TPMDC Sunday Roundup
Cheney: Obama Putting America At Risk Of Another Attack
During his interview today on CNN, former Vice President Dick Cheney blasted the Obama Administration's decisions to undo the previous policies on Guantanamo, waterboarding and other issues. "President Obama campaigned against it all across the country," said Cheney. "And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack."
No Obama Or Biden Events Today
President Obama and Vice President Biden do not have any public events today. Obama has a 3 p.m. meeting on the economy at the Oval Office, which will be closed press.
Summers: AIG Bonuses "Outrageous" -- But Government Cannot Abrogate Contracts
Appearing on ABC's This Week, Lawrence Summers denounced the AIG bonuses as "outrageous," and said the White House is doing everything it can to limit the bonuses -- but he also added that there are limits to what can be done. "We are a country of law. There are contracts," said Summers. "The government cannot just abrogate contracts. Every legal step possible to limit those bonuses is being taken by Secretary Geithner and by the Federal Reserve system."
Goolsbee: Administration Doing Everything It Can About AIG Bonuses
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Austan Goolsbee addressed the AIG bonuses. "I don't know why they would follow a policy that's really not sensible, is obviously going to ignite the ire of millions of people, and we've done exactly what we can do to prevent this kind of thing from happening again," said Goolsbee. "I think the root of the problem has been some of the people have things written in their contract that say, 'Look, you sell this much life insurance, you get a bonus of X,' and it's in their contract and that part can't be changed."
Barney Frank Wants To See If AIG Bonuses Are Recoverable -- And To Get Tough On The Executives
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Barney Frank said he wanted to see if the AIG bonuses are recoverable. "We can't just violate law -- legal obligations. I understand that," said Frank. "But I do want to find out at what point these illegal obligations were incurred, who said, and at what point, we're going to give these bonuses no matter what. And I do think it's inappropriate for those people to stay in power at that company."
WaPo: Jarrett High-Powered And Low-Key
The Washington Post profiles Valerie Jarrett, and her role as the public liaison for groups wanting to reach President Obama: "Jarrett's ability to navigate the big personalities and even bigger egos in the administration will go a long way toward determining her success, and perhaps the president's, in trying to change the tone of civic discourse and foster more grass-roots influence in Washington."
Biden Raises Big Money For Blanche Lincoln
Joe Biden headlined a fundraiser in Arkansas yesterday for Senator Blanche Lincoln, kicking off her re-election bid. The Lincoln campaign told the media that the event brought in about $800,000 a considerable amount in the inexpensive Arkansas media markets.
Americans United Ad: We Want The President And America To Succeed
The latest ad from the labor-backed group Americans United For Change, running on national cable and in the D.C. media market, blasts Congressional Republicans for attacking President Obama's budget plan, but failing to have a one of their own:
"Tell the Republicans that Americans won't take No for an answer. Tell them we want our President - and America - to succeed," the announcer says. Note that at this point, the group doesn't even have to directly mention Rush Limbaugh, as they did in prior ads -- the line about wanting the President and America to succeed gets the message across just fine.
| TOPICS: Bailout, Barack Obama, Budget, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, Rush Limbaugh
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
"We are a country of law. There are contracts,"
Unless of course, they are union contracts in which case they must be broken at all costs.
March 15, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Exactly what I was thinking. Anytime a company declares bankruptcy, the union contract is the first to get blown to smithereens. As Josh noted on the front page here, AIG is insolvent and in a bankruptcy proceeding by another name.
March 15, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, we can abrogate the contracts. They are, essentially, in bankruptcy.
And what kind of contracts were these? Hey, you lose A HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS and we're gonna give you a performance incentive?! To KEEP YOU AROUND BECUASE YOU'RE VALUABLE!?
We own you, dudes. Accept the bonus and you're fired. Hell, even better, you're fired no matter what.
I'm starting to lean towards letting all the bastards fail. Make these SOB's live in a single wide working as a Walmart greeter. Give the bailout money to the banks that are still solvent as a reward for being smart.
March 15, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>greeter. Give the bailout money to the banks that are still solvent as a reward for being smart.>>
If they're solvent, they don't need bail out money.
As far as the bonuses are concerned, these aren't going to executives. They're going to routine employees who did their jobs.
If you worked for Macy's and signed a contract when you were hired saying you'd get a 15% bonus if you sold $200K in merchandise, you'd expect them to keep their word. You were not a decision-maker and were in no way responsible for the mismanagement of the executives and the board so why should you be penalized?
March 15, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a lot of stupid criticism of AIG on these bonuses. The published amount comes to 0.1% of the so-called "bailout" funds.
I think people are jumping on the "no bonus" bandwagon which got real momentum when Thain and Lewis apparently plotted to give much more in bonuses to Merrill Lynch employees.
But the government can, and sometimes does, intervene. Contracts which violate public policy can be declared null and void. The devil is in the details.
March 15, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the whole thing has been simplified so much that it's unclear what actually is occurring. There's all this outrage out there, supposedly, but then there's this:
But the official said the administration will force A.I.G. to eventually repay the cost of the bonuses to the taxpayers as part of the agreement with the firm, which is being restructured.
A.I.G. did cut other bonuses, Mr. Liddy explained, but those were part of the compensation for people who dealt in other parts of the company and had no direct involvement with the derivatives.
Huh? They're going to be asked to pay them back?
Link: What is, or isn't, going on with the bonuses
March 15, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A.I.G. did cut other bonuses, Mr. Liddy explained, but those were part of the compensation for people who dealt in other parts of the company and had no direct involvement with the derivatives."
That makes no sense. AIG is cutting bonuses for people who worked in the sound parts of AIG? But again, this bonus strikes me as a tempest in an inflated teapot in a sinking ship in a larger tempest.
March 15, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes no sense whatsoever.
So, I guess, that means it's probably what's actually going on.
March 15, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the bonuses are going to executives, according to the NY Times:
March 15, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Essentially is not actually
Close don't count
I am not sure how much authority the Treasury or the Fed have but it is entirely possible that they could, with a sufficiently broad statute, develop by regulation the same rule that applies to fraudulent conveyance treatment of such bonuses in bankruptcy
Without that though, Geithner and Goolsbee are SOL
March 15, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no such thing as "essentially in bankruptcy." That's like saying someone's "essentially pregnant."
The difference between "insolvency" and "bankruptcy" is the same as the difference between "incompetence" and "guardianship." The first is a description of condition. The second is a special legal relationship created by a court of competent jurisdiction between the afflicted person and the rest of society that can come into being ONLY if an interested party with standing to ask for the court's intervention petitions the court.
"Insolvency" is a descripiton of financial condition that means either inability to pay debts as the come due (cash flow insolvency) or that your liabilities exceed your assets (balance sheet inolvency.)
Bankruptcy is a legal state which requires a postitive act of a court of proper jurisdiction. Either you are in bankruptcy--i.e. you have filed a petition for protection with the bankruptcy court in your state of incorporation, or you you are not. If you are in bankruptcy, the trustee appointed by the court, pursuant to the federal Bankruptcy Act, as the power to abrogate certain contracts.
AIG is insolvent, but it is not in bankruptcy. We made a decision to keep AIG out of bankruptcy because we feared the consequences that would flow automatically, without the ability of anyone to exercise discretion or control, from a bankruptcy filing. As a direct result of that decision, we can't just tell AIG to breach these lousy scumsucking sociopaths' contracts. If we did it, they'd sue, AIG would lose and then they'd have to pay anyway after having also paid attorneys to defend a losing suit. It sucks but that's the way it is and all the griping in the world can't change it. So its time for everyone to suck it up and direct their energy to something that they can affect.
March 15, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Washington Post to Combine Business and Comics Sections
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=6581
March 15, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney:
"...he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack."
In his mind. That's the problem.
March 15, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raising risks can be a GOOD thing when you've been putting too much investment (psychic, blood, fiscal) into treating risks as outright evil.
Contrast "perpetual war" with "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Cheney and pals chose the former. Will Obama find himself following in their footsteps with only the lip service changed?
So far I don't see substantive changes from him.
March 15, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney is
1. Inviting an attack -- treason (surprise, surprise)
2. Setting the stage for when the inevitable DOES happen, he can come back and say Bush would never have let it happen -- I hope he is unable to speak at the time.
3. A mean old, lying, treasonous, torture-promoting, chicken-hawking, disgusting snake.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apologies to all snakes -- I couldn't think of an inanimate object that would do him justice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK - not a snake; a piece of shit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apologies to shit -- even the infected kind; there just isn't anything bad enough. Cheney must become his own word for the worst in the world.
March 15, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Dick, who admits to the use of waterboarding at least three times while still claiming that "America doesn't torture" is the veritable purveyor of the fictional doublespeak come to life.
He implies that the Wizard of Oz was in office on 9/11/01 because his administration "kept America safe" and so on.
Dick's worst conflict with baby Bush is that he wouldn't pardon Libby; a treasonous criminal who was disseminating Cheney's treasonous blowback against the truth.
But, Obama waits for something egregious to appear before he will consider holding this despot to account.
Hell.
March 15, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even know why waste time criticizing AIG executives. WE GAVE THEM MONEY WITH VERY VERY FEW STRINGS ATTACHED. A lot of people (including on this blog) warned that EXACTLY this would happen, but no one was really interested in effective executive pay... So at least let's not act surprised.
Also, things keep getting worse for David Paterson in a new poll. Paterson's collapse is really one of the most stunning stories of the past few years.
March 15, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we're a country of laws Holder better be rolling out some major indictments real soon.The President can look forward all he wants but we have war crimes that need to be addressed.Along with treason and domestic spying.
March 15, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our fabulous liberal media continues to give Cheney and all the other monsters from BushCo a media platform for their lies and bile. Not shocked, just really really tired of them.
March 15, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
let me register my strong opposition to the use of all-caps Comic Sans in that Americans United ad. That's a failed policy of the past if I ever saw one.
March 15, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully Penis Cheney is putting himself at risk. Keep hope alive for cardiac number 5.
March 15, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't recall a former Vice President being invited on to a Sunday blatherfest and so roundly criticizing the current President. Can anyone else?
March 15, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. It was an unwritten rule that prior presidents and vice-presidents don't criticize current presidents. Carter broke it in some respects after being out of power for ten years or more and has been ostracized for breaking the unwritten rule. Darth Vader has broken it in record time and of course he will be worshiped by the press and the wingers.
The only way to shut this criminal up is to throw him in jail where he belongs. I hope he goes fly fishing in spain. They have excellent fishing there. I'll even give him an all expenses paid fishing vacation to spain. He can take scalia with him even, since according to scalia torture is perfectly legal and no problemo.
March 15, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spain?
Nothing against that beautiful country, or anything, but why Spain? Have they indicated they may charge Cheney if he ever goes there?
March 15, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, there are several magistrate judges in spain investigating the criminals for war crimes. That's why I picked spain. I think the investigations going on in spain are farther along then in other european countries. In spain the judges act like prosecutors. If any of the criminals show up in spain, guaranteed they would be locked up. Same with Italy I believe. Throw in france, germany, almost any european country other than Great Britain. I absoulutely guarantee that none of them will travel outside the us other than to Canada and Great Britain and American occupied countries, if they want to go into war zones. Anywhere else and they will get locked up.
March 15, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael A, you describe just an intolerable situation. I know you know Vermont is on this list. And just as the nation is trying to find its way ahead, Dead-Eye Dick has to come out and twist the spear he and his criminal enterprise tried to stick in the country's heart.
Tried, and failed.
Speaking of tried, this is what must happen. No commissions, no panels, no excuses. There is a deep connection between the financial crisis, oil & defense profiteering, and preemptive war.
All we have to do is follow the money.
Thank you for paying attention to Spain!
Pax,
M.
March 15, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No prob. It seems that the rest of the industrialized world is so far ahead of us when it comes to news and information. That's the only place that you can get it is pretty much from overseas, which is pathetic.
The situation is totally intolerable and it makes the us look like a bannana republic. Yep, we have to follow the money from the last 50 years and show how we have been ripped off for the benefit of the super rich and then they whine?????? It's pathetic. Basically, us taxpayers have been giving welfare to the wealthy based on the defense and oil industry shell game. Totally outrageous. Maybe if jon stewart looked into it, we could get some freaking information as he is basically the only us journalist today.
March 15, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link I found quickly. I remember reading several reports on spanish investigations over the years. Won't hear about this in the right-wing media.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/fun_with_anonymous_sources.php
March 15, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link! And that was almost 9 months ago.
I wouldn't be surprised, though, if Cheney's delusion causes him to believe that he isn't in danger of any prosecutions, because, in his delusion, he seems to really believe he did nothing wrong.
March 15, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem. Incidentally, check this out on cnn. The leading magistrate judge cited in the atlantic article, garzon, was hospitalized in February. I hope he's ok. The point is the uber-right-wing cnn didn't mention his investigation of the war criminals in the king's administration. Telling isn't it about cnn and our right-wing media. Why not mention the investigation? Odd, isn't it. I guess not really.
http://cnn.tv/2009/WORLD/europe/02/20/spain.judge/index.html
March 15, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the "No Bias No Bull" network is actually biased and bullshitty?
?????
I'm SHOCKED.
March 15, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shocked, shocked I tell you.
It's along the lines of that dimwit anderson saying repeatedly "we'll get you the facts" or something along those lines. Every time I heard that I wanted to hurl. I actually stopped watching him as well. I don't watch any cnn. They never give the facts, just opinion from memos circulated to lush and fox entertainment and cnn. All bullshit and no facts.
The way that cnn piece should have been written was the same guy that went after pinochet has his sights set on the king's administration and their war crimes. Was that too hard to write? Is that liberal or left wing? No, of course not, it's just a fact, which is not reported.
March 15, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't watch CNN regularly any longer--only enough to get a sense of how the blabberheads will try to frame the issues of the day.
I found no mention of Garzon's health in the news, but I did find this BBC link (dated Marh 10) that describes how he's being investigated for, you guessed it, TAX problems.
Garzon's supposed tax problems
March 15, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, because I have never really been one, but I am starting to find this tax thing very, very strange. I find it hard to believe that republicans are squeaky clean on taxes and dems are not, and alot of them. It is making me wonder. Also, it seems to be easy to try and stir up a tax controversy if you know the right levers to pull and at the right times. I really do not believe in coincidence either. Every time I have been in a situation that was alleged to be a coincidence, I have discovered that it was not a coincidence, but something going on behind the scenes. Virtually every time.
By the way, what his spokesman said seems to me to indicate that there is no problem, but the headline made it sound like a major problem, along with the text of the piece. Maybe blair is pulling in some favors at the bbc to smear garzon in the press. Again, I find it interesting that there is no mention of garzon investigating the king and his court. None.
Something very strange seems to be going on. Thanks for the link by the way.
March 15, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not me.
He ought to crawl back into the undisclosed hole from whence he came.
March 15, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine the reaction if Gore said that Bush wasn't keeping the country safe back in 3/2001. He'd have been a prophet if he had!
March 15, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish richard clarke said something in the press in the spring of 01 and resigned, because he knew that the king was ignoring the threat from terrorists and the warnings from the clinton administration. Unfortunately, clarke was frozen out from the intelligence info shortly after the king came to power, so he didn't know the full ramifications of what was going on, but in retrospect I wish he said something. The king and his court was too busy trying to figure out an excuse to invade iraq as opposed to concentrating on the threat from terrorists. And then they have the freaking audacity to spew that they kept america safe? I hope they rot in hell.
March 15, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really good question, CT voter.
Since we can expect Penis Cheney to dick us over left and right at all times, it has to fall to CNN and journalistic organizations not to give the prick a forum.
CNN, get with the program.
March 15, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope to God Joe's working her over on EFCA. He should have made a precondition of helping her raise money that she vote for cloture at the very least.
March 15, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Lincoln should be considerably less dependent on rabidly anti-union Walmart campaign donations following this stunt by Biden.
March 15, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every legal step possible to limit those bonuses is being taken by Secretary Geithner and by the Federal Reserve system."
How about sing the tax system? Any bonus over, say, half a million dollars is taxed at 100%. And then, Heck - give all the bonuses you want: the government needs the money to help the rest of us.
March 15, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about making that everything over $10,000?
March 16, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does Cheney's going after this administration give the green light for Obama to send the DOJ after Cheney now?
I'd say yes.
Obama stated out in the open he didn't want to go after the previous administration and this is how Cheney repays him? If I were Obama, I would be livid right now. It's as though Cheney is taunting him.
At first, I thought going after Cheney was a bad idea. After seeing him today, my bloods boiling.
March 15, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah - Obama should not go after Cheney because Obama is mad, nor because Cheney failed to "repay" him; Obama should go after him because Cheney is a criminal.
March 15, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He needs to turn into The Rock Obama. That's what he needs to do.
March 15, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The guy has admitted publicly that he advocated torture. He admitted that he advocated outing a CIA agent. Today he pronounced Scooter Libby an "innocent man," after he was found guilty and then let off the hook by W.
It is almost as though he is standing there with his thumbs in his ears, wagging his fingers and saying, "I dare you to come after me!"
These are the same criminals who impeached a President for a blow-job, and they continue to give our country a blow-job every time they open their mouths!
They REALLY should not get away with their crimes. What do you think they will try to do if they ever win again, knowing that no one will hold them accountable?
March 15, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney has made this country open to attack more than any other person besides Bush. Thanks to them and their mistakes (and the surge was a mistake when we could have accomplished the same thing without all the bloodshed and violence) they have made this country less safe and open to attack by the millions of enemies they made. They created so much harm and destruction that it would be a miracle if we didn't get attacked again.
War crimes, shame and corruption...yeah, thanks Cheney you murderous bastard.
Any insane idiot can muster up 25% support in any country with the media's help so please believe that the majority of America thinks you should be in prison and are so glad you're gone.
Cheney's character vs Obama's character ...there's no comparison...Cheney is slime.
March 15, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama stated out in the open he didn't want to go after the previous administration and this is how Cheney repays him?"
This statement by Obama is in the same category as Pelosi stating the "Impeachment is off the table".
We all know the results of that statement - The Bush Administration was given a free hand to trash the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Obama saying this, if he keeps his word, enables the next Republican Administration to expand even further into the abuses of the last eight (8) years knowing that there will never be any accountability for elected or appointed officials.
March 16, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting WSJ editorial out.
Coleman's goal is to sow enough doubt about the vote so that if he loses the recount he can attract public support to challenge the final result in court. This is a slap at Minnesota, which, so far at least, appears to be doing all it can to make the recount open and transparent. Minnesota should respond by telling Mr. Coleman that even a former Senator has to play by the rules.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122722771153246225.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
Of course that was written in Late November so I had to change Coleman and Franken's names and occupations :). But I am sure we can expect a similar editorial out from the when Norm files his appeal!
March 15, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just take down AIG ourselves. AIG got approximately 49% of it's revenues from their Life Insurance operations (the largest source). If everyone cashes out or cancels policies with AIG,we don't have to wait on the government or the "market" to correct this outrageous behavior. Just as the clients of Bear Stearns demanding the money in their accounts brought down Bear, we the people can take down AIG if we really want to.
Remember Bear Stearns went from an $18 billion cushion to insolvency in 5 days. How long do you think AIG will last if their largest source of revenue suddenly disappears?
AIG Bonuses = No Business, Boycott AIG
March 15, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would the bonuses mean to them if they were all fired. If we let them collapse, bought them and then sold then after we straightened them out. If their jobs meant no bonuses...they would not get them whether they were fired or not...if we let them go into bankruptcy.
How is it even remotely possible to give bonuses when it is an emergency situation that we give them tax payer dollars just to save their asses.
Bonuses???my ass. I feel we should be freezing their assets and holdings and confiscating their properties for having ruined our economy for the sake of their own greed.
My brother (one of millions) lost $90k...all of his retirement money thanks to these thieves and they think we should allow them to take bonuses???
BANKRUPTCY AND FAILURE TO THE POINT OF EMERGENCY BAIL OUT DOES NOT JUSTIFY BONUSES. What is wrong with these people...getting theirs at the expense of everyone else.
March 15, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...said Goolsbee. "I think the root of the problem has been some of the people have things written in their contract that say, 'Look, you sell this much life insurance, you get a bonus of X,' and it's in their contract and that part can't be changed."..."
Yes it can be changed and made invalid if it was done by fraud, if it cause irreparable harm, if it was responsible for our economic collapse. So sell that nonsense walking bozo.
March 15, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Bernanke just said he believes all the big banks are solvent. That's a pretty big deal if it's accurate.
March 15, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a liar, which is troublesome in light of what occurred the last 8 years. I posted a link about a week ago explaining how they are not solvent, and it's not even close. I tried for a few minutes to find the piece and could not. They are insolvent in the neighborhood of hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do we keep proping them up? Let them die and go back to regional banks. This too big to fail bullshit is a warning signal to stop this rampant mergering and consolidation. It is killing us.
March 15, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they are solvent, why are the American taxpayers being required to bail them out?
March 16, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
First I would really surprised if there is actually a contractual obligation to pay the bonuses. One question though does come to mind: the financial shop that caused this trainwreck and received a large portion of the bonus money is located and operated out of London. Anyone know if there are any UK legal issues here - it could easily be that the US could do something about the contracts and they would likely be abrogated in bankruptcy here (though they haven't needed to file due to the largesse of the US gov't) I don't know what the implications are, however, vis-a-vis the location being London. There are lots of moving parts here - anyone seen anything on this issue?
March 15, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't we need to start with the fact that AIG is not in bankruptcy? As others have said, "basically in bankruptcy" is the legal equivalent of "not in bankruptcy."
I do think Treasury/USG could be a whole, whole lot tougher with these irreplacably talented louts while the whole financial industry is out of work.
March 15, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Lord. The partisans are up in arms regarding Romers response to Obama making this statement on Friday "If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy _ all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation and dynamism in this economy"
Gregory though he'd be cute and score points for his buddies and ask if she thought they were sound and she replied with this "The fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology"
Anyways, you can imagine where this is going.
They'll ignore the fact that McCain was making a broad statement regarding fundamentals while Obama was isolating individual sound fundamentals and stating he is going to work on those individually.
March 15, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The post has a lame-o article about Cheney's interview. The comments are interesting, though: readers are infuriated, raging against Cheney literally at the rate of 30 to 1 or worse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031501402.html
How does the old maniac feel about all this? He's not totally stupid: he knows that the Bush Presidency is rated as one of the worst in history, that he was the brains behind it, and that he personally is one of the most hated individuals on earth. Now, he'd say he doesn't care about such things; it's his genius policies that matter. So he's loving life, then?
March 16, 2009 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so the Post's readers want the Dick to go Cheney himself, but on Politico they just adore the Dr. Strangelove curmudgeon. I didn't know *anybody* cared for him him these days, but do they ever! Like he was some great hero, the lyrical paeans that these twisted reactionaries pen!
March 16, 2009 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink