home

Instant Classic

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:24:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Booman's latest "Leave Obama Alone!" piece. An instant classic. Very funny.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | Rand Report: Legalization of Marijuana in CA Would Hurt Mexican Cartels >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Instant Classic | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If the Messiah says it can't be done... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by rhbrandon on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:51:13 AM EST
    I guess it can't be done.

    By the Messiah, that is.

    The rest of us?

    It is a little more than that BTD (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    Booman is also defending his own stance in supporting the White House in not Nationalizing the in trouble banks and facing the mortgage crisis headon.  His argument as I remember was that it would be shocking and time consuming and damaging to the economy.  There was no way avoid damage to the economy though, the only options were to what degree we were willing to allow the vitality of the economy to be bled before we had to deal with reality.  Those who were in the position of being able to choose chose to bleed us all dry.  The patient would be at deaths door before real solutions would be applied.

    Booman seems to think that either he and/or those in the White House are the ones who have the information needed to make an informed opinion about what will or won't kill the patient, and neither Krugman or Digby does.  But the patient came in the door with cancer and Booman voted to ignore the cancer.  We were going to give the patient some vitamins and eventually the cancer would die on its own.  That almost never works :)  And Booman is once again arguing that the patient be experiencing its last breath before real solutions be applied.  And I think he is embarassed about where we are this time after applying all the solutions that he was willing to argue for.  Unfortunately at this time it would appear that Booman is unwilling or unable to make informed opinions.

    I have no idea (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    What Booman's policy ideas were or are to be honest.

    I was laughing at the knee jerk upset because some was "snide" about the President.

    The worship is funny to me.

    Parent

    Agreed with (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    one twist -- what drove the bank bailout, IMO, was driven as much by concern over who was damaged as the economy, and the result was that the bailout championed preserving the profits of the banks and their right to continue paying themselves huge bonuses and expecting ginormous profits.

    Parent
    "No political will to do TARP II"? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:54:15 AM EST
    That's like saying that there's no political will to authorize the Iraq war again. True, sort of, but not the relevant question.

    What he also misses is that the failure to do TARP in the face of bank insolvency is to saddle the FDIC with the job. And they will do it--by wiping out holders of equity and large depositors. And from a substantial Treasury loan.

    Any "large" depositors (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:18:16 PM EST
    who still have more than the maximum amount of insured deposits in any one bank deserve to be wiped out -- come on.  

    And, making the executives who masterminded the insolvency give back huge bonuses, etc. may be one way to benefit equity holders.  

    The FDIC has overseen the receivership of over 100 banks this year, and, IMO, does a much better job of monetizing assets that remain for the benefit of all than the non-FDIC bailouts we've seen the past 2 years.  And, as far as I know -- and I worked at the RTC -- the FDIC follows the rules on competitive bidding and the like.

    Parent

    I agree that the FDIC would be more effective. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    ...although I'm not quite as cold-hearted about wiping out investors with more than $100,000 in any one bank.

    For example, when the Obama presidential campaign's national finance chairwoman Penny Pritzker and her partners in crime diddled away all the money in Superior Bank, her settlement with the FDIC left out some naive depositors who had sunk their whole retirement funds into Superior.

    The Pritzkers agreed in 2001 to pay the F.D.I.C. $460 million over 15 years to cover claims by depositors. Still, more than 1,400 depositors who had more than $100,000 in their savings accounts - the maximum the government then insured - were left short about $10 million, said Clint Krislov, a lawyer for several of them. "Why the Pritzkers wouldn't do the right thing and just make these people whole for the small amount of money that it would take, I still cannot understand," he said.

    But the FDIC could have required the Pritzkers to repay those depositors, and it would have added only $10 million to the $460 million payoff that kept Penny Pritzker out of jail.

    Parent

    It's $250,000 insured. (none / 0) (#42)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    A correction to your post- depositors are insured for up $250,000 per bank, not $100,000.

    And I would be perfectly fine if the FDIC started clawing back bonuses; imposing penalties on bank executives; and using that money to make depositors whole.

    Parent

    When FDIC appointed (none / 0) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    receiver or conservator of a 'failed' bank, all policies come under review.  

    Parent
    You are giving an example from 2001 (none / 0) (#50)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    Things have changed, and most depositors now know the limits on insurance.  

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    Did you read what William Black wrote that Obama could right now that would get things on the right track?  Here's a link.  I have read though that Obama cannot do recess appointments now so could not do all of this.  You are very knowledgeable on the rules governing such things, is this true?

    Parent
    Wait- there's a Federal Housing Finance Agency? (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    I hope to god they are new. If not they ought to be dissolved for gross incompetence.

    Parent
    Edward J DeMarco is the (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    existing director.  Haven't been able to come up with much about him.

    Parent
    And James Galbraith's (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:37:01 PM EST
    response will be requiring some research from me as well by saying this

    3.The President should direct Jacob Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to suspend the use of the present baseline macroeconomic forecasts and to impanel a commission of inquiry into the models and methods underlying medium-range forecasts, to best determine how those models and methods should be modified (a) to take account of the experience of the financial crisis, and (b) to correct major inconsistencies and mutually improbable assumptions in the long-term forecasts

    Whenever I read any of the economic forecasts coming out of the White House....well it is obviously all bull$hit and I always want to know how they came up with such bull$hit.  It would seem that James knows, and now I want to understand.

    Parent

    Since they are busily rearranging the chairs (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by shoephone on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:01:59 AM EST
    at the White House, Booman should just take a job on the communications staff. It's not clear who else his views represent.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lilburro on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:11:12 AM EST
    the post could've been written by Axelrod, Gibbs...

    Parent
    If Gibbs could write. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:24:17 PM EST


    Parent
    And you only have to go a little ways (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    down the comments to find 'Krugman was a Hillary supporter'.

    Well, say no more. There we have it then.

    So, on the one hand . . . (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    . . . "we could have clawed back some executive pay and thrown some people in jail, and the vast majority of the pain would still have fallen on ordinary folks."

    But, on the other hand . . .

    . . . "they should absolutely start putting some people in prison."

    Does the guy even read what he writes, from paragraph to paragraph?  I've read better logic in bad frosh assignments.

    I give it a D-.  I mean, the split verb forms are as atrocious as the content, but he does use complete sentences.

    Hammer to the Head! (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    Reading Booman is a lot like that old joke about the guy hitting himself in the head with hammer, and when asked why he's doing this, he says, "Because it feels so good when I stop."

    Is Booman really (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 05:22:06 PM EST
    Gibbs? ;-)

    Booman makes my teeth hurt and (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 06:44:42 PM EST
    my head ache...

    And I was having such a nice day, too...blue skies, cool breezes, having the family over tomorrow for the annual celebration of my husband's and daughter's birthdays.  Been cooking all day - well, me and the slow-cooker, which has rendered a good sized pork butt into a truly beautiful pulled pork...cole slaw and potato salad made and in the fridge - and a new one: real onion dip, made from honest-to-God onions cooked and carmelized to a luscious golden brown.

    But enough about food...

    Booman...arghhh...someone needs to ask him how he thinks it helps the general situation to keep telling people to back off, be patient and understand how seriously hard it is to do this whole presidentin' thing.  News flash - we know how hard it is; that's why some of us wanted someone who wouldn't be bored by it all two years in, who wouldn't whine when the the media love train stopped, and who wouldn't trash the people who put him in office.

    Educate yourself, Booman; this foreclosure fraud/mess is so much more than just paperwork problems, and Obama's willingness to go along for that particular ride is inexcusable, really.  Protect the banksters at your political peril and our economic peril...fix it, don't keep pretending that there's nothing else we can do but go along with whatever the banksters want.

    Honestly, I don't know how anyone can take Booman seriously, I really don't.

    Classic... (none / 0) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:04:24 AM EST
    I loved some of the comments, such as, "Krugman doesn't know anything about finance." Well, what do BooMan and crownd know about recovery from recession/depression, or the legality of such actions as taken by the banks and other mortgage entities?

    Reminds me of the classics from the W years, like "nobody could have known..."  Or my personal favorite:

    "Stay the course." Seems like the White
    Star owner-- Isay, Irsay? said something similar on the Titanic after hitting the iceberg, according to recent revelations.

    Nah, these folks now remind me of the suicide groups at the end of Life of Brian.

    It would appear that what Booman (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:14:03 AM EST
    knows about economics and how the rule of law interacts in creating economic incentive for large populations would fit in a pill tin.

    Parent
    And facing obvious realities is a problem (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by shoephone on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:10:26 AM EST
    as evidenced by his certainty that the White House is "operating on the assumption that we need a financial services industry to keep credit flowing and, therefore, keep the economy growing."

    Well, yes, we do need that. But the reality is that, since the bailout, the credit isn't flowing.

    Parent

    Precisely. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    There is no credit, so we must protect the financial industry so it can not give loans. After all, what did the financial industry have to do with the crash?

    and what does the white house have to do with laws or stumulus either? My my, what were we thinking?

    Parent

    THe folly of protecting the credit industry (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    without any quid pro quos can be easily seen in the current mortgage foreclosure mess.  The states attorney general are forcing the banks to hold off; without them, they'd be able to go happily on their way to dispossessing people of their homes whether the banks hold legal title to the mortgages or not.

    In Law School - Contracts 101 we learn that agreements without consideration (each side giving up something) are illusory and unenforceable.  How many lawyers do we have in the admin?

    Parent

    Our financial system became so (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:56:02 AM EST
    predatory that it is now going to eat itself.  Its appetite is so voracious and its ethos so skeletal that at this point it is now insane and grew into something larger than the rest of us.  Brave courageous leaders could save what there is to save without feeding us to it, but we don't have any of those.  In the end I believe our leaders will end up simply sitting on their hands and with wild crazed frightened eyes watch the whole thing consume itself.

    Parent
    We don't have a functioning (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:50:27 AM EST
    financial system unfortuntely.  Someone somewhere wrote awhile back that a financial system is nothing more than grease in an economy.  Our financial system is convinced that it is our economy and sadly those who defend it and don't call it on its denial and its insanity are making our economic situation worse and our recovery even more distant.

    Parent
    Most of the mainstream (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:11:33 PM EST
    tv and print media know precious little about economics and just champion the theme of the day.

    Parent
    Maybe some of the economics know-alls (none / 0) (#23)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    in this blog could explain what happened in the state of New York (HRC was Senator for 7 of those years) to shore up your credibility before criticizing others!
    I do not care about what Booman writes (I hardly visit his blog); however, I do know that none of you are objective enough in your assessments to point fingers.

    From the article
    "Companies in New York moved nearly 408,000 jobs to other states from 1993 to 2007, and while the state did pick up positions during that time, the net job loss was 148,000, according to a report released Wednesday.
    The Empire Center for New York State Policy found that the loss of 148,000 positions was the largest of any state during that time period. New York has had a net population loss of more than 1.6 million residents since 2000"


    Parent

    Its all about the evil Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    Ha!  That witch

    Parent
    I'm so confused I thought (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:35:24 PM EST
    that Christine O'Donnell was the witch.

    Hmm, confusion abounds. Didn't  Obama become President and not Hillary? Maybe, the prior comment is just another case of Giuliani disease which seems to be spreading among Obama supporters. Instead of a noun, a verb and 9/11, it is a noun, a verb and Hillary. :-)

    Parent

    But, but Hillary! (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    The most worn out and lame-@ssed argument ever, and generally an indication that the commenter is a knee-jerk Obama apologist with little to no knowledge of the issues under discussion.

    Parent
    How can it be? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    It always has to be about the weak, stupid, whiny sell-out Obama in this blog, doesn't it! Snark.


    Parent
    Who is the President? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:26:20 PM EST
    Who is in the drivers seat?  Last I heard Hillary was working on world peace :)  That's her job :)  You want her to grant you world peace and solve this phucking mess.  How about if the guy who has all the power takes this one.....Ya Think?

    Parent
    If he can take a break (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    from golf and ESPN that is :)

    Parent
    I thought it was about (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    Booman?

    Parent
    Review the role of Congresspersons (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:56:33 PM EST
    vs. the role of state officials in, y'know, state business.

    Parent
    So who told HRC to promise New Yorkers (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:17:13 PM EST
    during her campaigns that she would create 200000 jobs in the state? Are you saying that since Senators are impotent (I will use BTD's language) about creating jobs, what she promised during her campaign was empty campaign rhetoric that she knew she was not going to achieve?

    I am certainly not crazy enough to blame her for everything that she could not achieve as a Senator despite her campaign promises. I am reasonable to understand the many constraints politicians face in their jobs. However, is it too much to expect a certain level of reasonableness from some of you regarding the President or atleast not expect you to engage in double standards?

    Parent

    Okay, now we'll consider (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    the role of the Presidency.  Hmmm.  I cannot hold a double standard regarding the role of the President in these times, since there is only one President at a time.

    Think it through.

    Parent

    Not to be too skeptical ... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:29:44 PM EST
    ... about about the claims of her "promise" to create 200,000 jobs, but there doesn't appear to be any sources quoting such a promise.  Many articles and websites (mostly winger) websites reference the 200,000 job "promise", but the only actual source cited is her campaign ad from 2000, which said she "has a serious plan to create 200,000 new jobs upstate".

    In keeping with a campaign promise to boost the upstate economy, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped win millions of dollars for the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus, teamed upstate farmers with downstate restaurants and even enlisted British Prime Minister Tony Blair in her efforts.

    But there's a big part of Clinton's promise she couldn't keep.

    "Hillary has a serious plan to create 200,000 new jobs upstate," an announcer intoned in one of her 2000 campaign ads.

    Leaving aside all of the other problems with your argument, do you have some source quoting her "promising 200,000 jobs", or is it simply others' characterizations of her campaign ad?

    Parent

    Nothing, huh? Guess she didn't ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    ... "promise 200,000 jobs", but rather said she "had a plan" to create 200,000 jobs.

    Kind'uv a big difference, huh?

    Parent

    It's possible that (none / 0) (#51)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 12:34:04 PM EST
    jobs were in fact created upstate, but that there was still a net loss state wide.

    Parent
    No problem (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:03:20 PM EST
    What does this have to do with Booman's knowledge (or lack thereof) of economics, and how is the fact that HRC was Senator for 6 of the 14 years in question when NY lost some jobs relevant to anything?

    But since you're suggesting there's some sort of correlation, I'll answer your "question".  Right after you explain why Illinois had a net loss of 8.64% of private sector jobs from 2000-2010 while NY had only a 1.76% loss.  Just to clarify, that would be during a period when Obama was 1) Illinois state legislator, 2) Illinois Senator and 3) POTUS, for all 10 years.

    Go figure.

    Parent

    Pat of the reason NY lost jobs (none / 0) (#37)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:30:25 PM EST
    is the closure of military bases,etc. under Bush, whose admin selected the basis for closure in such a way as to punish the Blue states.  In addition, federal monies for mass transit in NY was slashed, and monies per capita slated for homeland security projects likewise favored red states, and many such states where threats to homeland security was non-existent.  

    In addition, talking about the total number of jobs lost without considering number of jobs lost as percentage of total jobs in the state misrepresents what happened.  By the way Schumer and Hillary argued with the Admin about cuts to Amtrak, etc. to no avail.  

    Part of the reason we lose jobs in NY and people is the high cost of housing.  What continues to drive these costs despite the far greater decline in housing prices elsewhere? Among other things, the number of wealthy investment bankers whose large bonuses pay for housing, and the buying power of foreign currencies vs. the dollar.

    The situation in NY is far more complex than you take into account.

    Parent

    The cost of housing in Upstate NY (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    is quite low compared to the rest of the country. Yet a very high percentage of job losses occured there. Wealthy investment bankers never invested much in housing there. Large parts of the Upstate resemble Appalachia, there should be no denial regarding this fact.
    NYC did comparitively well compared to the Upstate, so what you are saying is not correct.

    I do not disagree that the situation in NY is complex. So is the situation in the whole country now. I am not here to blame HRC in an unreasonable way, however is it too much to expect some level of reasonableness from some of you regarding the job performance of the President? I really do not mind valid criticism of the President; however, the tone and snide remarks that many make here seem to indicate that some other issues are at play.

    I attended a rally recently where former President Clinton campaigned to retain seats for Democratic candidates. A large majority of the people who attended the rally had voted for HRC during the primaries. However, I never saw the kind of rancor that many posters in this blog have for the President, in any person I met at the campaign rally.

    Parent

    Guess that ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:49:16 PM EST
    A large majority of the people who attended the rally had voted for HRC during the primaries. However, I never saw the kind of rancor that many posters in this blog have for the President, in any person I met at the campaign rally.

    ... just shows that the criticism of Obama isn't based on some obsession with the primaries or revenge, as some here keep claiming.

    BTW - How could you possibly know that a "large majority of the people who attended the rally voted for HRC during the primaries"?  Did they wear their super-secret, HRC decoder rings?

    Parent

    Not buying your attempt (none / 0) (#52)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    to make this about the primaries.

    You were talking not only about job loss, but about loss of pop in NY.  I think a lot of the pop loss came from NYC metropolitan area, which also has the greatest concentration of population in the state.

    Parent

    Here we go again (none / 0) (#5)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    The Booman obsession in this blog.....

    Heh (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:24:14 AM EST


    Parent
    "Obsession"? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    Booman is a tool but he's an "A-list" blogger who's blog attracts attention.  His blatherings are (and should be) roundly criticized, but there's no "obsession" with him.

    Although I understand why some would want to claim otherwise ...

    Parent

    Obsession? OBSESSION?! (none / 0) (#54)
    by lambert on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 11:33:19 PM EST
    This isn't the blog that's obsessed....

    Parent
    You are going to inspire (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 08:37:57 AM EST
    another one of those lambert is picking on me diaries :)

    Parent
    It's very important to understand... (none / 0) (#53)
    by lambert on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 11:30:58 PM EST
    that Obama knows the banksters, and they're "savvy businessmen." So back off!

    * * *

    The bottom line for all of this is that we need to see CEOs in orange jumpsuits, doing the perp walk for fraud on national TV. Unfortunately for all of us, the perps are, exactly, Obama's "savvy businessmen." So we may have to wait for President Hoover to stop sucking (never) or for a new administration.

    Instant Classic | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment