So, we again have Alpha throwing rocks and slandering the reputation and positions of others. "My boys" were never Bush's crowd and when challenged, Alpha could never refer to my past posts to justify his rock throwing.
So let's move on.
Obama promised us a breath of fresh air in Washington. Just like Bush, if anyone has a memory of 2000/1. Both did not deliver.
From Obama, we get, once again, a tired group of distressed assets seated in our House of Power. Before he has even taken office, we see:
a. Richardson run from the confirmation hearings due to a grand jury looking into "pay to play" issues re. his Governorship.
b. Alpha's beloved NY Times break the story, front page, that Hillary steered Federal pork to a Syracuse mall developer who then took a shining to Bill's "foundation" to the amount of $100K. My, my. What is new there?
c. Emanuel has been awful, awful quiet since the Blago fiasco.
Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss. Yeah, he'll wind down Iraq. That was a given - wars don't go on forever, it was time for this windown to occur now that a semblance of stability is established. But from his lietenants, don't expect much of anything except the picking of your pockets. They are of the old school, just like the past 4 administrations were. No fresh air here.
Foolish canoodle. I realize you are aging adn critical thinking is something that left you long ago leaving little more than the whining shell you are today.
Here's a bit of independent thought on Obama's first year:
Given the mess he walked into, the president deserves (mostly) good grades
To assess Barack Obama's first year in office, it's important to recall the state of the union when he took office last Jan. 20. The economy was on the ropes, housing prices were in free fall, major banks were teetering on collapse and the Dow Jones average was below 8,000 and dropping. Overseas, the war in Afghanistan was deteriorating as quickly as the conflict in Iraq was improving.
That the nation had the luxury of spending much of 2009 arguing about health care reform — rather than being overwhelmed by the economy or foreign crises — is by itself evidence for giving Obama fairly high grades for his first year in the White House .
True, jobs remain scarce and deficits scary. Obama's health care plan could face a mortal blow as early as today, if the Republican candidate wins Massachusetts' special Senate election. His foreign policy can be judged only as a work in progress. And his presidency has hardly lived up to the hype of less partisanship and a sea change in the way Washington works. To paraphrase the mocking critique made by Hillary Clinton, his onetime opponent and current secretary of State, the clouds have not parted to reveal celestial choirs singing.
Nonetheless, by applying earthly standards, we find it hard not to rate Obama's first year positively. In part, he has earned that assessment for what didn't happen — a second Great Depression, which economists across the political spectrum had feared — and in part for his boldness in taking on health care, which has defied solution for decades.
Read the rest at:
Good luck ole man.
Alpha, Obama is bought by Wall Street. Main Street was orphaned by him. It's apparent and most see it.
IF, IFFFF, a Republican senatorial candidate is seated in Massachusettes, which has State health coverage, instead of making excuses, Alpha, use your brains.
The state is one of the most liberal in the country. They are replacing a beloved Democratic senator of 47 years. Yet if this happens, it signals that a corrupt, broken health plan, championed by Obama who has bribed the plan this far, is not wanted by a constituency that Obama would have said was "in the bag" just 4 months ago.
It's a reflection of how badly Obama has kept his promises to Main Street that a Republican has even given the Democrat competition, let alone has the chance to win.
Nothing terribly earth shaking if your not a canoodle and have been following Obama and Co and their intent to reform the financial system. It is a good short read re: how the leaders of some of our largest financial institutions see the near financial catastrophe in retrospect and some of the ideas for addressing the problem of 'too big to fail.'
Give the partisanship a rest, Alpha. When we see the policy outcome,, present it. But this is spin.
When we see the breakup of the banking monopoly, we will see Obama doing something. Otherwise, capping bonuses and holding hearings is the avoidance of real substantive change that benefits Main Street - which Obama has overtly avoided.
Alpha, Geithner was part of the arsonist crew that brought our economy, even society, to its knees. I see that your knees were a knockin' (happens often to ya). If you feel a society should enlist the arsonists to put out the fire, go visit the 1930s in Germany - that experiment failed miserably and you haven't learned from it.
ah Canoodle.. If life were only as simple as you. It aint.
While I dont think you are as dim witted as some on this board, your failure to recognize and appreciate the damage the near financial meltdown caused is abominable. Had the financial system completely melted, the Dwuck's 'sky is falling' scenario may well have been tested.
None of that is to say that major financials such GS, ML or UBS that took excessive risk should not have suffered substantially. HOpefully all this finger pointing will present an opportunity for the US to exact some money damages from these companies. Perhaps some variation of equitable digorgement.
Alpha, we know what he'll say. "It wasn't me". "I didn't know".
And already his Legal Counsel is saying the issue wasn't elevated to Geithner's level. Baloney, I say.
Geither, Paulson and Bernanke set the policy earlier that everything would be in secret. We all know that. That is on the record.
So whether Geithner "knew" about this instance is not the issue. Why the American taxpayer was set up to donate to financial insiders is THE issue.
It's time for Summers and Geithner to go, along with their appointees.
As for the times being "unprecedented", I see nothing that requires the American citizen to be robbed. Every generation has its 2-4 happenings, each decade, that are unprecedented. Only under Bush/Obama have we seen wholesale disregard for law and order to rule under the frightening term "unprecedented". Those that propose illegal or improper policy utilizing such a term should be taken to the woodshed.
So Obama feels that terrorists, "arrested" in Iraq and Afghanistan, should be tried in America under our laws. I guess because the "crime" was against America.
Well, Obama is quite the duplitious character.
A team of Blackwater thugs blew away a whole bunch of Iraqis, in Iraq, and they "were" being tried in America, under American laws, even though the crime was committed in Iraq against Iraqis.
Then Obama's less than adequate Attorney General, Holder, blew the case.
Freedom for the gunslingers.
And Iraq is pissed off. But we should be too. We have again seen that Obama can't be objective and consistent. We again see that his policies are the same as Bush's.
of Korse mad dog azz alfalfa ripz sizzy frenchy Konu a new one "Nice try Konudl .. But again your macroeconomics ignorance .. No doubt an attempt to show off some of your arcane knowledge. Too bad it is totally irrelevant .. You really have to get a hold of yourself Konudl Not all problems are as old as you"
keep the pissin Kontest going boyz
Alpha, I have no problem in saying the US has been in a quarter century bubble economy fed by lax regulation, deregulation and Government cheered easy money. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. The biggest faux pas coming under Clinton when it comes to regulation. All except Bush I when it comes to lax money.
But Krugman can't say the same. He sees the world as blue vs. red. As you do. And that is not only irresponsible and ignorant, but dangerous.
Nice try Canoodle.. But again your macroeconomics ignorance is what is most illuminating from your post. Guess you really dont understand the importance of anti-regulatory legislation and sentiment fostered by REAGAN and co or contra to your protestation, you are a lover of RR and his dismantling/under funding of regulatory agencies.
Why you would feel it necessary to pass off Carter and Miller for even the genisis of the credit bubble of 2000s sub-prime and no qualifying credit schemes is mind boggling. No doubt an attempt to show off some of your arcane knowledge. Too bad it is totally irrelevant.
You should really buck up and learn from talented well educated columnists like Friedman and Krugman. Partisan or not, they have smarts which seem to have escaped you.
Try and recognize the amount of ultra risky debt at the outset of W and Co's admin was relatively small. Quite managable. Defaults on it would not have cause a ripple in our economy. It was the burgeoning leverage, lack of regulation, near fraud if not fraud by the debt consolidating investment banks and the scums up job by the credit rating agencies at the start of the century.
You really have to get a hold of yourself Canoodle. Not all problems are as old as you. Some in fact b/c toxic, like sub-prime credit, only in the last decade. Try and realize that.