Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics (Read 1866167 times)

Brehvolution · « **Reply #2580 on:** March 17, 2009, 04:23:09 PM »

Quote from: siamesedreamer on March 17, 2009, 03:25:08 PM

Quote from: BrandNew on March 17, 2009, 01:40:23 PM
Honestly, you're not even worth arguing with, because you are so principally against the idea of a stimulus that you fail to try and comprehend when and where its immediate effects lie and when and where it's long-term effects occur.

My opposition is based on its long-term effects.

Your opposition is based on speculation? That is building a castle on sand.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2581 on:** March 17, 2009, 05:59:51 PM »

sd you used to make posts like "the dow is down another 200 today...." why did you suddenly stop about a week ago? :'(

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #2582 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:06:01 PM »

well, i ain't gonna attribute any uptick in economic performance to the stimulus myself at this time, although it might help SUSTAIN that uptick

on the other hand, the reactionary hypocrisy and knee-jerk helplessness of conservatives during this crisis has been actually pretty hilarious in a not-so-funny way

Cheebs · « **Reply #2583 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:13:11 PM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on March 17, 2009, 06:06:01 PM

well, i ain't gonna attribute any uptick in economic performance to the stimulus myself at this time, although it might help SUSTAIN that uptick

Oh I agree totally I just pointed it out cause sd constantly brought it up when it was dropping every day but shut up about it the second it started to improve.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #2584 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:38:57 PM »

And you'll be dropping it/spinning it once the rally ends and it starts dipping again. Your point?

Cheebs · « **Reply #2585 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:44:56 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on March 17, 2009, 06:38:57 PM

And you'll be dropping it/spinning it once the rally ends and it starts dipping again. Your point?

wtf can you read? I never brought it up once, it has been going up for about a week but I didnt post about it because I dont think it matters, I only posted the fact sd stopped posting it soon as it went up, my post was about sd's spin or lack there of not me posting about the stupid dow.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2586 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:50:15 PM »

The DOW is highly overrated as a measuring stick for the health of the economy as a whole, imo.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2587 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:53:02 PM »

Quote from: Forgotten Ancient on March 17, 2009, 06:48:00 PM

and on and on. Goes both ways...and I don't remember what you said about it before Cheebs, but you're just doing your part in that cycle by bringing it up again.

Arrrrgh I wasn't talking about the dow I was talking about sd. I have posted many times here how I feel using the dow as a daily tracking poll for the economy is stupid.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2588 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:56:46 PM »

Quote from: Forgotten Ancient on March 17, 2009, 06:54:32 PM

Quote from: Cheebs on March 17, 2009, 06:53:02 PM
Quote from: Forgotten Ancient on March 17, 2009, 06:48:00 PM

and on and on. Goes both ways...and I don't remember what you said about it before Cheebs, but you're just doing your part in that cycle by bringing it up again.
Arrrrgh I wasn't talking about the dow I was talking about sd. I have posted many times here how I feel using the dow as a daily tracking poll for the economy is stupid.

You're talking about exactly what I was talking about.

I know but my point remains I don't give a shit about the dow, when it is up or down.

I can't point out how sd day after day used the dow as a means to attack Obama and then magically dropped it when it didn't fit his agenda without somehow implying the dow going up = obama is doing good?

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #2589 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:57:07 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on March 17, 2009, 06:50:15 PM

The DOW is highly overrated as a measuring stick for the health of the economy as a whole, imo.

.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2590 on:** March 17, 2009, 07:00:02 PM »

Using the dow to track ANYTHING sucks and that was the main point of my post to showcase how stupid it is for sd to use it that way but that point was completely lost on some (like PD) for some damn reason. Which confuses me cause I have attacked making the dow important nonstop here.

siamesedreamer · « **Reply #2591 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:18:32 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on March 17, 2009, 05:59:51 PM

sd you used to make posts like "the dow is down another 200 today...." why did you suddenly stop about a week ago? :'(

Because Obama convinced me that everything is awesome with his lecture on profit and earnings ratios.

siamesedreamer · « **Reply #2592 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:20:50 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on March 17, 2009, 03:26:38 PM

The debt? Who cares, it's all monopoly money as long as we've got the most guns.

So, I guess it doesn't matter then that the CBO concluded it will ultimately have a negative drag on the economy.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #2593 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:25:18 PM »

The Dow isn't a proper gauge of the economy (otherwise we would be really fucked) but it is a decent barometer of optimism/pessimism. Lower Dow numbers usually mean tighter purse strings.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #2594 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:37:41 PM »

Quote from: siamesedreamer on March 17, 2009, 09:18:32 PM

Quote from: Cheebs on March 17, 2009, 05:59:51 PM
sd you used to make posts like "the dow is down another 200 today...." why did you suddenly stop about a week ago? :'(

Because Obama convinced me that everything is awesome with his lecture on profit and earnings ratios.

you'd be better off with obama than, say, ron paul

although that's not saying much

Brehvolution · « **Reply #2595 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:08:23 PM »

I think this is appropriate:

Possibly NSFW edit

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

ToxicAdam · « **Reply #2596 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:16:29 PM »

Man, that hit me just right. I laughed for a minute straight.

siamesedreamer · « **Reply #2597 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:23:30 PM »

MMMM...blonde pubes.

ToxicAdam · « **Reply #2598 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:52:27 PM »

Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?

For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

In a column written by Elliot Spitzer

[close]

Oblivion · « **Reply #2599 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:07:37 PM »

Curses, TA! I was just about to post that.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2600 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:09:11 PM »

Quote from: ToxicAdam on March 17, 2009, 10:52:27 PM

Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?

Because its a very simple easy thing for the Obama administration (and all politicians, do you really think grassley gives a shit about the bonuses as much as his suicide remarks let on? of course not) to latch onto to boost their populist creds after massive spending. It's a easy, non-divisive political win-win. They aren't going after AIG over 165 million, that's pennies for the Obama administration. It's good politics to be seen as the enemy of big business.

ToxicAdam · « **Reply #2601 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:12:06 PM »

So, more style over substance? Awesome.

As long as those approval ratings stay high.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2602 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:17:27 PM »

Quote from: ToxicAdam on March 17, 2009, 11:12:06 PM

So, more style over substance? Awesome.

As long as those approval ratings stay high.

I am not defending it, but it's clearly the obvious reason why his administration is doing this. Obama administration people this week have been barnstorming the cable news doing the whole "how dare they abuse the tax payer money" thing.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #2603 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:20:34 PM »

yeah, can't say i like the faux-populist outrage thing, since it smacks of a distinct rove-ian bent. i'd rather they educate dumb americans than manipulate them, even if the former may be somewhat impossible and the latter incredibly easy

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2604 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:22:02 PM »

The whole AIG thing stinks. The bonuses, the payouts to other parties, etc.

What really irks me is that nothing will be done about it.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #2605 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:22:38 PM »

Yeah but it almost necessary if the administration wants decent approval ratings.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2606 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:25:06 PM »

I think it's time for some street justice on these AIG execs, hobo with a shotgun style.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2607 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:26:55 PM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on March 17, 2009, 11:20:34 PM

yeah, can't say i like the faux-populist outrage thing, since it smacks of a distinct rove-ian bent.

It really is, David Axelrod's doing I imagine. Turn on any of the morning shows this week and your bound to see someone from team obama on tv blasting corporations for wasting tax payer money.

Sometimes I worry about about Axelrod's sway since he is a pure political beast and not one for policy. I mean a few weeks ago I saw a interview with Jimmy Carter where he said he had about a 4 meeting with Obama one evening where they discussed foreign policy and he said it was just him, obama, and axelrod. Why would Axelrod even need to be there? Whatever...

Quote from: T EXP on March 17, 2009, 11:22:38 PM

Yeah but it almost necessary if the administration wants decent approval ratings.

Oh yeah of course it's understandable, with all the bailouts and the like they needed something to boost their populist cred and latched on to this.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2608 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:27:46 PM »

er... 4 hour

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2609 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:33:11 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on March 17, 2009, 11:25:06 PM

I think it's time for some street justice on these AIG execs, hobo with a shotgun style.

But the bonuses were contractual!!!

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2610 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:38:02 PM »

Quote from: Willco on March 17, 2009, 11:33:11 PM

Quote from: The Card Cheat on March 17, 2009, 11:25:06 PM
I think it's time for some street justice on these AIG execs, hobo with a shotgun style.

But the bonuses were contractual!!!

Yeah, I bet they'll have a hard time saying that around a mouthful of shotgun. ka-BOOM, nukka.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2611 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:41:00 PM »

Well none of that matters, Obama is going to be on ESPN tomorrow to discuss his college basketball bracket picks.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #2612 on:** March 18, 2009, 12:42:45 AM »

We have been alive for what will be the greatest heist in history.

What can we do but sit back and shrug.

siamesedreamer · « **Reply #2613 on:** March 18, 2009, 09:20:55 AM »

Quote

Barack Obama even needs a teleprompter to get mad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=3

Ouch. Good column.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2614 on:** March 18, 2009, 09:30:13 AM »

Quote from: siamesedreamer on March 18, 2009, 09:20:55 AM

Quote
Barack Obama even needs a teleprompter to get mad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=3

Ouch. Good column.

Now I know you're high- you're saying MAUREEN DOWD wrote a "good column"? Ugh.

siamesedreamer · « **Reply #2615 on:** March 18, 2009, 09:32:26 AM »

Knew that'd get some attention.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2616 on:** March 18, 2009, 10:05:27 AM »

I can't fathom how that woman won a Pulitzer prize. I guess they give those things out to just anyone now.

tiesto · « **Reply #2617 on:** March 18, 2009, 10:51:23 AM »

Quote from: siamesedreamer on March 17, 2009, 10:23:30 PM

MMMM...blonde pubes.

(never thought I'd be agreeing with siamese about something in a political thread)

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #2618 on:** March 18, 2009, 11:47:54 AM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on March 18, 2009, 10:05:27 AM

I can't fathom how that woman won a Pulitzer prize. I guess they give those things out to just anyone now.

What are talking about? Her observation that Democrats are totally women WITH FRILLY VAGINAS* would never have sunk in unless she wrote her 1372nd column about it and I finally realized her brilliance.

*unless her subject actually is a woman, in which case they're dykes with dicks

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #2619 on:** March 18, 2009, 12:15:34 PM »

Dowd haters? EB surprises me every day!

Rman · « **Reply #2620 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:00:36 PM »

She's basically made it a career of being snarky. Her politics are actually very liberal, though.

Fragamemnon · « **Reply #2621 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:04:20 PM »

Like David Brooks, she's basically made a career out of saying the same thing 1,500 different ways. Can't stand her.

ToxicAdam · « **Reply #2622 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:19:18 PM »

So how many times do we have to be fucked over by Chris Dodd before we seek to have him removed from office?

Quote

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., won passage of a provision earlier this year that they said would have prevented the type of payments now at the center of the [AIG] storm.

It was dropped without explanation in the final compromise on the economic stimulus measure, replaced by a less restrictive set of conditions backed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and accepted by the White House.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #2623 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:57:14 PM »

Quote from: ToxicAdam on March 18, 2009, 02:19:18 PM

So how many times do we have to be fucked over by Chris Dodd before we seek to have him removed from office?

Quote
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., won passage of a provision earlier this year that they said would have prevented the type of payments now at the center of the [AIG] storm.

It was dropped without explanation in the final compromise on the economic stimulus measure, replaced by a less restrictive set of conditions backed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and accepted by the White House.

ugh just ugh.

siamesedreamer · « **Reply #2624 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:21:53 PM »

Holy Shit at the Fed. Increasing their balance sheet another $1.2 trillion.

siamesedreamer · « **Reply #2625 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:47:54 PM »

Hope the White House has extra flak jackets on hand:

Quote

Fannie Mae is due to pay retention bonuses of as much $470,000 to $611,000 this year to some executives despite enormous losses at the government-backed mortgage company. Fannie's main rival, Freddie Mac, also plans to pay such bonuses but hasn't yet provided details.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739512036672809.html#mod=testMod

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #2626 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:49:05 PM »

You have to pay money if you want to retain such brilliant talent.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #2627 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:50:43 PM »

Quote from: siamesedreamer on March 18, 2009, 03:47:54 PM

Hope the White House has extra flak jackets on hand:

Quote
Fannie Mae is due to pay retention bonuses of as much $470,000 to $611,000 this year to some executives despite enormous losses at the government-backed mortgage company. Fannie's main rival, Freddie Mac, also plans to pay such bonuses but hasn't yet provided details.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739512036672809.html#mod=testMod

OH SHIT LOL

Kestastrophe · « **Reply #2628 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:55:59 PM »

I actually wrote a voice of the people opinion piece to my hometown newspaper concerning one of Maureen O'Dowd's columns 5-6 years ago. She is terrible

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2629 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:56:16 PM »

Quote from: siamesedreamer on March 18, 2009, 03:47:54 PM

Hope the White House has extra flak jackets on hand:

Quote
Fannie Mae is due to pay retention bonuses of as much $470,000 to $611,000 this year to some executives despite enormous losses at the government-backed mortgage company. Fannie's main rival, Freddie Mac, also plans to pay such bonuses but hasn't yet provided details.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739512036672809.html#mod=testMod

That should be easier to stop, given that the govt is actually now in charge of both.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #2630 on:** March 18, 2009, 04:03:18 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on March 18, 2009, 03:56:16 PM

Quote from: siamesedreamer on March 18, 2009, 03:47:54 PM
Hope the White House has extra flak jackets on hand:

Quote
Fannie Mae is due to pay retention bonuses of as much $470,000 to $611,000 this year to some executives despite enormous losses at the government-backed mortgage company. Fannie's main rival, Freddie Mac, also plans to pay such bonuses but hasn't yet provided details.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739512036672809.html#mod=testMod

That should be easier to stop, given that the govt is actually now in charge of both.

"Should be easy" and "actually happening" don't go hand in hand at the federal level.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2631 on:** March 18, 2009, 04:05:19 PM »

siamesedreamer · « **Reply #2632 on:** March 18, 2009, 04:24:38 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on March 18, 2009, 03:56:16 PM

That should be easier to stop, given that the govt is actually now in charge of both.

How is that different from AIG?

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2633 on:** March 18, 2009, 04:30:17 PM »

Quote from: siamesedreamer on March 18, 2009, 04:24:38 PM

Quote from: The Card Cheat on March 18, 2009, 03:56:16 PM
That should be easier to stop, given that the govt is actually now in charge of both.

How is that different from AIG?

My understanding (and I may be wrong here) is that the Fed is actually in nominal control of Fannie and Freddie. With AIG, we own like 80% of the company but have yet to storm the boardroom and kill the idiots yet.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2634 on:** March 18, 2009, 05:45:21 PM »

Obama is going to do a big rally at 7:00 tonight in California, interesting.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #2635 on:** March 18, 2009, 05:55:58 PM »

* am nintenho buys a box of oreos

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #2636 on:** March 18, 2009, 06:54:43 PM »

fuccck that Obama town hall is like 5 blocks from my house

my commute home

Eric P · « **Reply #2637 on:** March 18, 2009, 06:55:40 PM »

Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on March 18, 2009, 06:54:43 PM

fuccck that Obama town hall is like 5 blocks from my house

my commute home

sounds like you should pull some OT

Cheebs · « **Reply #2638 on:** March 18, 2009, 07:02:13 PM »

Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on March 18, 2009, 06:54:43 PM

fuccck that Obama town hall is like 5 blocks from my house

my commute home

The place is probably already packed to full capacity by now I'd imagine.

Cheebs · « **Reply #2639 on:** March 18, 2009, 07:02:53 PM »

oh I misunderstood you I thought you said you wanted to go lol

News:

Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics (Read 1866167 times)