home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:24:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Geithner is going to announce his TARP II plan today. Reports are pretty bad so far.

This is an Open Thread.

< "The Most Progressive" | Good Policy Is Good Politics >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 170 comments (170 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Watching C-SPAN 2 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    Kay Bailey Hutchison  comes to the floor to denounce the stimulus, and her cell phone starts ringing. A staffer grabs her purse and runs out of the room.

    Did Senator Coburn call President Obama a liar? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by bison on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:49:03 AM EST
    President Obama said twice yesterday that there were no earmarks in the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, but I heard Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) on CSPAN this morning insist that there were earmarks in the bill.  Was Senator Coburn calling President Obama a liar?
    Obama can say (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by coast on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    there are no earmarks in this bill, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...well its an earmark.  To say the bill is void of any earmarks is disingenuous.  I wouldn't call Obama a liar, just a car salesman.

    Parent
    There are earmarks. (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    He and his staff may call them something else like "jobs creation," as earmarks can be.  But that doesn't redefine earmarks; it only relabels them.

    Parent
    My understanding of earmarks is (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    money that is targeted to a specific project. If you have defined qualifications so that the money will go to any project that meets the qualifications, that would not be an earmark. For example, money to repair any bridge in the interstate highway system would not count because any bridge in this category that needs repair would qualify. Money to repair a specific bridge, or only those in a certain Senator's state or Congressman's district would be an earmark. It's like the difference between admitting a student into a college based solely on their family name vs. applying the same qualifications for all applicants. Do I have this right? or is this just the definition of an earmark that is pork. I am just making an assumption because I have never heard anyone define the term.

    I have not read the bill so I can't say if there are earmarks in it or not. If Obama is using my definition and there really are no earmarks Democrats need to make the distinction clear.

    Parent

    Yes, it is a federal responsibility (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:31:25 AM EST
    to halp fund maintaining a lot of those interstate bridges.  But it is not a federal responsibility to build golf courses and swimming pools.  

    And to do so, the slashing of funding to states, cities, and schools is so sad -- my state with one of the high rates of unemployment and worsening by the hour now lost a lot in the Senate bill.

    Parent

    Here is the definition (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    according to Wikipedia:

    "The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process."

    It says nothing about whether or not the money goes to something considered "federal responsibility". As I understand it, if money is allocated to expand a federal highway in Congressman X's district to get his vote even though the expansion is not really needed, this would be an earmark, even though it goes to something that is a federal responsibility.

    If I understand this correctly then allowing money to be spent on any golf course that meets "Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes" would not be an earmark. It could still be a waste of taxpayers money, and certainly calls into question the standards being used to determine "merit". Seems like this would qualify as pork, but not an earmark.

    Are there really funds in the bill for golf courses?

    Parent

    I was addressing the specific examples (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    you used, but yes, the larger definition is better.

    As for the new specific asked about here, it seems that some such projects survived in the states' and cities' funding requests -- but it looks like the Austin frisbee golf course is gone, anyway. :-)  The problem is that the Senate bill may not specify projects but allocates to states and cities that have specified them, so it requires looking into the appendices and the like -- and the local media are doing so.  So you have to scan for those stories.  I'm still tracking the one about the bill including golf carts for folks not on golf courses -- "neighborhood friendly vehicles."  Hey, those are not so friendly when they end up running on sidewalks and running down pedestrians.  I've been to (ugh) Sun City.

    Parent

    Just my Opinion... (none / 0) (#73)
    by gtesta on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:14:07 AM EST
    but if the "frisbee golf course" was already allocated in the local budget, and then they found out that this could qualify for "infrastucture funding", they could obtain the federal money and then do a line item transfer in the local budget to make up for local revenue shortfalls and fund other programs, avoid layoff's etc. (I don't know this for a fact)
    I'm just suggesting that there could be benefits with funding projects that might not be stimulative on the face, but still helpful.


    Parent
    Sure, building golf courses is work (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:25:56 AM EST
    but the question to be faced is whether that's better than building schools -- which were slashed in the Senate bill -- or, in a larger context, whether that's better than saving homes as well as jobs.

    This is why, desperate as the need is for action, it is not wise to rush without care for OVERSIGHT.

    Parent

    Good job... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    mentioning that important distinction...we could pay people to play with lincoln-logs all day and that would be "job creation", but also a very unproductive waste of time.

    Kinda like how we give people jobs as prison guards to guard non-violent drug offenders we've placed in cages...yes, it is job creation, but there are better jobs we could create that would create something of value, as opposed to something detrimental.

    Parent

    Oh SNAP! (none / 0) (#150)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    Good one kdog!

    Parent
    It's a tiny amount of money (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    going for those things, and they're no less "stimulative" than building a bridge.  They're also, I would point out, a heck of a lot faster to get off the drawing boards and actually hiring people.

    I agree they should have been one hell of a lot smarter about the optics of such stuff in this bill because it gives the right-wing lots of good stuff to gin up ridiculous outrage about.

    But it's simply an error to blame the slash in funding for states, cities and schools on a handful of golf courses and other trivia.  Blame it instead on the AMT provision and other GOP tax breaks.  Or on President Collins. <cough!>

    Parent

    Earmarks are cool (none / 0) (#70)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    After all, we would not have humorous FBI rails like this: EXCLUSIVE: FBI Raided Lobbying Firm Connected to Murtha

    In 2008, it brought in $13.8 million in revenue representing dozens of defense companies and contractors, many of which have donated heavily to Murtha. The veteran Pennsylvania Democrat has helped the firm secure millions in federal earmark dollars.  Indeed, in 2008, PMA clients won $299 million in earmarks, according to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.


    Parent
    Assuming you're in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    Unless they have moved to the head of the line in January, no city in Wisconsin makes the top 20 for worst unemployment and Wisconsin doesn't make the worst list for states.

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

    Unemployment Rates for States
    Monthly Rankings
    Seasonally Adjusted
    Dec. 2008

    Here are the worst states (and DC) with the highest unemployment:

    42     GEORGIA         8.1
    43     INDIANA          8.2
    44     N CAROLINA     8.7
    45     WASH DC        8.8
    46     OREGON          9.0
    47     NEVADA          9.1
    48     CALIFORNIA     9.3
    49     S CAROLINA     9.5
    50     RHODE ISLAND 10.0
    51     MICHIGAN        10.6

    Parent

    Can't we get a break? (none / 0) (#116)
    by coast on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    SC has some of the lowest education scores, so we are around 45 to 50 in that ranking.  Now when we have a high mark (9.5 unemployment), we still get ranked low.  Shouldn't the ranking system be reversed so SC can get a #3 ranking?  You gotta give us something.

    Parent
    Always want to be fair (none / 0) (#119)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    and to that end, here it is

    The Top 10 of the Bottom 10:

    1     MICHIGAN        10.6
    2     RHODE ISLAND 10.0
    3     S CAROLINA     9.5
    4     CALIFORNIA     9.3
    5     NEVADA          9.1
    6     OREGON          9.0
    7     WASH DC        8.8
    8     N CAROLINA     8.7
    9     INDIANA          8.2
    10    GEORGIA         8.1

    And with a daughter attending college in SC, how can I not look out for the Palmetto State. Go Terriers.

    Parent

    Then, to be fair (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:23:30 PM EST
    don't rely on data from, well, last year.

    Parent
    I'd give ya nothing... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    until one of your lovely sheriffs stops messin' with the Phelps Bong Rip 8:)

    Parent
    Bus ticket? Moving van? (none / 0) (#136)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    Map?  Compass?

    If you can't move, you have two choices (one of which you've already displayed today).

    Parent

    Yes, it got a lot worse in January (none / 0) (#156)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:22:40 PM EST
    See jsonline.com, daily, since your December data.

    Parent
    That's my understanding (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:51:55 AM EST
    BernieO, of the traditional definition of "earmark"-- when Congress funds the budget of, say, the Transportation Dept. overall, but then inserts a line saying they have to used XX bucks of that appropriation to fund a particular bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

    There are some line items in the stimulus bill that are for specific projects, but they're not "earmarked" out of a larger dept. appropriation.

    An "earmark" is like your mother giving you an allowance, but telling you you have to use a chunk of it to buy a DVD of her favorite Chuck Norris movie. :-)

    Parent

    And in some cases (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:42:45 AM EST
    one person's earmark is another person's vital infrastructure project.

    The GOP talks about earmarks. Jeez. They hold the record.

    The way the term earmark was tossed about in the election by the McCain people it's no surprise that Republicans are using that term as an assault on any Democratic investment bill.

    Parent

    I am wondering if the Dems. should (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:46:03 AM EST
    have jumped on the bandwagon of TARP I.  Are they barred from pointing out its earmark-ladenness?

    Parent
    ref roll call (none / 0) (#121)
    by 18anapple2 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    House vote
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

    Senate vote
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&sessio n=2&vote=00213#position

    Parent

    Katie Couric (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    For someone that was close to written off not long ago, her three constantly replayed interviews of Palin, Alex Rodriguez, and now Sully Sullenberger may move Couric from has been to mainstay.

    A quick Google of the last day lists over 9000 articles on Couric with either Rodriguez or Sullenberger. Hard to believe but CBS may now have the most recognizable anchor (although currently still last but gaining in the nightly news network ratings)

    She is a disappointment to me (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    but at least she is not full of herself like Brian Williams.

    Parent
    Chris Dodd introducing Geithner... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    thank Gawd Bodd's campaign went nowhere.  Who could listen to that for 4 years?

    Litany of Failures (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:18:47 AM EST
    His litany is correct.  Since one of those failures that he listed is that of boards of directors, I am now waiting to hear that the regulators are going to pursue at a minimum civil money penalties against directors.

    A Return to Camelot? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    This, from Politico, is kind of interesting...

    Using one of the world's most famous private residences as bait, President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama are unleashing a bipartisan charm offensive and exploiting every square inch of their new home to make friends and influence rivals. The social calendar suggests a return to the days of Camelot.

    Since moving into their new digs, the first couple has hosted a half-dozen gatherings -- from bipartisan cocktail receptions to a public open house to the more intimate Super Bowl party two Sundays ago -- ending many of their days past midnight. Most recently, on Wednesday, the Obamas opened the White House doors to House caucus leaders from the moderate Blue Dog Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus. White House aides say the couple hopes to make the Wednesday cocktail parties a tradition.

    Friends say the Obamas are looking to maintain the dizzying social calendar they had in their pre-White House days, while using their knack for socializing to find new friends and win hearts on Capitol Hill and in other Washington power centers.

    "They want to replicate the same kind of environment they had in Chicago," said a longtime friend of the Obamas, adding that White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers is "the perfect person" for the job because she knows the couple's former life inside out and is "designing the calendar to reflect the kinds of things they like to do."

    "If there was a party or an event [in Chicago], they were there," the friend said. "They've always liked to go to lots of restaurants and be a part of the community. Now they want to be a part of D.C."

    "Barack and Michelle have always been interested in the details of people's lives," the confidant said, calling them "people people." "They know who's engaged to whom, what people's spouses do for a living, all about their parents, where they grew up, names of children."

    The president, the friend added, "likes to be in the know."

    Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of the president's closest friends in the Senate and a guest at a recent White House party, said Obama likes a mixed crowd because he "knows if he's around people like that, he won't get everything sugarcoated. He wants to make sure he stays grounded and wants to hear the good, the bad and the ugly."

    There's nore, but ya just gotta love the McCaskill quote...

    Oh Lawd, can we please stop with Camelot already? (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:38:46 AM EST


    Parent
    Please, yes (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    that is an interesting story, but can't they just drop the comparisons? What would it hurt? Just tell the story.

    Parent
    So, the buck and the recession both (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    stop at the WH. I really wish the decadent spending could be curtailed while the rest of us are trying to figure out where our next rent/mortgage payment is coming from. Feeding cocktails to the secure and financially fat just gets under my skin. Maintaining an over-abundant social life is something all of us would enjoy, I'm sure.

    Parent
    Don't Their Daughters (none / 0) (#151)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:41:30 PM EST
    have to go to school in the morning?
    "ending many of their days past midnight"

    Jeez, if I partied past midnight while my kids were supposed to be asleep on a schoolnight, CPS would be knocking on the door.

    Parent
    And we're supposed to think (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    that Geithner is going to make a success of TARP II?

    From Think Progress:

    The New York Times reports that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "prevailed" against several top Obama aides in "opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions" in the debate on the bailout. Geithner successfully blocked "more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid" and replacing top bank executives and wiping out "shareholders at institutions receiving aid."

    More, from the NYT article:

    He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid.

    Because of the internal debate, some of the most contentious issues remain unresolved.


    [snip]
    For his part, Mr. Geithner will blame corporate executives for much of the economic crisis, according to officials. He will announce rules that require all banks receiving capital from the government to submit plans that describe how they intend to strengthen their lending programs and generally restrict them from using the money to acquire other banks until the government money is repaid.

    But officials said Mr. Geithner worried that the plan would not work -- and could become more expensive for taxpayers -- if there were too much government involvement in the affairs of the companies.

    Mr. Geithner also expressed concern that too many government controls would discourage private investors from participating.

    Geez, no wonder the Republicans were so taken with him...but what was Obama thinking?

    Anne, do you want these banks (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    and their executives to go along with the rescue plan or not?  Geithner's scheme requires their cooperation and confidence because it's combining government and private action on the toxic assets.

    Geithner knows very well that if you overload these people and institutions with punitive restrictions, you might just as well nationalize them because they won't function.

    Do you want the financial system to start working again or not?

    We live in a super-capitalist system.  Like it or not (and I don't, personally) that's what we've got.  You can't take a machete to the legs of that system and the people who run it when it's on the verge of toppling over anyway and expect it to still stand.

    Geithner is trying to thread a very small needle here.  His stated requirements for public disclosure are frankly already pretty draconian and may sink the chances of the plan working all by themselves, IMHO.

    Seems to me you can maybe get away with either whacking the bejesus out of these institutions or requiring total transparency, but not both.  Given the choice, I'd vote for just what Geithner's insisted on.

    Parent

    Of course I want the financial system (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:24:38 PM EST
    to work again, but I feel a little like the industry itself has put a gun to our heads and is dictating under what conditions and on what terms they are comfortable cooperating, and I think that's wrong.  It's just wrong.

    Frankly, just because we can clearly see what these institutions are doing does not mean that what they are doing is good.  And, given the terrible way TARP I was handled, and the way those who got bailout funds more or less gave the taxpayers a one-fingered salute while they continued their profligate ways, I don't have a lot of confidence that things are going to be a lot different this time around.

    How is it that the industry managed to function before all the de-regulation?  How is it that things managed to function when banks were just banks, and brokerage houses were just brokerage houses?  I just don't buy the theory that somehow, instituting some sensible regulation will bring the whole thing to its knees.

    For the last however-many-months, we had watched as billions of dollars were handed out to troubled, and apparently not-so-troubled, institutions; the credit markets did not unlock, many used the money to acquire other institutions, salaries remained at record levels, the bonuses were paid - what changed for these financial institutions?  How much help did they provide to the homeowners?  What did they do for the housing industry or the auto industry?  Anything?

    Why should I have any confidence that TARP II will be any different than TARP I?  And what are the consequences to the economy if it doesn't work?  Will we get a chance to try it again, with more oversight and more requirements, or will there be no third time?

    I'm telling you now that if what we see early on is more of what we've already seen, we are in deep, deep trouble.


    Parent

    One at a time (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    The vast majority of the institutions getting the bail-out money did not give the taxpayers a one-fingered salute.  There were a couple of high-profile outrage-generators that were ginned up to way more than they should have been.  They weren't great moves, but they weren't wildly irresponsible from the point of view of the financial institutions trying to keep their ships afloat.

    The guy with the million-dollar office renovation, obviously, is somebody who should be taken out and shot, however, for sheer stupidity.

    I'm all for substantial re-regulation.  So is Obama.  So is Geithner.  So is Paulson, btw, not that that matters anymore.

    You don't reorganize an entire industry on which the entire rest of the economy utterly depends while it's teetering on the brink.  Re-regulation does not under any rational scenario belong in either TARP or the current crisis.  Period.

    The credit markets did not unlock enough, but they did unlock.  Look at the charts for Libor and the TED spread, etc.  They responded immediately to TARP one and have continued to respond.  It's not enough.  We knew it would not be enough.  Paulson tried to explain to Congress and the public why it wouldn't be enough.  Congress and the public had a hissy fit, so he only got half of what he thought was the minimum amount needed, and way too late.

    A number of the bigger financial institutions used some of the money to acquire other institutions under government pressure.  They didn't do that in defiance of the government or the taxpayers or anybody else but because the outfits they acquired were going to go under completely otherwise, and the government pressured them to make the acquisitions (in some cases over considerable resistance) in order to avoid that.

    I don't know enough to know whether that was the right thing to do or not, but neither does anybody else.  The point is, however, they didn't do it to engorge themselves with chocolate bon-bons and corporate jets but in hopes of surviving.

    Salaries did not remain at record levels.  They were at record levels in 2007, and were nearly halved in 2008.  In addition, a lot-- a lot-- of people on Wall Street lost their jobs entirely, and all of them who owned any stock at all lost big-time.  I'm not weeping any tears for them, but let's please stay in the real world.  They did not make out like bandits, they suffered pretty substantial losses.

    "Bonuses," as you must surely know by now, Anne, are the way everybody in the financial industry gets paid.  They get the bulk of their year's pay in a lump sum at the end of the year called a "bonus," but it's not what you and I think of as the normal meaning of the term "bonus."

    What did "they" do for the housing and auto industries?  Probably not much, if you mean the banks.  They're struggling to survive.  That's the whole point.  They're not in a position to "do anything for" anybody.

    Yes, TARP II is actually quite different from either the original plan for TARP I or what actually was done with the TARP I funds.  Will it work?  I dunno.  Nobody knows.  It sounds like it has a chance, though.

    Listen up, plese.  Getting the financial system on a steady footing again is far, far, far more important than the stimulus bill.  Without a functioning system-- which at the moment we don't have-- nothing else works and the stimulus money will just go down the drain without accomplishing anything.

    The alternative is to further nationalize the banks.  Argue for that if you think it's a better way to go.  Better minds than yours and mine can't agree on it.  But it's a moot point because there's no way the U.S. government will be able to get away with nationalizing the banks.  Unless you don't mind the prospect of President Bush 45 or <shudder> President Palin.

    Parent

    Thanks for the info - even if some of it was, (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:53:25 PM EST
    for me, like Greek.

    I think that what is so scary is that 99% of us don't know enough to know whether to be reassured or scared; there is such a tremendous sense of lack of control, and a feeling like there is nothing to hold onto.

    My comments and reaction to all of this are not meant to be anything more than Average Jane reacting to both the current plan, and what happened before.  I honestly have not heard much of anyone praise, even faintly, the TARP I plan.  Yes, I am aware that the government more or less insisted that even banks which did not particularly need bailout money take it anyway so as not to highlight the ones which were in serious, serious trouble - that may have been to stop the imminent implosion of the worst of the banks, but the general impression the American people had was, "uh-oh - my money's not safe no matter where it is!" which didn't exactly help.

    What it comes down to is that I just don't have much confidence that help is really on the way - if I feel that way, I know others do, too - and we're not spending because we are afraid to.

    I hope it works, but the first read on it is that there aren't enough specifics - and whether it is just not practical to have specifics at this stage, I don't know, but people have to have them; if you can't get people to trust that things are at least well in hand, things are not going to improve much.

    Parent

    Strong advice (none / 0) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:30:58 AM EST
    If you're getting most of your info on this from the blogs, stop.  Virtually all of them, with the exception of Kevin Drum, simply don't know what the heck they're talking about.  (And I include Atrios in that. Though he may have the knowledge, he's in such an ideological/partisan rut, he can't put that knowledge to use intelligibly.)

    I agree wholly on the confidence problem. I have maybe slightly less lack of confidence than you do, but mine is for maybe a different reason, which is that nobody has a clue what to do because nobody's ever encountered anything like this before.

    But Geithner, despite his income tax mess and despite his semi-culpability in things getting this bad to begin with, is very, very, very bright and very innovative and by all accounts very willing and able to think outside the box.  He also knows the financial system, which is at the core of this whole thing, in more intimate detail than anybody else in the country, arguably.  Personally, I felt less pessimistic by half when he was announced as the new T sec.

    But please, read the newspapers, especially the expert financial reporters at the Times and the Post and even the dread WSJ, and listen to high-level discussions on TV, especially for facts not opinion.  Charlie Rose on PBS has been doing some great shows on all this.

    Regular TV and newspaper reporters simply don't know what they're talking about and their bias is for conflict and outrage.  Read/listen beyond the surface.  The stuff you railed against in your post is crappy headline stuff and it doesn't take much reading/listening to discover the headlines give a totally false impression.

    Lastly, listen to the GOPers.  If you find them railing against the same things you're tempted to rail against, stop and think about it.  They rarely tell the truth, so it's a good tip-off that there's a lot more to the story.

    I'm terrified to spend, too.  Not that I have much to begin with, but I'm hoarding every penny because I live modestly but have such a low income that I have virtually no savings anyway.  I haven't even been able to look at what's happened to my very modest investments that were supposed to keep me from having to live on the street in my old age, which isn't that far away.

    It's ugly and will get uglier.  But it's not quite as out of control and insane as it seems from only reading the headlines and the blogs.

    Parent

    Transparency v Accountability? (none / 0) (#92)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    I don't think that the price of transparency should be a lack of accountability.   Maybe you need the cooperation of the banks at this point so going after the people who failed their fiduciary responsibilities does not make sense now.  

    I'm willing to give Geithner and Obama time to work through the morass.  But at the end of this day some large banks are not going to look like they do now.  I'm hoping that Geithner is going to keep throwing good money after bad for a long time in the hopes that we can go back to the status quo ante.  He's a banker and should know that at some point it becomes apparent whether or not the problem is going to work out or not.  At some point you need to take your losses and move on.  

    Parent

    It's up to the shareholders (none / 0) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    and investors to go after them on the issue of fiduciary responsibility, not the government.  There's no law against making bad investment decisions-- thank goodness.

    Demanding executives be fired and wiping out shareholders (who aren't just the fat cats of the world, btw, but lots and lots of ordinary people, not to mention mutual funds and other investment vehicles, which would also be wiped out) isn't "accountability" it's just punitive.

    As for the government prescribing what they do with every jot and tittle of the cash-- ugh, ugh, ugh.  Last thing we need right now is another layer of bureaucracy and the accompanying timelag.  These executives need some broad restrictions and goals, and then they need to be jawboned to exhaustion.  And a continuation of the public shaming Obama and Geithner are giving them is absolutely necessary.

    Ronald Reagan broke down the self-imposed restraint on greedy behavior caused by shame without which a capitalist system becomes utterly toxic.  Obama's making a start on bringing shame back into the picture.  That may be more important in the end than almost anything else.

    Parent

    The Regulators Can Impose ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:32:15 PM EST
    civil money penalties on boards and officers that are guilty of willful violations of laws and regulations.  I am not convinced that there are  not violations of Sarbanes-Oxley out there.  How could these directors sign off on financial statements attesting to the solvency of their institutions?  

    Parent
    Oh, there may well (none / 0) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:00:20 PM EST
    be a few.  But not very many.  We got into this, I'm afraid, through entirely legal and accepted means.  That's the whole problem.

    Parent
    You are Probably Right... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    but even making the case against a few might put some healthy fear into the directors and management.  

    Parent
    The last thing these people (none / 0) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:34:30 AM EST
    need right now is more fear.  They are absolutely terrified, which is why the financial system isn't working and there's no credit.

    Parent
    WHIFFED ON HOUSING (none / 0) (#47)
    by jedimom on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    AND WHIFFED ON HOUSING

    DEVASTATING

    DOW DOWN 300 GOLD SOARING ME WIGGIN OUT

    Parent

    Don't wig on the DOW... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    I know gamblers...and that is just gamblers being gamblers.  We are not exactly known for our level-headed thinking when in the pits, be they the pits of Wall St., or the pits of the Tropicana.

    Parent
    Some interesting news.... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    Both Dodd and Lieberman look vulnerable in the latest poll by Quinnipiac.

    It's still early, but this is telling:

    Fifty-one percent of those polled said they probably or definitely will not vote for Dodd in 2010, when he is up for re-election. Fifty-four percent said they were not satisfied with Dodd's explanation of his receiving preferential rates on two Countrywide Financial mortgages.

    This is the first time in a Quinnipiac Poll that more respondents have disapproved of Dodd's job performance than approved. In a Dec. 17 poll, 47 percent approved while 41 percent disapproved. Before that, more than 50 percent of respondents approved of Dodd's performance.

    The numbers appear even worse for Lieberman, although he isn't up for re-election until 2012. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D), who The Hill reported last week is considering a challenge, leads the senator in a hypothetical match up by a 58 percent to 30 percent margin.
    BTD, did you anticipate (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    Axelrod would be so seemingly influential in the Obama administration?  (Although hee lost his battle with the Sec'y of Treasury apparently.)

    I did (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:29:32 AM EST


    Parent
    But won the battle for State, (none / 0) (#4)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:33:28 AM EST
    I'd say.

    Parent
    You lost me (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    I'm not questioning the accuracy, just not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

    Parent
    No doubt Axelrod had an (none / 0) (#15)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:59:58 AM EST
    influence on the selection of Hillary for SoS.  There was division 'in the ranks' and plenty of controversy over that appointment.  Someone's argument carried the day.  I'm betting it was Axelrod who knows the Clintons very well.

    Conversely, had he opposed her appointment, I doubt it would have happened.

    Parent

    He sure didn't seem to like Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:50:55 AM EST
    during the primaries. He was perfectly willing to allow the campaign to paint her as a racist, not exactly something you do to someone you like - unless you have no scruples and are willing to do anything to win.

    It would be interesting to know who really fought for her. Hillary won over a lot of the right wing Senators once they got to know her.  Maybe she had the same effect on Obama when she joined his campaign. I never got the impression they had  worked together much in the Senate.

    Parent

    He directed it (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:42:26 AM EST
    He wasn't simply "allowing" the campaign to do anything. When reporters would ask him about his memos to the campaign on how to pull off painting Hillary in every possible bad light, he would change the subject.

    Who really fought for her? The DNC had the entire primary planned, and they did whatever they needed to do to make sure they got the end result they wanted. My guess is they were pushed into needing to give Hillary something better than expected to try to smooth over what they did to her during the primaries and at the convention. Her supporters (and the various factions of PUMA)required something substantial. If deals were made, my best guess is they were all between the candidates and the DNC. Even an objection from Axelrod couldn't derail those deals.

    Parent

    Paint her as a racist? (1.66 / 3) (#60)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:55:28 AM EST
    You do know Axelrod's background with his child and the Clintons?

    He didn't have to paint Hillary as a racist as many blacks including myself were damn offended by her campaign and her surrogates.

    "shuck and jive" and "he wouldn't be were he is if he weren't black" are among the most appalling things that came out of the primary.

    Parent

    Oh pleases (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:24:11 AM EST
    stop blaming Hillary for things she had no control over.  Those people were not campaigning for her.  

    Their words were perhaps stupid but calling Hillary a racist because someone who supported her was using racist language.

    Sheesh.....several Obama supporters were obnoxiously and openly sexist...including Jesse Jackson Jr.  And most women were offended by them.  But to say Obama is a sexist because someone working for him, campaigning for him was stupid would be closed minded and unfair.

    So please cut it out.  Stop assigning racism to Hillary Clinton because her track record and activism and actual accomplishments show the truth.

    Parent

    i call bs (4.00 / 3) (#66)
    by jedimom on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:03:36 AM EST
    but okey doke was okay right? and BIden saying hes a fairytale man clean and articulate was okay right?

    Obsma played that card after he LOST NH and eveyrone knows it

    gimme a break not a racist bone in Hillary or big dawgs body

    Parent

    This isn't about Biden (1.50 / 2) (#68)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:07:07 AM EST
    the commenter made a statement about Hillary and I responded.

    Obsma played that card after he LOST NH and eveyrone knows it

    Really? Tell it to a black person that Obama played "that card." It is offensive to think that a black man and one named Barack Hussein Obama could play "a race card." Please.

    I'm not saying that Hillary or Bill are racist but what I will say is that the things that happened in the campaign and as one who supported Bill and knocked on doors for Bill and whose parents and family members until last year believed that the Clintons were "like family to the black community," it was disappointing to say the least as to how the campaign went down and it hasn't been forgotten.

    Parent

    Are you nuts? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Spamlet on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    When did Hillary say these things? Times, dates, places, and sources, please.

    Parent
    News article (Chicago Sun-Times?) (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:01:44 AM EST
    early in primaries included information when Obama arrived in the U.S. Senate, he sought Sen. Clinton's advice on how to deal with all the media attention, given he was a brand-new junior Senator.  Then he moved on to others' advice.

    Parent
    Are you saying Axelrod wanted Hillary? (none / 0) (#22)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    I hadn't heard that.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    He's got an office right off the Oval - even Karl ROove didn't have that.  Could Axelrod be the new "t*rd blossom"?

    Parent
    I'm still curious. Is Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    the policy wonk behind Obama, or does the President run the show?

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    I think only time will tell.

    Parent
    Why Would Anything Have Changed? (none / 0) (#124)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:51:36 PM EST
    Throughout the campaign, the coverage of the inner workings of the Obama operation always highlighted the fact that he was in charge and that his skilled team, while all having their areas of day to day authority, answered to him.

    What little I know of his WH set up seems like a continuation of this.


    Parent

    See... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:30:14 PM EST
    I never bought that "Obama's experience comes from running his huge campaign" schtick - candidates are never in charge, nor run their own campaigns.  That's what campaign managers (i.e. David Axelrod) do.

    Of course, that wasn't the meme, because Obama had to look strong and have experience, but this does not surprise me that Axelrod is so close.  My guess is Obama doesn't make a move without him.

    Parent

    I'm Sure Axelrod Is Influential (none / 0) (#148)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:14:35 PM EST
    And, if you read what I wrote you'd see that I allow for the fact that in the day to day operations of the campaign (and now in the WH) Obama depends on his staff etc. to manage things. How could it be otherwise in either case?

    But I have never ever seen any published reference to Obama not being the final authority in either his campaign or in the WH.

    Have you? Sincerely. I would love to hear reputable accounts that paint a different picture.

    Parent

    Not that I can think of (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:23:53 PM EST
    But what I was saying is that Obama supporters would counter the argument over his lack of experience by saying "He's running a campaign with thousands of people!  That's good management experience like he'll need in the WH!" To which I say, poppycosh!  A candidate (at that level) does not run the campaign - they go where they're told, they say what they're told, everything is focus group tested, campaign strategy is not made by the candidate, marketing decisions are not made by the candidate, etc. I would say on his campaign, he may have been the final authority on some things, but on the majority, it would have been Axelrod.

    And the whole thing of a political media person having the office adjoining the Oval (when even Bush didn't do that) for me just continues the idea that Obama is a product that was sold to the American public and will govern according to the best ad campaign.

    Parent

    Unlike Bush/Bush's Brain (none / 0) (#154)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:16:42 PM EST
    Nothing I've seen anywhere since Obama began running or since he won the election supports your position that the two relationships are analogous. Nothing. Not even close.

    I have no special insight into whether Obama ran things ultimately except all accounts by insiders and knowledgeable observers indicate that is so.

    It seems to me that if it were not so there would be plenty of people who knew and plenty who would come forward to break the story of how Bush/Rove-ian their relationship is...what a scoop!

    I could see a more apt comparison with (Bill) Clinton/Carville as this writer notes. And it makes sense to me what Axelrod himself describes as his role: crafting the message, which is important on both political and policy fronts. Why not have the guy who's been doing that so masterfully continue and be close at hand?

    Parent

    Oh, I see why Obama wants him close (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:21:07 PM EST
    Like I said - it's just the appearance that the media/political guru has an office next to the Oval (which even Rove didn't have).

    And, I had a relative that worked on a campaign. The candidate has broad overview of what they would like, but the campaign manager is the one definitely calling the shots - that's their job. Especially when the candidate is particularly "green".

    Parent

    Axelrod is much more publicy (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    prominent than I expected and speaking in great detail on policy matters.  I thought he would sign a huge book contract advance and wait for the next campaign.

    Parent
    I Guess I Expected That Too (none / 0) (#140)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    But he was always front and center as a major (the major?) part of the campaign so seeing him in the West Wing isn't so surprising to me either.

    Geez, look at Plouffe over in Azerbaijan. Apparently he is now handling it okay, but that seemed more than a bit dicey when I first heard about it.

    Parent

    Axelrod is to Obama what (none / 0) (#144)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    Rove was to Bush. It seemed a given that Axelro.. would go to WA with his candidate. He also knew a lot more about the campaign when he was the invited member of the panel on MTP & This Week, etc. than his candidate ever did.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#145)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    But enlighten me. I'm open to seeing your side of this.

    All of the coverage during the campaign depicted Obama as the final authority. I never saw anything substantive that said otherwise.

    Links for your position?

    Parent

    Talk about your overly (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    simplistic either-ors.

    Whether Obama has more final say or Axelrod does (highly doubtful), Obama has enough highly experienced, thoughtful people advising him on an ongoing basis, that it seems a absurd to talk about A "policy wonk behind Obama".

    Parent

    My question is why was it leaked? (none / 0) (#30)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    Who was the audience for the leak?  I'm thinking the bankers as a we could have gone this far but we didn't thing maybe...

    Parent
    My guess (none / 0) (#51)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:51:02 AM EST
    is that it was leaked by someone at treasury to burnish Geithner's credentials on this issue.  "See he even beat down Axelrod to get his plan..."

    Parent
    TARP II/III could provoke a populist revolt (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:33:29 AM EST


    Not with this population... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:38:39 AM EST
    we collectively don't care about anything that much...the only way you see a revolt go down in the US is if people start literally starving...and nothing less than that, I'm convinced.

    Starvation and maybe reinstituting the draft...maybe.

    Parent

    Or maybe it will ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:39:20 AM EST
    be like Star Trek films.  Only the even ones will be good.

    ;)

    Parent

    Geithner was an architect of TARP I (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:41:15 AM EST
    so I read -- so I doubt that TARP II will do better.

    And this was the very, very best guy to get at the top, so very, very good that it was worth looking the other way on his tax problems -- and worth that taking down numerous other appointments?  We will see whether the president is being well served or whether this guy was another sop to Republicans.

    Parent

    Krugman seemed to think so (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    What does that say about us being a meritocracy like the Republicans claim?

    Parent
    The same populists (none / 0) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:46:17 AM EST
    that showed up as TChris' Pro-Gov't rally on inauguration day?  I doubt it.


    Parent
    Only with leadership... (none / 0) (#17)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:03:50 AM EST
    somebody has to call the 'strike,' make the signs and provide transportation...ie. NACA recently:

    "Hundreds of protesters rallied on Glenville Road outside the home of a financial company CEO to denounce predatory mortgage lending practices.

    Organizers with the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, a nonprofit homeowner advocacy group, gathered outside the home of William Frey, CEO of Greenwich Financial Services, LLC. The move was part of the nonprofit's national accountability campaign to get company executives, who they believe contributed to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, to support refinancing loans to keep people in their homes, according to Liz Floyd, one of the organizers and a counselor with NACA.

    Protesters, wearing yellow NACA T-shirts and bearing signs that read "Fix our loans, save our homes,"

    Parent

    That's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    And only covered in the local papers (and Raw Story).

    There was also a huge turnout at a health care forum, where Dodd said single payer "wouldn't happen." Yes, it will.

    Given that income inequalitiy in CT is very high, it's not surprising that all that activity is taking place there. In fact, I bet there's a lot more we don't know about.

    Parent

    dodd (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jedimom on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    introduced Geithner this morning with a note that 25,000 homes in CT are in danger of foreclosure, and then Geithner whiffed and gave us NADA on housing, WTH is wr with these people???? HOLC

    THIS AFTER SCHUMER and Senate Ddown two diff GOP amends to stimulus that had refis at 4% for all america....

    wheres my HOLC

    Like wheres myu golden arm....

    Parent

    CNN yesterday is what (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:42:44 PM EST
    alerted me to it...the organizer was interviewed and a pictures or a bit of video of the pickets at the CEO's home.

    I'd just been asking a friend why we didn't see homeowners picketing offices and homes of these bank big shots and CNN obliged!

    Not enough, however...I want to see a lot more of this but it doesn't 'just happen' spontaneously.  

    Leadership vacuum.

    Parent

    Could part of it be that's where the insurers are (none / 0) (#48)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    head quartered?

    Parent
    Oh, forget it, I thought this was about (none / 0) (#55)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:52:43 AM EST
    insurance not mortgages.

    Parent
    Big Money is Big Money (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    insurers, banksters, whatever.

    Parent
    TARP II (none / 0) (#8)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:40:52 AM EST
    Looks like another attempt to resuscitate endless revolving credit, at every level, from household to business to the banks to the US Treasury.

    Cardiac Paddles please

    Geithner just called TARP I (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:21:39 AM EST
    an example of acting "quickly and courageously."  Well, he's correct about the first adverb, anyway.

    Since he was an architect of TARP I, so I read, this was a jarring comment in several ways.  And in general, his lecturing mode is a delivery too fast to follow but sure conveys doom, gloom, and disaster.  

    Ah, he has just given us the answer!  A new website.  Heaven help us.

    Parent

    no he wasn't (none / 0) (#71)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:10:01 AM EST
    ok cream city

    where do you get your info from?

    what do you suppose we do?

    we're all open to all ideas right now

    Parent

    Nationalize the banks. (none / 0) (#75)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    Rescind the Bush tax giveaways, and tax private equity funds appropriately.

    Parent
    Glad to hear it then (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:29:52 AM EST
    and I'll check my source, an economist friend, against yours.  It is?

    Parent
    THanks Cream City and Mals for responding (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    First all let me start by saying  it's an honor to have Cream City reply to my post. Like Oculus i have been reading your posts for about 5 months now. So i kind of feel special you responded to me. Thanks

    I was listen to Paul Krugman on morning joe the otherday and he said no " anyone can become an economist, there's no license requirement."

    Just because  your friend is an economist doesn't mean he had insider knowledge.

    Does insider knowledge or close proximity to the fed reserve constitute authorship of tarp?

    If your friend did have insider knowledge then- what does that make him a co- designer of tarp too?

    and if he was a co- author should we really be listening to him either?

    Parent

    Adopted: thanks for changing you handle (none / 0) (#138)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    from ALL CAPS. (or whoever did that) It was DRIVING ME CRAZY

    Parent
    Hey DFler (none / 0) (#143)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    Thanks--

    You know Oculus asked the question " why is your name in all caps"

    and i told him it was a mistake-- and i didn't know how to fix it.

    Then out of the blue i noticed my new handle size-- so i don't know who fixed it for me-- but thanks to whoever did.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:28:52 PM EST
    do not provide what was asked.  And cut the crap; I'm not fooled by it.  Your mission here is clear.

    Parent
    Hey Cream City-- thanks for your reply (none / 0) (#159)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:51:03 PM EST
    Was that you who asked me why my handle was all in caps?  i thought it was Oculus but i could be wrong.

    I don't know if i have ever replied to your before or not-- but i have been reading your blog post for sometime now. So it is a honor to have you reply to my post.

    Cream City i am familiar your with style of blogging its very assertive  and sometimes negative-- which is fine. I respect that.

    But let me ask you a question why are you so quick to jump to conclusions?

    You know i have a lot of respect for a lot of bloggers here. They are not afraid of good political discourse.  They admit their mistakes and are generally good people.  

    That's the main reason why i decided to name my handle after BTD-- because except for Jeralyn, BTd is the person for whom i have the most respect for.

    But i do not respect people who make wild eyed accusations-- with the intent of showing bloggers who the blogging political heavyweight is.

    Like i said i know you have been here for a while. That's great. I know you pride yourself on being the tough assertive no nonsense blogger-- i get it.

    But could it be possible that you are wrong sometimes and that your political knowledge and blogging hubris and radar might be wrong in this case?

    Just asking - and in the eternal words of My Blog Father

    IMHO

    Parent

    Well . . . (none / 0) (#13)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    I'm going to do something for myself and not wait around for Washington D.C. to start sending out care packages.

    Catch ya later.

    Smart move... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:14:05 AM EST
    are they even offering care packages?  Coulda fooled me if anyone making less than a well-connected master of the universe was getting any monetary love outta these deals.

    Is it too late to just cut every American a check for 5 grand and be done with it?  I mean were just printing the money anyway...f*ck it, lets go down in a blaze of glory, we could all have one helluva "end of the world as we know it" bender with 5 grand right?  I'm serious...and at least it would be fun.

    Parent

    Market Is Tanking... (none / 0) (#21)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:14:22 AM EST
    even before Tim speaks.  It will be interesting to see if it rises as a result of the Press Conference.  I'd say the market doesn't care too much for the leaked plan.

    Brokers will jump from windows (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    hearing this.  Major doom-and-glooming from Geithner.  He looks and sounds like an assistant vice principal, the one in charge of discipline.

    Parent
    Brokers are not going to jump but... (none / 0) (#58)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    Geithner did two things that roiled the markets; he didn't come up with any real specifics and he basically signalled that the regulators are going to be identifying winner and loser banks in a serious manner.

    Parent
    Well, I like that latter part (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:32:44 AM EST
    scary as it may be for the markets.  I am waiting for a full transcript of Geithner's remarks -- as I noted, although I watched it, I found him hard to follow with his fast delivery.  It's probably the norm in his Wall Street milieu, but when he is talking to the country, it calls for a different delivery.  He certainly did convey an urgency, though.

    Parent
    Geithner Did a Live Interview Afterwards... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    and now I am not sure that he's going to use the stress testing to identify the banks with good long term survival probabilities but rather to identify how much the banks needs.  I still think he is trying to buy time, though.  I'm not sure that the alternative, i.e. recognizing the losses and shutting down the insolvent banks right now is the right way to go either.  

    Parent
    Sweden, not Japan. (none / 0) (#139)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    Why is this hard when we have these experiences to look to?

    What am I missing?  Besides HOLC, I mean.

    Parent

    Markets look for certainty. They responded well (none / 0) (#32)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:27:32 AM EST
    to Clinton raising taxes on the upper class because it meant he was serious about reducing the deficit.  

    Parent
    Markets like to freak (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    out over expectations.  A fly in the room makes them panic because they expected no flies in the room.

    Main problem with Geithner's speech is he gave very few specifics and seemed to have specifics worked out yet.

    Parent

    Amen... (none / 0) (#76)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    markets do like to freak.  It is why looking at the market on a day to day basis is kind of silly for the average investor.

    Parent
    Jeez...EVERYBODY failed (none / 0) (#23)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:16:56 AM EST
    according to Geithner.

    Scary.

    Systemic Failure... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:52:40 AM EST
    you don't expect this kind of sudden meltdown without failures at every level.  The deflation of the housing bubble alone wouldn't have caused the meltdown of the financial institutions.  If the banks had adequate capitalization and risk management, if the credit rating agencies hadn't blown their ratings, if the regulators hadn't looked the other way etc. there would have been difficulties but not meltdowns.

    Parent
    Important Priorities (none / 0) (#28)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    The UFL, a startup pro football league founded by San Francisco investment banker Bill Hambrecht, continues to attract new money.

    The league said Monday it pulled in an additional $30 million from a consortium of backers that has expanded to include financier Paul Pelosi, the husband of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

    My guess would be that (none / 0) (#79)
    by coast on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    San Fran or someplace close by will be getting a new or renovated stadium soon after the stimulus bill is passed.

    Parent
    L A Times on (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:39:50 AM EST
    the villain behind the cut of arts funding from the stimulus bill:

    Coburn

    I have gotta (none / 0) (#41)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:43:27 AM EST
    ask, Where is it written that the function of government to fund any arts via the taxpayer?

    Parent
    It is written... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:53:24 AM EST
    that the government should not fund tyranny...yet they do.

    It's too big too reel the mofo in now, that game is over Wile...we are reduced to arguing over the re-distributed scraps...I like art-funding scraps over tyranny-funding scraps myself.  Coburn likes the tyranny.

    Parent

    Not written in U.S. Europe, of course, (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:50:58 AM EST
    has a long tradition of government support of the arts.  

    I recently read arts organizastions bring more money into economy than sports organizations do.

    Does create jobs and assist in keeping the arts viable.

    Also feeds the soul.

    Parent

    Provide a link. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:12:53 AM EST
    I have read where people who voluntarily donate to the arts feel really good about themselves.  Set the example.  

    Parent
    I do support the arts financially, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:15:52 AM EST
    both through contributions and buying many, many tickets.  I also supported building a new baseball park in San Diego, via buying tickets and lots of tax dollars.  

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#82)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:27:52 AM EST
    with good marketing many more people will voluntarily support the arts and the taxpayer can be left out of it.

    Parent
    I feel the same way about (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:29:35 AM EST
    so many government-funded programs:  Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:57:42 AM EST
    The Iraq war and fighting in afghanistan is Wylie's equivalent to season tickets at the met.

    Parent
    Sam here. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:01:16 PM EST
    May as well nip this one in the bud before it even starts, right?

    Parent
    When can we roll out... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:47:36 PM EST
    voluntary funding for the DEA...cuz once it is voluntary, they are finished!  

    The arts will survive regardless because people have always made and appreciated art, more so in hard times...knocking down some poor slob's door with a flash grenade and automatic weapon in your hand to rip up his garden is a relativeley new phenomenon.  

    I'm with you man...line itemized taxes where we the people choose what to fund...we'll see more arts funding and less tyranny funding, I guarantee it:)

    Parent

    Hey... (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    ... maybe we can do that with defense spending, too!

    That's such a ridiculous argument.  I get that you don't care for art and feel no need to publicly fund it.  But frankly?  Everyone has an objection to something that their taxes go for.

    I'd much rather pay taxes for support of the arts than for development and manufacture of bigger, noisier weapons.

    Alas, neither of us really gets to choose.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#153)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:03:36 PM EST
    you have the Constitution there with the provide for the common defense line.  Show me where the Gov't has any function to do with art.

    Parent
    That IS unfortunate (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:08:11 AM EST
    Actually, the defense I don't mind.  It's the offense that I have a problem with.  But for me, I guess art falls in with both insuring domestic tranquility and  is one of the blessings of liberty.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#166)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 05:07:44 AM EST
    then you would have no problem with a separate bill before congress to fund the arts.  Why put it in as as pork in the stimulus package?  It is noble enough to stand on its own, correct?

    Parent
    don't see the reason for it (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by sj on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:02:42 AM EST
    A minor investment in the arts would give a huge economic boost to the town my brother lives in.  It is absolutely not out of place in the stimulus bill.

    Parent
    Define small investment. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 05:00:04 PM EST
    then prove it will help the town.  and then get the Constitution changed.

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#169)
    by sj on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 01:07:39 AM EST
    That's your response?  For a small town, they have two major art shows a year which have traditionally brought in LOTS of tourism.  And they bring in artists -- especially sculptors (who keep the foundries going).  They're having a harder and harder time sponsoring it (you know... the last 8 years, and all).  It would really help the town.

    But seriously?  Prove it?  Change the constitution?  Kind of a school yard type of response.

    Speaking in general, I really don't get the mindset of people who have no interest in contributing to and improving the community.  Sometimes that community just needs a little jumpstart to become thriving again.  What with ripples and all.

    Parent

    Your respoxe is (none / 0) (#170)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 04:26:25 AM EST
    let pork fund small town arts.  I say let the taxpayers decide if they want to spend their money at the art show.  Show me where the federal gov't has has any mandate via the constitution to spend any taxpayer money on that.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#171)
    by sj on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 09:06:54 AM EST
    That's exactly my response.  

    Parent
    I've seen that quote batted around... (none / 0) (#141)
    by EL seattle on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    ... a bit recently.  I think it might come out of stories like this.  I'd want to see a listing of stats that include separate figures for "big league", "semi-pro", "collegiate", etc. sports, as well as the stats for the different categories of museums, galleries, concert venues, etc. before I waved this statistic around too freely.  

    Parent
    Franken/Coleman court fight (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    For anyone who is interested in Al Franken's fight to get seated in the Senate, here's a great update/summary of the latest.
    Also note Wobegongal in the comments -- a 2008 election judge in MN -- she has some wonderful insights and information about MN elections in general and this race in particular.

    I especially note her comment as a word to the wise:

    The most error-prone way to vote is, by far, completing an absentee ballot.


    frakkin devastating (none / 0) (#44)
    by jedimom on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:46:37 AM EST
    nothing specific, an expansion of talf with a trillion on FED balance sheet

    NOTHING  HOUSING NOT A GD THING
    THEY ARE STILL EXPLORING THEIR OPTIONS HE SAYS
    ON PRICING THE ASSETS THIS IS NUYTS JUST NUTS

    WTH RE WE GONNA DO ABOUT HOUSING WHY NO ACTION STILL
    I CALL BS

    WHY NOT READY ON DAY 1 OR DAY FRAKKIN 20 DAMN THEM

    That;s not true Jedimom (none / 0) (#105)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:29:24 PM EST

    1. Did they get the second half of tarp funding before or after his inauguration ?

    2. Can you name 10 things Obama has done since  being in office?

    3. What percentage of those do you disagree with?

    Do you understand what real estate investing is?

    If anyone has bought a reo from a bank or done a short sale-- then they would completely understand how this plan effects the housing markets.

    Reo--Bank Owned-- these are usually homes  that went through the foreclosure process and weren't bought at the local auction.  and citibank or some other bank owns them now.

    Some other non- performing assets-- are houses that are behind in mortgage payments or where the house has a mortgage but the value of that house is lower than the mortgage.

    The banks are eager to get rid of these fast. So the banks usually do what is called a short sale or short pay.This is where the bank discounts mortgage.  this usually creates equity in hoouse which allows the home or bank to sell.  Real estate investors are doing this all offer the country now.  This has attributed to rise in housing sales last month too.

    Short Sales help the home owners because they might be able to save their credit.

    It help the neighborhood -- no new foreclosures.

    It helps the banks because the longer the banks hold on to non performing home loans the more money they lose

    it help the gov't make money by wholesaling.

    it help the tax payer because we make money.

    Just imagine the gov't buying a million reo's from the banks dirt cheap.  Then selling those reo's to private real estate investors ( Real estate Hedge fund), many of which are regular peolpe who have atleast 1 million in a self direct ira.  The gov't would then sell those non performing assests ( houses, notes) to these private real estate investors for more than the what they bought it for. The Gov't makes a profit. The become a wholesaler. Then the private real estate investors will sell them. To all the little investors.  These are typically people who know who Carleto Sheets is.

    The little investor usually does one of three thing.

    1. Keeps the property-- the hedge fund usually financing the property becoming the bank themselves. Which allows their people who have invested their ira to make a 5-8 return on their money of a 30 year period.

    2. Sells to another newbie investor.

    3. Sells to first time home buyer ( sometimes on a lease option which allow them to fix their credit) who will qualify for a fha home loan.  Remember these are setup with the new stricter lending laws.  Which allows a filtering and cleaning of the first time home buyer pool. Which means more qualified homeowners. Which means a increase

    I guess the Tim could have said all of this.

    Why didn't you know all of this-- geez n/t

    And if you don't believe  real estate investor are already being educated on how to buy these homes.  Their linning up

    Parent

    Investors in housing (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:05:47 PM EST
    Are a nightmare. They should be driven out. It's bad enough what happens to the price of homes and rents because of them, but try living in a place that is owned by a REIT.

    Housing should never, ever be anything other than places people are allowed to live in the peace of being Home Sweet Home.

    Parent

    Thank for you reply Inspector (none / 0) (#126)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:55:53 PM EST
    Your famous around these parts as well. So i thank you for responding to my post.

    1. Do you think the plan above as i have written it will work?

    2. My grandmother was an investor and she took care very good care of all of her tenants? People loved her-- she saw it as a way of helping people. So i would be careful to wipe all investors with such a broad stroke.

    3. Where do you get the idea that all investor are bad? and Why would you generalize people like that?.  That's like saying all doctors are bad? All parents are bad? Obviously that's not true right?

    4. Also toilet paper should only be used for you know...  but we used it for other things don't we or am i the only one? Did i just take it too far? lol

    Now i agree with you -- my Professor used to say to me all the time.

    There is the world as it is an the world as it ought to be.

    In the world as it ought to be-- Everyone would walk-- ride bicycles-- use mass transit-- not kill eachother--never cheat tax payers- and Democrats would have 60 + votes in the congress.

    but life is not the simple.  We life in the world as it is.

    Were we only have 58-59 democratic senators-- and a few centrist democrats
    Were we have banks with toxic loans  and some one needs to buy them-- so more people can get student loans

    It sucks i agree.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    A) No - there's still $320 billion left of TARP to be allocated

    B) Yes.  
        1) Signed Executive Order (maybe)closing
           Gitmo.
        2) Signed Ledbetter Act.
        3) Um...had a Super Bowl Party
        4) Lost several cabinet nominees to tax
           problems
        5) Compromised on stimulus
        6) Had a press conference
        7) Gave first TV interview to Al-Arabiya
        8) Revamped the Faith-Based Initiatives Office
        9) Ticked off Gen. Anthony Zinni.
       10) Went to Camp David to relax.

    C) Most of them.

    Parent

    Thanks for your reply jbinc (none / 0) (#120)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:36:14 PM EST
    1.  I was responding jedimom  saying that obama was not ready on day.  My reply was well he was ready on day -1  because he as able to get bush to give him the second parts of the tarps funds before he made it into office.  So ready on day

    2. Prove my point about constant obama criticizers. You all don't do your homework on the Pres.

    3. executive order lifting ban on fuel efficency standards. Clean air act

    4. remove gag rule on abortions.

    5. limit executive pay.

    6. freedom of information act

    7. Signs S- chip

    8. sign executive order that makes it easier for qualified labor union personnel to get gov't contract.

    9. Halting DEA raids on medical mj sites

    8.Terror: Negotiating with Russia to reduce nuclear arms

    1. obama drops bush's administration challenge to mercury emission case.

    2. Obama signs appliance efficiency standards memo

    And there are tons more....

    now which of these things aren't " progressive" ?

    which of these thing do you disagree with?

    Now i will try and reply to your list.

    1. ok

    2. ok

    3. ok be serious please.

    4. like many other presidents.

    5. ok we are living in a real world-- where do you get the 60th votes? from fairies or dead senators-- lol -- i mean come on be realistic.

    6. ok please be serious.

    7. this was a good thing right?

    8. the office specifically said there will be no discrimination.

    9. where are you getting your info from?

    10. this is a good thing right?

    Listen there will be plenty of times for criticism of obama-- but don't do it based off of the tee-vee or newspaper who cites a unamed source. Or somebody who overheard some body who over heard somebody else  that's just silly.

    thanks

    Parent

    Titanic II (none / 0) (#45)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    Welcome aboard ladies and gentlemen.

    Still Haven't Been Able to Confront... (none / 0) (#46)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    the big problem: the large banks are not solvent today.  Geithner is basically buying some time while the regulators come up with a list of banks that have long term prospects of solvency, if they get some short term help and those banks that don't have good long term prospects.  Everything that the Treasury and the Fed are doing is designed to buy time in the hope of stabilization.  That includes help for homeowners.  I'm not sure that that buying time isn't such a bad thing.  But as Geithner says, the test is to pursue stabilization at the lowest cost and risk to taxpayers.  

    The tricky part will be (none / 0) (#59)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    convincing people the markets can sustain levels of overvaluation for years to come during this process.

    A pretty risky gamble.

    Parent

    I agree. n/t (none / 0) (#77)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:23:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Did you read (none / 0) (#64)
    by robert72 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:01:02 AM EST
    Drudge this morning on health care??

    Yes and its a little scary. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by coast on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:33:14 AM EST
    I didn't much care for the government being able to listen to my phone calls or look up my financial information without having sufficient cause, I sure as heck don't like the prospect of them having my medical information or any say so in my care.  I have enough problems with my current carrier.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#85)
    by sj on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:32:11 AM EST


    Parent
    Senate Appoints Conferees (none / 0) (#95)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:50:38 AM EST
    Innoue, Baucus, Reid (NV), Cochran, and Grassley.

    Glad they got the A-Team on it (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:57:06 AM EST


    Parent
    They Have Lots of Ideas But... (none / 0) (#101)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    they are having a hard time choosing among the ideas because every choice is fraught with peril.  For example, the idea of private-governmental investing partnership for buying the toxic assets has been kicked around for a long time.  As soon as the government establishes the price, the balance sheets of banks become clearer.  And maybe that starts a whole new set of problems.  I think they know what to do but don't want to do it at this point.

    Atrios's (none / 0) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:08:27 PM EST
    comment is utterly fatuous, IMHO.  I give him full credit for having been warning about the "big s**tpile" and its eventual collapse for years, but what I've seen of his commentary since then has been, um, unhelpful.

    He is just explaining why the markets are reacting (none / 0) (#122)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    the way they did to Geithner's plan.

    Parent
    Except that he's wrong (none / 0) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:59:25 PM EST
    He's pasting his own oh-so-cool cynicism about everything onto "the markets."  That's what I'm objecting to.  It's perfectly ludicrous on its face to say that anybody who knows squat about it thinks "Geithner hasn't got a clue."

    Everybody's flying blind in this.  Everybody.  The honest ones will admit it.  But of all the people out there, the one person who understands more of the internals of this thing is Timothy Geithner.

    "The markets" in fact have enormous faith in Geithner.  They went into a swoon because they had the unrealistic hope that he was going to walk out and say "Abracadabra" and Everything Would Be Fixed without any pain for any of them.

    He didn't say that.


    Parent

    Sorry, but you are wrong. Geithner may have a (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    clear plan someday.  He did not today.  The markets reacted.  they don't like uncertainty.

    Parent
    The markets (none / 0) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:35:47 AM EST
    reacted before he even opened his mouth.

    Parent
    I hope your confidence in Geithner is ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    well-placed.   I think he's got the brains and experience and his heart is in the right place. But sometimes I think that he is too close to the whole mess to come up with outside the box thinking.  

    Parent
    Thinking outside the box (none / 0) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:40:02 AM EST
    is what he's most particularly known for.  Also for recognizing where he's gone wrong and changing course.

    This is absolutely the last situation you want a naive outsider to be in charge. (BTW, that was the Bush administration's governing philosophy, to put people who knew nothing in charge of stuff in order to get "fresh thinking.")  You want somebody who knows this stuff down to every punctuation mark, and Geithner does.

    Doesn't mean he'll be able to fix this because it really is that cliche of "uncharted territory," but if he can't, I doubt there's anybody who can.  From everything I know about him, he's our best hope.

    Parent

    Senate passed stimulus (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    61-37

    Is anyone else having problems loading? (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:47:40 PM EST
    I can't seem to get comments on the "most progressive" or "good policy" posts.  I assume most others aren't having that problem since there are a lot of comments.  But I thought I'd mention it.

    Yes (none / 0) (#111)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    On multiple posts

    Parent
    There's an external widget that isn't loading (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:09:36 PM EST


    Parent
    It seems to work now (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    But yea, for a while there...

    Parent
    I spoke too soon.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    Gah!

    Parent
    i think it was me (none / 0) (#128)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    i was writing too much-- lol

    Parent
    L A Times article on (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 08:38:58 PM EST
    confirmation hrg. for Solicitor General.  She agrees w/Lindsay Graham.

    LAT

    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 170 comments (170 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment