Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, January 27, 2012

Robert Scheer: Listening to Barack Obama, I am ready to enlist in his campaign against the feed-the-rich Republicans ... until I recall that I once responded in the same way to Bill Clinton's faux populism. And then I get angry because betrayal by the "good guys" for whom I have ended up voting has become the norm. Yes, betrayal, because if Obama meant what he said in Tuesday's State of the Union address about holding the financial industry responsible for its scams, why did he appoint the old Clinton crowd that had legalized those scams to the top economic posts in his administration? Why did he hire Timothy Geithner, who has turned the Treasury Department into a concierge service for Wall Street tycoons?

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

DARTHCHENEY

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"Obama should shine in comparison with his Republican challenger, but there is little in his State of the Union speech to suggest he will chart a much-needed new course in his second term. "

The "Republicans would do the same things" defense.

Hilarious.

Bob Scheer never quite got over the fact that his side lost the Cold War.

What sniveling leftist cunt.

Doggone, Dearth, a fair and balanced posting-----I think I'm having the "big one".

Anyone who thinks this is a 'defense' of Obama in any way is fucked in the head.

Oh, hey Exps.

#4 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-01-26 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not by the author. But by the dearth.

It is an "I am going to vote for Obama again even though he is almost indistinguishable from the republicans while at the same time campaigning to be completely different" article.

Hell, I thought it was a damned fine article. He managed to crush Clinton, Gingrich, Obama and Romney all in one fell swoop. Managed to throw Geithner and Greenspan under the bus, too.

If I were a betting man, I'd say he was a reformed Democrat who has decided to vote for Ron Paul.....

It is an "I am going to vote for Obama again even though he is almost indistinguishable from the republicans while at the same time campaigning to be completely different" article.

#5 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-26 11:31 AM

That is pretty ironic. Fear of the other side winning will cause someone to vote lockstep even when they recognize that there isn't a great chasm of difference between the two. It'd be nice to see all disappointed Rs and Ds and Is join together and put up a strong showing for a third party candidate in protest. But fear will keep us stuck for the forseeable future.

Oh, but you're attributing those words to Darth when they are the author's.

almost indistinguishable from the republicans

Both sides are bad so vote Republican?

Lawls.

False equivalence is false.

Be Well.

#9 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-26 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is that what I said? No.

I am voting someone other than the two parties. Why? Because they are both bad. That seems like the logical thing to do.

How many people will do it? Few. Why? Because they are illogical and act much like Spud here who prefers to say "both parties are bad so vote [Democrat!]"

Nice try dirty tater.

#7 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-01-26 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Oh, but you're attributing those words to Darth when they are the author's.

#8 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-01-26 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

I am voting third party.

And in regard to attributing it to Darth... no I am not attributing the authors words to Darth, I am attributing the story as a piece of evidence in comparison to what Darth has stated before.

He tends to avidly support Obama. If this article is the case, then he is defending his support for Obama by saying "the republicans would do the same thing".

That makes no sense based on what Obama campaigned on causing Darth and others to vote for him in the first place.

I am voting someone other than the two parties.

Go ahead...

Be Well.

/Simpsons is not obscure.

Pretty good article.

Although can't help but wonder why people who know all this is true still refuse to vote small party.

.
.......good article......
.
......no punches pulled for anybody.......

Although can't help but wonder why people who know all this is true still refuse to vote small party.
#13 | Posted by sully

....That is the sad part of American democracy.....

.....instead of voting for who will do good... we must settle for choosing who will do the least damage......

br />

Sheer is correct. It is impossible to take Obama's declared positions seriously after watching what he has done for three years. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Yet, the bullshit coming out of the Rethuglican party is even worse. Rethugs are promising to repeat the meltdown by everything they say and do. They deny that any accountability is even necessary. We are being played for fools. Its maddening.

"Rethugs are promising to repeat the meltdown by everything they say and do."

"They" do? How so? You sound exactly like the guy who you just claimed fooled you. Post anything of the so called "they" if you have something. Otherwise you are nothing but a Wasserman-Shultz skank whining about Mitch McConell for the 99th out of 100th interview she does.

BTW... Geitner claims they are not finished with fincancial reform yet, hinting they want to do more. How has the reforms worked out in the last three years? Knowing they are bragging about a fucking 2% GDP growth for all of 2012, is anyone really stupid enough to want more of the same?

It's good that Scheer is questioning his commitment to La Revolucion. But I doubt he's got the courage to venture off the plantation.

When they prosecute a few people, I'll believe them.

is anyone really stupid enough to want more of the same?

#17 | Posted by crispee_oc

Oh yes they are. There will be many many many people who know full well that Obama is lying when he says what he is going to do, but will vote for him anyway because he has a D in front of his name, which stands for Depression, which is what we are in now.

is anyone really stupid enough to want more of the same?

#17 | Posted by crispee_oc

Did you ask yourself that question in 2004?

is anyone really stupid enough to want more of the same?

#17 | Posted by crispee_oc

It's really the same for anyone who votes for the 2 major parties.
Do I want more of the disappointing policies of Obama and Dems or more of the criminal policies of the Pubs?

"Did you ask yourself that question in 2004?"

Nope. The second I heard "My name is John Kerry and I am reporting for duty" I knew the outcome...

So you did vote for more of the same?

How many people will do it? Few. Why? Because they are illogical and act much like Spud here who prefers to say "both parties are bad so vote [Democrat!]"

Nice try dirty tater.

#10 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Pretty much why I've been voting for disney characters for decades.

Loh

#25 | Posted by Lohocla

Well, you are on a winning streak......

So you did vote for more of the same?
#24 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2012-01-27 12:40 PM

In 2004? Of course. Especially when the gutless, cowardly dems started running from their Iraq vote and wanted to put up the white flag and surrender...

In 2004? Of course.
#27 | Posted by crispee_oc

Yea, how'd that work out for the country?

Yea, how'd that work out for the country?

Posted by TFDNihilist at 2012-01-27 01:25 PM |

If you like Obama, it worked out well. We would be in Kerry's second term right now or a GOP's first.

If you like Obama,

#29 | Posted by kanrei

I don't.

Yea, how'd that work out for the country?
Posted by TFDNihilist at 2012-01-27 01:25 PM

How stupid do you look arguing John Kerry and John Edwards would have been better for the country back in 2004?

As everyone knows, it all started going in the shitter the day Pelosi and Reid took over, and thankfully this last year having a GOP Congress has started to clean up the damage left from 2007-2011.

I don't.

#30 | Posted by TFDNihilist

Not a fan myself. Think he is a good guy, but a lousy president.

yes crispee or don't you remember whose watch the bailout bullshit started on? The finagling to water down Frank-Dodd, obstruct reregulation, laud free markets and use the excuse of envy to maintain the status quo is largely Rethuglican. The real problem is rooted in excess leveraging, gambling and fraud and perpetuated by a steadfast refusal to prosecute by both the White House and Rethugs in Congress. Obama is again talking about fixing things. But so what, at the same time he is trying to cut a deal letting the Banks off the hook for foreclosure fraud. If it wasn't for some determined State Attorney Generals, that deal would already be done.

PROBLEM SUMMARY:
People used to know what banks did. Bankers took deposits and lent to speculators in recklessly large amounts for quick in-and-out trading. Financial crashes have become deeper and affect a wider swath of the population as debt pyramiding has soared and credit quality plunged into the toxic category of "liars" loans.

The first step toward today's mutual interdependence between high finance and government was for central banks to act as lenders of last resort to mitigate the liquidity crises that periodically resulted from the banks' privilege of credit creation. In due course governments also provided public deposit insurance, recognizing the need to mobilize and recycle savings into capital investment as the industrial revolution gained momentum. In exchange for this support, they regulated banks as public utilities.

But today's Banks major customers are other financial institutions, insurance and real estate, the FIRE sector, not industrial firms. Debt leveraging by real estate and monopolies, arbitrage speculators, hedge funds and corporate raiders inflates asset prices on credit. The effect of creating "balance sheet wealth" in this way is to load down the "real" production-and-consumption economy with debt and related rentier charges, adding more to the cost of living and doing business than rising productivity reduces production costs. MAKING US LESS COMPETITIVE.

Since 2008, public bailouts have taken bad loans off the banks' balance sheet at enormous taxpayer expense, some $13 trillion in the United States, and proportionally higher in Ireland and other economies now being subjected to austerity to pay for "free market" deregulation. Bankers are holding economies hostage, threatening a monetary crash if they do not get more bailouts and nearly free central bank credit, and more mortgage and other loan guarantees for their casino-like game. The resulting "too big to fail" policy means making governments too weak to fight back.

The process that began with central bank support thus has turned into broad government guarantees against bank insolvency. The largest banks have made so many reckless loans that they have become wards of the state. Yet they have become powerful enough to capture lawmakers to act as their facilitators. The popular media and even academic economic theorists have been mobilized to pose as experts in an attempt to convince the public that financial policy is best left to technocrats, chosen by the banks, as if there is no alternative policy except governments subsidizing a financial free lunch and crown bankers as society's rulers.

excerpted from Michael Hudson

Which is why Romney is such a terrible fucking choice.

I want to be Nutcase when I grow up.

How stupid do you look arguing John Kerry and John Edwards would have been better for the country back in 2004?
#31 | Posted by crispee_oc

Please show where I said that. What I did say is that Bush was a disaster in the first 4 years. That we knew. So why vote for more of a proven failure.
Now about Kerry/Edwards, it's impossible to say. Probably couldn't have been worse.

-------------
As everyone knows, it all started going in the shitter the day Pelosi and Reid took over,
#31 | Posted by crispee_oc

Really? 9/11 and an unnecessary, put on the credit card war, didn't happen until 2006?

Here's Crispee's thought process...
He put the first 100,000 miles of hard use on the brake pads, but it's my fault that they fail while driving to the mechanic at mile 100,001.

"In due course governments also provided public deposit insurance, recognizing the need to mobilize and recycle savings into capital investment as the industrial revolution gained momentum."

Translation: Government provided insurance on deposits so that banks could gample with demand deposit accounts (which, before this point, were held nearly 100% in reserve, and after this point were held at a 10%+/- reserve rate). This was the original form of bank bailouts.

The "recycle savings" comes from the failed notion that savings is somehow bad for the economy and people need to be compelled to "invest" (or move from demand deposits which are supposed to be secure, to investment or gambling deposits).

that savings is somehow bad for the economy and people need to be compelled to "invest"

It is from an economic standpoint as saving removes money from the economy where investment increases it.

"Debt leveraging by real estate and monopolies, arbitrage speculators, hedge funds and corporate raiders inflates asset prices on credit."

Of course he completely misses the intended target here. Debt leveraging is only possible in a fractional reserve system by allowing the gamble to take on a exponential component. If demand deposits are not held at a high reserve level (as is necessitated in a non-FDIC environment to prevent bank runs) what you get is an exponential increase in credit money on balance sheets.

This is a problem directly created by government and the Federal Reserve. If the market was left to deal with this bullshit, it would have died as soon as it started. Instead, the enablers (government "regulators") championed the inflation of credit (see Krugmans demands for Greenspan to "inflate the housing bubble) in order to release us from a "liquidity trap" following the dot com bust when savings rates (poor people actually accumulating capital) rose.

He put the first 100,000 miles of hard use on the brake pads, but it's my fault that they fail while driving to the mechanic at mile 100,001.

Not quite Turdhilist.
You said you were going to fix the brakes, begged us to let you fix the brakes, took out ads that said "Yes We Can- Fix the Brakes". Then you drove the car into the fucking ditch - damaging the brakes, the suspension, the transmission, the oil pan, the muffler and the people working in the ditch when you crashed it.

It is from an economic standpoint as saving removes money from the economy where investment increases it.

#39 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-01-27 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is not rigorously correct. Being a medium of exchange, money can only assist in exchanging the goods of one producer for the goods of another. The state of the demand for money (savings) cannot alter the amount of good produced (cannot alter economic growth). Likewise, a change in the supply of money does not have any power to grow the real economy. Instead, as the savings rate increases, ceterus paribus, prices should fall in equilibrium. Expansion of credit money for the purposes of investing is not the creation of capital, neither is printing money.

Killed another one. Dammit.

During more stable economic times, banks lend the savings out. At the moment they are buying Treasury Notes or investing in Asia. Since the fifties Banks have migrated from investing in farming, industry and mining to investing in finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE). This is increasing asset values artificially, as all the money is made by paper shuffling without ever adding any new wealth to the nation. What it does do is increase rents and all costs linked to them such as groceries, lumber and those precious ski lift tickets. Banks are destroying the country, just as Jefferson warned.

"We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them."
-- President Obama in last night's State of the Union Address
REALLY???? Gee let's look at a few facts:
"In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified buyers wasn't enough. Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required the use of "innovative or flexible" lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be "innovative" and "flexible." In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to enforce these relaxed standards." -Peter Wallison, 2/2009

copypasta

#45 | POSTED BY PATRIOTWOMAN23

Making it illegal to deny a loan because of race did not make it mandatory for the big banks to make these guaranteed to fail loans.

They were the ones with the power to deny or allow.

They took advantage of the loosened regulations to put a shit-ton of unsophisticated consumers into home loans that quickly became unsustainable.

The banks must have known these loans would fail but as they all kept getting bonuses for making them all the way up the chain nobody cared.

They were also the one who bundled this shit up and labelled it A1 and sold it to the world as such fraudulently.

Trying to even pretend for a second that the bubble and resultant crash were caused by the CRA and the consumers who were preyed upon there rather than the institutions that actually set this thing up to fail is quite frankly deeply ignorant or the victim of pro-corporate propaganda.

You are *so* cute when you think you've actually made a point, Patsy.

Be Well.

"Trying to pretend for even a second that the bubble and resultant crash were caused by the CRA and the consumers who were preyed upon there rather than the institutions that actually set this thing up to fail is, quite frankly, deeply ignorant either that or you're the victim of pro-corporate propaganda."

/Fixt.

Be Well.

"Trying to even pretend for a second that the bubble and resultant crash were caused by the CRA and the consumers who were preyed upon there rather than the institutions that actually set this thing up to fail is quite frankly deeply ignorant or the victim of pro-corporate propaganda."

Let's review your ignorance... fannie/freddie are given permission as a GSE to solicit banks, and accept loans with a guarantee from default as long as the loan is approved and delivered under their written guidelines. Which meant the loan had to be in a sellable condition for the open market. If one step was not followed, one T not crossed, one I not dotted, missed initials, signatures, dates on certain documents the loan would not have funded. They set up the programs and every bank used the same electronic underwriting system directly to fannie/freddie and under the same umbrella as far as how the loan was verified, written, approved, funded etc...

crispee still cannot comprehend Bush's speech of Jan 2002, where he argued 9-11 was a reason to open the floodgates at Fannie and Freddie.

I have published excerpts here which crispee has ignored or canot read.

Here's an easier version meathead:www.youtube.com

"I have published excerpts here which crispee has ignored or cannot read."

They are meaningless to me. I blame the gov period. I can only speak from a lenders perspective who dealt with nothing but fannie/freddie loans. Regardless of the investor being Countrywide, Wells BofA, JP Morgan. Regradless of the credit lender who have us the warehouse line to fund loans, all were done under the umbrella of fannnie/freddie guidelines. They published the loan program and the parameters in the approval, and we didn't fund any conventional loans without it. We were a small player having an $80 million line, and banks were the big players who packaged them after we sold them the loan.

The H.P. kicking Obama in the Ba- -s who would have thunk it.

As stated above .....NOPE IN NOVEMBER.....

crispee,

So your solution to an epidemic of bank robbery would be to fire all the police (Government). The thieves are the real problem. They belong in prison.

The Fed, Treasury, the SEC, the FDIC and Justice Department have a responsibility to police Commercial Banks. They didn't so much fail as to decide they didn't want to do it. I remember in the nineties on the Penninsula it was impossible to get a home loan with less than 20% down. Greenspan because he believed markets are "self regulating" and being a loyal Rethuglican, wanted to pump the economy for Shrub. And pump it they did. A game only the big boys win.

Fannie and Freddie are private companies traded on the NYSE with Government guarantees, designed to provide liquidity to the housing market. The notion that all the liars loans generated by brokers at places like Countrywide met F&F guidelines is absurd. Maybe yours did, but then they wouldn't be a liability to F&F would they? To the extent guidelines were relaxed the Fed is mostly responsible, although other agencies have specific duties as well.

What none of us understood, because we wanted to beleive, Obama, Rommey, Nyet, Rick, and all the Repubs and Dems in congress are all in the same party, the only differance is on social issues (abortion, no abortion, gay marriage, no gay marriage etc) All belong to the Big Government Party, just different wings.

www.thedailyshow.com

the only differance is on social issues (abortion, no abortion, gay marriage, no gay marriage etc) All belong to the Big Government Party, just different wings.

www.thedailyshow.com

#53 | Posted by Anon451 at 2012-01-28 09:48 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

"They're all the same but for the ways they are different"?

Yep. I'm sold.

#34 44 and 52.

So where in there do you see republican? Come on nut it was bipartisan. Most knowledge analysts acknowledge fnm and fre were run mostly by dems. And to ignore the cra and the desire to extend credit to shit properties definetely was part of the problem. The dems hands are dirty too. When people list wamu, cfc, etc there is no party in that. Even if they donated heavily to one party or the other.

You'll notice I'm not blaming one aspect. The credit crisis has many aspects involved. Anyone who singles out one as being the over riding, I believe is wrong. To do so is superficial and incorrect. Both parties had their hands in this. The whole market came down at once.

By Nutcase......."Fannie and Freddie are private companies traded on the NYSE with Government guarantees".

No matter how you slice it fella, that is NOT a private company. That is a government company dressed up.

Ever hear about the lipstick on a pig thing?

Quasi government agencies, aka government run.

Before the S&L crisis it was illegal for an S&L to loan money to its officers. Once that rule was lifted all hell broke loose. Massive loans on phoney appraisals became the rule. CEO loan recipients never made a single payment. Mafia figures were implicated in hidden ownership structures. But there was accountability. Almost a thousand S&L executives went to prison.

Who got the rules changed? Who stole the money?

There is no question the greatest rule changes leading to this repeat crisis occurred at the end od Clinton's term. Clinton has admitted it was a mistake.

But who stole the money? Its people like Mozzila and Blankfein that's who. Like the S&L crisis the public was forced to bailout criminals. But unlike the S&L crisis no one is being prosecuted. This is an outrage and Holder's previous employment with Covington & Burling LLC stinks to high heaven. Holder earned about $2 million from C&B during his tenure.

C&B defended GOP operatives, Big Finance and Pharma. The very players responsible for the current immense corruption of the US public sphere. Ever wonder why Eric Holder is a no-show on GOP election-rigging and prosecutions, or financial fraud prosecutions?

The real question is why Obama would infect his administration with both Holder and Greg Craig, both who are not merely politically tainted, but have acted as defense agents for the Bush administration and the GOP more generally.

Can the Dems really be this clueless? I doubt it. So what else is going on? Are the political faces of the parties really just a facade providing a virtual political space when, in fact, the Republicans and the Democrats are just part of the same machine? It often looks exactly like that.

Choice is an illusion

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable