home

Atrios Goes PUMA (Snark)

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:26:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I kid, but I wonder if he will now be under attack for this post:

Hopey Changey

Ah well.

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials....The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.

It's the banksters' country. We just live in it.

The Obama/Geithner Plan is terrible. Let's hope it gets derailed. Speaking for me only

< Ex-U.S. Sailor Spies for al-Qaeda. Gets 10 Years | Bank Holding Companies Are Not a Legal Impediment To Regulatory Receivership >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Atrios Goes PUMA (Snark) | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I give Atrios a ton of credit, his commenters... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 09:48:13 AM EST
    not so much - with the exception of Military Tracy!  If you weed out the 95% off topic comments - people are getting mad about Obama's plan, but there is one guy over there calling anyone who is mad "Chicken Little".  

    Aww thanks (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    I have recently been commenting on the important things he puts up because there I can use foul language when I've had enough of this insanity and can't take any more.  And he isn't serving law students trying to get through filters.......just the unwashed masses :)

    Parent
    Your Eschaton comment was so great I had to post (none / 0) (#56)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    over at Corrente. Me? Last night I just said William Black was "quite SHRILL," which I meant as a compliment, but it's oh so wimply compared to your comment.

    I'd give you a 10 for that.

    Parent

    I've posted there infrequently for 6 years (none / 0) (#87)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:42:12 PM EST
    got flipped a lot of sh*t during the primaries for my HRC support.
    Nice to see more commenters like you, to balance things out and even the field.  Gracias!

    Parent
    I enjoy reading your commentary. (none / 0) (#88)
    by AX10 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:49:08 PM EST
    I don't always agree, but I believe we are but a page apart.

    Parent
    And poor Josh was sick again last (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    night and ended up awake before dawn with a fever.  I got it to come down and got him resting again and couldn't get back to sleep so I decided to read.  Read the link to the Moyer transcript that Lambert had up here and shortly after that Atrios put this up.  That chicken little dude......if I could have found him in my coffeeless before the sun came up state we would have talked :)

    Parent
    Moyers show also had great interview (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by DFLer on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    with G. Greenwald and A. Goodman about the media. Here.

    Parent
    Dunno about the commenters at Eschaton... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Romberry on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 09:57:37 AM EST
    ...but the commenters on the article at the WaPo are, for the most part, none too happy.

    Now a fair portion (but a definite minority) of the comments at the WaPo come from apparent wingnuts, easily ID'd by words like "Demoncrats" and references like Hussein Obama. But most of the comments over there seem to come from people who are at least sane, and this news is, save for a few Obama apologists, not being greeted very well. I'd describe a fair portion as disillusioned and angry. And I gotta say, I know how they feel when it comes to the angry part. Disillusioned? Not so much. I didn't expect much good from Obama and in that regard I have not been disappointed.

    apparently (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by JoanAllenNow on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    OBama apologists have added a 12th demension to his imaginary chess game to excuse his behavior.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    for posting the link to the Greenwald blog. The meme that Clinton's are "fighters" for the "working class" while Obama is not really takes a hit. Either both are "fighters" or none of them are. If one agrees with Greenwald, they should also believe that if Krugman is right in 2009, he was wrong in 1996 OR if he is wrong now, he was right in 1996. There is no way Krugman could have been right in 1996 and right in 2009.

    --
    "That's $135,000 paid by Goldman Sachs to Summers -- for a one-day visit.  And the payment was made at a time -- in April, 2008 -- when everyone assumed that the next President would either be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and that Larry Summers would therefore become exactly what he now is:  the most influential financial official in the U.S. Government"

    "the crusade led by Alan Greenspan, former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin (Geithner's mentor) and Larry Summers in the late 1990s to block the efforts of top regulators (especially Brooksley Born, head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission) to regulate the exact financial derivatives market that became the principal cause of the global financial crisis."

