Patterico's Pontifications

12/13/2009

“Obama’s Big Sellout”… and what the Right can learn from it

Filed under: General — Karl @ 11:06 am

[Posted by Karl]

Matt Tabbi has a piece in the new Rolling Stone, titled “Obama’s Big Sellout,” about the number of people with ties to Bob Rubin (of the Clinton administration, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup) or other Wall Street insiders who assumed positions of responsibility in the Obama transition and White House. Taibbi is a progressive not prone to mince words:

What’s taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.

As a result, Taibbi has taken friendly fire from people like Tim Fernholz at the American Prospect:

The piece is a factual mess, a conspiracy theorist’s dream, doesn’t even indict Obama for his real failures (which I’ll discuss in a post later today) and of course invokes the cold hands of Bob Rubin like a bogeyman at every turn. This is pernicious for a lot of journalistic reasons, but politically it’s bad for progressives beacuse conspiracy theories stand in the way of good policy analysis and good activism, replacing them with apathy and fear.

Fernholz goes on to list what he sees as problems with Taibbi’s piece. Taibbi has admitted to one factual error, but argues that the “factual” issues Fernholz raises are mostly disagreements over how the facts should be interpreted. At Reuters, Felix Salmon basically agrees with Taibbi.

However, it is the areas of agreement that should interest the Right. Fernholz, for all of his criticism, writes:

Is the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street problematic? Yes. Does the Administration take it too easy on the banks? Absolutely. Are White House advisers too centrist for progressive tastes? Sure.

Taibbi, in response, writes:

[Fernholz] argues that “the problems Taibbi tries to describe aren’t some ridiculous cabal” but instead “come from group-think and structural influences.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was exactly the point of the article. The issue with the modern Democratic party is that its leaders all share a world view that’s extremely narrow. They genuinely believe in Rubinite ideas, have grown accustomed to an incestuous relationship with Wall Street, and they probably think that the right people were put in charge.

The notable point of this Lefty consensus is that you heard nothing like this from the Left or its establishment media outlets when the Wall Street meltdown struck during the peak of the 2008 campaign. They were not remotely interested in the financial ties between Wall Street and the Democrats, or the role of Clinton HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo in plunging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the subprime markets, or the Fed’s role in dumbing down lending standards, to name just a few topics.

Moving forward, the Left — from Pres. Obama on down — should not be allowed to whine about having inherited a bad economy from the Bush administration. By their own admissions, Clinton-era Democrats were among the “very people who caused the crisis in the first place” — and they now hold high offices in the Obama administration.

–Karl

46 Responses to ““Obama’s Big Sellout”… and what the Right can learn from it”

  1. This is a problem with both parties but the big money New York crowd has been far more cozy with Democrats since Reagan. The beginning of the problem that brought down the economy was the Mexican bailout under Clinton. Here is a National Review article from the time but it doesn’t even get the worst aspects. This paragraph from another article is closer to my views.

    The negative national response has a two-part foundation. First, most Americans believe that we have no responsibility to bail out a mismanaged nation. Second, and more powerful, is the conviction that we are not bailing out Mexico at all: the beneficiaries of this bailout con game are a bunch of Wall Street greedies who guessed wrong and now want to be saved by taxpayers.

    Opposition is bipartisan. Pat Buchanan and Paul Wellstone rarely agree about anything. The NAFTA opponents are back to fight the bailout on both sides of the warpath aisle. In a 407 to 21 vote, the House demanded that the White House turn over its bailout files to investigators. Barely contained in committee is a Republican bill to forbid assistance to Mexico without the express consent of Congress.

    The trouble is, like most of the comments on that event, the article goes on to the opposite conclusion. The antis, including even Pat Buchanan, were right.

    This was the beginning of moral hazard and led directly to the collapse in 2007-2008.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  2. Poor Matt Taibbi is actually surprised and disappointed that Obama isn’t doing what he promised to do. Taibbi deserves to win the Naïveté Prize.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  3. Very interesting post. The ties between the president’s economic team and the Wall St./banking elite are strong and undeniable. Boom or bust, these folks always make money, while the average Joe – who pays his bills on time and tries to live within his means – sees his equity and investments tank.

    GeneralMalaise (a38f27)

  4. The Matt Taibbi’s of the world aren’t stupid. They realize that Obama is an arrogant, incompetent buffoon who is going to pave the way for the GOP to come right back into power. They have to destroy him now so they will have the time to get a “real” “progressive” alternative up and ready for 2012.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  5. “Fernholz goes on to list what he sees as problems with Taibbi’s piece.”

    See also:

    http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/12/ten-things-on-which-matt-taibbi-really-does-not-know-what-he-is-talking-about.html

    imdw (603c39)

  6. I suspected when I read yesterday about Obama pulling his current kabuki theater in scolding the banks about resisting the financial reform bill, that he’d read Taibbi’s article and is trying to talk tough to the banksters to in order to attempt to restore his populist bonafides. The man is up to his neck in GS lackeys, though, so it’s hard to say how seriously the American people will take it at this point.

    Both institutions–the banks and the government–made a deal with the devil in TARP and now both sides are trying to assert their authority.

    Keep in mind that the stock market did a one-day drop of 150 points after Obama basically begged the banks in his radio address a couple months ago to start lending again. I don’t think he quite realizes that these guys can make the stock market plummet to reflect the current economic reality practically overnight if they turn the bots off and start selling like crazy. The 10K DOW and relentless “green shoot” propoganda coming from the MSM the last 6 months is likely the main reason Obama’s numbers aren’t looking like W’s at this point.

    The banks and the government are in a bit of a Mexican standoff right now, so it’s going to be interesting to see who blinks first.

    Another Chris (470967)

  7. chaos makes a lot of sense. Obama keeps falling through the basement in the polls. But the leftists don’t have to “destroy” Obama. He’s doing that nicely on his own.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  8. Here’s what I wrote in the comments on Taibbi’s article at Zerohedge:

    “Not once did he or anyone at Rolling Stone ever consider to actually look at Obama’s record of accomplishment (there was none) or at his political connections (a product of the most corrupt political machine in the country doesn’t have any skeletons or compromising associations? Yeah, right) and really ask, “Is this honestly the best person to change the political and social culture of this country?”

    If RS went after Obama the way they do the average conservative politician or corporation, Obama wouldn’t have made it past the primary, and probably wouldn’t have even declared for the Presidency. They, and the rest of the media, were dazzled by him for the most superficial and irrelevant of reasons– his skin color, his teleprompter-reading skills, and his ability to pander to three generations of American mediocrity by appealing to their individual egos.

    Obama’s the equivalent of a Third World petty potentate who just happens to be President of one of the most powerful countries in the world, and the corruption, double-speak, and sellouts are par for the course with individuals like this. Good on Taibbi and Rolling Stone for holding his feet to the fire on his acquiescence to the banksters, but they could have figured this out about four years ago.

    Given Barney Frank’s vote against HR 1207 a couple weeks ago, Taibbi’s willingness to give that fat toad a pass in the same article is particularly galling considering the “reforms” Frank supported were merely window-dressing and wouldn’t reform the basic structure of the bankster skim at all.”

    Another Chris (470967)

  9. Taibbi’s willingness to give that fat toad a pass in the same article is particularly galling considering the “reforms” Frank supported were merely window-dressing and wouldn’t reform the basic structure of the bankster skim at all.”

    That’s because Taibbi knows that when push comes to shove, people like Barney Frank will stand up, open their mouths, spew garbage for a while, and then vote the socialist way. Obama is different. Obama, while agreeing with the “progressive” movement, is not about to sacrifice himself for it. Obama is about Obama. He will do whatever he thinks necessary to 1) get re-elected and 2) be regarded as one of the best presidents ever. If that means throwing progressives under the bus, that’s fine. If that means running the country into the ground through reckless spending and incompetent foreign policy, fine. Whatever Obama thinks is best for Obama is the ruling principle of this White House. The only problem for Obama? His idea of what is best for him is badly deluded.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  10. imdw,

    The DeLong post is largely duplicative of the Fernolz post. The main difference is that DeLong argues that Obama was always of the school Taibbi attacks. Either way, my basic point stands.

    Karl (404c05)

  11. I guess Taibbi would be happy to know that Fannie and Freddie are still buying up bad mortgages because of a philosophy that everyone deserves a house, even if someone else has to pay for it.

    Patricia (b05e7f)

  12. Bush sold out fiscal conservatives time and again, yet they turned out to vote for him anyway in 2004. In 2008 they had had enough, but if the financial meltdown had been delayed they might have stuck with the Republicans even then.

    Then again, Bush’s conservative base wasn’t of the fiscal variety.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  13. Bush sold out fiscal conservatives time and again, yet they turned out to vote for him anyway in 2004. In 2008 they had had enough, but if the financial meltdown had been delayed they might have stuck with the Republicans even then.

