Support NeoGAF

thefit · Mar 5, 2009

Evlar said:
I've heard Reagan re-booted the American Dream and defeated the Soviet Union many times. This is the first time I've heard he ended the Depression.

Now we just need a claim he won World War II and he'll win the Grand Slam of political hyperbole.

Don't forget he also didn't sell arms to the Iranians with drug money from the Nicaraguan contras. Its true, remember his mind tells him he did but his heart told us all he didn't.. *sniff*.....*sheds a tear* :*( God Save Reagan!

Tamanon · Mar 5, 2009

Alright, the Stephen Colbert "Bunker of Doom" segment might be one of his greatest ones ever. Just a stellar hour tonight.

Shockgamer · Mar 5, 2009

Tamanon said:
Alright, the Stephen Colbert "Bunker of Doom" segment might be one of his greatest ones ever. Just a stellar hour tonight.

It was amazing. I needed that after all of the gloom and doom on PoliEconoGAF.

faceless007 · Mar 5, 2009

The Chosen One said:
Every time I see a post where someone proclaims "Jon destroyed and embarrassed [insert Republican issue]!!!111" when I actually watch the episode for myself, I always come away disappointed. It's not that they're not funny, but you guys overhype TDS segments quite often.

It's not that Stewart is a Socratic master at demolishing right-wing arguments, it's that he's the only prominent media figure to bother even trying. No other media outlet, I'm sad to say, bothers to look at the claims of the Washington establishment critically, largely because they're just as much a part of the Washington establishment. So when we get all excited about TDS tearing cable news apart, it's because he's the only person on TV who does it.

That and he's actually funny.

PhoenixDark · Mar 5, 2009

AniHawk said:
Yes, except TDS can be humorous.

Not really

avatar299 · Mar 5, 2009

Jonm1010 said:
No it rightfully points out how retarded and disingenuous foxnews and CNBC are being when they try and correlate the stock market as an indicator of the publics approval of him or of whether or not his policies are successful or not or whether they are well liked by the public. Its a shitty argument the outlets, republicans and libertarians make and he shows the fallacy in it.

Wall Street is and probably always will be one of the most accurate ways to see how the economy is moving. now it isn't perfect, and on average it always lags behind, but really what is the alternative?

Obama can have a 100% approval rating, Wall Street doesn't give a shit. Are companies hitting their quota's, are they expanding, Is excess stock being sold, are things improving? That's important.
Obama's policies will worry Wall Street becuase they are drastic moves that will have future ramifications on the value of the dollar, inflation, employment, etc etc if they work. You won't see potential gains and rises until companies publicly come out and say sales are improving. That's just a fact. Until then of course Wall Street will fluctuate. Anyone who knows what the hell they are talking about would tell you.

Than again, i don't expect much from jon Stewart. he is just a comedian.

Fox318 · Mar 5, 2009

PhoenixDark said:
Not really

Tamanon · Mar 5, 2009

avatar299 said:
Wall Street is and probably always will be one of the most accurate ways to see how the economy is moving. now it isn't perfect, and on average it always lags behind, but really what is the alternative?

Obama can have a 100% approval rating, Wall Street doesn't give a shit. Are companies hitting their quota's, are they expanding, Is excess stock being sold, are things improving? That's important.
Obama's policies will worry Wall Street becuase they are drastic moves that will have future ramifications on the value of the dollar, inflation, employment, etc etc if they work. You won't see potential gains and rises until companies publicly come out and say sales are improving. That's just a fact. Until then of course Wall Street will fluctuate. Anyone who knows what the hell they are talking about would tell you.

Than again, i don't expect much from jon Stewart. he is just a comedian.

The Dow has as little to do with Obama's plans as me taking a shit and measuring the size. It's a worthless indicator.

"Wall Street" isn't a person, although it does act emotional and irrational all the time.

faceless007 · Mar 5, 2009

Edit: to avatar: You don't get it, Stewart was attacking the notion, advanced by many CNBC and Fox pundits, that the performance of the Dow is a better reflection of the president's approval ratings than...the president's approval ratings.

mAcOdIn · Mar 5, 2009

Jonm1010 said:
Dude, seriously? Now your complaining because he didnt do everything in your order. It takes time, finance reform is complicated, regulations need to be done carefully and theres lots of global coordination needed with a lot of this stuff.

For one if he is going to nationalize the banks (you realize he will probably have to do all of the big 4 right?) that he is going to need time to get the thousands of people in place to do it, those people arent just sitting around waiting for the next nationalization. I mean it took several hundred people just to deal with the relatively simple nationalization (in comparative terms to what they would deal with today) of Continental bank during the savings and loans crisis. this is no easy order.

Not to mention there is the very real logistical problems that make this a lot more complicated than people want to make it out to be.

They know what needs to be done. If Geithner still has to spend time to come up with a plan what was he doing under Berneke last year? Why was he the best man for this crises if he was playing tetris instead of getting a handle on the problem?

Look, Bush gets the majority of the blame like Hoover does for the Great Depression but so far Obama's no FDR despite the connections you'd like to make. If he keeps things up at his pace with his priorities we'll have been set so far back that yes I think it would be safe to say that his actions will have prolonged this recession/depression.

ronito · Mar 5, 2009

avatar299 said:
of course if it fails you'll blame us...somehow.

what? blame the free-market, less regulation, trickle down economics, cruise control crowd that got us into the mess? Why, that'd just be silly.

KHarvey16 · Mar 5, 2009

mAcOdIn said:
Look, Bush gets the majority of the blame like Hoover does for the Great Depression but so far Obama's no FDR despite the connections you'd like to make. If he keeps things up at his pace with his priorities we'll have been set so far back that yes I think it would be safe to say that his actions will have prolonged this recession/depression.

Hey, can I borrow your crystal ball? I have this job interview next week and I'm kind of curious how it goes.

faceless007 · Mar 5, 2009

:lol :lol Wow the douchebag capitalist from the WSJ really had no idea what he was getting into when he went on Colbert.

avatar299 · Mar 5, 2009

mAcOdIn said:
Look, Bush gets the majority of the blame like Hoover does for the Great Depression but so far Obama's no FDR despite the connections you'd like to make. If he keeps things up at his pace with his priorities we'll have been set so far back that yes I think it would be safe to say that his actions will have prolonged this recession/depression.

I'm no fan of FDR or Hoover(who is the most misinterpreted president in American history. I truly believe people don't know a single economic policy that man created, and he created quite a few) but you need to wait to see if Obama's policies don't work.

Jonm: I take back what I say. People judging Obama's approval rating by Wall Street are being obtuse....but at the same time, His approval rating isn't reflecting in the economy at all.

Shiggie · Mar 5, 2009

Fox318 said:
.

Can you post pics of charts of the dow and Reagan and World War II .

Jonm1010 · Mar 5, 2009

avatar299 said:
Wall Street is and probably always will be one of the most accurate ways to see how the economy is moving. now it isn't perfect, and on average it always lags behind, but really what is the alternative?

Obama can have a 100% approval rating, Wall Street doesn't give a shit. Are companies hitting their quota's, are they expanding, Is excess stock being sold, are things improving? That's important.
Obama's policies will worry Wall Street becuase they are drastic moves that will have future ramifications on the value of the dollar, inflation, employment, etc etc if they work. You won't see potential gains and rises until companies publicly come out and say sales are improving. That's just a fact. Until then of course Wall Street will fluctuate. Anyone who knows what the hell they are talking about would tell you.

Than again, i don't expect much from jon Stewart. he is just a comedian.

First off, Jon Stewart wasnt really making the argument about it being a BS indicator of economic health, just that it was ignorant to conflate the dow with overall approval and to ignore the polls and that plenty of presidents from Truman on the day after WWII and Reagan during his first two years saw the DOW continue to plummet yet both of them had successful economic presidencies.

You want me to name some better indicators for you at this time? GDP, Unemployment numbers, TED spread, currency value, trade deficits. The Stock Market can be an indicator but making it the sole indicator is pretty dumb for a variety of reasons. In fact having one sole indicator is pretty dumb.

Extollere · Mar 5, 2009

mj1108 said:
For the middle class.

If this works, we're going to have a contest to see which one goes into cardiac arrest first: Fox News or Rush.

Are you joking me...those people live in constant delusion. They will never give the Dems (or any other group) credit for doing anything positive. You could have any random Democratic candidate or politician do the most virtuous things, find a cure for aids, stop war and save the world from every current peril and Republicans would still find a way to call them satan and belittle them to the worst kind of person ever. They'd believe it to. They are in total opposition of everything except personal gain.

avatar299 · Mar 5, 2009

Jonm1010 said:
First off, Jon Stewart wasnt really making the argument about it being a BS indicator of economic health, just that it was ignorant to conflate the dow with overall approval and to ignore the polls and that plenty of presidents from Truman on the day after WWII and Reagan during his first two years saw the DOW continue to plummet yet both of them had successful economic presidencies.

You want me to name some better indicators for you at this time? GDP, Unemployment numbers, TED spread, currency value, trade deficits. The Stock Market can be an indicator but making it the sole indicator is pretty dumb for a variety of reasons. In fact having one sole indicator is pretty dumb.

GDP: meh, I'll give you that but i would still use Wall Street first because GDP growth can be meaningless many times
Unemployment: Irrelevant. European countries have employment so shitty they would be considered in a perpetual case of depression if they were held to the standards of any state. And yet most of GAF wishes they lived in France.
Ted: I'll give you that
Currency: To dependent on imports or exports to matter. Nice to have a strong dollar, don't need it for economic growth as the past 12 years have shown.
trade deficits: Completely useless.

avatar299 · Mar 5, 2009

Extollere said:
Are you joking me...those people live in constant delusion. They will never give the Dems (or any other group) credit for doing anything positive. You could have any random Democratic candidate or politician do the most virtuous things, find a cure for aids, stop war and save the world from every current peril and Republicans would still find a way to call them satan and belittle them to the worst kind of person ever. They'd believe it to. They are in total opposition of everything except personal gain.

Because only a democrat could cure a disease or help the world. Never change Poligaf:lol

Jonm1010 · Mar 5, 2009

mAcOdIn said:
They know what needs to be done. If Geithner still has to spend time to come up with a plan what was he doing under Berneke last year? Why was he the best man for this crises if he was playing tetris instead of getting a handle on the problem?

Look, Bush gets the majority of the blame like Hoover does for the Great Depression but so far Obama's no FDR despite the connections you'd like to make. If he keeps things up at his pace with his priorities we'll have been set so far back that yes I think it would be safe to say that his actions will have prolonged this recession/depression.

Like i said knowing what needs to be done and getting the actual manpower and preparations, including political will to do it, takes time. And like i said the logistics are more complicated than what you are talking about.

I want you to do me a favor and listen to this podcast from Planet Money. I ultimately have came down on the side of this will still need to be done but the man they interview brings up very strong points - and we should listen to him, he is literally one of the only people in America who has ever been in charge of nationalizing a bank and he has some real reservations about doing it this time:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/02/hear_he_nationalized_a_bank.html
(starts at around the 4 minute mark)

Also his Op-Ed in the WSJ:

I Bolded his main arguments for you

Bank Nationalization Isn't the Answer
Trust me. I've done this before.

By WILLIAM M. ISAAC

People who should know better have been speculating publicly that the government might need to nationalize our largest banks. This irresponsible chatter is causing tremendous turmoil in financial markets. The Obama administration needs to make clear immediately that nationalization -- government seizing control of ownership and operations of a company -- is not a viable option.

Unlike the talking heads, I have actually nationalized a large bank. When I headed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) during the banking crisis of the 1980s, the FDIC recapitalized and took control of Continental Illinois Bank, which was then the country's seventh largest bank.

The FDIC purchased Continental's problem loans at a big discount and hired the bank to manage and collect the loans under an incentive arrangement. We received 80% ownership of the company, which increased to 100% based on the losses suffered by the FDIC on the bad loans.

We replaced Continental's senior management and most of its board of directors. We required the bank to submit a business plan to shrink to half its size within three years. All major decisions required FDIC approval, including the hiring, firing and compensation of senior management, and the undertaking of new business endeavors.

The takeover occurred in 1984, the FDIC completed the sale of its ownership stake seven years later, and Continental was purchased by Bank of America in 1994. The old shareholders ultimately received nothing, all creditors and preferred shareholders came out whole, and the FDIC suffered what we considered a reasonable loss: $1.6 billion.

So, you might wonder, what's so bad about nationalization? It appears to have worked well at Continental.

Let's begin with the fact that today our 10 largest banking companies hold some two-thirds of the nation's banking assets, and some are enormously complex. Continental had less than 2% of the nation's banking assets, and by today's standards it was a plain-vanilla bank. This is important for three reasons.

First, any bank we nationalize will be forced, both by the regulators and the marketplace, to shrink dramatically. We are in the middle of a serious economic downturn where deflation is a realistic concern. Do we really think that dismantling our largest banks would be helpful? I don't.

What's more, we won't be able to stop at nationalizing one or two banks. If we start down that path, the short sellers and other speculators that the Securities and Exchange Commission still refuses to re-regulate will target for destruction one after another of our largest banks.

Second, for nationalization to work there needs to be a reasonable exit strategy. In the case of Continental, we had scores of options for returning the bank to private hands, including a public offering or a sale to any number of domestic and foreign banks and investor groups.

Today, who has the wherewithal, legal authority, and desire to purchase our largest banks? No one comes to mind, particularly if we rule out foreign groups, which I suspect would not pass muster due to national security concerns about ceding that much power over our economy to foreign powers.

Third, who will run these companies when we dismiss the existing senior managers and board members? We had significant difficulties attracting quality people to Continental even without today's limits on compensation.

So-called experts frequently cite the success of the Swedish experience with bank nationalization in the last decade. Nothing could be less relevant. Sweden's population, economy and banking system are roughly the size of Ohio's. Sweden's largest bank is roughly 10% the size of each of our three largest banking companies. Moreover, Sweden nationalized only Gota Bank -- and that was after it had already collapsed.

The Obama administration should declare that nationalization of any major bank is off the table; that the government stands behind our entire banking system; and that our banks will continue to receive a nonvoting form of equity capital, such as convertible preferred stock, from the government to the extent needed. Yesterday's joint announcement to this effect by the Federal Reserve, FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Treasury is a critical step toward healing our banking system and economy. Well done.

Mr. Isaac, chairman of the FDIC from 1981-1985, is chairman of the Washington financial services consulting firm The Secura Group, an LECG company.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123543631794154467.html

Jonm1010 · Mar 5, 2009

avatar299 said:
GDP: meh, I'll give you that but i would still use Wall Street first because GDP growth can be meaningless many times
Unemployment: Irrelevant. European countries have employment so shitty they would be considered in a perpetual case of depression if they were held to the standards of any state. And yet most of GAF wishes they lived in France.
Ted: I'll give you that
Currency: To dependent on imports or exports to matter. Nice to have a strong dollar, don't need it for economic growth as the past 12 years have shown.
trade deficits: Completely useless.

Like i said, i can spout off a list for you, one indicator should never be enough. You need a bunch to get a good indication of economic health. and i would argue all of those help give you that picture. Again, and you seemed to agree, the stock market is not the be all, end all indicator and in many cases it can be a fairly bad indicator.

Extollere · Mar 5, 2009

avatar299 said:
Because only a democrat could cure a disease or help the world. Never change Poligaf:lol

Never change indeed. If you understood my post at all it's clear that I was making the point that the current GOP base isn't willing to accept or understand any Dem policies. Their goal is to belittle and berate them. The point I was making is no matter how good any Democrat does, they will never get an ounce of respect or credit from the GOP or Rush. In their minds they can twist those things into something evil. Obviously a Democrat isn't the only kind of person who could cure a disease or help the world - it's got nothing to do with party alignment - I was just illustrating my point of GOP hatred and disillusionment to the Democratic base. Anyways thanks for reading - or not.

avatar299 · Mar 5, 2009

Extollere said:
Never change indeed. If you understood my post at all it's clear that I was making the point that the current GOP base isn't willing to accept or understand any Dem policies. Their goal is to belittle and berate them. The point I was making is no matter how good any Democrat does, they will never get an ounce of respect or credit from the GOP or Rush. In their minds they can twist those things into something evil. Obviously a Democrat isn't the only kind of person who could cure a disease or help the world - it's got nothing to do with party alignment - I was just illustrating my point of GOP hatred and disillusionment to the Democratic base. Anyways thanks for reading - or not.

in the minds of a democrat the GOP can do no good. Wow, welcome to politics.

A very stupid narrow view of politics. Are you purposely ignoring all the bills, committees and legislation the two sides work together on all the time? Many of those Dems policies have GOP co-signers if not co-writers. Oh the evil GOP collective.

Tyrone Slothrop · Mar 5, 2009

avatar299 said:
Oh the evil GOP collective.

Deus Ex Machina · Mar 5, 2009

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama walk into the East Room of the White House in Washington as they host congressional committee heads at a dinner, Wednesday, March 4, 2009.

gcubed · Mar 5, 2009

avatar299 said:
They gain more popularity among people who were going to vote for them anyway. you actually think people obsess over Rush Limbaugh the way Poligaf does? Most people don't give a shit.

Democrats will have good numbers until they fuck up. It's that simple, and it's always that simple.

I haven't seen the TDS yet, but if that what he really said he is an idiot.

Well considering most recessions have a sharp drop and recover between 16-24 months that's not a shock

isnt that kind of the point? You won, you want to win again and keep winning. By keeping the people who voted for you in the first place, you win again, because, hey, if they didnt vote for you in the first place, you would have lost. Self indentified dems far outnumber self indentified republicans, but we now how quickly that can change... as a decent percentage of both are fairly moderate. If you prop Rush up as the head of the Republican party, you scare the shit out of the independents and some moderates.

Remember, Rush isnt a Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly, where no one outside of the far right or politico watching groups know who he is. He screwed himself with the general public via Monday Night Football and Oxy Night in the US. Unlike the others, he's a well known public figure... this tactic would never work on the Sean Hannity's of the world because the majority of the country has no idea who the hell they are.

Zero Hero · Mar 5, 2009

avatar299 said:
Because only a democrat could cure a disease or help the world. Never change Poligaf:lol

(neutral) avatar299
Banned
(Today, 03:47 AM)
Reply | Quote

Macam · Mar 5, 2009

Jonm1010 said:
I want you to do me a favor and listen to this podcast from Planet Money. I ultimately have came down on the side of this will still need to be done but the man they interview brings up very strong points - and we should listen to him, he is literally one of the only people in America who has ever been in charge of nationalizing a bank and he has some real reservations about doing it this time:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/02/hear_he_nationalized_a_bank.html
(starts at around the 4 minute mark)

Also his Op-Ed in the WSJ:

I Bolded his main arguments for you

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123543631794154467.html

I'll have to take a deeper look at Isaac's argument when I get time, but I don't entirely agree (obligatory disclaimer: I've never nationalized a major bank. ). I think there's merit to his warnings, but I think he overstates them in some cases.

Do I think dismantling the largest banks would be helpful? Perhaps, but if the issue regarding the downturn is unfreezing the credit markets, then as long as we can ensure ready access to credit again, that should help turn things around. That in turn requires restoring confidence in the markets, in part by laying out a coherent long term strategy, and guaranteeing access to credit, such as by the numerous smaller banks and other financial institutions. Carefully laid out incentives and guarantees may help increase access to credit there.

The second point I find somewhat questionable. No one's going to want to buy the most troubled portions of these financial institutions, let alone when they're wrapped up with the rest of the institution, particularly when there are complex products whose values are relatively obscure and possibly unknown -- but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that other companies and/or institutions would be interested in parts of the large banks (e.g., Bank of America being interested in Merrill Lynch's wealth management arm). Lay out a strategy, gradually unwind and break up the big banks, and sell off.

The 3rd point is relatively weak. Will it be hard to find people to run it? Sure; the onus of taking out a massively trouble institution that engaged in questionable dealmaking and that's under the national spotlight isn't exactly the most enticing job offer; then again, nor is running for president following a president that remained engaged in two wars, an economy that's falling apart in a global recession, and so on. Turns out we had a number of qualified people running for the position (though not a single Republican). I'm

Now obviously, all of this is basically back of the envelope thinking. I don't pretend to be Tim Geithner here, but these problems are manageable. Nationalization isn't the only solution here, but it's certainly a plausible one that may make sense to pursue.

Cloudy · Mar 5, 2009

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/04/politics/100days/economy/main4842331.shtml

That has prompted economists to question the effectiveness of President Obama's recovery plans, reports CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante.

"The budget doesn't look very promising but why would it? [Office of Management and Budget] and Treasury are doing exactly what we got under Bush, which is more government and more waste," Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute told CBS News. "The stimulus plan doesn't seem to have worked and the bailouts don't seem to have worked based on the stock market."

Wow, I don't know which is more retarded. The fact that this guy (who's obviously partisan) can say that when the money is just getting out there or that the "reporter" wouldn't call him on it but instead print this garbage :lol

theBishop · Mar 5, 2009

Cloudy said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/04/politics/100days/economy/main4842331.shtml

Wow, I don't know which is more retarded. The fact that this guy (who's obviously partisan) can say that when the money is just getting out there or that the "reporter" wouldn't call him on it but instead print this garbage :lol

It's been pretty stark in the last year how compromised our "free press" is in the US.

Stoney Mason · Mar 5, 2009

Zero Hero said:
(neutral) avatar299
Banned
(Today, 03:47 AM)
Reply | Quote

Slow Clap.

I generally try to get along with even the people I don't like on the board but that dude is a complete and utter tool. Why Toxic Adam and Siamese Dreamer are gone and that guy remained is a crime against nature I will never understand.

Shiggie · Mar 5, 2009

Anyone have pics from TDS when the market dropped when Truman declared victory in WWII?

I find it funny when people look to the market for any Concrete indication of anything.

Tamanon · Mar 5, 2009

Stoney Mason said:
Slow Clap.

I generally try to get along with even the people I don't like on the board but that dude is a complete and utter tool. Why Toxic Adam and Siamese Dreamer are gone and that guy remained is a crime against nature I will never understand.

It's because for a while his personal insults were subtle and he was just an ass. That's not a reason to ban somebody or I'd be gone!

Incognito · Mar 5, 2009

Cloudy said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/04/politics/100days/economy/main4842331.shtml

Wow, I don't know which is more retarded. The fact that this guy (who's obviously partisan) can say that when the money is just getting out there or that the "reporter" wouldn't call him on it but instead print this garbage :lol

reminds me of last week's MTP when david gregory used a report from the heritage foundation to buttress his argument that obama's policies weren't going to be very effective. i mean, seriously?

ronito · Mar 5, 2009

Zero Hero said:
(neutral) avatar299
Banned
(Today, 03:47 AM)
Reply | Quote

I'm surprised it's taken this long. The guy asks for proof you give it and then switches tack to ad hominem or will just ignore it then show up a while later. I'll give it to him that Poligaf is heavily democratic, but just stating it as fact then backing off from any form of debate is silly. I expected this weeks ago, give us TA back, SD maybe....

Stoney Mason · Mar 5, 2009

Tamanon said:
It's because for a while his personal insults were subtle and he was just an ass. That's not a reason to ban somebody or I'd be gone!

I guess I missed those posts. I always thought he was an overt intellectually dishonest insulting ass.

GhaleonEB · Mar 5, 2009

So I started to watch Geithner's testimony in the House right now on the 2010 budget, but the first thing I hear is this guy berating him for raising taxes on so many during a recession.

*closes window*

We really do have some dip shits in office.

Cloudy · Mar 5, 2009

Stoney Mason said:
Slow Clap.

I generally try to get along with even the people I don't like on the board but that dude is a complete and utter tool. Why Toxic Adam and Siamese Dreamer are gone and that guy remained is a crime against nature I will never understand.

Heh, we have so few Republicans/Conservatives/Anti-Obama folks that I think we should try to keep the ones we do have

mckmas8808 · Mar 5, 2009

Jonm1010 said:
Holy Shit! Now Jon is demolishing the argument about the stock market being an indicator of a presidents success and knows all! How does a comedy show do more journalism and make more sound arguments than all of CNN, MSNBC, FOX and CNBC combined?

What did he say?

JayDubya · Mar 5, 2009

Cloudy said:
Heh, we have so few Republicans/Conservatives/Anti-Obama folks that I think we should try to keep the ones we do have

While potentially true, no one should be allowed to get away with "You dumb motherfucker." :lol

Macam · Mar 5, 2009

Incognito said:
reminds me of last week's MTP when david gregory used a report from the heritage foundation to buttress his argument that obama's policies weren't going to be very effective. i mean, seriously?

Last week's MTP was an atrocity. Gregory's discussion on the economy was wildly sensational and distorted and seemed more of a personal buy-in to the Republican nonsense about the so-called "detrimental" effect the marginal tax increase on the wealthy will have (i.e., next to none).

I was amused by Mike Murphy's attempts to look somewhat more Hollywood however.

theBishop · Mar 5, 2009

Stoney Mason said:
Slow Clap.

I generally try to get along with even the people I don't like on the board but that dude is a complete and utter tool. Why Toxic Adam and Siamese Dreamer are gone and that guy remained is a crime against nature I will never understand.

Some of the usernames blend together, but I thought I remember those guys being pretty blatantly intellectually dishonest. Making arguments with an air of rationality and then losing their shit when the arguments were torn apart. Essentially partisans trying to appear principled.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to impugn anyone unfairly.

Tamanon · Mar 5, 2009

mckmas8808 said:
What did he say?

Basically took the faux populism to task.

While the argument that helping out people whose mortgages are down is a plausible one, you can't somehow get outraged at THIS part of things after cheerleading bailout after bailout of the corporations and holding homeowners responsible for everything when a lending agreement requires two parties.

Then he transitioned to the role of CNBC as a market agitator and amplifier(an argument I used to make all the time to my clients). How they're not a real news organization, they're a PR outlet for corporations to pump up their stock.

I always used to hate having to explain the meme of the day from CNBC to investors and why it isn't nearly as important for them as the anchors tell them.

Lucky Forward · Mar 5, 2009

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.townhall05mar05,0,2195141.story

(Baltimore) City schools chief Andrés Alonso publicly asked Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele last night to apologize for making disparaging remarks about Frederick Douglass High School on national television.

A spokesman for Steele, Maryland's former lieutenant governor, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In February 2006, Steele visited Douglass in West Baltimore, holding it up as an example of the failures of urban education and making a personal commitment to turn the school around. Though he has not returned to Douglass since - a spokesman said shortly thereafter that school officials were not receptive to his help - he again said Douglass isn't doing its job during an interview this week on D.L. Hughley Breaks the News on CNN.

But, as both Alonso and Gov. Martin O'Malley noted last night, Douglass has improved significantly since Steele's visit: Its graduation rate went up 14 percentage points last year, from 43 percent to 57 percent.

"I don't think Michael Steele has been here since he came in an election year to demagogue, kick around our children," O'Malley said last night before his town hall meeting at Douglass on education and the economy.

The meeting, the last of five public forums the governor held around the state, was scheduled before Steele's CNN appearance.

Steele's 2006 visit to Douglass was widely criticized as a tactic to embarrass O'Malley, a Democrat who was then mayor and running for governor against Steele's boss, Republican Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. Steele did not follow through on a list of specific promises.

"Whatever happened to the new computers?" Alonso asked. "Whatever happened to the carpet for the library? Whatever happened to the new textbooks? Whatever happened to the new cafeteria tables? Whatever happened to just showing up before you go on national TV and cast aspersions on parents, teachers and students? Not acceptable."

The controversy comes the same week Steele had to apologize to conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh after criticizing Limbaugh's comments about President Barack Obama.

According to a transcript of the D.L. Hughley show, Steele said: "You don't get anywhere without an education. I can take you right now to Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore City, where the educational system that's supposedly training and teaching the future generation of black folks ain't doing that. It's not doing it at all. ... and Republicans aren't running the City of Baltimore. So the question then becomes, how do we as a community become self-empowered to make the system, whether it's run by Democrats or Republicans, work for us?"

Four months later, The Baltimore Sun quoted Douglass student Ebony Peacock as saying the school had not heard back from Steele: "We were really excited because he really made it seem like he was gonna help our school. We haven't heard anything since."

soul creator · Mar 5, 2009

pssh, everyone knows that it was the minorities and the Community Reinvestment Act under Jimmy Carter that caused the crisis

Stoney Mason · Mar 5, 2009

theBishop said:
Some of the usernames blend together, but I thought I remember those guys being pretty blatantly intellectually dishonest. Making arguments with an air of rationality and then losing their shit when the arguments were torn apart. Essentially partisans trying to appear principled.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to impugn anyone unfairly.

TA and SD had their issues like any posters do (like I do or some in this thread) but they rarely resorted to faux intellectualism and by comparison they didn't offend my sensibilities in any real or lasting sense.

Any conservative will have a tough time on this board and especially this thread from deserved and undeserved attacks so I generally try to bend over backwards to defend their right to express their views but I couldn't do it with that dude.

Unlike eznark or synth floyd (whatever that conservative dude's name is) he had a complete inability to let something go arguing positions he was clearly factually wrong on. He never could admit he was wrong on anything even if the information was presented right in front of him.

ronito · Mar 5, 2009

Cloudy said:
Heh, we have so few Republicans/Conservatives/Anti-Obama folks that I think we should try to keep the ones we do have

I think the ban hammer was too quick in the past on Pubbies and Arch conservatives. But it's also not a get out of jail free card. I though conservatives were against affirmative action.

Tamanon · Mar 5, 2009

It's a shame that some have been randomly cut down in non-political discussions too. Siamese lost it for being glad that the Falcons finally drafted a good, white QB. Gaborn for some other thread.

Cloudy · Mar 5, 2009

I was kind of iffy about Gibbs directly responding to Obama's media critics when asked (obviously he has prepared answers but he always lets reporters bring it up lol) but I now realize that they have to.

In today's youtube society, you just CANNOT let tv guys like Cramer and Santelli start ranting and raving about the POTUS with no pushback. It only emboldens other hacks looking for publicity. Notice how subdued those clowns got when Gibbs smacked them back?

These people need to understand that they can criticize but if they're gonna make a scene to try to embarrass Obama or push the GOP agenda, there has to be a response if the media keeps replaying the clips over and over and goes to the WH for reaction.

mckmas8808 · Mar 5, 2009

mAcOdIn said:
They know what needs to be done. If Geithner still has to spend time to come up with a plan what was he doing under Berneke last year? Why was he the best man for this crises if he was playing tetris instead of getting a handle on the problem?

Look, Bush gets the majority of the blame like Hoover does for the Great Depression but so far Obama's no FDR despite the connections you'd like to make. If he keeps things up at his pace with his priorities we'll have been set so far back that yes I think it would be safe to say that his actions will have prolonged this recession/depression.

Got damn the mothafucker has been in office for 6 weeks and you think he's preforming badly?

And you are measuring this by the stock market only? Damn near everything that Obama has done so far will take at least 4-6 months at the very very earliest to know if it's working or not.

Jobs take time to be created. I'd like to let you know that a county near me (Richmond Va) saved 400 education jobs this week due to the Recovery act money. Virginia was the first state to pass a budget with the Recovery funds and they saved an estimated 7,100 jobs ALREADY! Many jobs are being created as we speak. And that's completely do to the Recovery Act funds. But this will take months to flow through the system to finally see things turn around.

The housing plan will take time to show if it's working or not. We will have to see the trend of foreclousure rates, pending home sales, and home prices months from now to see if it worked.

And I personally think they are waiting for their stress test to finish before they nationalize any banks (if they even do). That could be right or wrong, but that's what I think they are waiting for.

Support NeoGAF

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA's First 100 Out of the Way

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Sucks at poetry

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Sucks at poetry

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Troll

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives

Similar threads