Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics  (Read 1867227 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Boogie

  • The Smooth Canadian
  • Icon
Dow Jones plunges in worst day for stock market since 2008 crisis.

Republicans: "bu-bubububub-bu.....CONFIDENCE!"

good jon, America.
MMA

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Who could have known that waiting until the last moment to raise the debt ceiling, and then doing so only in a "compromise" that was loaded with spending cuts during the worst recession since the Great Depression would make the markets tumble like this?
yar

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
How about China buys the US, I'd like some of their scientists and educators to influence our government please.
püp

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Well, the Dow plummeting certainly brings back fond memories.

[youtube=560,345]y83z552NJaw[/youtube]
*daps*

Dude is an asshole, but this is awesome

Dude deserves some props, but we all know he'll backpedal once El Rushbo hears of his shenanigans.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Dow Jones plunges in worst day for stock market since 2008 crisis.

Republicans: "bu-bubububub-bu.....CONFIDENCE!"

good jon, America.

Isn't it more due to the situations in Greece and Italy though?
010

Mandark

  • Icon
We going to have Willco-esque word/sentence responses or an actual discussion? Historically republicans have extended unemployment benefits. That's a fact. It's not a leverage piece anymore than paying your mortgage is.

I'm just a mite gobsmacked that anyone, much less a liberal political junkie, would actually believe that.  When did we get such a high opinion of Congressional Republicans?

Look, one of the biggest, most clear lessons of the past couple years is that politicians change their policy stances based on the political climate.  The Wyden-Bennett plan had several Republican cosponsors, as did multiple versions of cap-and-trade.  Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of an education bill authored primarily by Ted Kennedy, for a large new public health-care obligation with no offsetting cuts or revenues, and for the creation of S-CHIP.

Yeah, the GOP gave two short extensions at the behest of the Bush administration.  But is that solid evidence of a principled, unwavering support by the GOP for "always" boosting unemployment insurance in any and every situation, regardless of politics?  Does that comport with anything that we know about politicians in general or this crop of Republicans in particular?

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
S&P is gonna downgrade us, apparently: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/govt-official-us-expecting-sp-downgrade.html

But remember, kids, nothing bad could have possibly happened if we had actually defaulted.  Michelle Bachmann assured me!
yar

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
We going to have Willco-esque word/sentence responses or an actual discussion? Historically republicans have extended unemployment benefits. That's a fact. It's not a leverage piece anymore than paying your mortgage is.

I'm just a mite gobsmacked that anyone, much less a liberal political junkie, would actually believe that.  When did we get such a high opinion of Congressional Republicans?

Look, one of the biggest, most clear lessons of the past couple years is that politicians change their policy stances based on the political climate.  The Wyden-Bennett plan had several Republican cosponsors, as did multiple versions of cap-and-trade.  Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of an education bill authored primarily by Ted Kennedy, for a large new public health-care obligation with no offsetting cuts or revenues, and for the creation of S-CHIP.

Yeah, the GOP gave two short extensions at the behest of the Bush administration.  But is that solid evidence of a principled, unwavering support by the GOP for "always" boosting unemployment insurance in any and every situation, regardless of politics?  Does that comport with anything that we know about politicians in general or this crop of Republicans in particular?

I agree with your general point. My argument is that unemployment benefits are ideologically liberal policy that have generally been applied by congress regardless of whether republicans or democrats control things. So I was saying during negotiation, Obama was compromising in order to get an extension of something that is usually raised with no concessions or negotiations in the first place - which is factually correct.

It's the same with the debt limit, which both parties raise regardless of one side's (alleged) reservations about debt/spending. And yet we have a shitty deal that will hurt the economy and cost jobs. I maintain that Obama should have walked away in the final days and dared the GOP to default the country; it was simply not going to happen regardless of the idiotic freshmen. They wouldn't - and even if they did constitutional scholars have argued it would be within the president's power; Balkin argued the president had already started the process in the final week of July.

With respect to your last comment, how do you compare this current crop of tea partiers to Newt's Contract With America group? The tea party is probably crazier and seems to have more control over things. Boehner seems more level headed than Gingrich though, at least to me.
010

Himu

  • Senior Member
S&P has downgraded us to AA+
IYKYK

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Quote
This came after a confusing day of reports: Standard & Poor's told the U.S. government Friday afternoon that it was preparing to downgrade the U.S.'s triple-A credit rating but U.S. officials notified the S&P that they had made a mathematical error that was off by "trillions," an administration source told CNBC.