    Bush didn’t sell them out (other than the prescription drug entitlement) until after he was re-elected. Before re-election he did get those big tax cuts passed and he did in fact try to reform Social Security after re-election. I think Bush’s fall can be traced to that. Once SS reform was dead, after he went out on a limb and not very many conservatives came out with him, he decided to more or less give them the finger.

    If Bush had gotten Social Security reform I think we would have seen a very different president the rest of his second term.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  14. Fannie and Freddie are still buying up bad mortgages because of a philosophy that everyone deserves a house, even PARTICULARLY if someone else whose savings were lent under gov’t. coercion to a deadbeat has to pay for it.

    Insufficiently Sensitive (a939d1)

  15. If Taibbi had only listened to Limbaugh, he wouldn’t be so surprised.

    Someone give Taibbi a 24/7 podcast gift subscription!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  16. If Taibbi had only listened to Limbaugh, he wouldn’t be so surprised.

    Someone give Taibbi a 24/7 podcast gift subscription!

    Why do you want Matt Taibbi to die of a stroke?

    chaos (9c54c6)

  17. The fundamental problem is that almost no politicians know any more about economics and banking than they do about epidemiology. They get their advice from interested parties, mostly bankers who buy access to Democrats with big contributions. The basic problem with the banking industry has not been solved. They still have lots of bad securities on the books that are festering there. Had Bush and Paulsen let AIG fail, the unraveling might have actually unwound all these derivatives. The problem was that no one, no one !!!, had ever thought about what this would require. In 2000, the commissioner of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission warned Congress that the derivatives were unregulated, had no reserve requirements and had become enormous in the 90s decade. In 2000, the trades totaled $95 trillion with no reserves or even disclosure. In response, Congress passed a law exempting the OTC derivatives from regulation.

    They had eight years to get on top of the problem. They had three years after Fannie Mae was insolvent in 2005.

    Nothing was done.

    Now they have passed this new bill that has all sorts of unanticipated consequences. I’ve already seen it with credit card interest rates. They have doubled to anticipate the new law.
    Can’t these people understand incentives ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  18. Kevin Murphy and chaos,

    In 2000, Bush didn’t campaign as much of a fiscal conservative. He campaigned as a “compassionate conservative.” And while he didn’t promise a Medicare drug benefit, he did campaign on providing massive subsidies for seniors to buy drugs. To Bush’s credit, he was relatively honest about his agenda, including a fair amount I didn’t like.

    Karl (404c05)

  19. The Medicare Part D turned out not to be as bad as I anticipated. If they had allowed Medicare to bid for drugs and been less supportive of the industry in pricing, it might have cost very little. The costs are far below the estimates and could have been lower.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  20. Yeah didn’t Medicare Part D actually turn out to be a pretty good program efficiency and cost wise so far? I vaguely remember reading that a few weeks ago thanks for reminding me Mike.

    Just goes to show, when Republicans create a government program, it actually works, and when Democrats do, well, you get Cash for Clunkers. Shouldn’t the party that loves government do a better job of government than the party that (kinda) hates government?

    chaos (9c54c6)

  21. Patrick,
    I think you’re correct in saying it will take more than a major gaffe (or six) to discourage the Dems. Many of them are True Believers ,as others have written far before this. Still, I think a key point of what the Pres promised was an Easy Answer for everything . Iran-smart diplomacy . No need to try anything vigorous. Health reform? “Efficiency.we’ll get more for less. I’m the only one who’s ever thought of doing this.” Housing market. “We’ll get banks to do something good. Don’t fret too much about it. It’ll be good though. ”
    Now,it’s pretty clear not much good has happened yet . More to the point , things are getting so bad in a cpl of states (guess which) that Ayn Rand is looking positively prescient . So, there’s a lot of vague uneasiness that hasn’t quite coalesced yet . But it will.
    And I hope a little G and s will be appreciated
    “I voted “present” so gracefully
    That now I am the leader of the Whole COuntree “

    corwin (fb23bd)

  22. “The main difference is that DeLong argues that Obama was always of the school Taibbi attacks. Either way, my basic point stands.”

    There’s got to be some frustration out there as folks are finding out what was obvious a long time ago. Right wing blogs obsessed about Obama’s “Chicago Connections” but never really thought this really was more a connection to the standard chicago economists. The specter of Alinsky and Ayers fade as Obama — clear as has been and can be — fulfills his role as regular corporate connected centrist.

    Not to worry, we would have gotten similar from McCain and Palin.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  23. “Just goes to show, when Republicans create a government program, it actually works, and when Democrats do, well, you get Cash for Clunkers. ”

    Maybe health care reform should be financed like Medicare Part D was then.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  24. Maybe health care reform should be financed like Medicare Part D was then.

    Medicare Part D as far as I can simply wasn’t communist enough for you, so sadly I don’t think you’d be satisfied with general health insurance reform based on Medicare Part D’s reasoning as to the best way to provide people with money for health care (drugs in MPD’s specific case).

    chaos (9c54c6)

  25. “Medicare Part D as far as I can simply wasn’t communist enough for you, so sadly I don’t think you’d be satisfied with general health insurance reform based on Medicare Part D’s reasoning as to the best way to provide people with money for health care (drugs in MPD’s specific case).”

    You don’t know how it was financed do you? Look back and figure out how they paid for it.

    imdw (a610b2)

  26. You don’t know how it was financed do you? Look back and figure out how they paid for it.

    Really? I didn’t know it was such a mystery as to how government subsidies got funded that I needed to look it up and figure it out.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  27. “Really? I didn’t know it was such a mystery as to how government subsidies got funded that I needed to look it up and figure it out.”

    Yup. So how about the idea that health reform be financed the same way that the GOP financed Medicare part D?

    imdw (ac807d)

  28. Taibbi is a progressive

    but politically it’s bad for progressives

    Are White House advisers too centrist for progressive tastes?

    One problem is a lack of basic clarity and candor. And using the hugs-and-kisses euphemism of “progressive” instead of the plain-jane label of “liberal” or “leftist” allows people — certainly those on the left end of the spectrum — to be squishier or more ambiguous than they’d otherwise be or really are.

    However, I will say that when it comes to sweetheart deals for parts of Wall Street, there are a variety of staunch, pro-capitalist conservatives who are ideologically to the left — meaning anyone who is more cynical towards and skeptical about government bail-outs for big business — of the limousine liberals described by Matt Tabbi.

    Mark (411533)

  29. Yup. So how about the idea that health reform be financed the same way that the GOP financed Medicare part D?

    Extending Medicare Advantage to whomever wanted it would bankrupt the country in short order.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  30. imdw, the theory behind Medicare, Part D is that in 1965 drugs were relatively ineffective and only a few were really important in the treatment of disease for over 65 people. At that time, I was in medical school and the number of really effective drugs was maybe 20. Most of them were either old or cheap. Digitalis, for example, went back to 1760 although we knew better how it worked.

    With the passage of 45 years, drugs have become much more important as an alternative to expensive interventions. The statins are important in avoiding coronary bypass and so forth. This is the theoretical basis for the change. I think it is valid but they could have done a better job on price. Still, the cost has turned out to be far less than anticipated.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  31. “Still, the cost has turned out to be far less than anticipated.”

    Yes. But how did they pay for the costs?

    “Extending Medicare Advantage to whomever wanted it would bankrupt the country in short order.”

    Is part D the same as Medicare Advantage? That’s not what I’m asking. I’m just asking if the way we financed Part D can work here too. The projected costs are similar.

    imdw (082b5e)

  32. Is part D the same as Medicare Advantage? That’s not what I’m asking. I’m just asking if the way we financed Part D can work here too. The projected costs are similar.

    Half of Part D was simply extending Medicare Advantage plans to cover prescription drugs. The other half was a plan purely for prescription drugs.

    The projected costs are similar? Since I’m sure they are and you’re not just bsing, I’m sure you’d be glad to link to something showing it to be so.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  33. I’m thinking that many people have had and still have a very poor grasp on who President Obama is and what he stands for. I don’t think terms like moderate, liberal, and “sell-out” apply to him in any helpful way.

    What do we seem to know about the essence of this person?

    1. That he spent many formative years under the tutelage of communist thinking (not liberal, not progressive).

    2. Much of his past has been hidden at great effort and expense. (BTW, when did the expensive legal defense start that has maintained his cover and what funds did he have available at the time?)

    3. We know he has had a long relationship with Bill Ayers, a connection which puts him 1 degree of separation at most with Weathermen Underground bombers as well as “mainline” SDS types who have gone on to reappear in ACORN and who knows what other organizations.

    4. We know that Ayers and his kindred spirits have never renounced their former views or actions. Rather, they have followed the Alinsky way to infiltrate “main stream” society to defeat it from within.

    4. We know he is arrogant and pompous actually to a degree that is either delusional or farcical. Really, how many people can you think of, President of the US, Premier of the USSR, Fuerer of Nazi Germany, Emperor of Rome, or Ruler of Babylonia would claim to have the power to make the oceans stay within their proper borders or “begin” the healing of the sick? Not even the rulers of Rome and Babylon, who promoted themselves as diety, would actually lay claim to such specific promises.

    5. Those who seek power to rule as their primary objective really do not have other principles that govern their behavior. You can not predict what their economic policy or their foreign will be, because they are not founded on underlying assumptions about economics or foreign policy. Their policies will be based on the best way to foment and take advantage of crises and chaos as much as possible. If the way last year to consolidate power was to trash talk wall Street while underhandedly benefitting from it, fine. If next week you gain power by elevating a few “good guys” on Wall street at the expense of the rest, fine. One week you claim to be the savior of the auto industry, then next week you’re installing your own people at the head and kicking out the back the people who thought they had an agreement with you last week.

    6. Who is going to have or leave a paper trail on what the President promised them?

    7. Meanwhile, how many “Czars” has he appointed, without Congressional mandate or approval, whose allegience is to himself personally. When someone like Van Jones raises enough of a fuss to resign, is that really a check on Obama’s power, or just a feint? Any combat, be it chess, fencing, boxing, warfare, includes the appearance of failure that actually gains the advantage.

    Obama appears to be a pompous fool to those not smitten by him. Pompous though he may be, the fool has won the seat of power as the President of the United States. Perhaps he is bothered by the approval ratings in the polls as the typical politician is. On the other hand, he may actually not care one bit of what anyone thinks until the end of his game.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  34. Connections” but never really thought this really was more a connection to the standard chicago economists. The specter of Alinsky and Ayers fade as Obama — clear as has been and can be — fulfills his role as regular corporate connected centrist.

    Not to worry, we would have gotten similar from McCain and Palin.

    Comment by imdw

    This is simply not true. Obama is an Alinsky radical although he seems to be recognizing that, if he has any chance for a second term, he has to quickly learn some conventional economics and foreign policy.

    I think he is too far to the left to ever learn economics but people like Geithner and Rubin have enough self preservation sense to try to steer him toward viable economic policies.

    I think there is a chance that, like Clinton, he could shift enough with a Republican Congress to survive and, as the first black president, there is a lot of desire to make him succeed.

    As far as Part D, I think the plan was to charge additional premiums on Medicare and to provide discounts for drugs within the program. I finally signed up for it after resisting for a while. I pay about $68 a month and get discounts but the net cost is less than anticipated; about the same amount I pay. The idea was to provide bulk purchasing but they didn’t drive much of a bargain. Obviously, some patients have more expensive drugs and others have none.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  35. “The projected costs are similar? Since I’m sure they are and you’re not just bsing, I’m sure you’d be glad to link to something showing it to be so.”

    Ok. Here’s heritage saying that Part D costs 724 billion over 10 years:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1849.cfm

    And here’s CBO saying that the Senate bill will have a net cost of 559 billion:

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf

    You can add or subtract 100 billion and it will still be similar.

    Now, the big thing here, is how did we pay that cost for Medicare part D? People identified it as legislation done right. So lets do it the same way for health reform, right?

    “This is simply not true. Obama is an Alinsky radical although he seems to be recognizing that, if he has any chance for a second term, he has to quickly learn some conventional economics and foreign policy.”

    I don’t think you noticed that this isn’t a “Second term” thing. This is him when he was running too. Do you remember Austan Golsbee from during the campaign? What? the MSM and the wingnut blogs didn’t “uncover” that “chicago connection” ?

    imdw (f8211e)

  36. Ok. Here’s heritage saying that Part D costs 724 billion over 10 years:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1849.cfm

    So you’re posting outdated analysis now? There are real numbers you could post about the cost of Part D.

    And here’s CBO saying that the Senate bill will have a net cost of 559 billion:

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf

    You can add or subtract 100 billion and it will still be similar.

    If you’re referring to the Senate health care bill currently being pushed by Mr. Reid, you’re lying through your teeth as to the cost.

    Now, the big thing here, is how did we pay that cost for Medicare part D? People identified it as legislation done right. So lets do it the same way for health reform, right?

    Do a better job please, outdated links and bad lies aren’t getting it done.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  37. I think there is a chance that, like Clinton, he could shift enough with a Republican Congress to survive

    I still recall Bill Clinton and his Democrat-dominated Congress back in early 1993 all so confident and full of themselves. So much so that Clinton clearly and loudly threatened to veto any healthcare bill from Congress that wasn’t to his liking — I remember his threatening them by waving his pen in front of the cameras — meaning something quite socialized and leftist in thrust and format.

    He apparently thought the election of November 1992 meant the country had tilted quite nicely and firmly to the left, and so if legislation wasn’t liberal enough, Congress would have hell to pay. That’s probably one reason Clinton looked so shaken and chagrined when the Congressional election of 1994 occurred.

    Mark (411533)

  38. “So you’re posting outdated analysis now? There are real numbers you could post about the cost of Part D.”

    I was thinking about the projected costs — meaning what policymakers thought they were enacting. But sure. I’ll take your cost estimates. Just tell me how they’re paid for.

    “If you’re referring to the Senate health care bill currently being pushed by Mr. Reid, you’re lying through your teeth as to the cost.”

    I’m referring to what’s in that CBO letter. If you think the CBO is lying, then we’re not really going to be able to talk.

    But you at least see that the costs for both are in the order of hundreds of billions to a trillion. So how did we pay for Part D? The CBO letter explains how the cost for the health reform is paid for. How is paid in the Case of Part D? Can’t we just repeat that?

    [note: fished from spam filter. --Stashiu]

    imdw (8f099e)

  39. I’m referring to what’s in that CBO letter. If you think the CBO is lying, then we’re not really going to be able to talk.

    No, I think you’re lying. Difference.

    Actually I don’t think it, I know it, because what you’re saying the CBO is saying and what the CBO has actually been saying are two different things. The CBO did not say the Senate bill had a net cost of 559 billion. It said that it had that net cost if you assumed everything Harry Reid assumes. The CBO then went on to note that everything Harry Reid assumes is pretty much garbage, and close to 900 billion is a better number, unless of course you’re not using CBO assumptions either, some of which the CBO admits are probably bad assumptions, and then the cost balloons to up to 2.5 trillion in some estimates.

    Try harder troll.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  40. “The CBO then went on to note that everything Harry Reid assumes is pretty much garbage, and close to 900 billion is a better number, unless of course you’re not using CBO assumptions either, some of which the CBO admits are probably bad assumptions, and then the cost balloons to up to 2.5 trillion in some estimates.”

    So if you could point to where in that letter this is said, that would be helpful. Because I searched for 900, and looked again at the statements, and they didn’t have your equivocations.

    But you know, we can just take your numbers, both on medicare and health reform. So that still leaves us with this: Some amount of health reform will cost the same as medicare part D. Can we pay for that health reform the same way as the GOP paid for medicare part D?

    imdw (c660ef)

  41. [...] their watch. Obama campaigned as “Change you can believe in,” but his administration is stocked with the very people who caused the financial crisis in the first place, dithers for months in making war plans, and first responds to a failed terror attack over Detroit [...]

    The Greenroom » Forum Archive » 2010 Themes: The tea party effect (e2f069)

  42. [...] their watch. Obama campaigned as “Change you can believe in,” but his administration is stocked with the very people who caused the financial crisis in the first place, dithers for months in making war plans, and first responds to a failed terror attack over Detroit [...]

    2010 Themes: The tea party effect (e7ecf5)

  43. [...] When Wall Street went into meltdown mode, the establishment media ignored that Obama got big donations from associates of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and was one of the all-time recipents of political cash from Lehman Brothers. Before the election Obama voted for TARP. After the election, Obama twisted arms to get the second half of the TARP money, and packed the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in t…. [...]

    The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Obama 2010: Pitchforks and Arugula (e2f069)

  44. [...] When Wall Street went into meltdown mode, the establishment media ignored that Obama got big donations from associates of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and was one of the all-time recipents of political cash from Lehman Brothers. Before the election Obama voted for TARP. After the election, Obama twisted arms to get the second half of the TARP money, and packed the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in t…. [...]

    Obama 2010: Pitchforks and Arugula (e7ecf5)

  45. [...] Joe Klein engages in some hackery (e.g., overlooking that the Democrats and Wall Street are joined at the hip), but ends up stumbling near the likely truth: There are some bipartisan gestures worth [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Will Chris Dodd water down Obama’s financial reforms? (e2f069)

  46. [...] This is no shocker. Obama’s 2008 campaign received loads of cash from people and groups associated with the top ten issuers of subprime loans. He then packed the key economic positions in his White House with the people he claimed caused the financial crisis. [...]

    Class Warrior-in-Chief awash in cash from Wall Street, Fatcats « The Greenroom (12c458)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3140 secs.