Nothing wrong with trying for a little consensus building and bi-partisanship as a first step.

But when the Repubs take consensus building and bi-partisanship to mean they should have an equal voice rather than just a seat at the table and the opportunity to have their voice heard and then walk away in a huff when they dont get everything they want....then its time to play hard ball.

Let them filibuster. I don't think the public will find it very impressive behavior.

Fox News will play them as heroes and their base will cheer wildly. :rolleyes:

Well they'll do that regardless.

It's interesting, because the GOP is still looking for some way to insist that they have principles that the voters can believe in. It'll be important for them to take it all the way on some issue in the next two years, and then give in before appearing to be simply naysayers.

Maybe that's why the Ds put health care into the budget. Let them filibuster for two weeks, then say, OK, we'll take health care out and make that a separate bill, now either allow the vote or use reconciliation to get the rest of the budget passed. Then when health care is separate, if they filibuster again they'll look bad.

Sounds like a good plan. :thumb:

How is it abuse when republicans are the ones who've used it the most? My god, buncha babies, whine when the other side wants to use the same tactics they themselves used. Not to mention, the way fillibusters are used today is not how they were meant to be used. If one side or the other wants to fillibuster, they should have to stand up and make endless speeches, not just go straight to a vote.

hear hear. I'm SO glad they are doing it this way.

heh. btw did you see the budget the republicans put out? With no numbers in it? bwaaahahahahahahahahaaaa A budget with no numbers!!! :sweat:

Merc's got his own definition of "transparent" that I'm pretty sure he's not going to let any of us know.

Oh, I'm sure most of us have figured it out already. He's replaced goddammit, sonuvabitch, and all other expletives at unwelcome news with, "where's the transparency".

Whatever you say there Boss. You are the mind reader around here, not me.

Q.E.D.

Q.E.F.

Check out HR1444, kiddies! Wheeeeeeeeee!

Depends ... is infinity a number?

A budget with no numbers? Is that anything like Mendelssohn's Song Without Words?

It does nothing more than establish a Commission to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-1444

I'd consider our children doing something like for two years after high school as a good idea. I don't get mandatory volunteering, but the concept overall seems to have some merit.

You forgot the mandatory part.

Sure. We'll teach the little bastards what "volunteering" is all about. The best part about "mandatory volunteering" is that, by definition, you aren't "volunteering" for something you personally believe in.

Please note that the GIVE Act allows "volunteering" to include "assisting law enforcement". Also that there is no language banning political or semi-political activities. Now make it mandatory. HAW HAW!

No, teach them what service is all about.
And while we're at it, give them firearms training like Israel. :rattat:

No, teach them what SLAVERY is all about.

As if people in America don't know what slavery is. Most Americans ARE slaves, in one respect or another.

Try telling them that.

C'mon, a couple of silk scarves, maybe a little spanky, what the hell. ;)

Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

Just an opinion piece, but an interesting one.

Quite interesting. The failure of the administration to allow banks to repay the taxpayers is very telling about the intentions of the the Obama Administration. It is all about power. Here we have a perfect example of those financial institutions trying to do the right thing and help out the taxpayers. And they won't let them.

I would like to see more than just this editorial (opinion) before jumping to conclusions.

As I understand it, banks that agreed to take TARP money agreed to a two year (I think) period before they can return the funds w/o Dept of Treasury approval.

The primary purpose being to provide greater assurances that the bank will have adequate capital after repayments.

A secondary reason why some bankers may want to repay early is to avoid potential limitations on executive compensation that may be legislated while they still have TARP funds.

I dont want a bank paying funds back early w/o adequate capital reserves in place or a bank paying back funds and then implementing lending policies that are so tight they restrict the reasonable and necessary flow of credit to consumers and small businesses ....in order to play the "good guy" when it fact, it could be irresponsible and based solely on that banker's desire for no limits on his compensation.

In fact, as the editorial notes, four banks that were deemed to be "well capitalized" were granted waivers to repay TARP funds early.

I certainly dont believe the editorial presents a full and balanced picture in order to draw an objective conclusion about "the intentions of the Obama administration"...or that it represents a "perfect example of the those institutions trying to do the right thing."

Thats all well and good, but why should the banks that didn't want nor need the TARP money have to deal with all this "after the fact" legislation? They were told initially that they were to take money even thought they didn't need it so that those banks who did need the money would not be, in effect, singled out.
Now that the "healthy" backs have taken the money the administration is adding further stipulations and exerting additional control over them when it wasn't needed in the first place.
If they don't need it - let them give it back - seems logical.

Do they not need it, or are the executives willing to risk the bank's stability in order to get themselves bonuses?

I dont think it is that simple.

Many of the banks that took TARP money but didnt need it to stay afloat have said the that those funds gave them additional capital to make loans they would not have otherwise made in a recessionary economy.

You want banks making as many "good" loans as possible to consumers and small businesses to get money flowing back into the economy, particularly when jobs are being lost at such staggering rates as we have seen in the last 18 months.

And unfortunately, the "after the fact" legislation is a result primarily of the public outcry hyped by the rhetoric that cant distinguish between banks and other financial institutions (like AIG).

lol - you are more pessimistic than me. Many did not need it and only took the money because they were literally forced to by the administration.

Some - not sure if it many though. Either way it doesn't matter - those that no longer want it and have not used it, as in the real life example above, should be able to give it back.
Additionally I would think that the administration would want to get their money back as soon as prudently possible. As a taxpayer I recognize that getting the money that is not needed back sooner saves not only that money, but the interest on it as well.

Since you brought it up, while everyone is bitching and complaining about AIG, Fannie and Freddie paid out more than 200 million in bonuses. Why was that not splashed all over the media for weeks on end? Where is all the outrage from Congress? Where are the special hearings and and and and? Why no outcry over them?

As to the real life example above, a "prominent and profitable bank" (unnamed....."the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation"...lol, nice touch )....what is the bank's current capital reserve? Is it still profitable? What is its lending policy? Will that policy change if it gives back the TARP funds and sits on its money until the economy improves rather than make more responsible loans and contribute to the flow of credit now?

Too many unanswered questions about this real life example to make such sweeping generalizations about the "intent of the Obama administration" or it being a "perfect example of the those institutions trying to do the right thing." as the editorial (and Merc) suggest.

BTW, the editorial also completely misrepresents the Pay for Performance Act by suggesting that it would apply to all employees of such institutions.

Even under the good intentions by the bank to take the money to prop them up in difficult times I don't think it is a good idea to make it punitive if they want to return the money provided the banks can maintain good financial standing.

You have four banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California (named in other articles and deemed by the regulatory agencies to be "well capitalized" enough to receive waivers and approval to repay the funds now).

And you have one unnamed bank with "the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation" that is supposedly a better "real life example" of the intentions of the Obama administration?

Uh....not for me. Show me the money!

Glad you finally read the link there Redux. Does that change the situation at all. Hypothetically then, Why should they be penalized if they didn't want the money in the first place and are now being threatened if they try to pay it back? Is that money considered a liability? If so, It makes it even that much more obvious that they should be able to pay it back. This makes ZERO logical sense. Zero.... unless this is about politics and control.

Oh and don't forget this part....

I would suggest it is about policies with an intent to maximize the flow of capital into a troubled economy, particularly to consumers and small businesses...not politics (whose? Bush or Obama or both?) or control.

If they can meet the same test as those four banks that were deemed to be "well capitalized" and they can demonstrate adequate lending policies...then by all means, grant it a waiver.

But "show me the money" in this unnamed bank.

I'll take all that as a long winded - yes. Was that really so hard?

No harder than debunking generalizations (scare tactics?) about Obama's intent, based on no documented (with names) data to back it up.

On a more personal level, would you put your savings in an "unnamed" bank based solely on the word of a FOX news person that it was "prominent and profitable" last year?

Not me.

I don't see it as a "scare tactic", but a mere attempt to ensure that the current Administration is up front about their intentions when it comes to this environment of ever growing governmental regulation and control.

I see it as the latest version of the "Obama = Socialism" fear mongering based on innuendo, misrepresentations and undocumented and unnamed sources.

IMO, you don't ensure that "the Administration is up front about its intentions" by spreading and perpetuating false or incomplete information.....what you do is appeal to those with pre-conceived opinions.

Much the same can be said about you. "Obama = "God like", Savior, the answer to all our worldly problems all based on innuendo, misrepresentations, attempts at strong arm legislation practices, the attempt to describe acts as greater "transparency" when in fact there is nothing of the kind.

IMO, you ensure that the propaganda of the current administration is perpetuated and repeated enough that you hope people will begin to belive it. I don't.

LOL....OK

Please cite any post of mine where I referred to Obama as God Like or a Savior or the answer to all our wordly problems.
(Why is it that the people who raise the Obama -> God like -> Savior specter are, for the most part, those predisposed to disagree with his policies...hmmmm?)

I think I have said I believe a different approach from the last eight years that is more progressive in nature is one that I generally support, while questioning specific policies and/or actions.

And I have tried to support my position, when requested, with facts and not editorials. Can you say the same?
(how about that transparency that was in the budget bill that you refused to see...or your implication that the lack of millions of jobs created in 60 days as somehow a failure of the stimulus bill...or the foreign policy role of Congress that you refuse to acknowledge, ...the list is endless, dude)

You never let the facts get in the way of your talking points.

I really didnt expect you to acknowledge that an editorial making sweeping generalizations based on one unnamed bank while ignoring the facts regarding four less briefly mentioned banks was a bit dishonest, to say the least.

You mean the scare tactics like when the 2nd TARP was passed? No time to read 10,000 pages. No need We got it all covered... Reality was that the only reason it "had to be done" was so Nancy could go on her trip abroad.

The D's are using as many scare and strong arm tactics as the R's ever did. Doesn't make it right though. Just a little harder for those who agree with them to see it.

The rules of the House under Pelosi are more open than under the previous Republican majority Congress...that is a fact. (see the Hastert rule)

Lobbying/earmark/ethics is more open as a result of the Democratic reform (not enough for me) than the previous Republican majority Congress..that is a fact.

But whats the point of arguing this.

I dont disagree that both parties are far from perfect when use the majority position to their advantage.

But just as is the case with Merc, I guess I cant expect you either to acknowledge that an editorial making sweeping generalizations based on one unnamed bank while ignoring the facts regarding four less briefly mentioned banks was a bit dishonest, to say the least.

Its really not that hard.

Diversion #1
Diversion #2
Hedge #1
Hedge #2
Insult #1
Insult #2


None of that changes the FACT that the D's are using scare tactics just like the R's. That is the real fact.

If you want insult...keep pushing me to the TW mode :)

And yet, you still cant acknowledge that your editorial, the basis for this most recent exchange today, was dishonest.

Well, honestly - nothing you said had anything to do with the fact I stated. You went off in 6 different directions with very typical liberal talking points. I didn't dispute any of them because they had nothing to do with my point which you quoted. Its like a computer generated response. OR even better when a politician is asked a direct question - and goes off on a tangent not germane to the actual subject at hand.

Hey..Merc (with his bullshit and baseless references to me representing Obama as God like or a Savior), then you (with your Tarp II and D strong arm tactics) were the ones who went off on tangents away from your editorial...I just responded.

And yet, you still cant acknowledge that the editorial, the basis for this most recent exchange today, was dishonest.

Neither one of you guys can take that one small step...its kinda funny.

Yet, I acknowledge that with more information on that unnamed bank (the point I made repeatedly only to be ignored by you guys), I would have no problem with a waiver if it met the capital/lending standards... and you call me long-winded (hmmmm...insult?) ....go figure.

I posted the link and then when you finally read it, I commented. Don't say that I ignored you. I didn't, not at all.
You just continued on your editorial of talking points which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You brought up transparency, the rules of the house, Lobbying/earmark/ethics, sweeping generalizations and more.
I addressed each of your points - none of which were relevant to the topic.

No, I do not think the editorial was dishonest, I think it was one mans opinion, no different than anything here actually. I didn't mean to insult with the "long winded" reference. If I did, I apologize. I have actually rather enjoyed debating topics and discussing things with you. You have a very fresh and cohesive approach.

If you have issues with Merc, thats fine - take them up with him. Leave me out of it.

For the record, in my first post on the editorial (after reading it), I wrote that "I would like to see more than just this editorial (opinion) before jumping to conclusions."

But that is what some editorials do...jump to conclusions, w/o having all the facts, with the hope that it will be widely circulated and perpetuated and suddenly believed to be completely factual.

My issue is when the (or any) opinion is presented as more than what it is (not you).

No apology necessary.

And no, I am not the "fresh" prince, just an old policy wonk..and cant claim to always be "cohesive" (unless you know washington double speak)

I aspire to Merc's ignore list (j/k)..he threatened but came up short on the follow through.

Excellent - now, hypothetically speaking...

And I responded in kind to your baseless bullshit that you assigned to me. Sounds like you can't take it.

It wasn't dishonest at all. You ignore his credentials because he is an occassional Fox contributor. He has more credentials than a nameless faceless self aclaimed "Washington Insider".

No small step required. The opinion piece was published in the WSJ and seemed to make some really good points about where Obama is taking us with his plans to control banks.

I don't see a problem there.

You are a first rate apologist and propagandist for the Obama Administration.

Merc....the facts of our exchange are here for others to judge for themselves...and that is fine with me.

LOL. You're the exact same, for the GOP.

Both of you need to learn to stop enjoying being fucked over by the party of your choice.

That would be boring.

Help me , Obiwan....you are my only hope.

then you are in deep do do.

are we still outraged?

It's exhausting.