Allegedly the error was in the calculation of the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio over time and was based on a misreading of what the correct congressional baseline was.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44039103

Sounds like a misunderstanding, but we'll know for sure soon

edit: they're acknowledging the error and still downgrading us. lol. Dems are fucked next year
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 08:45:34 PM by Phoenix Dark »
010

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
The polling data i read yesterday,by gallup i rhink, indicated that most americans blamed republicans for all this shit than obama. We will see who pays for this in next years elections. In the mean time we will all pay for it

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
PD has been doom and gloom since the beginning of Obama's presidency.  Hell, he was all doom and gloom when Clinton lost the primary.  Bububu my Hilary  :'(
püp

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
How much can you really blame Obama? I'm not sure of what fiscal policy Obama's administration could of implemented to 'save' the US and the world. This was a monetary problem wasn't it? Great Depression 2.0 here we come.  I fully expect a World War in the next few years. Who expected Generation Y would become the next 'Silent Generation'?

Yeah I know  :derp
888

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
They could have passed a much larger stimulus package, with way more spending than tax cuts.  Shocking idea, I know.
yar

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
They could have passed a much larger stimulus package, with way more spending than tax cuts.  Shocking idea, I know.

Then there's the whole "get super majority in senate, control house...do nothing" thing. And the energy bill falling to shit; it could have helped get the country's foot in the door of green jobs.

I realize republicans have been obstructing shit but Obama's to blame for a lot of this farce as well. Might as well get used to the idea of having a Mormon as president breh
010

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
It would of made a lot of people's lives better but it would of made the financial markets worse (generalizing). And we know the economy is second only after defense in terms of importance to both parties .

Obama is a total Carcetti.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 11:39:39 PM by Fresh Prince »
888

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
The biggest mistake was assuming that Obama is our progressive bro in arms.  Most people, myself included, often just ignored the downsides that we heard from time to time because the country was going into the shitter, assuming that we'd see some changes that at least returned us to pre-Bush II era style government or God willing, pre-Reagan era style government.  Combine that with generous public support for serious reform and generous public support against the financial institutions that shat the bed, I think we all expected a hell of a lot better.  Although I think these days, only the most cognitively dissonant cult set members at this point still think Obama is the bestest thing since sliced bread.  I think most of his former base got tired of him shitting on them (us) or at least apathetic or ambivalent to his style of leadership.
🍆🍆

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
Well the next FDR will come through!
888

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Should have voted for Hillary *wrings hands*
010

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Well the next FDR will come through!

That would require a voting public that couldn't be manipulated by greedy assholes.  Good luck finding such a voting public.
yar

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
They voted for a black Democrat president- it'll happen. They'll vote for a harsh daddy Republican and then come back into mommy Democrats arms for a cuddle.
888

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
S&P is gonna downgrade us, apparently: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/govt-official-us-expecting-sp-downgrade.html

But remember, kids, nothing bad could have possibly happened if we had actually defaulted.  Michelle Bachmann assured me!

Hannity was actually making that argument the other day.

"See, the demoncrats said that if we didn't default then nothing bad would happen. Well, lookie what happened here! So we shoulda went ahead and defaulted!"

Mandark

  • Icon
PD:  First, you could just as easily say "A GOP-controlled House had never extended unemployment insurance with a Democrat in the White House" and still be factually correct.  Or "Republicans had never extended unemployment for more than 26 weeks".

If, at this point in the game, Obama started calling Republican "bluffs" because he thought Republicans would treat the legislative process the same with him in office as they did with Bush, it would be a huge, dumb, unconscionable disaster.  That was basically the biggest blunder during the stimulus bill (assuming Congress would pad it with extra pork, rather than start wringing its hands over the deficit).

It's one thing to point out how Republicans are acting hypocritical or ignoring the old rules as a rhetorical tactic.  It's another thing to expect this to either shame them into responsible behavior or to reveal their secret, reasonable, generous selves.

Basically, we're yelling "Hey, that's not how things are meant to work!  That's not how it's always been done!" and then they're shrugging their shoulders.  Norms change, or rather people change norms.  You wind up facing the first federal government shutdown, the first impeachment since Reconstruction (about a blowjob!), the complete reinvention of the filibuster, and the whole array of tactics deployed by Tom Delay.

This Congress is not and was not going to spend billions of dollars trying to ease the pain of the jobless without extracting some concessions on behalf of wealthy folks and/or rightwing ideologues, regardless of whether or not another Congress did so for another president.



PS  I'm like the old dude yelling at kids that they don't understand why Kobe and LeBron aren't even close to being MJ.  The '94 freshmen class is totally underrated, because we're exposed to the current craziness every day.  Well lemme tell you kids, back in my day they shut down the government and impeached the fucking president.  Over a fucking blowjob!  Half their supporters thought Clinton was a literal murderer!
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 02:50:10 AM by Mandark »

Mandark

  • Icon
And really, the big lesson for me in this debt ceiling thing has been DON'T CREATE A "SYMBOLIC" VOTE WITH ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE POWER.

For fuck's sake, there's no upside in it except for a little political theater, which is doubly stupid because 95% of people won't be aware of it and the 5% who are will all know it's kabuki.  Then the downside is that if enough crazy people get elected, they'll either hold it hostage or flat out vote the wrong way and screw everything up, and as time goes towards infinity the odds of this happening approach 1.

Watch me wind up writing the same rant years from now about the regular temporary fixes to the AMT and Medicare doctor compensation.  This country, lemme tell ya.

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Quote
Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, former Minnesota governor, said the downgrade is "a reflection of the failed leadership of President Obama. He really is inept when it comes to the economy. He's had over three years of being president. Barack Obama has had his chance and it's not working."

Quote
Former Senator Rick Santorum, R-Penn., also a candidate, noted the downgrade "happened on the president's watch."

"The markets are scared and the credit downgrade has happened because the president and this Congress continue to address the symptoms and not the disease," Santorum said.

Quote
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, blamed "the old crowd of elites" for offering "fake" budget cuts and tricks instead of taking "bold actions to reduce out-of-control government spending, and get the federal government out of the way of small business and entrepreneurs so that they can start hiring again."

Quote
"Republicans have listened to the voices of the American people and worked to bring the spending binge to a halt," Boehner said. "We are no longer debating how much to spend, but rather how much to cut. Unfortunately, decades of reckless spending cannot be reversed immediately, especially when the Democrats who run Washington remain unwilling to make the tough choices required to put America on solid ground."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44043408/ns/politics/

Looks like the GOP got exactly what it wanted out of this "deal".
dog

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
That's what I said!
888

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
I actually agree with an support a JayDubya post  :-\
püp

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Mandark: While it is true UE benefits have never been extended by a GOP house during a democratic president's term, there are only two examples of there being a democrat president and republican house since 1960; we've only had five democrat presidents since 1960, whereas democrats controlled the House until the early 90s. I've found about 30 cases of unemployment benefits being extended since 1958; 19 were done during republican presidencies.
http://www.workforceatm.org/sections/pdf/2011/ExtendingUnemploymentCompensationBenefitsDuringRecessions.pdf

I think it's fair and accurate to say extending UE benefits during recessions or periods of (relatively) high unemployment has not been a truly partisan issue until late 2010. My initial argument about this was based on the idea that Obama has been forced to compromise/negotiate in order to get things passed that are normally passed without a fight. Even in that bill, democrats could have technically extended UE benefits without any republican help, and then dealt with the Bush tax cuts in a separate bill/compromise.


Finally on the 1994 House: I was just asking your thoughts, not saying the tea party is worse. I was too busy watching cartoons to care about the climate of political discourse in the 90s, but looking back I think it's fair to say things were probably worse; Obama has yet to be accused of murder or rape by an elected official. And right wing violence was more prominent than it is now. But legislatively, Clinton managed to get a few things done by working with republicans, whereas Obama has yet to get much of anything done with this House outside of this shitty deal and defense authorizations. And not for lack of trying, or liberal proposals. He's offered a host of things they typically support (payroll tax relief for employers) to no avail.

edit: I meant it has not been a truly partisan issue
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 07:00:31 PM by Phoenix Dark »
010

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
Actually s&p specifically called out those in government who thought a default would be a useful political tool as making america more risky than they were 6 months ago, despite the debt burden being no worse than 6 months ago

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Basically, at this point I'm now starting to think Obama won't win reelection.  Mostly because, let's be honest here, he's kind of a pussy.  America likes dick leaders, and he's constantly trying to bring people together and blah blah blah.  After 2008, he should have publicly eaten the entrails of the Republican party.  That's something your average American can respect, not this "compromising with the other side" bullshit.  He kind of deserves to lose, really, and America deserves a President Bachmann, which is who I'll be voting for in the NC primaries, I can assure you.
yar

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
They like white dick leaders not uppity negro leaders.
Reminds me of this article http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/#more-28405
888

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
Obama ran on exactly what he's doing.  ???  Being bipartiasan.  People voted for him because of that.  He just didn't expect the Republicans to go full distinguished mentally-challenged fellow.
püp

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
People expected him to change once he got in  :shh
888

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
The left are as bad as the right when it comes to political victory.  If there was any semblance of logic and competence in the Republican party, Obama could be achieving most of the change that he campaigned on.  A lot of the failures of his administration are because of his willingness to concede, but that was something that everybody should've expected anyway, considering he campaigned to be bipartisan.  His viewpoint is refreshing.  The Republicans blind whining is not.

And PD will respond to this with some terrible doom and gloom post about how he's the most disappointing president ever (fuck off that that shit), even though he's done exactly what he's campaigned on and can't get any help from pussy-ass congressional democrats and childish republicans.  The people like him, but they hate that he can't do anything.  That's not completely his fault.
püp

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
He IS kinda fucked, tho.  If he gets too forceful he becomes The Uppity Negro President, of course.
yar

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
I still say he's fine, but it'll be a tight election.  I haven't met a single republican who actually believes in the riffraff they have available to run for president in 2012.  Even the hardiest-core repubs I know, Sarah Palin supporters, don't like the current pool.  Maybe they'll still vote for them, but whenever I press the issue, they shrugs their shoulders and said they probably won't vote at all.  This is younger to mid 40s repubs that I know

Besides, there is still a full year before the election.  Plenty of things can happen, and Obama has a bit to work on.  Osama, health care, DADT, the stimulus, and using the repubs as a scapegoat.  Most independents will buy it.
püp

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
That's the problem BrandKnew: most independants can't buy anything because they're in debt or can't find jobs. So when a sensible white man with great hair comes along and tells them we can fix the country if we just stop spending, cut taxes, and present a strong national defense they're going to fall all over him like their fathers and their fathers once did. It won't even matter that his religion used to say black people were evil and man could have as many wives as he pleased.

Mitt Romney is your next president, ladies and gentlemen. Obama can go back to the academic world where his limp wrist compromisin' is effective.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 11:27:28 PM by Phoenix Dark »
010

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
I really doubt that PD. Obama will win only so that Republicans can blame him for everything out of spite. It's a poisoned chalice.
888

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
lol at Mitt Romney even getting past three primary states  :lol
püp

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Fuck, I was feeling pretty good about my "Obama is gonna lose" ideas but then PD had to go and say that, and well we all know how often Maurice is right about anything...
yar

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
PD is a pretty great concern troll.
püp

Mandark

  • Icon
Mandark: While it is true UE benefits have never been extended by a GOP house during a democratic president's term, there are only two examples of there being a democrat president and republican house since 1960; we've only had five democrat presidents since 1960, whereas democrats controlled the House until the early 90s.

And that's exactly what I was getting at: when you're working from a tiny sample size of relevant historical cases, it's possible to identify a ton of patterns that are 1) factually true in a narrow sense, 2) wildly contradictory, and 3) not meaningful in predicting the future.

The only reason unemployment benefits seem to have become a partisan issue is that this is the first time since the GOP became an ideologically cohesive party (somewhere between 1980 an 1994, I guess) that we've had the trifecta of Republican Congress, Democratic president, and bad employment situation.

This could just as easily have happened if there had been a mid-90's recession or if Gore had won in 2000 and been stuck with the slump of the early 00's and a Delay-Hastert House.

But to get back to where we started, leverage is getting someone to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise.  That's what happened, and I think you're pretty much agreeing with that at this point.


Eric P

  • I DESERVE the gold. I will GET the gold!
  • Icon
Tonya

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Mandark: While it is true UE benefits have never been extended by a GOP house during a democratic president's term, there are only two examples of there being a democrat president and republican house since 1960; we've only had five democrat presidents since 1960, whereas democrats controlled the House until the early 90s.

And that's exactly what I was getting at: when you're working from a tiny sample size of relevant historical cases, it's possible to identify a ton of patterns that are 1) factually true in a narrow sense, 2) wildly contradictory, and 3) not meaningful in predicting the future.

The only reason unemployment benefits seem to have become a partisan issue is that this is the first time since the GOP became an ideologically cohesive party (somewhere between 1980 an 1994, I guess) that we've had the trifecta of Republican Congress, Democratic president, and bad employment situation.

This could just as easily have happened if there had been a mid-90's recession or if Gore had won in 2000 and been stuck with the slump of the early 00's and a Delay-Hastert House.

But to get back to where we started, leverage is getting someone to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise.  That's what happened, and I think you're pretty much agreeing with that at this point.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree - unemployment benefits would have been extended, as they are historically; 2010 is even more unique when you consider the Bush tax cuts situation/ticking time bomb. Unfortunately we won't have another example of this happening until 2013, and who knows what Washington will look like then. But I tend to think it'll either be UE benefits being extended by Obama again, or Romney or whoever - it's going to happen. And
010

Positive Touch

  • Woo Papa
  • Senior Member
alert fox news

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/126825018.html?page=1

holy lol
Quote
"It looked like they were just going after white guys, white people," said Norb Roffers
[...]
Eric, a war veteran, said that the scene he saw Thursday outside State Fair compares to what he saw in combat.
"That rated right up there with it. 
[...]
Eric: "I feared for my life"
[...]
Woman: Teenagers in mob didn't attend rap concert
[...]
"The mob of black teenagers involved in the beatings and damage outside of State Fair last night were not there for the MC Hammer concert," said the woman.

this article is like 5 pages long and they dont interview a single black person, only stupid honkies screaming about a crazed horde and their terror as they fled for their lives.  fucking hilarious racist shit

pcp

Positive Touch

  • Woo Papa
  • Senior Member
BONUS:

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]
pcp

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
It's funny because it's truuuuueeeeee

yar

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
'Reagan proved deficits don't matter'

888

Mandark

  • Icon
Economics of Contempt drops a bomb on S&P:

Quote
On S&P, Downgrades, and Idiots
Posted by Economics of Contempt at 1:36 AM

This is not going to be one of those posts that laments S&P’s decision to downgrade the US, but then says that S&P was probably right about our oh-so-dysfunctional political system.

No, S&P was flat-out wrong — no caveats. They are, to put it very bluntly, idiots, and they deserve every bit of opprobrium coming their way. They were embarrassingly wrong on the basic budget numbers, as everyone knows now, so they were forced to remove that section from their report, and change their rationale for the downgrade. (Always a sign that you’re dealing with hacks.)

S&P’s rationale for the downgrade now is based entirely on their subjective political judgement — and their political judgement is wrong. The brilliant political minds over at S&P said that “the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges.”

That sounds like a Very Serious and Sober assessment, but it’s really not. It’s true that the debt limit debate was ridiculous, and that a large contingent of Tea Party freshmen in the House were threatening to not raise the debt ceiling. But here’s the thing: we still raised the debt ceiling, and in such a way that this Congress won’t have the opportunity to use the debt ceiling as a political bargaining chip again.

S&P’s assessment is only remotely serious if you assume that this particular Congress, with its huge contingent of crazy Tea Partiers, is going to serve in perpetuity. But this Congress isn’t going to serve in perpetuity — there are elections next year, and many of the Tea Party freshmen are likely to lose. They won in 2010 because it was a “wave election” in the middle of a very severe economic slump. But 2012 is a presidential election cycle with an incumbent Democratic president. A lot of these Tea Partiers who won in traditionally Democratic districts (and swing districts) are going to lose. In fact, it’s probably even odds that the Dems take back the House.

The simple fact is that the Tea Partiers are almost certainly at the height of their power in this Congress. And no, the debt ceiling debate doesn’t reflect some sort of secular change in US policymaking — the next time there’s a Republican president, House Republicans will be all about raising the debt ceiling, and Democrats won’t engage in the same kind of political brinksmanship. You’d have to be stunningly naïve not to believe this.

There have also been plenty of political de-escalations over the years — Republicans didn’t shut down the government every year after 1995, for instance. After Tom DeLay won the Medicare Part D vote by holding the vote open for 3 hours, everyone claimed that this would be the new normal on all controversial votes. Didn’t happen. There are plenty of one-off political confrontations. Simply assuming that every political confrontation represents a secular change in US politics and policymaking is ridiculous.

(S&P tries to side-step this obvious weakness in their so-called “argument” by claiming that by the time the 2012 elections roll around, it will be too late. Please. The idea that we have to act in the next 18 months in order to meaningfully affect our long-term solvency is patently absurd.)

Look, I know these S&P guys. Not these particular guys — I don’t know John Chambers or David Beers personally. But I know the rating agencies intimately. Back when I was an in-house lawyer for an investment bank, I had extensive interactions with all three rating agencies. We needed to get a lot of deals rated, and I was almost always involved in that process in the deals I worked on. To say that S&P analysts aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer is a massive understatement.

Naturally, before meeting with a rating agency, we would plan out our arguments — you want to make sure you’re making your strongest arguments, that everyone is on the same page about the deal’s positive attributes, etc. With S&P, it got to the point where we were constantly saying, “that’s a good point, but is S&P smart enough to understand that argument?” I kid you not, that was a hard-constraint in our game-plan. With Moody’s and Fitch, we at least were able to assume that the analysts on our deals would have a minimum level of financial competence.

I’ve seen S&P make far more basic mistakes than the one they made in miscalculating the US’s debt-to-GDP ratio. I’ve seen an S&P managing director who didn’t know the order of operations, and when we pointed it out to him, stopped taking our calls. Despite impressive-sounding titles, these guys personify “amateur hour.” (And my opinion of S&P isn’t just based on a few deals; it’s based on countless deals, meetings, and phone calls over 20 years. It’s also the opinion of practically everyone else who deals with the rating agencies on a semi-regular basis.)

Treasury has every right to be outraged. S&P mangled the economic argument so badly that they had to abandon it entirely, and then fell back on a political argument which they are in no position to make, and which isn’t even correct.

So to S&P, I say: you should be ashamed of yourselves, and I truly hope this is your downfall.


PD:
spoiler (click to show/hide)
No shame in overreaching now and again; we all do it.  The important thing is to learn not to pull a Palin and dig your heels in.  :)
[close]

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Personally, I think the Fed should take S&P to the woodshed for a 'stern talking to'. And only the Fed should return from the woodshed.
©ZH

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Piece on Bachman in the New Yorker.
Quote
Bachmann’s comment about slavery was not a gaffe. It is, as she would say, a world view. In “Christianity and the Constitution,” the book she worked on with [John] Eidsmoe, her law school mentor, he argues that John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams “expressed their abhorrence for the institution” and explains that “many Christians opposed slavery even though they owned slaves.” They didn’t free their slaves, he writes, because of their benevolence. “It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible.”
http://www.frumforum.com/inside-bachmanns-brain

010

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
There may be some small kernel of truth in that, but it's only ever going to come across as trying to whitewash [lol] an incredibly sensitive issue that led to a huge segment of population being mistreated, marginalized, and abused for centuries, even after it officially ended. It also comes across as being very stupid.

Slavery was bad. It was a horrible practice and it never should have happened. Period.

I don't understand why it somehow needs to be warped into something less severe by jumping through hoops and bending over backwards, but there's a lot of things I don't understand.
dog

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Isn't it funny how the founding fathers came to America to escape religious prosecution, yet these theocrats in the gop are trying to instill it here?
©ZH

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
Weren't they deists?
888

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
"He may have inherited a big mess... but he also inherited a AAA credit rating."

#stupidfacebookstatuses
yar

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
:facepalm
püp

There's a guy I've known since kindergarten. We played baseball together for years and his parents are still really close with my parents. He's a great guy, but he's abso-fucking-lutely nuts when it comes to politics. I eagerly await reading his daily Obama is evil post on Facebook concerning today's developments and then deleting it.
野球

Positive Touch

  • Woo Papa
  • Senior Member
There may be some small kernel of truth in that,

actually i think there's pretty much dick-all truth to that; christianity was frequently used to support the institution, and only the most radical citizens were fully opposed to slavery

Quote
I don't understand why it somehow needs to be warped into something less severe by jumping through hoops and bending over backwards, but there's a lot of things I don't understand.

take a blind devotion to christianity and combine that with a belief that america is perfect and any criticism is equal to treason (unless yr criticizing a democrat, natch) and you get dumb shit like the above
pcp

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
There may be some small kernel of truth in that,

actually i think there's pretty much dick-all truth to that; christianity was frequently used to support the institution, and only the most radical citizens were fully opposed to slavery

I wasn't intending that to mean that I thought there was some truth to it, but more as "Even if there was a small bit of truth in there".
dog