    "Back in the 1990s, however, Born's proposal stirred an almost visceral response from other regulators in the Clinton administration, as well as members of Congress and lobbyists. . . . But even the modest proposal got a vituperative response. The dozen or so large banks that wrote most of the OTC derivative contracts saw the move as a threat to a major profit center. Greenspan and his deregulation-minded brain trust saw no need to upset the status quo. The sheer act of contemplating regulation, they maintained, would cause widespread chaos in markets around the world."

    Parent

    Clinton's? (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Romberry on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:56:49 AM EST
    Only one of the Clinton's was prez. Dunno how you can slam both based on what the one that was prez did. Hillary is actually, at least IMHO, the more liberal of the two.

    As far as Krugman from 1996 to Krugman of 2009, he most certainly can be right in light of the information available to him in both time periods. 13 years is a while back you know.

    Frankly, your whole comment was cryptic and strikes me as not well formed. If you had a point, dang if I know what it was.

    Parent

    OMG (1.66 / 3) (#37)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:19:21 PM EST
    "Hopey Changey" is an affliction originating from the naive belief that the HRC administration would be different from that of WJC administration! Did HRC speak out publicly against the economic policies of WJC to make you believe that her administration would be different? Wasn't the "experience" she cited the "experience" of "co-running" the WJC Presidency?

    Parent
    I always found it hilarious (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by Steve M on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    that people actually convinced themselves that if the First Lady disagreed with a policy, she would certainly speak out publicly against it.  Riiiiight.

    Parent
    OK. Now I understand. (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Romberry on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    You think a first lady is going to undermine her husband? LOL! Dude, you are something. Dunno what it is...

    Parent
    Wow (1.66 / 3) (#50)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    She had the opportunity to run as her own woman. If she disagreed with the economic policies of the WJC Presidency that was based on bankers being the "masters of the Universe", she could have just run on her record as a Senator (which BTW was "moderate" and not "liberal"), surrounded herself with economic advisors from outside the establishment and highlighted the work that she did as an attorney for women and children's causes.
    I respect Amy Goodman and Robert Reich because they are consistent in their standards. Same cannot be said of the majority of Clinton supporters (Steve M is an exception in this regard) in TL who are inconsistent, misinformed, or in some cases plainly hypocritical in their posts.

    Parent
    She did run as her own woman. And she (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    did publicly disagree with some of the actions taken by her husband.

    Parent
    Well, candidate Clinton did say that (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:47:45 PM EST
    President Clinton had made mistakes with NAFTA and other policies. She might have been lying, we'll never know. But she did speak out against things done by her husband's administration.

    Parent
    And Rubin, Summers, (2.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    and other establishment bankers and economists would have been banished from her inner circle were she President? Greenwald certainly does not think so. Why did she go with Mark Penn and McAuliff to run her campaign if you think that hers would be a very different administration than that of WJC?  


    Parent
    I didn't say it would be a very different (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    administration then Bill Clinton's. I don't think Ruben would have been very involved though, for the same reason that he isn't in the Obama administration. He was sitting on top of Citi while it sank into the swamp.

    Parent
    Very amsuing stuff.... (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by ks on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:09:00 PM EST
    What you think Hillary coulda, shoulda, woulda  done very questionable. Try talking about what Obama is doing. I understand that you're trying to create a diversion but, give it up, you failed.

    Parent
    More amusing stuff (3.50 / 2) (#60)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    What Hillary coulda, shoulda, woulda  done is what sustains the life of Clinton supporters and their engagement with others on TL!

    Parent
    So bizarre. (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    When I read over this thread, it seems to be YOU who brought up the Clintons and began speculating on what HRC would have done as president.

    What Hillary coulda, shoulda, woulda  done is what sustains the life of Clinton supporters and their engagement with others on TL!

    Maybe you should consider that it may be you who is getting some kind of sustenance from these diversions.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#69)
    by daring grace on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 03:28:34 PM EST
    I wonder if others came to this thread expecting to see more references to Secretary Clinton when they read the word PUMA in the title.

