No. There were times when Obama could have crushed McCain and didn't because he opted for a longer and more convoluted explanation rather than bringing the hammer down on the opening of his answer.

Debate T e c h n i q u e!

Posted at October 7, 2008 11:55 PM in response to Obama Does It

Oh, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall was "collaterallized" to the tune of $200 million of lobbying and donations led by Citigroup for the specific ability to market and trade MBSs, CDOs and SDVs more liberally.

It just gets worse over time. There's no way that Republicans can avoid their responsibility these last 28 years any more than supplicant Democrats. But it has been part of the Republican agenda and their objective. To their shame the Democrats take the money even though they don't believe (they say) in the objective.

It's time to get ALL corporate money out of politics. They don't get to vote.

Posted at October 6, 2008 11:59 PM in response to Five Aspects of the Conservative State

Ellen, nice try but a little dodgy.

US citizens have always been seduced to the idea that "free" markets and no controls are better than regulation, rules and laws. Pity that's not how societies work or function over time.

G-L-B??

Gramm R-TX
Leach R-IA
Bliley R-VA -- Republican majority and bi-partisan veto-proof vote. Clinton's problem?

Stick to the facts.

Posted at October 6, 2008 11:47 PM in response to Five Aspects of the Conservative State

Exactly.

All people have to have access to the courts and the writ of Habeas Corpus. Abuse is where it came from, why it is needed for common rights, and why it shouldn't exclude anyone -- now or any time.

And why the USA is so wrong now.

It's a simple argument that was won 700 years ago. It's in the Constitution with very specific limitations. It was abrogated -- to the shame of the USA -- in WWII (and in the Civil War). That we need to refight this right with no justification for retraction is argument enough against the idiots in power now.

Posted at October 1, 2008 11:39 PM in response to No Torture, No Exceptions

When Greenspan was in the private market, in the 80s, he wasn't so good at predicting either what the Fed would do or where the market was going.

As Fed chairman he has never seen a bubble that he didn't promote or, ironically, a burst he didn't misuse Keynesian economics to over promote.

The succeeding bubbles of 1991, 2001 and 2007 have accumulated debt and poor capital ratios to a level that now can't be extended. Greenspan goes down as a loser chairman. Bernanke is no better. He has no practical clue.

It's all pretty simple and it's about banking capital and capital ratios. Not anything I've heard our legislators talk about!

Posted at October 1, 2008 11:13 PM in response to The Almost-Done Deal, and the Era of Angry Populism

Ellen, if that was to me, not at all happy.

As to my views, I would be alright if I was the minority. I'm not sure most actually understand why they are right but I'm glad if you are on my side.

We are walking a path that does not keep the markets in the game as much as we could.

Posted at October 1, 2008 10:41 PM in response to Rescue, Take II: Tonight's Senate Vote

I know that republicans are devoid of any sense of irony but surely comparing hockey moms to pitbulls with lipstick is as sexist and as poor a characterization of a section of womanhood as it comes.

Anyway, the problem with the whole banking sector is capital ratios and the erosion of capital. Buying bad paper at market rates will force banks to realize their losses and destroy their capital overnight. Nor am I in favor of changing accounting standards so that assets are not marked to market. That's just hiding the problem, and marking to market was brought in to stop arbitrary and unrealistic valuations. Not something we want to return to.

Let the banks keep and manage their bad debt. They are in the best position to make decisions to extract themselves in the best possible way. If they need the government to reestablish their capital then Warren Buffet has shown the way.

If preferred shares with a 10% return plus options on an equal value of shares for 5 years was the going rate for the supposedly best run and least endangered investment bank then the same or higher return would be expected from more risky ventures. If losses wipe out the original capital the corporation would become 100% taxpayer owned or could be sold to an ongoing entity or allowed to go bust. It's not the government deciding who is a winner or loser; they are using their best judgement to decide which losers to keep alive to stabilize the economy. The share holdings can be returned to private ownership over time.

That would keep government intrusion to the level needed by any particular corporation, would keep them out of holding marginal paper it has no skill in dealing with. AMT needs to be properly fixed. Raising the FDIC guarantee is long overdue as an inflationary revaluation. Controlling loser board remuneration is window dressing but taxpayers deserve to take some revenge on greedy bastards who didn't protect their shareholders and put the whole economy in this position.

Simpler is better.

Posted at October 1, 2008 6:07 PM in response to Rescue, Take II: Tonight's Senate Vote

Whoops! Thats was meant to be 1968 borders, which might be survivable.

Posted at September 9, 2008 1:00 AM in response to Hebrew Republic: Are Two States Still Possible?

Whoops! Thats was meant to be 1968 borders, which might be survivable.

Posted at September 9, 2008 12:59 AM in response to Hebrew Republic: Are Two States Still Possible?

You are an optimist and I praise you for it.

Exactly wrong. There's never been an idea about a single state involving both Palestinians and Israelis. Indeed, the right-wing of Israeli politics have tried to make it impossible for Palestinians to make any agreement and always drive to disunify both Israelis and Palestinians, often killing the latter to do so. A drive to unify Jerusalem and annexation of much land to the East into the occupied territories beyond, and expropriation of much land beyond the 1948 boundaries proves the fact.

You are clearly wrong. Though I wish you were not.

Posted at September 9, 2008 12:53 AM in response to Hebrew Republic: Are Two States Still Possible?