« Atlantic Business! |
Main
| John Thain ousted at Merrill Lynch »
Question of the day
22 Jan 2009 02:37 pm
How come progressives opposed to TARP II are very, very worried about the cost to the taxpayer, but not worried at all by the cost to the taxpayer of a massive fiscal stimulus, a lot of which is nearly guaranteed to be wasted by virtue of the speed with which the money must fly out the Treasury's door? And where are the conservatives taking the equal and opposite stance?
Because TARP just helps Wall Street and stimulus provides jobs for the working man, duh.
Yeah, pretty obviously TARP is seen as effecting a transfer of wealth from the poorer to the wealthier, and the stimulus package is seen as effecting the opposite kind of transfer.
I'd say they like the concept of stimulus because, if Obama is true to his word, it will help rebuild Main St. TARP, on the other hand, has the look and feel of the good ol' boys scratching each others back. We don't see where it went, and if the realities of Main St. are to be believed, it isn't helping folks where they need it most. It seems to be paying for bonuses and mergers, not credit and commerce.
In other words, it's he same reasons that we keep giving you so much crap about the banks vs the auto industry. One is for the royalty, the other for the plowmen.
But there's the other aspect -- stimulus looks to benefit small business. TARP was for companies "too big to fail."
I've said my bit before, something too big to fail is too big. Like ATT in 1979, it should be dismantled into smaller bits. I wonder how the internet would look today if this hadn't happened. I'm guessing it might be a very different beast.
There are no conservatives in favor of TARP.
Some may consider themselves such, but they are mistaken.
I have opposed both from the get-go, but, yes, there is an enormous disconnect in the arguments from both sides, however the disconnect is actually quite a bit bigger on the left. Remember, the primary opposition to TARP Sr came from Republicans.
P somewhat stole my thunder, but there aren't many "conservatives" in favor of TARP. If they are, they should consider rebranding themselves.
Any politician who supports TARP, TARP II, the Big-3 bailout, or this new stimulus... will never have my support.
Ever.
Dear God, you're a blithering idiot...
Wouldn't understanding and explaining the "Question of the Day" ostensibly be part of the job description of this blog? Or has Megan decided not to opine, lest she reveal any abject ignorance in the process?
And I thought Glenn Greenwald asked the question of the day.
And by the way, Charles Pierce is, like Greenie, typically good today.
Um, because the "progressives" you're talking about are figments of your imagination? See, people who think about things don't decide on their merit simply because they cost money. They look at what they accomplish and see if the money is worth it.
As you're a fan of the anecdote, perhaps this will shed some light.
I have my own question of the day.
How come all these Republicans who oppose government spending vote to approve the federal budget each year?
See, it's easy to be obtuse.
Don't know the answer to the question of the day, but President Obama literally just said at the State Department, "The United States will not torture."
Bad day for Tara, et al, but resounding applause from the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
ed, the job description of this blog, as far as I can tell, is the same job description as ANY blog: For the writer to ramble about whatever is on their mind at any given moment.
There are only two things that make this blog unique: 1. Megan's particular perspective on politics, and the fact that this is what she mostly blogs about. 2. She's getting paid.
Why her blog is worth paying for while the one I maintain on MySpace (probably) is not is up to The Atlantic to decide. She generates plenty of traffic here, so as far as a publishing concern cares about, she's doing a splendid job.
I find it laughable that so many people come to this site and leave messages calling for Megan's head. By reading and engaging, you are casting a vote for her to stay in business.
Bad day for Tara, et al,
No, a good day for them. They just don't realize it. Sadly enough.
Rofe, didn't the Congress already say the same thing a couple years ago?
Also, I have no idea why you think such a proclamation would make it a "bad day" for me. The fact that you think so indicates that you fundamentally misunderstand my position on nearly everything.
President Obama literally just said at the State Department, "The United States will not torture."
So what? He's also said "I support the Second Amendment."
It turns out that details matter, and Obama has been vague about those from day one.
Well, Tara, I seem to recall that various agents of the United States government said the same thing over quite a few years, dating back to a man named Washington. In fact, I seem to recall that the concept was more than broadly embraced . . . until your preferred rulers decided to diverge.
Excuse me if I misrepresented your support of torture.
I'm assuming this was a rhetorical question.
But yes, to reiterate the first response, most of my lefty friends had the same response, and it is the most egregious example of an emotional response to a rational issue.
This is why I refuse to discuss fiscal politics with or listen to commentary from those who have no background in economics. Having never read any Russian literature, I would never presume to opine on the virtues of Crime and Punishment versus Anna Kerenina. Nevertheless, people continue to take their opinions on economic matters from people who have no basic knowledge of them, and then espouse a set of self-concocted truths and ethics, and are themselves taken at their word because they are provisionally intelligent in the area of, oh ... say, 20th Century Latin American Literature.
I suppose this is betraying my class or something, but I'm wincing noticing that Nature is ecstasizing over a proposed $3.5 bil gift to NIH and $3.0 bil to NSF. Last time money gushed into those places, it got spent on huge, big-ticket centers and the like and when the growth didn't continue at that pace a lot of small research starved, so I think it's well established that those institutions don't handle financial bonanzas well: I'd like to see the spending plan first, please.
Rob,
While you're certainly correct that details will ultimately be decisive, President Obama could not have sent a clearer message that the tack he and his administration will take will be vastly different than the tack his predecessor and that administration took.
Not that we didn't know that already.
Did you have some progressives in mind when you write this, or are you just talking about archetypes you've invented? It's hard to know what these progressives are thinking when you don't link to something a progressive has said.
Don't know the answer to the question of the day, but President Obama literally just said at the State Department, "The United States will not torture."
Meh. Bush said the same thing. So far (and probably always) it's just talk. Obama signed an executive order requiring anybody in government to treat prisoners as spelled out in the Army field manual, but the very next order directed the Army to look at adding new interrogation techniques.
Obama's in a bind, because when something bad happens lots of people are going to think it's because he was "soft on terror" if he makes substantial changes.
"Excuse me if I misrepresented your support of torture."
Subtle. Cute.
I don't support torture. You should apologize for misrepresenting ME.
And you did it again, by calling the previous administration my "preferred rulers." I voted against Bush, and also against McCain.
Why not argue the issues instead of setting me up as a straw figure to knock over?
President Obama could not have sent a clearer message...
Of course he could have. He could have explained what he meant by "torture." He could have said, "The United States will not waterboard. We reserve the right, however, to play American Idol reruns all night to soften captured terrorists up." Of course, efforts to define torture have been vilified when attempted by people like Yoo, so it's understandable that he doesn't want to get into those particular weeds.
What he did here was what he has been doing since the campaign began: say some thing vague that sounds good, into which supporters can project their own beliefs. Wake me when he says something unambiguous.
Shouldn't the apologies really start with Megan's insane postulate that Khalid Sheikh Muhamed (her sic not mine) was somehow being tried under the UCMJ when we all know he clearly WASN'T.
That's one of those pesky, little annoying things we call a fact.
But then again she might have been confused. Yeah. I would say so.
P.S. Since when are we doing apologies around here? I've been advocating for those and an admission that people are wrong (cough, like when someone told me a person couldn't read over 900 words a minute and comprehend over 50% of what they were reading, they were proved wrong and said nothing) for months.
Waiting for Megan to EVER admit she's wrong about anything? Priceless. Cause it's never gonna happen.
In terms of the question of the day... the reason is progressives refuse to face the fact "Main St" or, as we call it today "Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd", can't function without a working banking sector.
Personally I'm all for ensuring the banks work, but if it takes a trillion dollars of taxpayer money what we really should be doing is nationalizing them followed by a quick sale. The original stockholders and bondholders should end up with nothing, both as a way out of the moral hazard problem and as a nod to the realization the stockholders are ultimately responsible for what the executives did.
Oh, and some of those bonuses should be clawed back. Some of these banks have been insolvent for a good long time regardless of whether they filed for bankruptcy protection or not.
First of all, what interrogation techniques will be permitted are spelled out in the Army Field Manual. By setting a codified standard, he is, actually, defining torture.
But to comment on the post at hand, progressives tend to believe that the stimulus package will be good for the economy (even if many also believe it's too little). There's no such belief about TARP as it currently stands. Furthermore, I believe most progressives want the TARP money spent, they just want it spent in different ways and with more oversight.
Don't know the answer to the question of the day, but President Obama literally just said at the State Department, "The United States will not torture."
Meh. Bush said the same thing.
Shhhh! Nobody is supposed to realize how subtle the actual differences are between Republicans and Democrats! You're suppose to pick a side and love it unconditionally, while branding the other side as evil! There's no room for free-thinkers around here.
John, why do you imagine that Megan owes you an apology for publishing something you disagree with?
I was demanding an apology for a personal attack. Were you ever the subject of her writings?
For myself, I want nearly all of the stimulus money to go into creating a 21st century electrical grid - something that is so well built, can handle transmissions from several current sources (oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, etc), from various places, loses the absolute minimum in transmission, and is capable of running both directions and tracking the flow in both directions easily (into and out of the home).
While this has started - it simply IS NOT the case that we have a modern electrical grid. It isn't the case.
To get a modern electrical grid requires a lot of investment, but if built to the highest standards, will PAY OFF for decades upon decades to come. As well of course creating jobs in the short and medium term, which are currently in short supply
So that's a no-brainer - and it something that benefits everyone. I'd like to see YOU become a proponent of that spending, rather than minimizing it.
Because it's factually wrong Tara.
Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was NOT being tried by the UCMJ.
Megan stated,
"Everyone's hailing Obama's decision to suspend all Guantanamo trials for 120 days. But I thought the problem with Guantanamo was the people being held without trial. Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was being tried by the UCMJ, which as far as I know, is what you're supposed to use on enemy combatants accused of war crimes."
Umm, except that's NOT TRUE. Khalid Sheikh Muhammed WASN'T being tried by the UCMJ.
Hence, as a blogger, a journalist and just a sane, responsible citizen I think she owes all of us an apology for posting as fact, something that is absolutely and concretely FALSE.
From Eric,
I agree completely, but there is one little detail that most people overlook, and it is the most explanatory fact for why bailouts are actually so popular with politicians, and it is this: recognition of the losses means that most Americans with financial assets of one type or another, are going to end up having to recognize a portion of those losses. This means just about everyone. Politicians are bobbing and weaving in their attempts to evade this reality, all the while making the hole deeper.
"Hence, as a blogger, a journalist and just a sane, responsible citizen I think she owes all of us an apology for posting as fact, something that is absolutely and concretely FALSE."
If journalists were always held to such standards, the NYT would be a much thicker newspaper in order to print the apologies.
An apology is owed to a party who was wronged. You were not damaged by Megan's error, because you knew better. Most readers were not, because they really don't give a crap about the fate of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, nor the spelling of his name.
If any apology is owed, it's you who owe it to her (and all of us) for derailing a discussion of TARP II with this unrelated argument.
"If journalists were always held to such standards, the NYT would be a much thicker newspaper in order to print the apologies."
Umm, ok. How does this change the fact that Megan was wrong?
"An apology is owed to a party who was wronged. You were not damaged by Megan's error, because you knew better. Most readers were not, because they really don't give a crap about the fate of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, nor the spelling of his name."
So that's the standard. Well: a) thanks for the compliment and b) I wasn't aware that if you're aware of an error you're automatically not harmed by it. But ok.
"If any apology is owed, it's you who owe it to her (and all of us) for derailing a discussion of TARP II with this unrelated argument."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it YOU who injected torture into this discussion of TARP II by responding to what you thought was a dig at you on torture from a previous discussion. But it's my fault? Ok, once again I like your logic.
TARP money: Throwing good money after bad
Stimulus: Building long due infrastructure projects, electricity grid upgradation, seeding green energy research, etc
Come one, its not even close.
Financial sector is basically bankrupt now, and no amount of TARP will be able to rescue it. Ultimately nationalization with zero out of the shares would be the final step.
@ Rob Lyman:
'Of course he could have. He could have explained what he meant by "torture." He could have said, "The United States will not waterboard."'
Didnt the Attorney General Nominee already explicitly state that Waterbboarding is torture, and the Republicans are trying to block his nomination for the same reason?
@Royce:
'Did you have some progressives in mind when you write this, or are you just talking about archetypes you've invented? '
This is Megan's favorite technique to ask her readers to justify what "some say" or what "they think". Somehow linking to an actual progressive is against policy.
Great question. Why do we (republicans or democrats) have an opinion one way or another as to what our politicians intend to spend freshly printed money on?
TARP was a hail-marry pass that ended up in the stands. The coming stimulus package will be used to fund every hair-brained civic project falling loosely under the banner of 'infrastructure'.
Both will, in the long run, prove prophetic Dick Cheney's famous quote, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Doesn't this question answer itself?
Abhinav - have you read the spending plan?
-First, most of the infrastructure spending will not happen for a year or more - it takes time to plan and approve projects. We do need to upgrade infrastructure, especially the power grid, but since it won't happen instantly, let's not rush in headlong - Obama has his friendly Congress for at least two year. Take some time, do it right.
Second, a LOT of that "stimulus" money is just going into pet liberal sinkholes (for example, more money to enforce spousal support payments - a worth cause, perhaps, but sure as hell not a Federal concern and not very stimulating) - this is just typical liberal spending under cover of a crisis.
@Holdfast:
I have read one initial version of the list of projects that will be funded through the stimulus plan. I am searching for the link for that to give here. Anyways, a ton of infrastructure activity especially in mass transit has essentially been put on hold for the past year or so, and you would be surprised how quickly such activity could be started once the stimulus passes through. Also, even some of the projects will take more than a year to get going, the planning, hiring, land acquisition etc can start pretty quickly. Have a look here for example:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/rep_oberstar_rail_had_to_take_a_back_seat_to_tax_cuts.php
The difference between TARP and "stimulus" is that TARP investments such as preferred stock will pay an observable dividend and will in all probability be fully paid back in 5-7 years.
"Stimulus" may just be more transfer spending. There could be some actual investment in bridges, tunnels and that sort of capital investment but the lion's share of the $ will be blown on paybacks to the Demos favorite interest groups.
As a conservative I favor TARP over "stimulus". I wish that monetary policy alone could fix things but that will take quite too long. Part of me says no government intervention but a panic and collapse of this sort is one of the few places government might help the markets to find equilibrium and I would rather see it done via buying securities (either the Fed or the Treasury could do it). It is tangible and measurable unlike public "investment" which was a term that became so degraded under the Clintons as to mean any kind of spending, no matter how far removed from something that resembles investment.
as to the comment that TARP is a transfer from the poor to the wealthy, what kind of crack are they smoking?
The poor do not pay taxes (I do) and they will not become taxpayers under Obama
If the government buys a bond or preferred stock from a bank, it is not necessarily even a transfer of wealth, it is creating liquidity. The government receives a financial asset (the preferred stock pays a higher yield - far higher- that the Treasury's cost of borrowing. A transfer of wealth is when someone takes my tax money and gives it to some crackhead who will likely never contribute anything to society
sad facts
Why is it that the trillion, or is it three trillion, dollars worth of guarantees the Treasury has given to the damaged assets of the big banks is never mentioned by anyone. The fact is that there is no legal basis for said 'guarantees'.
When the day comes for the Treasury to make good on them they will go to congress for the appropriation and congress will say no. They had better say no. In the meantime the Treasury has assumed a liability, on behalf of taxpayers of course, which they have no right assuming. Well I guess I should say pretending to assume.
Back in the day, the days when law and the constitution meant something, this would be a big deal. Now it isn't even a little deal. A pretense based upon a lie all in the name of restoring confidence.
The guarantee is a lie. Those accepting the guarantee know it's a lie. Treasury issues one paragraph statements saying they are "guaranteeing" $300 billion worth of BOA assets and nobody notices.
Now let's talk about those damn autoworkers.
A transfer of wealth is when someone takes my tax money and gives it to some crackhead who will likely never contribute anything to society
Lee Atwater lives!!
Actually, what she meant to write was:
'How come moderates opposed to TARP II are very, very worried about the cost to the taxpayer, but not worried at all by the cost to the taxpayer of a massive fiscal stimulus . . .'
Something I see a lot of here; let's take what could most reliably be a mainstream position, then alter it a bit and impute the new version to progressives, which, as every real American knows is just code for 'liberal', and, hey, aren't they Communists, and didn't they kill Jesus?
Of course, it works in the other direction too: 'conservatives' here and elsewhere will take a far-right position and label it 'mainstream'.
Anyway, yes, the mainstream thought is that Tarp II is a waste of taxpayer money, solving little and enriching malefactors, with little transparency or accountability (to the extent it is modelled after Tarp I). Mainstream thought also holds that a prudent stimulus bill is just good classical Keynesian thinking.
SoV, you're not even close to being mainstream or moderate. You're left wing.
I'm going to just offer my own question of the day here -- Why in the name of god did Geithner in his written responses this morning accuse the Chinese government of "manipulating" its currency? Can anyone explain why the Obama administration would think this is a good idea at this particular moment?
Chuckle. Challenge, Eric. Tell me, what makes you think, precisely, that I am 'left wing'? What particular issues really bring it out?
This ought to be good. And instructive.
I prefer the Geithner stimulus program. Forget TARP, forget bailing out politically connected banks and industries, just let everyone forget to pay some of their taxes. This will immediately boost consumer confidence and spending! This is "Change" I can believe in.
If you're looking for the "stimulus bill" on-line here it is.
If you take time to read it, which is the whole idea about the site. You can comment on portions. People have already found huge chunks dedicated to Democrat pork and goodies for supporters.
But fear not. There is some control written into it. There's the transparency section, which is sure to be watered down or eliminated in either the Senate version or the Conference report. There's also a provision preventing any funds from being spent on the education of children who do not attend the Union dominated Public Schools.
How stimulating is that?
Because the TARPon is wealth that can be redistributed by the Executive Branch, and the Porkulus bill is wealth that can be redistributed by the Legislative Branch.
And for those who say the Porkulus is for the "working man"... wake up. Unless a politician needs something from you, you won't see a dime of this money.
Rofe,
Define "torture".
Then have the various folks celebrating Obama's proclamation define 'torture'.
Then we'll see whether or not the US 'tortures' anyone anymore.
"Most readers were not, because they really don't give a crap about the fate of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, nor the spelling of his name."
EXCUSE ME Tara, Please do NOT pretend to speak for "most readers".
Despite what candy ass left wing loons want to believe in their kumbyah world - KSM was very involved in the planning and execution of 9/11 attacks as well the killing of Daniel Pearl and other atrocities committed by our enemies.
Hell YES we care! Hell YES we want this man prosecuted & punished to the full extent the of law. Hell YES we don't care if he was waterboarded in order to secure some information.
Pres Obama has issued an executive order. But the execution of that order will not be easy and it will be on HIM to decide what to do with the worst of the bunch at Gitmo.
Most of the worst bunch are NOT welcomed back in their home countries. Are lefties so stupid as to believe we haven't already tried to send them back. Even Canada does not what Omar Khadar. (sp)
So where do you put them? Murtha, Pelosi, or Sean Penn's back yard? How about Rikers? Or better yet, lets re open "The Rock".
Letting them loose is a big risk for a President who would have to bear FULL responsibility if any of those released attacked Americans abroad or on our soil.
Having them tried in a civilian court IS NOT an option. Perhaps having them tried in a Military court remains the only option.
President Obama may overtly claim he's doing away with rendition--- but like every American President before him - what he does covertly- in secrecy - will be completely different.
I think they should be set loose (but be forced to stay) in San Francisco. That would be punishment for the jihadis and the leftists can seek to better understand their persecuted fellow human travelers.
Don't know if the jihadis will be invited to participate in the gay pride parade, but excluding them would be rude.
I hope they try in a civilian court. It will be a complete mess, and he will get off. "The SEAL team didn't show a proper chain of custody for the evidence, so...."
the basic problem with the idea that a stimulus package is a good idea for the economy is that it is unsustainable. think about it, the government spends money, inefficiently because that's how governments work, to improve the economy. when the government stops spending that money, where is the economy supposed to make up that loss?
the only answer is: more government spending.
how do you pay for that? higher taxes or more debt
what do higher taxes or more government debt do? they depress the economy.
nice, vicious cycle there.
what the government needs to do is stop trying to "fix" the economy. every time they do, the fundamentals get worse. the government needs to concern itself with ensuring that the economic framework is there, that there is some kind of safety net for those that are in trouble, and after that, get out of the way.
does this mean that the government shouldn't do infrastructure projects? hell no! in many cases, only the government can do them. but they should be done because they need to be done, not to artificially enhance the economy.
I just saw the new policies on detainees at the link below. Sad stuff.
http://www.jacksonsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=d7afe5c17c864c7899cb639aec255ced&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ad7afe5c17c864c7899cb639aec255cedPost%3a4aec7b80-46e7-4970-b637-6177f47e9564&sid=sitelife.jacksonsun.com
The answer to your second question can be found in the Ayn Rand Institute's essay "Republican Socialists" at aynrand.org.
Well Julianna,
I would suggest putting them with the terrorists who planned and committed other acts of terrorism (such as the 1993 WTC bombing). You know, in prison. We've already done this before. Generally supermax.
But of course that would require that we actually prove that these suspects have done something wrong. And some of them have.
Because the reality is, of the 300 or so that are left, huge chunks are innocent (and have been tortured nonetheless - that's awesome). Those that are guilty should have been easy to try and execute. But alas, torturing confessions out of people gets in the way of actually trying people becuase coerced confessions are notoriously untrustworthy.
I mean why torture some of these guys? They're proud of what they did. KSM said as much in court. They admit it openly. Confession without torture = conviction and then death. You get your revenge or whatever it is that you are looking for. Me, I think prison is better. Why grant their wishes and make them martyrs for the cause - sending them to their virgins with Allah and whatnot and becoming a rallying point for others. Let the guilty fade away into oblivion.
President Obama could not have sent a clearer message that the tack he and his administration will take will be vastly different than the tack his predecessor and that administration took.
He made it very clear that, like Bush before him, none of the interrogation techniques he signs off on will be officially deemed "torture".
What techniques will be used? Well, that's an unanswered question. :)
Anyway, yes, the mainstream thought is that Tarp II is a waste of taxpayer money
Ditto for the auto bailout and the stimulus package's aid to state and local governments, of course.
Thus far, the only government actions to meet with majority support are the tax cuts and the stimulus package's infrastructure spending.
Why grant their wishes and make them martyrs for the cause - sending them to their virgins with Allah and whatnot and becoming a rallying point for others. Let the guilty fade away into oblivion.
Sure, just like Mumia.
Just because a terrorist is in prison as opposed to dead doesn't mean they won't be a rallying point. A key terrorist tactic, after all, has always been to seize hostages and demand the release of so-and-so.
"Just because a terrorist is in prison as opposed to dead doesn't mean they won't be a rallying point. A key terrorist tactic, after all, has always been to seize hostages and demand the release of so-and-so."
Like they've done for all of the terrorists we have in prison now?
No. Oh.