    I realize it was snark, but I associate the term PUMA with Clinton supporters (even though I realize it also had larger implications regarding the way internal Dem politics was conducted in the last primary season).

    Parent

    I wouldn't know. (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    I don't speculate why others come to threads, but it was pretty clear to me what the post would be about from BTD's title (and it wasn't HRC).

    The first person who brought up HRC was politicalkix - that was my point. It is a common habit when criticism of Obama is occurring.

    Parent

    Correct (3.50 / 2) (#71)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 04:38:30 PM EST
    Here are some of the things that were written before I posted on this thread

    "Atrios Goes PUMA"
    "Atrios killed my pony! Now I'll never get a pony!"
    "I heard that Atrios's son worked on the campaign of She Who Cannot Be Named."
    "come join the rest of us bitter knitters under the bus"

    Some of the people I engaged with in this thread were giving out "5" ratings for the comments within quotation marks. But Dr. Molly believes that all these comments in quotes have nothing to do with the primaries and my comments were "bizarre"! LOL.

    Parent

    Not what I said. (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 04:50:47 PM EST
    But Dr. Molly believes that all these comments in quotes have nothing to do with the primaries

    But the distortion technique goes right along with the deflection technique, I've noticed. You're not alone in these habits.

    Parent

    Dr. Molly (1.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    "The first person who brought up HRC was politicalkix - that was my point" This is what you wrote and I have proved you wrong!
    Now you are coming up with more distortions, deflections and deceptions. You and Cream City and some others in this thread have not been able to get past the primaries. That is very clear. Please be honest about it. Do not engage in obfuscation. I hate to break it to you in such a direct way but at some point of time an intervention is necessary!

    Parent
    Never mind - let's stop now. (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    I find myself having been drawn into your nonsense and I shouldn't have allowed it. The thread has been hijacked by this crap and I shouldn't have participated in the hijacking.

    Parent
    You seem to have a case of CSDS (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:01:45 PM EST
    aka Clinton Supporter Derangement Syndrome :)

    Oh, and you forgot the one about the cat  ;)


    Parent

    Like the humor :-) (none / 0) (#79)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:08:28 PM EST


    Parent
    No, actually (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:39:07 PM EST
    The Hillary supporters simply respond to the hot air assumption that Hillary wouldn't have done anything differently.

    We don't know one way or another.  We do know she was a Democrat whereas Obama is some wierd convolution of Demo-repubo-neo-crat.

    Parent

    Funny (2.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:48:59 PM EST
    Given the bizarre posts of HRC supporters in TL about how Michelle Obama had offended the Queen of England and the British, I thought that Hillary supporters were Dem-onarchists. I began to worry that they would demand the bad O being thrown in the dungeon because he had usurped the throne that rightly belonged to the House of Clintons :-)

    Parent
    Yeh, look over there! See (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:19:58 PM EST
    the Whatwouldabeen -- a beastie brought out to battle the bad, bad Pumas crawling out from under their bus.  That is, brought out by those with the mindset that anyone questioning the Big O must just hate him . . . and America.  Just change a few words and post it on Freeperville circa 2000.  


    Parent
    Cream City (3.50 / 2) (#63)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:30:07 PM EST
    has come to the rescue in the fight against the bad bad O. She is rating me "2" left and right
    :-). She will soon be joined by the rest of the Clinton Conga Line. I am feeling very scared and must take cover :-).

    Parent
    Yeh, hardly worth it (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:35:11 PM EST
    but I'm bored doing taxes.  By comparison, though, you now have convinced me that IRS forms for 2008 are more interesting to read than your retro drivel, which is so last year, too.    

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 12) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    Stop reliving the primaries.  They are over.  We'll never know what could have happened.  HRC will never run again for president.  

    You got what you wanted.  Now live with it.  These schoolyard games you play don't change the fact that we are getting screwed painfully by our own president -- again.

    Parent

    Atrios killed my pony! (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by lambert on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:00:51 AM EST
    Now I'll never get a pony!

    Hope is not a plan (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    Let's hope it gets derailed.

    Also, the gist of Atrios' post is that the Obamadmin is taking play 102.6 from the bush/cheney republican play book for political skanks which reads:

    "In all situations, regardless of need, use all means necessary, including making up illegal and questionable rational to by-pass all legal/legislative processes to ensure achieving the prime directive of enriching the already rich at the expense of the middle class and the disadvantaged"

    Here's the plan (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:34:57 AM EST
    It's to leeeeeeave the Blue Dogs aloooooone.  The head of the Dem campaign effort for Congress in 2010 tells the lefties in the party to STFU:

    Democratic leader tempers expectations for 2010

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Liberal groups targeting moderate congressional Democrats should "beware of forming a circular firing squad" that could hurt the party in 2010 elections, says the head of the Democrats' House campaign efforts.

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said at a news conference Wednesday he has personally talked with certain individuals from liberal organizations who have begun raising money to finance challenges to centrist Democrats. He warned the efforts threatened to split the party and allow Republicans to pick up seats.

    The Maryland congressman is trying to defuse heady expectations in his party for more gains in next year's midterm elections. . . .

    So just take your heady expectations of hope and change . . . and put 'em where the sun don't shine, progressives.  

    Parent

    Atrios isn't a REAL Democrat... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by JoeCHI on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    ...so it doesn't matter what he says.  He's just a bitter dead-ender like Krugman, BTD, Open Left, Stigletz, et al.  

    Anyway, none of this matters because the J. Crew sweater that Michelle wore is sold out and there's a 200-person waiting list for her skirt!

    ;)

    But, but (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by jbindc on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    Krugman, uh, I mean, Atrios has always hated Obama, so he must be wrong.

    You know what I heard? (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by lambert on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:59:08 AM EST
    I heard that Atrios's son worked on the campaign of She Who Cannot Be Named.

    [meta-irony alert]

    Parent

    Wrong! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:33:08 AM EST
    It was his cat.

    Parent
    i was (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by boredmpa on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 06:02:32 AM EST
    going to make a joke about socialist food stamp kittens.  but then i remembered that cat food isn't covered by the food stamp program.

    humor failure.

    Parent

    I didn't hate Obama (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ChiTownMike on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    but I never did like him. He was not my choice. But even in not liking him even I am surprised that it has only taken him less than two months to skirt the law. It took Bush far longer than that. Boy did he take the Obama supporters for a ride.

    That all said I can see where he would have to sidestep congress in some ways but at least he could be upfront and legal with it.

    Parent

    When even a Chicagoan (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    is surprised by the audacity of an Illinois pol, that's saying something.

    Parent
    Heh! (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:25:36 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes I know (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ChiTownMike on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    I thought he would at least honeymoon us with some more of that pre-election talk, as insincere as it was with his anti-lobbyist man of the people lies. But nope. Such is the ways of the power hungry. Now that he is walking the red carpets of the world he will only get worse.

    Parent
    He grabbed the (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:25:10 AM EST
    baton in a relay race, the pace was already set for him and it is easier to get things done if you don't have to know, or follow, the rules.

    Parent
    Buscheney was doing illegal wiretapping from (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jussumbody on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:17:47 PM EST
    the get go.  Not that I want to defend Obama.  I for one wanted to like him, but the more I heard the more I distrusted.

    Parent
    Glenn Greenwald ties it all together... (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Romberry on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:40:07 AM EST
    ...with links and excerpts from a variety of outlets, including Bill Moyers with W.K. Black, Simon Johnson, an article in Stanford Magazine on Brooksley Born and...well...I think it really is a good idea to just go read the entry:

    Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Wall Street's ownership of government

    The Guardian goes, too (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    as it opines on the Great Orator sans his Great Teleprompter in an interview with the BBC: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question

    "Looking forward," translated (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by lambert on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:16:28 AM EST
    "Here! Have a Get Out of Jail Free card!"

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:22:02 AM EST
    Priceless, and spot on.


    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by jbindc on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    He should have just read the Teleprompter's blog to get the answers he wanted.

    Parent
    This kind of (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:18:09 AM EST
    throws out that argument, that,

    um, ah, um (<--paraphrasing Obama)

    "We have to be nice to them, because we're contractually obligated."

    They certainly aren't contractually obligated to protect the banks from Congress.

    Yes, this is theft, pure and simple, right under our noses.  They are stealing from us, and we knew they would. The ooh's and ahhhs, and J Crew sweaters do nothing to cover that.

    come join the rest of us (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by JoanAllenNow on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:25:13 AM EST
    bitter knitters under the bus.

    In the last few paragraphs (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:54:48 AM EST
    They finally explained why the Treasury wanted to give companies that can survive money.  

    Yeah... (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Romberry on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    ...they explained that the companies that are loaded down with toxic assets, many facing potential insolvency won't play ball unless they get treated like fat cats.

    Sorry, that don't play. If they don't want the money, they don't have to take it. In fact, I dearly wish they wouldn't. And I wish Obama would get up off his knees when dealing with these people. But I won't hold my breath. He's one of them now.

    Parent

    Incentives for the big companies to take (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    the bailout money include those inflated executive paychecks and bonuses.

    Parent
    No that is not what they said (3.50 / 2) (#36)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    They were talking about the fact that the treasury thinks they need to gives these companies money, so they will lend again.  

    Parent
    So they will lend again? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by trillian on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    Yes...that worked out so well with the first bailout.

    Parent
    Actually, it did (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:42:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, in a literal sense that's true BUT... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ks on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    After the fall of Lehman, the banksters "restricted credit" which, mostly means they stopped lending/extending credit to each other because they knew their counterparties (each other) had the same firm killing boatload of derivative crap on their books and they didn't want to risk the credit exposure.  IOW, the crooks didn't trust each other anymore.

    So, we just had to come in and give them hundreds of billions of dollars to cover their bad bets so they would start lending/extending credit to each other again and maybe, if we, the general public, were really nice and asked them pretty please, they would trickle on us and throw us a few "credit" pennies, if they felt like it.  

    Lucky us.  What a great deal we got.  

    Parent

    You really need to read up (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 09:40:44 PM EST
    on this stuff a little bit before you spout off about it.  By no means was it a case of just lending to each other, there was NO short-term commercial paper being moved at all until TARP I.  Meaning businesses large and small that rely on those short-term loans to meet payroll, buy inventory, etc., were unable to operate.  I'd say TARP I managed to barely dodge a bullet.  The commercial credit market was close to frozen solid.

    Parent
    Sure I do.... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ks on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 02:04:06 AM EST
    Right... Note the word "mostly" in my post.  Anyway, while the credit markets started tightening in the latter half of 2007, the rubber really hit the road after the "Lehman weekend"  when they stopped trading each others crap back and forth. Bear was the first biggie to go but Lehman was the shocker and AIG was right behind it.  Not only was there no faith in the con game anymore, they didn't even have their "insurance".  If there was any even remotely honest accounting in place they all would have been belly up.

    So what's a bankster to do when it finally comes time to pay the piper?  Why, go all in and freeze commercial credit after you stop trading the derivative garbage and realize your firm's true value is way less than zero.  In terms of credit and/or unexpected liquidity needs, it would have been so distasteful for them to have to sully themselves and run to the Fed's discount window hat in hand even after the Fed eased the spread and expanded the terms.  No, no the poor dears just couldn't bear dealing with the "stigma issue" that might arise in the markets if it got out the Masters of The Universe were begging like common smelly panhandlers.  Besides, they were  looking for a firm saving/job saving heist and not some short term liquidity that you might have to spend on commercial credit helping commoners make their payrolls.

    So you have your inside govt people and outside media mouthpieces work on a better way of getting your firms instant gigantic with a capital G cash infusions that you can pretty much do with what you please as opposed to the Fed's discount window short term credits.  Of course, afterwards you must protest that the gubmint forced! I say forced! you to take the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Much like the oft copied college party flyer where it states and shows - "Come to this party or I'll shoot this dog" the all out credit freeze was the banksters way of holding a gun to the head of the economy and TARP I was the equivalent of paying off the kidnappers.  

    Parent

    Check your facts, please (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by reslez on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:16:11 PM EST
    gyrfalcon:
    there was NO short-term commercial paper being moved at all until TARP I

    The fact is TARP I had nothing to do with restoring the commercial paper (CP) market. Look to the Treasury's guarantee of money market funds on 9/19/08 for that. The Fed's alphabet soup of lending facilities took care of the rest.

    Money market funds (MMF) buy most commercial paper. When the Reserve Primary Fund broke the buck on 9/12 investors started pulling out of MMFs. This forced MMFs to sell off assets and halt purchases of CP. (helpful chart) Treasury's guarantee on 9/19 staunched the bleeding. Meanwhile the Fed began accepting CP for its auctions. The Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF), announced the same day, finances MMF purchases of CP. The Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), announced 10/07, directly purchases CP. Then there are other programs like Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIF) and Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). More details here.

    TARP I involved recapitalizing banks. It affected the commercial paper market by a circuitous, indirect route at best. It is inaccurate to say TARP I "dodged a bullet".

    More links:
    WSJ: Bailout of Money Funds Seems to Stanch Outflow: Fear That Had Gripped $3.4 Trillion Market Abates, Ending the Reluctance of Funds to Buy Vital Commercial Paper

    Reuters: Fed says to make loans to aid money market funds

    Parent

    they lent our money. They (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    still have no money of their own to lend because they still have all their crap worthless loans that nobody is going to repay so we get to buy the crap loans (courtesy of the slick-willie Obamadmin).

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ks on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 02:21:04 AM EST
    Aren't they generous?  They make money lending our money and they graciously let us buy their bad debt at close to 100 cents on the dollar AND allow us to take the loss by selling it to cough...private investors...cough for 20 cents on the dollar.  I'm so touched by their beneficence, I might cry.

    Parent
    Finally? (3.00 / 1) (#41)
    by souvarine on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    What other reason would there be for financial system bailouts? The crisis began when banks and the shadow banks stopped lending to each other and to companies generally. Thats why the TED spread shows the shape of the crisis, it is a measure of the reluctance of banks to lend to each other.

    Maybe I've misunderstood your comment, but most reports I've seen have been clear that this is a credit crisis.


    Parent

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    are to give "retention bonuses" totaling $210 million, according to an article in the business section of today's NYT. Under the plan, 213 employees will get more than $l00,000 this year, and one Freddie Mac executive will get $1.3 million. The plan is aimed at "employees most critical to keep and difficult to replace".   If these employees have more attractive offers, they should bring the written offer in for review, and if necessary, match the offers.  The political tone deafness will just draw additional  fire and more than a pitchfork will be needed to keep the hordes behind the barricades.


    I read that in astonishment (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:31:55 PM EST
    at the audacity of those in power in this country.  It is hopeless for the rest of us -- and especially for the current and future homeless who were bamboozled (not the property-flippers) as a result of the behaviors of these banksters.

    Yes, they ought to go through the counteroffer process that others of us must do -- but even then, the process can be scammed, believe me.  More is needed to stop this insanity.  

    Parent

    Hard to say if HRC would have been (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    any better, but at least on the economic front we might as well have mccinsane in as POTUS shoveling our money into the pockets of the banksters for all the looking after the average American that Obama is doing.

    Yeah, Right (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by daring grace on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    McCain on the economy would be interchangeable with Obama.

    Might very well be true with the way things are going with the financial sector, at least so far.

    But it's hard to envision McCain proposing the kind of budget spending on middle class tax cuts, health care, education and energy that Obama has advocated as POTUS especially when all the Repubs and quite a few Dems are howling about the deficits.

    Parent

    We would have (4.66 / 3) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:47:15 PM EST
    had oversight.  The Dems would be fighting McCain every step of the way on things like this banking travesty.  In addition, since the media hated McCain anyway (compared to Obama), we'd have had constant media attention, rather than fluff pieces about what lovely arms Michelle has.

    But since we have Obama, we still have the theft, but with fawning press, and complicit Democrats.  Just. like. with Bush. and Iraq.

    Sooner or later the public will come around.  But will it be soon enough?

    Parent

    Dream On (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:52:42 PM EST
    The "Obama Plan" is the main stream dem plan. And you imagine that all of a sudden the dems are going to become fighters?

    I bet you believe in the fairy godmother too.

    Parent

    Complicit Democrats Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by daring grace on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    It's odd to me that you imagine the congressional Dems fighting McCain 'every step of the way on the banking travesty' yet also refer to their silence with Bush on Iraq.

    I can't imagine how McCain--who supposedly 'reached across the aisle' and had many long term friendships in the senate--would get rougher treatment.

    I found the  congressional Dems' wimpiness particularly infuriating during the last two years of the Bush administration when they supposedly had majorities. I wouldn't expect them to take a tough stance with a POTUS of their own party.

    Though, of course, many of them are--and are siding with Repubs.

    Parent

    That's Crazy (3.50 / 2) (#82)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    House Republicans proposed Wednesday to recall much of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan and then go forward with new business tax cuts and a five-year freeze on non-defense spending.

    [snip]

    Indeed, many of the tax ideas show no effort to temper those tax breaks -- under the Bush Administration--which most benefit upper income families. And Ryan would add on top of this a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent and temporarily suspend all capital gains taxes for 2009 and 2010.

    Even in the case of oil companies, he shields the industry from an estimated $31 billion to $80 billion in tax increases backed by the president and dismisses any idea of a cap-and-trade system to cope with climate change and global warming.

    link

    Obviously you have ODed on sour grapes and it has affected your judgement. You may disagree with Obama's plan, which imo, would be no different under Hillary, but to argue that McCain would be the same or better is delusional.

    Parent

    Meaningless Discussions Above (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by aeguy on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:15:55 PM EST
    Why is HRC always brought up as a defense of Obama? What does that have to do with his policy? It's such a strange defense based on hypothetical arguments. HRC is not president and probably never will be. The primaries have been over for almost a year now. Obama is president. Focus on what he is doing.

    The larger (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 06:17:13 AM EST
    problem I guess is that people realize Obama never really united the party behind him. Right now there are reports of the party splitting right down the middle.

    Parent
    You mean (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by JThomas on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    Atrios is joining Talkleft?

    Day after day, the same 40 people come on here and hammer the President. Redstate meets PUMA.

    They love their Clintons but rarely concede that it was the Clinton administration that allowed Glass-Steagall to be repealed and the commodities modernization act to be put in place. That helped set up this disaster that Obama inherited, and is trying to remedy with the least amount of disruption to the world-wide economy. Guys like Krugman throw out ''nationalization'' like a an easy bromide but when asked how painful that would be ,he declines to go beyond ''not easy''. Fine, lets just admit that no one knows what would happen to the US and world economy if they let the 5-6 biggest banks go down. So, all the armchair qb's on here jump on right wing populist anger and join forces with RedState denizens to oppose the democratic president. Internet tough guys...right and left?

    Do you (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:53:37 AM EST
    know where the Glass Stegal talking point came from? It's strictly a huge excuse that rose up from the Bush apologists. Jim Leach, one of the guys that wrote that bill said that it changed nothing. The banks weren't doing anything that they couldnt do before. Have you forgotten that we had an S & L collapse and Glass Stegall was in effect then?

    Parent
    I haven't read that site in over a year. (none / 0) (#9)
    by EL seattle on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:42:57 AM EST
    I got tired of a sort of immature vulgarity (smug potty-mouth antics) in many of the postings there that made it hard for me to take the site seriously, no matter how well-educated and clever everyone there was.

    As I remember, it was at about the 6th or 7th time that I read the phrase "(insert person's name here) (deleted) goats" that I decided there wasn't anything at that place that I couldn't get in  a more sensible and reliable form on another website somewhere.

    Hopefully that site has grown up a little over the past few months.

    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    Vulgarity has never offended me, especially when directed at Mickey Kaus.

    Atrios does not really write posts so much as point to stories he thinks are important.

    I like what he does and always have.

    I've disagreed with him a fair amount on things, but not on the Geithner Plan.

    Parent

    Here! Have some pearls! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lambert on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    [resists foul-mouthed metaphor]

    Weird kind of definition of maturity that focuses on certain key words deemed offensive, while ignoring the work done to fight policies and policy implementors that are far worse than "offensive." But, whatever, dude.

    Parent

    The inability to (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:35:59 AM EST
    express outrage when someone is totally taking you and everyone related to you or you care about to the cleaners is not a sign of maturity.

    Parent
    given my druthers (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    I'd rather read smug potty mouths venting at actual injustice, than uniformed self-deluded pompous windbags hocking phony intellectualism. But that's just me.

    Parent
    The Krugman Oracle (none / 0) (#10)
    by KoolJeffrey on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:43:37 AM EST
    I wish Paul would give me the over/under on how many months it will take for the Great Depression to arrive. The Irish bookies are ready to take my money.

    My bet would be (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:47:20 AM EST
    that it already has arrived.  It took a year, didn't it, for the official declaration of the recession -- that it had been underway for almost a year?  We knew that, and we certainly have reached depression-level data in a lot of cities and towns.  

    Parent
    I don't think the systematic monthly loss (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:48:46 PM EST
    of jobs, productivity, revenue, and the deflation of the value of our real assets are going tally up to the beginnings of another Depression in the American mindset until probably this fall.  Christmas is going to be a mega bummer for most Americans as they adjust to our new realities.  The course has been set though now, Obama could make key moves that would shorten the duration and the level of wholesale slaughter of the worth of what makes up our "real" assets by not sparing the hideous toxic stuff but he likes him some toxic derrivatives. Everything he is doing will do exactly the opposite of preserve what real wealth remains.  All the moves he is making add up to a ten year zombie economy but hell, I'm going to look on the bright side....welfare only took a vacation muwhahahahahaha.

    Parent
    Ha ha (none / 0) (#86)
    by KoolJeffrey on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 06:47:06 PM EST
    I love that term "zombie economy". Actually I love the terms "zombie" or "bizarro" anything.

    Parent
    Whatever terms you happen to love (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:08:54 PM EST
    or not love for that matter will not change the reality we get to live.  Understanding what is happening instead of just being a worshipper of sorts and demanding actual solutions could.

    Parent
    This economy is going (none / 0) (#47)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    to Disneyland.

    Parent
    Everybody (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    ready to find their pitchforks and start walking to DC?

    Let's hope it gets derailed. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bornagaindem on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 11:07:44 AM EST
    Oh dear BTD has caught the hopey changey bug too. Do you honestly think there is a snowballs chance in hell it will get derailed? By who? The wimpy dems in congress who couldn't even stand up to georgie bush? Wall street and AIG who are getting all that tax payers money? And that is the beuty of the plan it doesn't have to be approved by anyone.

    Just when you thought (none / 0) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:22:58 PM EST
    the sharks were out of the water,

    The new sequel to Halliburton....

    BANKIBURTON!

    Atrios Goes PUMA (Snark) | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment