of Treasury bonds as an investment.

Say what? Then in what way is S&P issuing a credit rating? If S&P acknowledged they were writing a political Op-Ed, that would be one thing. But in fact, S&P is purporting to do precisely what Salmon says it is not doing - judging the creditworthiness of US government obligations. Salmon's argument makes no sense. More . . .

Via Krugman, Treasury skewers S&P:

In a document provided to Treasury on Friday afternoon, Standard and Poor’s (S&P) presented a judgment about the credit rating of the U.S. that was based on a $2 trillion mistake. After Treasury pointed out this error – a basic math error of significant consequence – S&P still chose to proceed with their flawed judgment by simply changing their principal rationale for their credit rating decision from an economic one to a political one.

[. . .] S&P’s $2 trillion mistake led to a very misleading picture of debt sustainability – the foundation for their initial judgment. This mistake undermined the economic justification for S&P’s credit rating decision. Yet after acknowledging their mistake, S&P simply removed a prominent discussion of the economic justification from their document. In their initial, incorrect estimates, S&P projected that the debt as a share of GDP would rise rapidly through the middle of the decade, and they cited this as a primary reason for a downgrade.

Clowns. As Treasury says, "[t]he magnitude of this mistake – and the haste with which S&P changed its principal rationale for action when presented with this error – raise fundamental questions about the credibility and integrity of S&P’s ratings action."

Speaking for me only

Charles Graner, the prison guard from Hell, has been released after serving 6 1/2 years of his 10 year sentence for torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

At his trial, his lawyer claimed he was only acting as a cheerleader:

Graner's attorney said piling naked prisoners into pyramids and leading them by a leash were acceptable methods of prisoner control. He compared this to pyramids made by cheerleaders at sports events and parents putting tethers on toddlers.

"Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" Guy Womack, Graner's attorney, said in opening arguments to the 10-member U.S. military jury at the reservist's court-martial.

More....

Marking my territory - I came up with the Madman Theory of Political Bargaining, not Kurt Anderson.

Also, too, I coined 11 Dimensional Chess.

Just sayin'.

Open Thread.

Open Thread.

A New Orleans jury has convicted five former police officers of charges related to their unjustified shooting of six unarmed people and attempt to create a cover-up in two incidents on the Danziger Bridge in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Two of the shooting victims died, including a 17 year old and a 40 year old man who was severely mentally disabled. One woman lost her arm.

Four of the shooting victims were from one family. None were armed and they were crossing the bridge looking for food when police opened fire. Not long after, police shot at two unarmed brothers who were also walking on the bridge looking for food. The 40 year old disabled brother was shot seven times in the back.

At trial, lawyers for the cops claimed they were fired on first and feared for their lives. Not so. One of the cops, Retired Sgt. Arthur Kaufman, who was assigned to investigate the shootings, staged the cover-up for the other cops, using his own gun. He was also convicted today. [More...]

What's An S&P Sovereign Debt Rating Worth? We are about to find out:

The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy. S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.

S&P stands alone here, as Moody's and Fitch did not downgrade US debt. I think we will see that no one cares what S&P thinks about sovereign debt.

Speaking for me only

A little early, but what the hell.

Peruse this argument I make about a primary challenge to President Obama (I'm agin), won't post it here because Jeralyn's not feeling that way I'm thinking.

Open Thread.

Kevin Drum writes:

Just to make sure that everyone is still clear about this, here's the current trajectory of politics and the American economy stripped down to its bare essentials:

2001-2008: Republicans run economy into ditch.
2008: Obama elected.
2009-2011: Republicans respond by doing everything possible to prevent him from fixing things.

How would you argue the highlighted part? What would Obama claim he wanted to do that Republicans prevented him from doing? The only thing I can see that the President clearly enunciated was wanting to raise taxes on the rich. That's a good argument, but is that really why the economy is in tatters?

Speaking for me only

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the United States economy had a net gain of 117,000 jobs, and upwardly revised job reports for May and June. The headline unemployment rate dropped by a tenth to 9.1%. The New York Times front page headline states that US Posts Solid Job Gains Amid Fear. It's story has the more accurate headline US Posts Stronger Job Gains Amid Fear.

Today the talk will be how things are not as bad they seemed. This is the Era of Diminished Expectations. While certainly a +117k jobs number in July is better than the May and June numbers, it is simply not good enough. Indeed, it is a sign, in my estimation of continued economic weakness. But because our expectations have been diminished, a number that would have been worrisome in May, now is cause for relief. This is bad for policy. It leads to government doing nothing about the jobs situation. It is bad politically for the President because people do not vote today on his reelection, or even this November. The President will come out today at 11 and tout this number. Sure, he'll say we have to do better, but he will say we are on the right track. We aren't. More. . .

Kevin Drum writes:

Contrary to his reputation, Bush mostly succeeded by pressing a moderate, and sometimes even liberal, agenda. Tax cuts aside, which he passed solely with Republican support, the only real ruthlessness he showed toward Democrats on behalf of a conservative priority was the campaign hardball he played to add a union-busting provision to the Homeland Security bill.

Other than 4 trillion dollars in tax cuts, oh and the Iraq Debacle (FTR, Drum seems to forget the Iraq war funding issues after the Dems retook the Congress, among other things.), Bush enacted a moderate, liberal agenda. Think what an amazing statement that is.

It just goes to prove my central axiom about wonky pundits, they always always underestimate the importance of tax policy. Drum also delivers the usual spiel about how limited Presidential power is. It has always been a silly argument which I have addressed in the past and am no longer interested in even giving the argument a hearing. It is just plain silly.

Speaking for me only